SCMP in the national league

[BriggBlue]

I may have missed this but there is a thread on Reddit about SCMP being introduced to the National League as part of the 3up campaign.

Would that be a good thing for us? Surely we have a bigger turnover than most of the other sides due to our attendances however could we be hamstrung by a lack of other income streams?

 

[Shrimper]

SCMP?

 

[bazzashrimper]

South China morning post

 

[Supershrimper]

SCMP?

Salary Cost Management Protocol.

Basiclly clubs can only spend a% of turnover on wages. League 1 it's 60%, league 2 it's 85%

The definition of turnover includes several revenue streams:

• Match-day Income – Ticket sales, hospitality, and other earnings from home games.
• Commercial Income – Sponsorship deals, merchandise sales, and advertising revenue.
• TV Revenue & Merit Payments – Payments from broadcasting rights and bonuses based on league position.
• Cup & Prize Money – Earnings from domestic and international cup competitions.
• Owner Contributions – Donations and equity injections from club owners (but not loans, as these create debt).

 

[Snowy]

Guess the percentage would be 85% for NL if introduced as well?

 

[Holy Joe]

The problem with these rules are it encourages creative accounting. But good idea in principle.

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

Totally pointless at every level if it includes owner contributions.

 

[Holy Joe]

Totally pointless at every level if it includes owner contributions.

I disagree.

If someone wants to spend money on a football club, they should be allowed to BUT it needs to be done in the right way - as equity contributions. This means the club cannot be held to hostage like we were when contributions from owners come in as debt. If the owner runs out of money it doesn't impact the club in the same way - it shouldn't become life threatening. Incidentally I'm guessing COSU are funding the club via debt - anyone know for sure?

 

[SuffolkShrimpers]

FGR would be ****ed if SCMP was introduced

 

[NZamba Legend]

FGR -10 points
York -25 points
Carlisle -30 points
Boston -50 points because why not?

Reckon we might get in the playoffs

 

[Dave Smiths Love Child]

The problem with these rules are it encourages creative accounting. But good idea in principle.

Bring back Ron be in premiership in five years

 

[londonblue]

I disagree.

If someone wants to spend money on a football club, they should be allowed to BUT it needs to be done in the right way - as equity contributions. This means the club cannot be held to hostage like we were when contributions from owners come in as debt. If the owner runs out of money it doesn't impact the club in the same way - it shouldn't become life threatening. Incidentally I'm guessing COSU are funding the club via debt - anyone know for sure?

But it's they're an argument that those payments should be excluded from the calculations to ensure the system isn't abused?

 

[Holy Joe]

But it's they're an argument that those payments should be excluded from the calculations to ensure the system isn't abused?

The proposal is for loans to be excluded which is a good idea.
If equity was excluded as well then that would mean clubs could never 'invest' in their playing budget directly.

 

[londonblue]

The proposal is for loans to be excluded which is a good idea.
If equity was excluded as well then that would mean clubs could never 'invest' in their playing budget directly.

I didn't mean equity, that was your suggestion. I meant donations. And don't forget companies can't just give equity, they have to vote to increase their equity.

What you're proposing wouldn't stop the abuse the EFL are worried about. Take Wrexham, for example, they'd still have completely skewed the competition.

I'm playing devil's advocate, BTW.

 

[Holy Joe]

I didn't mean equity, that was your suggestion. I meant donations. And don't forget companies can't just give equity, they have to vote to increase their equity.

What you're proposing wouldn't stop the abuse the EFL are worried about. Take Wrexham, for example, they'd still have completely skewed the competition.

I'm playing devil's advocate, BTW.

I don't think the EFL should be too concerned with donations or equity injections skewing the competition for a season or 3, I think if someone wants to spend all their money on a football club then they should be allowed.

On Wrexham I'm not sure if the initial financial boost was from debt or equity/donation - if the former I'd be against that. Latterly the finances have been boosted by sponsorship deals which is fine (as long as not related entities 'overpaying' - the creative accounting I mentioned) - are the owners still putting money in?

Sure a company would need to vote to increase equity - not sure what the issue with that is, we're generally talking about owners putting in more equity so they already have control - we saw that with our very own debt to equity swap when COSU took majority ownership.

Noted on DA.

Wrexham is an interesting one - I think it's relatively easy to get promoted from NL, L2 and L1 by buying players from the league above and over paying them for the league you're in - not a guarantee of success but near to. But to do that from the championship to premier league I think might be tougher.

 

[londonblue]

I don't think the EFL should be too concerned with donations or equity injections skewing the competition for a season or 3, I think if someone wants to spend all their money on a football club then they should be allowed.

On Wrexham I'm not sure if the initial financial boost was from debt or equity/donation - if the former I'd be against that. Latterly the finances have been boosted by sponsorship deals which is fine (as long as not related entities 'overpaying' - the creative accounting I mentioned) - are the owners still putting money in?

Sure a company would need to vote to increase equity - not sure what the issue with that is, we're generally talking about owners putting in more equity so they already have control - we saw that with our very own debt to equity swap when COSU took majority ownership.

Noted on DA.

Wrexham is an interesting one - I think it's relatively easy to get promoted from NL, L2 and L1 by buying players from the league above and over paying them for the league you're in - not a guarantee of success but near to. But to do that from the championship to premier league I think might be tougher.

My point about equity, was basically pointing out that it's a way to circumvent "the rules" if that should be the case. If you already own a controlling share, why would you need to vote to increase the number of shares available unless you're doing it purely to donate money to the club in order to buy your way to promotion? Using genuine revenue from genuine revenue streams would mean that clubs have to be sustainable, which (you could assume) is the reason for the financial rules in the first place.

Agree with Wrexham. But they turned the NL into a one horse race, which surely could be seen as unfair. (We'll gloss over for now how even referees seemed to get caught up in the hype - we're not the only team to have had very questionable decisions go against us when playing them.) Making clubs more sustainable makes the league more competitive. As you say, it will be interesting to see what happens if they don't get promoted to the PL, or even get relegated from the Championship.

 

[PIERS]

Im not fussed if people want to spaff fortunes on low crowd teams, Its their money as long as they don't do a Glazier on debt... The real no go area should be separating the club and its ground. This must never be allowed to happen. Also any ground move should have to approved by a majority of season ticket holders of 5 years say..

 

[WestyReturns]

Totally pointless at every level if it includes owner contributions.

It's not. The idea is to stop owners loading clubs up with debt/loans back to themselves. It's far from perfect and needs work but it's better than nothing. Certainly would of made it far more difficult for Ron to create the disaster he did!

 

[londonblue]

Im not fussed if people want to spaff fortunes on low crowd teams, Its their money as long as they don't do a Glazier on debt... The real no go area should be separating the club and its ground. This must never be allowed to happen. Also any ground move should have to approved by a majority of season ticket holders of 5 years say..

That's never going to happen because season ticket holders are only customers and have no legal right to be involved. They might be able to provide feedback through a fans forum (which we have) but ultimately they don't really have a say.

Using C2C as an example, I doubt they ask their season ticket holders to vote and any changes to their offering, although they probably consult with a passenger body of some kind.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Im not fussed if people want to spaff fortunes on low crowd teams, Its their money as long as they don't do a Glazier on debt... The real no go area should be separating the club and its ground. This must never be allowed to happen. Also any ground move should have to approved by a majority of season ticket holders of 5 years say..

I agree with quite a lot of the post above - there has been a long history of rich people spending their money on football clubs and I see no reason why this will not continue in the future.

It cheeses off the fans of other clubs but it's just one example of how some clubs have an advantage - in our league plastic pitches I would argue are another advantage.

There will always be those "clever" people that see rules as something to work around but trying to put measures into place that see the club continue (rather than completely fail) after a particular owner has gone has merit I think.