Should clubs be limited on how many players they can sign in one window and would it help football?

[SilentWitness]

Lots of clubs and different situations at play here.

Barcelona signing a lot of players and then needing to meddle with finances after they’ve signed them so they can process them.

Forest getting promoted and then signing as many as they have. The Championship and PL squad will be completely different. Is that fair?

Clubs like Newcastle etc. getting taken over by mega rich owners and then signing x amount of players this year (I expect them to bring in another 2 or 3).

Even we have signed quite a few so far and are expected to bring in two or three more.

Before anyone has a pop, I’m not saying it should be the case or for any of these specific scenarios, just thought it was an interesting time to discuss it as I think the Barcelona and Forest cases have shown how much a club can live or die within the market.

 

[duffer]

How would it help football?

 

[dinostar77]

Nope, thats what FFP is for to ensure you dont spend beyond your means. Albeit its broken for the elite clubs who get away with creative accounting

 

[do.ob]

As long as they intend to actually make use of those players themselves (as opposed to loan army), I don't see why there would be a need for this. We laugh about Barca's financing, but ultimately they are spending their own money, so if they want to sign 20 new players that's their choice. If your issue is with Saudi Arabia buying players, then limiting transfers for all clubs is not the correct way to address this issue.
Newly promoted sides have it hard enough as it is, limiting their options would make the top divisions even more of a closed society.

 

[SilentWitness]

How would it help football?

Say for example you’re limited to 5 transfers per window. Chelsea have already made 5 transfers. A few top clubs try to alleviate the failures of the past by signing X amount of players in one window and regurgitate and spit them back out into the system. If a transfer fails, it doesn’t matter we can go out and buy a new player next window or the window after. You’re also sweeping up talent and then spitting them out into the system on loan. It could potentially tone that down perhaps?

Or you can take the case of Everton, season after season of failed transfers leading to a season where we could barely sign anyone because of FFP, could it cause clubs to be a bit wiser in the market and not get into that tricky scenario?

I think that for some clubs it’s easy to fail and get away with it.

 

[SilentWitness]

As long as they intend to actually make use of those players themselves (as opposed to loan army), I don't see why there would be a need for this. We laugh about Barca's financing, but ultimately they are spending their own money, so if they want to sign 20 new players that's their choice. If your issue is with Saudi Arabia buying players, then limiting transfers for all clubs is not the correct way to address this issue.

I have no issue, just wanted to see what the thoughts were. I think FFP helps a little but there are clearly ways of getting around it.

 

[do.ob]

I have no issue, just wanted to see what the thoughts were. I think FFP helps a little but there are clearly ways of getting around it.

But if you think FFP is ineffective, which is a fair complaint, then the way to address that is to adjust FFP itself, not come up with some other rule to indirectly compensate.

 

[SilentWitness]

But if you think FFP is ineffective, which is a fair complaint, then the way to address that is to adjust FFP itself, not come up with some other rule to indirectly compensate.

Sure, which is why I’ve given other examples and scenarios in the OP it can potentially relate to.

 

[TheGame]

No, just shut the window before the season starts.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

The Glazers approve this message

 

[LazyGoal]

This would help football:

• all clubs are allowed to move players between the first team and a farmer team during the season
• all clubs are allowed to move players to the farmer club as they see fit (if they are injured, out of form, not a part of future plans.. whatever reason)
• all clubs can have a 90% pay reduction cluse in players contract if they are moved to the farmer club
• all first team’s can have maximum 25 players at any given time during the season

With this simple mechanism we would reduce the power players hold over the manager, club and us fans — so it's more in balance.

This will also help to reduce the insane cost of these squads which in the end we all pay for.

This will also open up a for full squad with fit players at any given time.

 

[Mickeza]

Yes. After we get the 12 we need next week.

 

[Zen86]

Wage cap

 

[duffer]

This would help football:

• all clubs are allowed to move players between the first team and a farmer team during the season
• all clubs are allowed to move players to the farmer club as they see fit (if they are injured, out of form, not a part of future plans.. whatever reason)
• all clubs can have a 90% pay reduction cluse in players contract if they are moved to the farmer club
• all first team can have maximum 25 players at any given time during the season

With this simple mechanism we would reduce the power players hold over the manager, club and us fans — so it's more in balance.

This will also help to reduce the insane cost of these squads which in the end we all pay for.
This will also open up a for full squad with fit players at any given time.

Farmer team? The u23s you mean?

 

[Coxy]

The Forest example is a bad one - they had to - they lost most of their team from the championship (on loan / left)

 

[R'hllor]

Nope.

 

[LazyGoal]

Farmer team? The u23s you mean?

No. I mean a full senior farmer team in a different club.

It could be a separte farmer league, or it could be a club in the league system.

 

[Fanta Stick]

The new wages-to-turnover ratios are a positive move.

If there was a way to incentivize development/path of academy players to the first team within any broader transfer limits that would be a good thing.

There should be a limit on non-academy produced players going out on loan for each club.

 

[SilentWitness]

The Forest example is a bad one - they had to - they lost most of their team from the championship (on loan / left)

I don’t think it is a bad one. If there was a limit then clubs wouldn’t get into that scenario in the first place where they needed to buy 10+ players.

I don’t get why it’s seen as a good thing that Forest got to the PL and then lost so many players due to loans/end of contracts.

 

[Red_White_Cathedral]

It would certainly help raise the level of leagues like the Ligue 1 or the Bundesliga, when PL teams no longer can just unlimitedly drain those leagues of their talent.

 

[LazyGoal]

The new wages-to-turnover ratios are a positive move.

If there was a way to incentivize development/path of academy players to the first team within any broader transfer limits that would be a good thing.

There should be a limit on non-academy produced players going out on loan for each club.

I dont think that is a good idea for elite football. The incentive is allready strong enough, it is just that its very hard and unpredictable.

 

[Fanta Stick]

I dont think that is a good idea for elite football. The incentive is allready strong enough, it is just that its very hard and unpredictable.

You mean surrounding academy players path to first team? I do agree that nothing should be mandated, but is it possible to formally incentivize it aside from the natural incentive of saving money in the transfer market?

 

[africanspur]

This would help football:

• all clubs are allowed to move players between the first team and a farmer team during the season
• all clubs are allowed to move players to the farmer club as they see fit (if they are injured, out of form, not a part of future plans.. whatever reason)
• all clubs can have a 90% pay reduction cluse in players contract if they are moved to the farmer club
• all first team’s can have maximum 25 players at any given time during the season

With this simple mechanism we would reduce the power players hold over the manager, club and us fans — so it's more in balance.

This will also help to reduce the insane cost of these squads which in the end we all pay for.

This will also open up a for full squad with fit players at any given time.

That wouldn't help football, it would help a small number of elite and very rich clubs. Same way that having b teams in the leagues, especially in England, would do as well.

I also am not one to stand up for multi millionaires as a rule but I find a lot of the complaints about what footballers earn a little strange.

Like it it not, it's a multi billion industry. So either that money goes towards the players....or it goes towards executives and owners.

I'd prefer the players get it seeing as they're ultimately the ones who provide the entertainment.

 

[duffer]

There should be a limit on non-academy produced players going out on loan for each club.

There is a limit.

Its currently 8, next year it will be 7, the year after that 6, etc.

 

[Fanta Stick]

There is a limit.

Its currently 8, next year it will be 7, the year after that 6, etc.

I didn't realize that.

 

[Someone]

No, just shut the window before the season starts.

This. Transfers will be done quicker, and managers will be able to start the season properly.

 

[Mb194dc]

No, the game is fundamentally broken though. What's needed is closed leagues with a salary cap and some rebalancing mechanism between teams. How you get to that from the traditional pyramid is difficult.

It didn't happen yet and no real change suggested because despite how much more boring most leagues got in recent years, the money has still been flowing nicely.

If and when the money dries up, there will be more moves to change things.

 

[LazyGoal]

That wouldn't help football, it would help a small number of elite and very rich clubs. Same way that having b teams in the leagues, especially in England, would do as well.

I also am not one to stand up for multi millionaires as a rule but I find a lot of the complaints about what footballers earn a little strange.

Like it it not, it's a multi billion industry. So either that money goes towards the players....or it goes towards executives and owners.

I'd prefer the players get it seeing as they're ultimately the ones who provide the entertainment.

Only elite clubs would need a farmer team so this will regulate it self just fine.

The harm will be that it messes up a bit whatever the division the farmer team is in, the gain will be lower costs for us fans and less of this insane elite player power. Just look at the mess we are in.

I think the gain outwheighs the harm.

 

[Hughie77]

That ship sailed when the Russian bought Chelsea, and the Arabs bought City. The FFP is a joke .

 

[africanspur]

Only elite clubs would need a farmer team so this will regulate it self just fine.

The harm will be that it messes up a bit whatever the division the farmer team is in, the gain will be lower costs for us fans and less of this insane elite player power. Just look at the mess we are in.

I think the gain outwheighs the harm.

It won't regulate itself just fine. It means you'd get elite clubs being able to stockpile talent, Including youth talent, even more easily.

That isn't good for football as a whole, it's good for a select few clubs.

The lower leagues are not 'farmer leagues', especially in England where some of these clubs even very low down are over 100 years old.

The mess Man Utd are in is not because you don't have a b team in the championship and matchday revenue is not what allows clubs, especially commercial powerhouses like Man Utd and Real Madrid to pay the wages they do.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

This would help football:

• all clubs are allowed to move players between the first team and a farmer team during the season
• all clubs are allowed to move players to the farmer club as they see fit (if they are injured, out of form, not a part of future plans.. whatever reason)
• all clubs can have a 90% pay reduction cluse in players contract if they are moved to the farmer club
• all first team’s can have maximum 25 players at any given time during the season

With this simple mechanism we would reduce the power players hold over the manager, club and us fans — so it's more in balance.

This will also help to reduce the insane cost of these squads which in the end we all pay for.

This will also open up a for full squad with fit players at any given time.

I think players' unions would quite rightly have something to say about the idea of an employee's pay getting cut by 90% and their lives uprooted on a whim.

 

[Bastian]

If we had a fit and proper ownership hurdle we'd be sorted. It's only really Everton and United who have been atrocious in the market.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

I've given it a lot of thought and if a signing flops the club should be allowed to shoot the player with a gun and banish their family to Siberia.

 

[SilentWitness]

If we had a fit and proper ownership hurdle we'd be sorted. It's only really Everton and United who have been atrocious in the market.

Leicester? Bournemouth? They’ve not exactly had a great window.

I wouldn’t say our window has been atrocious either.

 

[Stobzilla]

Forest getting promoted and then signing as many as they have. The Championship and PL squad will be completely different. Is that fair?

Did you see how many players left?

 

[Chairman Steve]

I would say wage cap but even that’s been compromised with City’s sneaky accounting, like how their star players are on average to high wages but then they get a totally unrelated monthly payment from some totally unrelated shell company in the UAE for ’ambassadorial duties’

 

[SilentWitness]

Did you see how many players left?

As I said above, if teams are limited in how many they could sign they wouldn’t get into situations where they need to sign 10+ players because 10+ left. I don’t understand how it’s a good business model or something that should be heralded either.

perhaps it’s the football purist in me but it seems a bit eh that a team can get promoted with a squad and then completely replace it.

 

[SportingCP96]

No but what should happen is a salary cap.


Would be the best thing to happen and help restore order and competition in football

 

[bosnian_red]

If the club is able to do it, they should be able to change an entire squad if they so want. They should be able to stockpile players if they want. They just have to deal with the repercussions later. There should be stricter regulations, La Liga's thing is quite good, and teams make decision based on that. Barca are selling their future to try and win now. Let's see how it pans out. Probably in big struggles in the future.

 

[Chief123]

Lots of clubs and different situations at play here.

Barcelona signing a lot of players and then needing to meddle with finances after they’ve signed them so they can process them.

Forest getting promoted and then signing as many as they have. The Championship and PL squad will be completely different. Is that fair?

Clubs like Newcastle etc. getting taken over by mega rich owners and then signing x amount of players this year (I expect them to bring in another 2 or 3).

Even we have signed quite a few so far and are expected to bring in two or three more.

Before anyone has a pop, I’m not saying it should be the case or for any of these specific scenarios, just thought it was an interesting time to discuss it as I think the Barcelona and Forest cases have shown how much a club can live or die within the market.

I don’t think there should be a limit but I can certainly see teams stacking their squads with even greater depth now with the 5 subs rule.

Teams are going to start using the 5 subs more and more effectively as time passes. You basically have one and a half teams to use every match now. Bringing 5 quality players of the bench to change the game every match is going to lead to more buying.