Quote Cibaman="Cibaman"Are we really spending the full cap?'"
I believe we are.
I also suspect we are not, for example:
- employing players who receive very substantial image rights payments form "unconnected" third parties, meaning they are happy to play for a lot less than they might otherwise require.
- employing players who have a lucrative image rights, consultancy or other deal with one of the rich owner's pals, meaning they are happy to play for a lot less than they might otherwise require. And meaning the rich owner is so chuffed that his business gives his pal's business some nice juicy contracts...
- employing players as above, but where the deal is with a business otherwise connected with the rich owner, but no-one can prove it.
- employing players as above, whose partners have a nice lucrative job with one of said other businesses.
All of which arrangements might - strangely enough - mean the player may be delighted to play for the club of his dreams for a lot less wonga than he would otherwise need. Which means you could squeeze a lot more talent within the salary cap.
Now, whether any of those OTHER clubs are, especially those with wealthy owners, is of course a matter for pure speculation.
As it is a matter for pure speculation only whether, if you were ever able to add up the sum of what (net of tax) every club's players receive from every UK-related source, you would find some glaring disparities between the clubs. Despite the elephant in the room known as the "fixed" salary cap.
Salary cap? If I was a wealthy club owner, I could drive a coach and horses through it and almost certainly get away with it within the rules. But they are all honourable men, so there must be some other explanation for the disparity of squads we see on the park.