Ian Holloway earns a packet and a fine!

So the big news yesterday all seemed to revolve around a

subject I’ve bored myself to death about, and Ian Holloway.

Firstly, Blackpool were fined a crippling £25k for fielding a weakened team earlier in the season. They made ten changes against Aston Villa, lost 3-2 after a sterling battle and the league took exception to the changes and decided they’d fielded a weakened team, which is against the rules.

I find it staggering that you are told to submit a squad of 25 players to the Premier league and that you are not allowed to pick from that group of players. If the players aren’t good enough, surely clubs should be warned about that at the

start of the year. Who is making these judgement calls?

I think the most disappointing part about it is that teams like Arsenal and Manchester United also rest large chunks of their squads, yet they seem to slip under the radar? A prime example of this was the Arsenal V Wigan game just after Christmas. Wenger made 8 changes to his squad and paid the

price when he dropped 2 points. He upset a large chunk of Arsenal supporters in the process, especially the ones who forked out to see the game.

Arsenal’s punishment? Nothing. Not that I’m asking for that to happen. No one should be punished if they pick from their squad of 25.

So what’s going on here?

Do the league look at the amount of games you’ve got and decide what an appropriate amount of changes is? Do they fear the big clubs? Or do they have an

expert on the board who rates players according to quality and decides whether the team is competitive enough?

Some clarification on the rules needs to happen and sharpish because from where I’m sitting, it’s confusing and penal on small clubs.

The second hot topic of discussion surrounded Holloway’s quip about earning off the

back of the sale of Charlie Adams.

Basically, Ian Holloway is incentivised to develop players and move them on. He makes a bonus on the transfer deficit. If it’s positive, he wins. If it’s negative, he loses.

I’m not quite sure why this is a problem providing his bonus

for staying up is more motivating. This method of management works for everyone. It ensures the manager thinks twice before signing a player which limits kamikaze purchasing. It ensures the manager has a long term view on the clubs finances and it also promotes responsibility and possibly a focus on youth development.

I’m not quite sure I buy into the whole, ‘don’t they take enough out the game?’ argument. My issue with football managers is that they can effectively bankrupt a club and still earn £4million

a year, not to mention the compensation they receive if they are sacked. If

you’re taking money out of a club because you’ve earned it, that’s fantastic.

An example of a contentious bonus scheme is the one Arsene Wenger seems to be on. They charge through the roof to generate monster profits. Those profits should be going into the playing staff, but they have a manager who is very anti signing players. Ivan Gazidis the CEO, is on a 60% bonus based on profit. Keith Edelman, their finance guy, took even more out of the club and Arsene has admitted his pay is linked to how well the club are doing off the pitch.

This type of bonus scheme is fine, but when the scales are tipped the other way and a manager is bonused more on profit than winning trophies, you have a conflict of interest between the fans and the board.

Bonuses are a fine line to tread; get them right and everyone is a winner, get them wrong and you can find yourself on the receiving end of some serious fan resentment!