<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shaunders Shaves Shoccer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theboysaunders.com/2010/07/shaunders-shaves-shoccer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theboysaunders.com/2010/07/shaunders-shaves-shoccer/</link>
	<description>You Little Punks Think You Own This Town...</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 03:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: JC</title>
		<link>http://theboysaunders.com/2010/07/shaunders-shaves-shoccer/#comment-906</link>
		<dc:creator>JC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theboysaunders.com/?p=731#comment-906</guid>
		<description>A straight forward salary cap on a club could solve a lot of problems.  If set at the right level and properly enforced it means that clubs have to do a balancing act between star names and an all round quality team.  It stops the richer clubs running away with things too much but still means that the lower clubs get filter down transfer money.  It also encourages sides to create home grown talent as they tend to be cheaper than bringing in established stars/journeymen.  It also stops rich sides picking up players just to have them sit on the bench and not let other teams have them.  Plus it encourages good financial practice from a side as with a lower wage bill they has less outgoings and means they actively keep an eye on the books.

It wouldn't affect players that much, who let's face it, get paid far, far too much already.  Plus a lot of their income comes from endorsements and other sources anyway so they can't complain too much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A straight forward salary cap on a club could solve a lot of problems.  If set at the right level and properly enforced it means that clubs have to do a balancing act between star names and an all round quality team.  It stops the richer clubs running away with things too much but still means that the lower clubs get filter down transfer money.  It also encourages sides to create home grown talent as they tend to be cheaper than bringing in established stars/journeymen.  It also stops rich sides picking up players just to have them sit on the bench and not let other teams have them.  Plus it encourages good financial practice from a side as with a lower wage bill they has less outgoings and means they actively keep an eye on the books.</p>
<p>It wouldn&#8217;t affect players that much, who let&#8217;s face it, get paid far, far too much already.  Plus a lot of their income comes from endorsements and other sources anyway so they can&#8217;t complain too much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

