Would you be in favour of allowing the Premiership to double the parachute payments to clubs relegated to the Championship in exchange for a substancial increace in the solidarity payments that are made to each Football League Club?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/danroan/2010 ... _of_c.html
Personally I would be against it because it make even more difficult for smaller clubs to break into the Premiership, especially when you consider that the parachute payment would be spread over four years. Also, if we fail to get promoted this season we would fall further behind League 2 clubs financially.
The Murdoch millions
-
Sideshow Rob
- Middle-Aged Spread
- Posts: 1240
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:28 pm
- Location: Tetsworth
Parachute payments are ridiculous already. Why reward for failure. It would make far more sense to give clubs a financial boost when they are promoted to the Prem so that they can be competitive.
Most players contracts now have substantial relegation clauses in, so the original need for the parachute has gone. It's just the Premier League trying to strongarm the FA into a Premiership 2, as it has been for years.
Most players contracts now have substantial relegation clauses in, so the original need for the parachute has gone. It's just the Premier League trying to strongarm the FA into a Premiership 2, as it has been for years.
A tricky question. If a club gets into the Premiership it is going to have to pay a lot more in wages if it wants to stay there, and players are unlikely to want to sign a one year deal / pay cut for relegation. So the parachute payment seems a reasonable "reward" for the club's 1 year in the EPL.
But it does seem unfair on the other Championship clubs trying to get promoted on a normal budget (Cardiff etc).
But it does seem unfair on the other Championship clubs trying to get promoted on a normal budget (Cardiff etc).
Re: The Murdoch millions
No."Sideshow Rob" wrote:Would you be in favour of allowing the Premiership to double the parachute payments to clubs relegated to the Championship in exchange for a substancial increace in the solidarity payments that are made to each Football League Club?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/danroan/2010 ... _of_c.html
Personally I would be against it because it make even more difficult for smaller clubs to break into the Premiership, especially when you consider that the parachute payment would be spread over four years. Also, if we fail to get promoted this season we would fall further behind League 2 clubs financially.
-
Andrewmaha
- Brat
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:09 pm
- Location: Swansea
Parachute payments over 4 years - bloody rediculous.
The set up of Premier League 2 has a lot to do with it but more so it is making the chairmen and CEO's take bigger gambles with club finances.
Look at these two examples......
Hull City, when they go down (not if) are in deep shit. Their wage bill is almost £1M per week due to the likes of Jimmy Bullard. Their chairman has taken a massive gamble on surviving relegation and lost whereas he should have invested in club growth at grass roots level. Next season's parachute payment is a drop in the ocean for them. I would be very surprised to see Hull City back at the top level in the near future.
Burnley, who are down, have a chairman who stuck to a fairly rigid cost model. Yes it can be argued that they have been relegated but they stood almost as much chance of staying up with last years squad as they would have with Josy Altidore, Geovanni, and that bloke who lives in Hesselink. So because they have not over invested and lived beyond their means, and in conjunction with £16M from the Premier League next season, they will by default become one of the richest clubs in the Championship. And with a sensible chairman at the helm looks a very promising situation.
May I take the opportunity to congratulate my 'second team', Swansea City, on a fabulous season. I was at the Liberty yesterday when we could not quite squeeze a goal that would have put us in the playoffs at the expense of Blackpool. It was only a handful of seasons ago that we stayed in L2 on the last day of the season by beating the afore mentioned Hull City 4-2 down at the old Vetch Field. Now, several years on the turnaround has been remarkable (done the Burnley way).
Let's hope I get one trip to Wembley this season. Two trips would have been nice but I will settle for one on 16th May.
The set up of Premier League 2 has a lot to do with it but more so it is making the chairmen and CEO's take bigger gambles with club finances.
Look at these two examples......
Hull City, when they go down (not if) are in deep shit. Their wage bill is almost £1M per week due to the likes of Jimmy Bullard. Their chairman has taken a massive gamble on surviving relegation and lost whereas he should have invested in club growth at grass roots level. Next season's parachute payment is a drop in the ocean for them. I would be very surprised to see Hull City back at the top level in the near future.
Burnley, who are down, have a chairman who stuck to a fairly rigid cost model. Yes it can be argued that they have been relegated but they stood almost as much chance of staying up with last years squad as they would have with Josy Altidore, Geovanni, and that bloke who lives in Hesselink. So because they have not over invested and lived beyond their means, and in conjunction with £16M from the Premier League next season, they will by default become one of the richest clubs in the Championship. And with a sensible chairman at the helm looks a very promising situation.
May I take the opportunity to congratulate my 'second team', Swansea City, on a fabulous season. I was at the Liberty yesterday when we could not quite squeeze a goal that would have put us in the playoffs at the expense of Blackpool. It was only a handful of seasons ago that we stayed in L2 on the last day of the season by beating the afore mentioned Hull City 4-2 down at the old Vetch Field. Now, several years on the turnaround has been remarkable (done the Burnley way).
Let's hope I get one trip to Wembley this season. Two trips would have been nice but I will settle for one on 16th May.
-
GodalmingYellow
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
As has been said, parachute payments represent compensation for poor financial planning by relegated clubs. That cannot be right. It is neither competitive, nor encouraging the right course of action.
There should be no parachute payments.
What thewre should be is an equitable distribution of football funding. Sure the Premier League should take the lions share, but the patronising drip feed given further down is simply feathering the nest of the Premier League clubs making it a virtual closed shop to new entrants.
A lot of this is of course fuelled by the ridiculous Champions League, which even when ignoring the mis-nomer of a title is simply set up to similarly feather the nests of the so called biggest clubs in Europe. Again it is virtually impossible for any club outside the big 4 and their European equivalents to even participatge in that competition, let alone have any chance of succeeding in it.
Football has been very badly run over the last decade, with Murdoch having had far too much influence. And this stems from the Government allowing the monopolistic protectionism of Sky and their cherry picking of sports coverage.
It's not a dissimilar scenario to the old British Telecom situation, where BT argued that they had invested the money and so should control access to the network. No one in their right mind now believes that was a reasonable argument as the capital invested and pofitable return had been achieved by BT many times over. As a result of opening up that industry, we now have very competitive telecommunications. Something similar needs to happen to the Sattelite TV network, because the cost of investing the huge sums, nd length of time to get a return is now too high for another operator to become involved. Sky has made it's money many times over, and so needs to open the network to competition at fair rates.
When all that has happened, we might just begin to see a change in the way that football is operated.
There should be no parachute payments.
What thewre should be is an equitable distribution of football funding. Sure the Premier League should take the lions share, but the patronising drip feed given further down is simply feathering the nest of the Premier League clubs making it a virtual closed shop to new entrants.
A lot of this is of course fuelled by the ridiculous Champions League, which even when ignoring the mis-nomer of a title is simply set up to similarly feather the nests of the so called biggest clubs in Europe. Again it is virtually impossible for any club outside the big 4 and their European equivalents to even participatge in that competition, let alone have any chance of succeeding in it.
Football has been very badly run over the last decade, with Murdoch having had far too much influence. And this stems from the Government allowing the monopolistic protectionism of Sky and their cherry picking of sports coverage.
It's not a dissimilar scenario to the old British Telecom situation, where BT argued that they had invested the money and so should control access to the network. No one in their right mind now believes that was a reasonable argument as the capital invested and pofitable return had been achieved by BT many times over. As a result of opening up that industry, we now have very competitive telecommunications. Something similar needs to happen to the Sattelite TV network, because the cost of investing the huge sums, nd length of time to get a return is now too high for another operator to become involved. Sky has made it's money many times over, and so needs to open the network to competition at fair rates.
When all that has happened, we might just begin to see a change in the way that football is operated.
Re:
Poor little lambs. Make it a requirement and give them no choice. If they don't want to sign then they are welcome to find another job in the real world selling burgers in MacDonalds."slappy" wrote: players are unlikely to want to sign a one year deal / pay cut for relegation.
Re:
And why should they have been allowed to do that? Is this borrowing open to all relegated clubs? Do they pay interest?"Steppers" wrote:I believe I am right in saying that Hull have already borrowed the first parachute payment to get through the season!!!!
Sorry correct myself slightly in the fact that they have borrowed against it but the end result is still the same.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 106728.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 106728.ece