STOP parachute payments NOW

HundredRoom

HundredRoom

Well-known member
During the scandal over Burnley its often been cited that Burnley would have a much bigger budget and hence more attractive than us due to parachute payments.
But why are parachute payments made ? It gives those 3 teams a massive advantage over the rest of the league and is responsible for the existence of the yoyo clubs like Norwich WBA Fulham etc.

How can we have FFP and at the same time have 3 clubs in the same league with many 10's of millions more than the rest for more than (3 years ?) upsetting the whole balance of the league.

The parachute clubs are no longer live on sky and all that goes with it advertising revenue etc. What make them deserve all this extra cash.

If under these conditions you cant bounce straight back something is very wrong (cough cough!).

I really don't know the reasoning behind these payments unless it was so stupid contracts could be signed with mercenary players so they would still get their silly wages after relegation , but we all know they just b***r off anyway.
I say STOP parachute payments NOW and make the championship a level playing field for all
 
But if you DIDNT have parachute payments, then you'd get very few clubs willing to splash the cash to compete in the PL for fear of being saddled with large contracts on players they've had to pay millions for, and thus it makes the PL a much less desirable "product" for broadcasters.

I agree with much of what you've written, but equally without them you'd rarely have clubs able to establish themselves in the PL
 
HundredRoom said:
During the scandal over Burnley its often been cited that Burnley would have a much bigger budget and hence more attractive than us due to parachute payments.
But why are parachute payments made ? It gives those 3 teams a massive advantage over the rest of the league and is responsible for the existence of the yoyo clubs like Norwich WBA Fulham etc.

How can we have FFP and at the same time have 3 clubs in the same league with many 10's of millions more than the rest for more than (3 years ?) upsetting the whole balance of the league.

The parachute clubs are no longer live on sky and all that goes with it advertising revenue etc. What make them deserve all this extra cash.

If under these conditions you cant bounce straight back something is very wrong (cough cough!).

I really don't know the reasoning behind these payments unless it was so stupid contracts could be signed with mercenary players so they would still get their silly wages after relegation , but we all know they just b***r off anyway.
I say STOP parachute payments NOW and make the championship a level playing field for all
Click to expand...
The system is rigged because it’s designed to be rigged that’s the whole point.

The greed is good league is so obscenely money orientated that just by dropping out of it can actually threaten a clubs mere existence.

Just think how messed up that is.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
But if you DIDNT have parachute payments, then you'd get very few clubs willing to splash the cash to compete in the PL for fear of being saddled with large contracts on players they've had to pay millions for, and thus it makes the PL a much less desirable "product" for broadcasters.

I agree with much of what you've written, but equally without them you'd rarely have clubs able to establish themselves in the PL
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you've written, but equally without them you'd rarely have clubs able to establish themselves in the PL

Just like now !

But if you DIDNT have parachute payments, then you'd get very few clubs willing to splash the cash to compete in the PL for fear of being saddled with large contracts on players they've had to pay millions for, and thus it makes the PL a much less desirable "product" for broadcasters.

Would that be a bad thing
 
Tha
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
But if you DIDNT have parachute payments, then you'd get very few clubs willing to splash the cash to compete in the PL for fear of being saddled with large contracts on players they've had to pay millions for, and thus it makes the PL a much less desirable "product" for broadcasters.

I agree with much of what you've written, but equally without them you'd rarely have clubs able to establish themselves in the PL
Click to expand...
That’s bang on. They are there to pay out the large pl contracts the relegated clubs are saddled with. The alternative is relegated clubs go out of business. The other idea to insert a clause in players contracts that if relegated they forfeit the contract. Unfortunately if that happened the smaller clubs wouldn’t be able to sign the players and a greater gap would grow between the top half and bottom half.
 
Jedi boro said:
The system is rigged because it’s designed to be rigged that’s the whole point.

The greed is good league is so obscenely money orientated that just by dropping out of it can actually threaten a clubs mere existence.

Just think how messed up that is.
Click to expand...
\They would have to adjust - thats all. Just like clubs had to adjust to Bosman
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
That’s bang on. They are there to pay out the large pl contracts the relegated clubs are saddled with. The alternative is relegated clubs go out of business.
Click to expand...
The problem is though, PP aren’t just used to meet those contract obligations; they’re also used to fund player purchases that other clubs just could not afford. Fulham and Muniz for example.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
They are there to pay out the large pl contracts the relegated clubs are saddled with. The alternative is relegated clubs go out of business.
Click to expand...
Well don't hand them out in the first place.
You may have an argument to say a promoted club could never compete with a PL club. But when they did through pure talent they have a better chance of securing their PL position.
Trying to think of a promoted club that has stayed in the PL more than 5 years in recent times after promotion
 
Red_is_best said:
The problem is though, PP aren’t just used to meet those contract obligations; they’re also used to fund player purchases that other clubs just could not afford. Fulham and Muniz for example.
Click to expand...
They paid out £20 m for Muniz and Wilson yes I agree. But they could also argue they let go 15 players on PL contracts or wages at the end of last season to pay for it.
 
Championship clubs need parachute payments.

Every championship owner knows that to scrap payments condemns their club to eternal second tier football with the occasional season as PL whipping boys.

Without them, newly promoted clubs will never be able to offer quality players sufficiently competitive contracts to allow them to have a chance, without risking the entire existence of their clubs.

Prior to Covid, I'd argue that PPs were reaching the point where they didn't really cover the financial liability of relegation from the PL: newly relegated teams were as likely to find themselves in relegation trouble than in the automatic promotion race. I accept that lockdown has exaggerated the value of PPs in the last couple of seasons, but it will resolve itself.
 
Last edited:
Cardiffdaffs said:
Tha

That’s bang on. They are there to pay out the large pl contracts the relegated clubs are saddled with. The alternative is relegated clubs go out of business. The other idea to insert a clause in players contracts that if relegated they forfeit the contract. Unfortunately if that happened the smaller clubs wouldn’t be able to sign the players and a greater gap would grow between the top half and bottom half.
Click to expand...
The most obvious idea is that the relegation clause doesn't forfeit the contract but it adjusts the salary to an appropriate level. I know they do have them but I bet they have 10%, 15% relegation reductions when it should be 90% based on the revenues of the 2 leagues. It's madness that any player could argue against it. They would only be relegated because they have been **** so they shouldn't be on Premier League contracts. If they want to be paid like Premier League players then they have to earn it. There should probably be similar promotion salary increase clauses as well as it is only fair.

The clauses should be a standard requirement. I wouldn't be surprised if Everton won't have even considered relegation when signing any of their players so they probably won't even have them.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
They paid out £20 m for Muniz and Wilson yes I agree. But they could also argue they let go 15 players on PL contracts or wages at the end of last season to pay for it.
Click to expand...
without getting in to individual clubs the general principal is

"How can we have FFP and at the same time have 3 clubs in the same league with many 10's of millions more than the rest"
And sky sponsorship is no different to a chairman's sponsorship as I see it

So under FFP a chairman should have the right to pump as much money in to their club as SKY do in to others - that would level things up a bit
 
HundredRoom said:
Trying to think of a promoted club that has stayed in the PL more than 5 years in recent times after promotion
Click to expand...

Given that they must have been promoted more than 5 years ago to even qualify, Leicester count as recent.

Villa and Newcastle will probably qualify soon.
 
Nano said:
The most obvious idea is that the relegation clause doesn't forfeit the contract but it adjusts the salary to an appropriate level. I know they do have them but I bet they have 10%, 15% relegation reductions when it should be 90% based on the revenues of the 2 leagues. It's madness that any player could argue against it. They would only be relegated because they have been **** so they shouldn't be on Premier League contracts. If they want to be paid like Premier League players then they have to earn it. There should probably be similar promotion salary increase clauses as well as it is only fair.

The clauses should be a standard requirement. I wouldn't be surprised if Everton won't have even considered relegation when signing any of their players so they probably won't even have them.
Click to expand...
So you have two or three premier league teams bidding for a player. At the start of the season One say is Leicester or Southampton, the other is Fulham or Brentford. Who does the player choose in that scenario? His agent will warn him to choose the Club least likely to be involved in a relegation scrap if he doesn’t want his remuneration cut. It’s a game controlled by players and agents. The parachute payments are designed to support the players as well as the Clubs.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
They paid out £20 m for Muniz and Wilson yes I agree. But they could also argue they let go 15 players on PL contracts or wages at the end of last season to pay for it.
Click to expand...
It if they let that many on PL wages go, then surely they didn’t need the pp so were able to spend that money on new players.
 
Red_is_best said:
It if they let that many on PL wages go, then surely they didn’t need the pp so were able to spend that money in new players.
Click to expand...
It’s all about managing a budget at the end of the day and making sure if relegation threatens a club then the board can react without decimating the side. On our last relegation in 2017 I note we didn’t complain when we got 3 years PPS
 
Frozen Horse said:
Given that they must have been promoted more than 5 years ago to even qualify, Leicester count as recent.

Villa and Newcastle will probably qualify soon.
Click to expand...
Yes leicester certainly. The other two are fallen giants. Even Man city were rin the 3rd tier relatively recently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top