STOP parachute payments NOW

Parachute payments are basically a sticking plaster to partially deal with the bigger problem of how money is distributed and the level of spending.

They wouldn't be needed at all if there wasn't such a gulf in spending between divisions and there was some sort of salary cap in place.

Not sure if there'd be a way to ring-fence parachute payments so they can only be used to pay towards wages of existing players to help level the playing field a bit when sides come down. There probably is, but no doubt quite difficult to enforce and would be easy to get around with Derby style smoke and mirrors.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
If we're going to continue with I ternational football then you play for the country you play your league football in.
Click to expand...
So we would have the best international team on earth then. Salah, Ronaldo, Van Dijk Mane de Bruyne Mahrez etc etc. I can see FIFA loving that one.
 
festa5 said:
Not sure if there'd be a way to ring-fence parachute payments so they can only be used to pay towards wages of existing players
Click to expand...
This is the solution.
Have a maximum initial payment amount, agree which players salaries are to be included, and then pay a decreasing monthly amount towards each qualifying salary for length of contract / until promotion / until the player leaves.
Whichever comes first.
Once a player leaves his portion of the payment is 'lost'.
Not perfect I know, but it would protect teams from going under whilst forcing them to manage their resources properly.
 
Rofesleg said:
This is the solution.
Have a maximum initial payment amount, agree which players salaries are to be included, and then pay a decreasing monthly amount towards each qualifying salary for length of contract / until promotion / until the player leaves.
Whichever comes first.
Once a player leaves his portion of the payment is 'lost'.
Not perfect I know, but it would protect teams from going under whilst forcing them to manage their resources properly.
Click to expand...
This has legs. But again nothing will be done. We only complain when it’s not us getting the benefit.
 
Laughing said:
Aren't we missing the main point here? A footballer getting paid every week what a thoracic surgeon gets paid yearly. Is this not a tory abomination?
Click to expand...
Whilst I think footballers wages are obscene, the change that was made in the 90s was that footballs became paid as entertainment stars that were taking a share of the production profits. So to maximise profit for chairmen and directors (shareholders) they had to maximise the appeal to TV to make sure their clubs were on as much as possible so needed to attract the top stars to make this happen.

Football agents realised this and so a global industry exploded to get their clients as much money as possible and as a result their cut. This has always happened in cinema and football has just gone the same way. Stars of 'the silver screen' have always been paid extortionate amounts as producers know top stars sell films - top footballers sell advertising time.

Parachute payments are the way the 10 - 12 premier league clubs who worry about relegation every year try to at least give themselves a safety net. The top 8 couldnt care less as they know it is not a worry due to the fact they would have to have years of disappointment before advertisers moved away from them - see Man Utd still thinking they should be involved in European break away league.

it was the FA rule change in the late 80s to allow money to be taken out of a football club by directors as a wage that in my view then led to creation of premier league and the situation we now find ourselves in.
 
I'm not convinced parachute payments really makes that much difference in normal times. Their impact has been exaggerated in the time of covid as other means of income have been reduced. However, as we get back to normal, I'd expect to see them reduced.

In the 10 seasons pre-covid (09/10-18/19) 30 relegated teams had their 1st year of parachute payments in the championship. 8 were promoted at the first attempt, 4 of which were via the playoffs. 2 have been directly relegated to League 1, and a couple more have gone down in the following season. I've not counted teams promoted in their 2nd season, but I didn't spot many.

That's an over-representation: if promotion were entirely random, we'd expect 3-4 of them to be promoted from that sample. However, newly relegated teams have always been over-represented amongst promoted teams the following season, as there is a strong likelihood they will have better squads than many of the other teams.

IS there really anything to prove parachute payments give a massive advantage in normal times? I'm not asking should they, or ought they, I'm asking do they? On their own I know they should, but they always comes hand in glove with the lodestone of big contracts for failing players that see some clubs vanish into the third and even fourth tier. Is there anything to suggest they're actually doing more than they should, which is cushion the financial hit of relgation?
 
Last edited:
Frozen Horse said:
I'm not convinced parachute payments really makes that much difference in normal times. Their impact has been exaggerated in the time of covid as other means of income have been reduced. However, as we get back to normal, I'd expect to see them reduced.

In the 10 seasons pre-covid (09/10-18/19) 30 relegated teams had their 1st year of parachute payments in the championship. 8 were promoted at the first attempt, 4 of which were via the playoffs. 2 have been directly relegated to League 1, and a couple more have gone down in the following season. I've not counted teams promoted in their 2nd season, but I didn't spot many.

That's an over-representation: if promotion were entirely random, we'd expect 3-4 of them to be promoted from that sample. However, newly relegated teams have always been over-represented amongst promoted teams the following season, as there is a strong likelihood they will have better squads than many of the other teams.

IS there really anything to prove parachute payments give a massive advantage in normal times? I'm not asking should they, or ought they, I'm asking do they? On their own I know they should, but they always comes hand in glove with the lodestone of big contracts for failing players that see some clubs vanish into the third and even fourth tier. Is there anything to suggest they're actually doing more than they should, which is cushion the financial hit of relgation?
Click to expand...
Is it covid times or the switch from 1 year to 3 year FFP cycles? That makes a big difference because teams can have a gamble for more years before FFP doesn't include any parachute payments.
 
Frozen Horse said:
IS there really anything to prove parachute payments give a massive advantage in normal times? I'm not asking should they, or ought they, I'm asking do they? On their own I know they should, but they always comes hand in glove with the lodestone of big contracts for failing players that see some clubs vanish into the third and even fourth tier. Is there anything to suggest they're actually doing more than they should, which is cushion the financial hit of relgation?
Click to expand...
What about being able to prise away the best managers from existing clubs , even those with contracts. Isn't that an advantage ?
 
Its one reason we should demand daft transfer fees from prem clubs. 25mill for spence please. Thats only way champo clubs can catch up to teams coming down. Theres always the odd exception like a luton doing well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top