The Key Club King

On 15/11/2021 at 12:00, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

To end parachute money could make it almost impossible for promoted teams to compete. There would be too much jeopardy dropping down again to risk spending lots of money.  
 

This is the reason for parachute money. People seem to think it's to help relegated teams get promoted really quickly again. Promotion to the PL isn't that hard to achieve (we are just really, really bad at it). staying their is far harder and the stats are out there to prove it. Without these future payments promoted clubs will just take the money for the year and hope for the best rather than spend to compete. Relegation ensues. 

Imagine how bad we'd have been in 2008 without being able to spend the money on Earnshaw, Claude Davis, Kenny Miller and Benny Feilhaber! 

16 hours ago, GenBr said:

Parachute payments last for 3 years - not just one. The last 3 seasons have seen at least 2 parachute teams get promoted and this year will almost certainly be the same.

20-21 - watford and norwich

19-20 fulham and west brom

18-19 villa and norwich

We've also lost our last 4 playoff campaigns to parachute teams as far as i can see.

Parachute payments and their higher allowable losses create a huge advantage for these teams. 

You're right, the last three years are showing higher rates of parachute payments clubs being promoted however these payments have been in place for a long time now and the trend before this was far less than 2 a year. It's worth waiting a couple of years to see whether this becomes a permanent trend. 

I've had a quick look at the few years prior to the Premier League for comparison and found that 6 out of 15 clubs were promoted back to the top division (Division One) within two years of relegation. 

Of the clubs relegated from the Championship to League One on the same basis, 11 out of 18 were promoted back within 3 years. This is higher than Championship to Premier League for the same period. No parachute payments are paid there. 

Essentially a relegated club has a far greater chance of gaining promotion than the others in the division and this seems to be the case beyond the PL and the influence of parachute payments. 

19 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I think you will find one of Mels mainbones of contention was parachute payments and I agree with him. 
 

He also didn’t agree with the TV money split across the Leagues which upset the EFL .

FFP is a joke as is getting annoyed about Derby’s amortisation policy and ground sale .

Its almost incomprehensible  

 

 

I can't defend the EFLs actions, or Mel's for that matter. Both will be correct on some things at some point. Mel wanted to do to L1&2 what the PL did to the whole EFL and keep the TV money to themselves. The EFL are against parachute payments I think but they don't pay them. 

20 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

 

Most do within two seasons 

I make it 5 of the last 15 relegated PL clubs got promoted within two years. 

6 minutes ago, Curtains said:

It’s not always about a return first time around as they have 3 years at it. 
 

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/premier-league-parachute-payment/

Absolutely it's not all about an immediate return and the benefit of this money should last to 3 years. But there is little if any difference between PL/Championship and Championship/L1 despite the parachute payments. 

I think there are maybe only 9 Championship clubs who haven't been in the PL in the past 10-15 years. Unfortunately we are one of them.

Staying in the PL is far harder than staying in the other divisions. I see the parachute payments as more of an incentive to increase your wage bill once promoted safe in the knowledge that the parachute payments are there as a safety net. Without increased spending after promotion it would be incredibly difficult to bridge the gap and stay there. 

26 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Are you joking.

No. I've stated that clubs receiving parachute payments are no more likely to get promoted than clubs further down the league pyramid who don't get them. It's not got significantly more difficult for any club to get promoted to the top division since parachute payments were introduced. 

It makes sense to think there is a problem with the additional money clubs receive, but the facts do not bear this out. 

7 minutes ago, jono said:

So 50% of promotion slots were taken by 8 parachute clubs. Leaving the remaining 50% of slots split between the rest. So you go down and it’s 50/50 whether you go up. And you get another 50/50 for 3 seasons on the trot ? While the rest ? 
It’s loaded dice 

I don't know the situation pre PL but I would imagine it would not be much different. Once you have a decent team you will probably get a few good tears out of it. Yo-yo clubs aren't a new phenomenon. 

Actually every Championship club receives £4.5 million per year from the PL as solidarity payments. 

48 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

5th. Which makes his dismissal by Morris more bizarre even by his standards. 

He's hardly covered himself in glory as a manager since. Retrospectively it's probably a rare correct decision by Mel. 

5 minutes ago, jono said:

I’d be interested to see how many none parachute clubs have been promoted in the last 5 years ? Anyone got any names ? Leeds .. who else ? 
 

The race is usually between parachute clubs (recently relegated or still in receipt from past seasons ) and maybe 1 or 2 others .. if you could introduce a financing system that was less loaded then it would be a far healthier competition.. suddenly you might get 6/8 clubs in the race rather than 3/4. And reaching the marker for a cash injection is an incentive to others but not one that would force madness in spending. A worthwhile prize for a finish above top 10 

I make it 7 non-parachute clubs promoted from 15 spots. Huddersfield, Brighton, Wolves, Norwich (1st time around), Sheff Utd, Leeds and Brentford. 

Looking at League One/Championship, the rate of promotion soon after relegation is much higher there. No parachute payments either (at least I don't think so). 

As I've said, parachute payments should make a massive difference, but they don't seem to.

19 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’m all for ending parachute payments 

Absolute disgrace 

Why? Given that those receiving them seem no more likely to get promoted than teams in League One relegated from the Championship who don't recieve them. 

It's a straw man argument. 

17 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Was that when we had Match of the Day and Star Soccer...the difference now is the filthy lucre, The idea of the PL taking over from the EFL sounds great in theory...but in practice I cant see it, You need 2/3 of the Premier teams to agree this I believe, I just don't see them giving money away.

They won't give the money away which is a shame as within a decade over 50% of the PL clubs will get relegated at some point and be on the other side of the fence. This absolutely will happen but the clubs can only see as far as the current season and assume they are all established PL clubs. There are only maybe 8 established Premier League clubs who have not been relegated in the past decade.

Ironically, there was a proposal to abolish parachute payments and redistribute income better as "Project Big Picture" last October - it was a power grab by the top 6. In exchange for increased voting rights they proposed increaing the wealth distribution between lower clubs in the pyramid and thus abolishing the need for parachute payments. Much of which I agreed with, just not the increased voting rights of the big clubs. 

Martin's record since 2016 is pretty poor. 27 goals in 160 games prior to this season. I appreciate injuries have held him back and he is still a good player but Bristol City gave him a 3 year deal and even Mel wasn't daft enough to give a 32 year old a three year deal (except maybe Curtis Davies and Dave Nugent!).

6 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

It looks like we will have a new owner by January.

I think we need to invest in a couple of big young centre backs, a big tackler for midfield, a couple of big speedy lads up front and a speed merchant. all aimed at L1

New owner, plenty of excitement, money to spend! Ooh let's see:

Big tackler in midfield - Bradley Johnson.

Speedy up front - Jack Marriott and Dave Nugent.

Speed merchant - Ikechi Anya.

What could possibly go wrong?

38 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Fulham centre forward on £100,000 per week which is more than the entire team he is facing every week, doesn’t seem fair or affordable without parachute money.

It doesn't seem fair, you're right. Given this massive advantage, why don't all teams that are relegated from the PL get promoted straight away? 

Parachute payments are an easy scapegoat for a problem that barely exists. In the last 8 years (from Mac1 period) an average of one relegated Premier League club has been immediately promoted the following season. It feels like it is more because last year it was 2 and this year may well be two, but that is far too early for this to be a trend. 

Theoretically, parachute payments mean higher wage bills and therefore much higher chance of promotion. The reality is that the toxic atmosphere created by relegation seemingly wipes this advantage out. 

39 minutes ago, alram said:

i have for long said a PL 2 is needed, there is just too much of a financial difference between the championship / premier league and there is too many teams in this division as it is. 

the removal of parachute payments won't change the huge financial gap, a new division with better tv rights and a bigger spread of the share WILL reduce the gap and reduce the amount of teams willing to gamble with the club like Mel has done.

for me this is the only easy answer. The answer isnt take money off X club, the problem will always be there one way or another with a huge drop off in income with relegation.

 

The problem with a Premier League 2 is;

a) a large gap will then appear between PL2 and the new top division of the EFL.

b) we probably won't be in PL2 if it started next season! 

We don't need a PL2, we need a PL1, 2, 3 & 4. The gap betwen tv revenue can reduce a little bit between every single league place of the whole 92 clubs.  

Something like this existed before the "birth of football" in 1992! 

Despite having some good academy players, I think it's probably wishful thinking to say that many of them will be good enough for League One. Those that have had a sniff around the first team might be OK e.g. Stretton, Ebosele, Sibley, Williams and Watson. Others will struggle as the vast majority of players do not make it as professionals. Witness the game v Chorley last year to give an idea of the gap. The second half of the season, as and when we are so far adrift that Rooney will admit to us as being nailed on for relegation, will be a good opportunity to see whether some of our younger players can make the step up.  

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I crunched some stats once that said our ppg last season was 1.0 higher with Bielik in the team than without him. 

However, it is true that we won the first 2 games after he was injured the second time. 

All this demonstrates is that while we CAN win without him, we're more likely to do better WITH him. 

My point with Shinnie is that some players can make a reasonable difference to a team but it is unlikely that one man at this level is the difference between awful (Barnsley) and good (Millwall). I then argue that Bielik is one of the few that do make a massive difference. And as he is our one remaining card to play this season (no money/transfer embargo/administration), I hope I'm right or we are going down. 

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

This season we have better defenders at centre half which helps a lot currently! Who are you considering dropping to put Belick in the side ? He won’t be fully fit for a very long time 

I prefer Bird to Shinnie so I would likely drop Shinnie in the current formation though given our weakness out wide, I would probably play a midfield three. 

I would also argue that our defenders are not better than last season. Only Jagielka is new and he has been great, but we have lost Clarke who was at least as good if not better. We defend better as a team but seemingly at the expense of attacking threat. This is probably necessary given what Rooney has at his disposal.

40 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Bielik played last season when we lost to Rotherham and Sheff Wed, who both were relegated.

But yes i think if he can be fit and the same player he was last year our midfield will really work properly. We still need someone who can score goals though which  is why we lost to Wednesday last year despite dominating them, and why we only have 18 points even bfore our deduction.

I never calculated it but last season points with Bielik must have been over double of those without him. My hope for this season is that he has even half as much impact as he did last season. He's the only player we've been missing that could possibly transform us. 

38 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Lots of players have awful games, even Bielik! 

He's been great and a big part of the effort and belief needed for the team to not just collapse.

True, and he's had a decent season. I don't think he's the sole difference between the Barnsley and Millwall performances though. 

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

This thread needs more posts! I wasn't a big believer but I am now. 

Shinzzaa! #COYR

 

Shinnie played in the Blackburn loss too where he was awful. The only truly transformative player we have is Bielik. 

1 minute ago, Macintosh said:

I've seen £60m and £50m banded about regarding how much debt we are in, but, having several times had companies go bust on me and start up again, how little of the debt actually does get paid, and twice I worked at a company that was resurrected by a Phoenix agreement, do those that are in the know, supporters' groups that have been to meetings, have an actual ballpark figure?

The Dell loan (now £18m?) I presume is Mel's, not Derby's, which was to pay off the previous loan for buying Pride Park the second time around. The HMRC debt of £28m?, they always do a deal, a percentage, and I'd be surprised if they ended up with much more than half. The Bielik debt is in stages, future payments, and similar with Jozwiak, that possibly only adds up to £2-3m combined presently due. Money that has to be paid to the EFL for fines will be deferred against money due from TV rights, Keogh, I might be wrong, but I think there is an appeal due with that in January? and then we have legal bills and administrator's costs, that will be approaching £5m I'd have thought. The government will pay for redundancies and the smaller debtors, non-football related will, as usual, whistle for what they were owned. Wayne is probably due some and bonuses that never got paid to players. Just the banks left?

Could it be as little as £20m a potential new owner has to find? The supporters' groups were given 30 days to make an offer, they must have figures and give us a hint.

I've been thinking about this too. I don't know what the debt will turn out to be, but the interest in the club and the confidence of the Administrators in it being sold lead me to one question:

What is it that makes us a good investment?

We've probably not been consistently profitable since, well probably all throughout my 40 years of support.