This is what we’re up against

[Pearl Ram]

12 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Football has been broken for as long as I can remember - it's more broken now than ever before I would say.

However, while we thought we had a rich Mel throwing money at getting us up there, we didn't have many complaints. In fact the only complaints we had were about P&S restricting our "ambition" (in other words, our ability to buy success).

Could that be because some or even most of us were were under the impression this spending was being done responsibly and competently ? ?‍♂️

[Duracell]

34 minutes ago, David said:

Didn’t take long.

But this is more than just Derby. I can point you towards more than a dozen topics that are sticking the boot into the club where you could have a whale of a time.

Can even find a couple where AFC Derby and full on liquidation scenarios for doomsday.

Regardless of where we finished, who’s in charge it’s wrong, we should be able to call that out without attacking our own club yet again.

The prize money on offer in the Premier League is obscene, the numbers are more nauseating when you consider grounds have been empty for over a year in 3 leagues, 3 leagues which unlike the Premier League ticket revenue accounts for a large percentage of the clubs yearly revenue.

But yeah, let’s ignore that to complain about Rooney again because that’s the biggest issue the Football League is facing right now. 

The two aren't entirely unrelated, however; our troubles and the point you're making. The only way we could hope to compete with much smaller clubs than us was to push FFP rules to the very limit, so much so that there is a debate whether we broke them.

We wouldn't have done any of it if the playing field was level. It's ridiculous that a club of our size can't compete with a team like Bournemouth, for instance.

Absolutely no grievance with Bournemouth finishing above us totally on merit, and I don't believe we have any sort of divine right to be in any league. But at the same time, we are a one-club city, with a loyal and passionate fanbase, and that counts for so little that a seaside town with a smaller stadium than we have season ticket holders can blow us out of the water in the transfer market. Why? Because for half a decade, they were the opposition to the big clubs that people watch the world over, and they received hundreds of millions of pounds as a thank you for giving Man United someone to play against.

The terrible thing about the ESL debacle is that it's set the bar so low for what equality means in the game. The debate should be about how non-parachute Championship clubs shouldn't be at such a ridiculous disadvantage for the crime of not being Man City's cannon fodder. It should be about how the only reason why the world cares about the big English clubs is because of our rich culture, infrastructure and tradition in the game that's been in the making across three centuries, and in return for the absurd money the Premier League clubs be acknowledging their good fortune by ensuring clubs throughout the ladder can afford to pay their staff and put out a team at the weekend. 

But that's not where the debate is now. It's just about the very biggest clubs not having even more. Everybody knows they're supposed to be angry with Chelsea, Liverpool, United, City, Spurs and Arsenal. But ickle wickle innocent Everton, Villa, West Ham et al have been every bit as complicit in this greed culture since the early 90s. Nobody is talking about that anymore.

TL;DR? Greed is everywhere in the game and this isn't going to be solved any time soon.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Duracell

[Day]

1 minute ago, DCFClks said:

Why? When you have all that money the success is meaningless, It must be a rubbish experience as a fan when every season you don't win everything is a bad one. Like Celtic or Man City. 

Can’t agree on that, losing the title to Liverpool last season would reset the hunger to see you lift the title again.

Take Bayern for example, 9 titles in a row now, wouldn’t say I would be bored as there is a record to set for consecutive titles, but it would start to feel like the league is a given.

Also when you’re up there, you can compete better in the cups and Europe. 

[HectorsHouse]

Football has been broken for sooooo long.

Totally agree that parachute payments should be structured for one year only.

Other issues are what happens to current subsequent parachute payments should a relegated team be promoted? eg Watford this season. Currently that will get redistributed amongst the EPL teams... surely that should be shared amongst the Championship teams that had to play against them whilst they were in the division?

Again, I agree 100% on caps... but more from a squad size (including youth set-ups) The wealthy teams simply hoover up potential talent and use them as ‘asset banking’ starving the lower leagues of quality and then charging loan fees for them to develop their talent..!!

 

 

[Ambitious]

Football is irreversibly broken in this country. I wish it was easy to remedy, but it really isn't because of the popularity of the Premier League OR should I say the Premier League 'big' 6. I also want to redirect the thinking: Sheffield United earned their money in the Premier League. They deserve that £125m. We shouldn't be looking to take money from them, which I think a lot of fans of football league clubs automatically jump too. 

The steps that make sense to me: 

1) scrap ANY financial restrictions that are governed by turnover to increase competition. Financial restrictions governed by a club's turnover significantly hinders any organic growth for that club, because you're working to ceilings that others don't have. Chelsea and City put down the capital early doors and eventually benefited from being successful which reflected in their sponsorship interest and deals. Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool have been the countries most successful clubs historically and benefited from being successful at key points in history, i.e. Liverpool 80s when football was being televised regularly, Man Utd and Arsenal 90s/00s as football was televised worldwide. 

2) create a hard wage cap, but this will be extremely high. It just gives teams something to work too, without being restricted. I think United's wage bill is roughly £250m a year so if you say from 2022-23 the wage bill for all teams will be £280m. It gives the guys who own Everton and others the opportunity to get up to that point and genuinely contend on a level playing field. 

3) this is covered by the top 2 points, but I just want to emphasis the point: ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER FEES. I mean, when you consider who FFP actually benefits then it's only the big clubs. If you have a player contracted to your club who Man Utd want and there is absolutely NO financial restrictions then you are going to receive much higher fees. It actually benefits the smaller clubs not having restrictions on transfer fees. It helps them benefit from selling assets. It trickles down the football league. If Man Utd sign someone from Crystal Palace for £80m then Palace can sign someone from Derby for £30m and then Derby can sign someone from Peterborough for £10m.... 

If you achieve the above then you have overnight made Football League clubs more attractive to investors looking to get into the Premier League. The more money, competition and interest in the Football League then the better the product they get to sell to television networks and the more money to go around. It also gives teams the ability for an investor to quickly take a seat at the top table. If Bezos buys Everton (for example) spends 1bn in his first couple years and maxes the wage bill. It creates a much more competitive environment and competition breeds interest. If we get to the point where the same teams are going up and going down, at least a carousel of the same teams then the lack of competition is going to cause disinterest. The same goes for League One to the Championship too. We are in danger of that becoming a similar situation, considering two of the promoted teams last year went straight back down. Its going to take a lot of work, but ultimately I think you help the situation by stopping the restrictions.

[jono]

1 hour ago, David said:

£125m for being the worst team in the league.

Just let that sink in.

One hundred and twenty five million pounds for being crap.

That’s 3 clubs coming down with a total of £381m, but that’s not all, the Premier League will also give them parachute payments to soften the blow.

Sorry to start another topic on this, but it’s a topic that needs to be repeated, football is broken. It’s broken and they are doing nothing about it. Why?

We have to try and compete with those 3 next year, with barely any revenue we have to compete against clubs with over £100m in their back pockets.

What hope do we have?

Yes I know money doesn’t always = success, Brentford beat Bournemouth, made it to Wembley but how many years have they been trying to get there? 

Whoever goes up it’s a major achievement, getting past the parachute payment clubs, it’s huge, one season up there and they have banked over £100m, it’s madness.

We can never have a completely level playing field, I understand that, but the PL and EFL could come together and distribute that money out more fairly.

Why are they not?

Why are these questions not being asked?

Do we need to see more clubs liquidated, more clubs going bankrupt trying to compete from the Championship to League 2, all the national media journalists will be all over that, justice for Bury, why not call it out now? 

Heads are so far up the Premier League’s backside the Football League barely gets a mention.

I’m ranting I know, but £125m for being crap. 

Who signs off on that and thinks it’s good for football? 

It’s broken, football is broken.

Exactly David .. and you take Derby County with a gross income before expenditure and Covid  of circa 30 million. So the three clubs coming down have 4 times our gross income as “Prize” money and Parachute payments on top. That isn’t a loaded dice it’s somewhere between ethnic cleansing and slaughter. THEN .. when someone tries to compete they get kicked in the goalies by EFL forensic accountants .. It is a joke ! And it certainly isn’t “fair play” 

[Day]

9 minutes ago, Duracell said:

The debate should be about how non-parachute Championship clubs shouldn't be at such a ridiculous disadvantage for the crime of not being Man City's cannon fodder.

Talking of which.

Liam Delap.

We have an academy, develop young players but oh Man City want that one, and because it’s Man City, sorry but you have to let him go. 

Chuck them a few peanuts and take him away.

How is that right? And then we have parents of academy players upset when clubs demand the money they are entitled to for them to leave.

Signed contracts, knew the score, but take it to the national media to guilt trip.

Zac Brunt. That’s him.

It’s just bizarre how these rules are passed with little care to those outside the Premier League.

Cannon fodder is spot on.

[GboroRam]

3 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Football is irreversibly broken in this country. I wish it was easy to remedy, but it really isn't because of the popularity of the Premier League OR should I say the Premier League 'big' 6. I also want to redirect the thinking: Sheffield United earned their money in the Premier League. They deserve that £125m. We shouldn't be looking to take money from them, which I think a lot of fans of football league clubs automatically jump too. 

The steps that make sense to me: 

1) scrap ANY financial restrictions that are governed by turnover to increase competition. Financial restrictions governed by a club's turnover significantly hinders any organic growth for that club, because you're working to ceilings that others don't have. Chelsea and City put down the capital early doors and eventually benefited from being successful which reflected in their sponsorship interest and deals. Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool have been the countries most successful clubs historically and benefited from being successful at key points in history, i.e. Liverpool 80s when football was being televised regularly, Man Utd and Arsenal 90s/00s as football was televised worldwide. 

2) create a hard wage cap, but this will be extremely high. It just gives teams something to work too, without being restricted. I think United's wage bill is roughly £250m a year so if you say from 2022-23 the wage bill for all teams will be £280m. It gives the guys who own Everton and others the opportunity to get up to that point and genuinely contend on a level playing field. 

3) this is covered by the top 2 points, but I just want to emphasis the point: ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER FEES. I mean, when you consider who FFP actually benefits then it's only the big clubs. If you have a player contracted to your club who Man Utd want and there is absolutely NO financial restrictions then you are going to receive much higher fees. It actually benefits the smaller clubs not having restrictions on transfer fees. It helps them benefit from selling assets. It trickles down the football league. If Man Utd sign someone from Crystal Palace for £80m then Palace can sign someone from Derby for £30m and then Derby can sign someone from Peterborough for £10m.... 

If you achieve the above then you have overnight made Football League clubs more attractive to investors looking to get into the Premier League. The more money, competition and interest in the Football League then the better the product they get to sell to television networks and the more money to go around. It also gives teams the ability for an investor to quickly take a seat at the top table. If Bezos buys Everton (for example) spends 1bn in his first couple years and maxes the wage bill. It creates a much more competitive environment and competition breeds interest. If we get to the point where the same teams are going up and going down, at least a carousel of the same teams then the lack of competition is going to cause disinterest. The same goes for League One to the Championship too. We are in danger of that becoming a similar situation, considering two of the promoted teams last year went straight back down. Its going to take a lot of work, but ultimately I think you help the situation by stopping the restrictions.

That would be a recipe for clubs spending beyond their means. In fact it would guarantee it, as the only way to keep up would be to bet the farm each season, and hope by maxing your credit out you can stay competitive.

It would be incredibly boring too. It just becomes a game of who can spend the most money. 

In fact it sounds like exactly the opposite of what I want football to be. Nothing about the fans, entirely about the depth of pockets of the owners. Like we have now, on steroids. And crack cocaine.

[GboroRam]

20 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Could that be because some or even most of us were were under the impression this spending was being done responsibly and competently ? ?‍♂️

Frankly I think most people didn't care.

Ask Leicester fans if they objected to FFP being broken when they went up. Did many of them object at the time? Did they think everything was rosy and they were playing nice? Are they offering to go back down a division as it was unfair at the time?

Success is all important. Win at all costs. If the football is boring, it doesn't matter. It's not about entertainment. It's not about the fans. It's about finishing at the top of a list of other football teams.

[DCFC Kicks]

2 minutes ago, David said:

Can’t agree on that, losing the title to Liverpool last season would reset the hunger to see you lift the title again.

Take Bayern for example, 9 titles in a row now, wouldn’t say I would be bored as there is a record to set for consecutive titles, but it would start to feel like the league is a given.

Also when you’re up there, you can compete better in the cups and Europe. 

I think of Celtic in particular, didn't a fan set fire to there chairman's house because they didn't win 10 titles in a row? What do Celtic fans actually celebrate if winning everything essential?

I don't know, I just feel with all the big clubs around Europe, they don't have any character, you're less of a fan and more of a customer. You have tourists and international "fans" that water down the experience and make you feel less significant. I like watching the best players play, but watching them at Derby wouldn't add anything because they just go where the money is, it doesn't matter about the club history etc, it's all superficial.

Derby getting promoted to the Prem in a similar (more financially stable) position that it's in now would mean more to me than then winning the Prem with a billionaire throwing money at it. 

[SSD]

As demonstrated by Sunderland and Hull recently, the parachute payments don't exactly guarantee challenging for the title in this league, particularly if the club is ran poorly. What needs to happen in the lower divisions is getting rid of FFP in its current form. You then have the choice of throwing as much money at it as you wish or adapt a more sustainable approach. Let the individual clubs decide.

What's important is ensuring clubs don't go bust. FFP hasn't been successful in doing this, it causes more harm and drama. The Premier league needs to filter the money down properly, number one priority to keeping this league going. I was listening to Gary Neville's interview with the old Premier League chief Scudamore and he's manufactured and allowed the greed to continue. Yes, I understand it's the TV companies throwing money at it but these top clubs need to share the revenue. If the Premier League put in lets say an extra £100 million into the FL, that's £5 million each. Less than 5% of the current prize money! You're telling me they can't filter that down the pyramid. Jokers.

[Pearl Ram]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Frankly I think most people didn't care.

Ask Leicester fans if they objected to FFP being broken when they went up. Did many of them object at the time? Did they think everything was rosy and they were playing nice? Are they offering to go back down a division as it was unfair at the time?

Success is all important. Win at all costs. If the football is boring, it doesn't matter. It's not about entertainment. It's not about the fans. It's about finishing at the top of a list of other football teams.

I think most people didn’t care about the disparity between us and those newly relegated either. It was how it always was, is and will be. 

It’s not right now, it wasn’t right then but I think it’s a bit rich bleating about it now our gravy train has hit the buffers.

[Day]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

That would be a recipe for clubs spending beyond their means. In fact it would guarantee it, as the only way to keep up would be to bet the farm each season, and hope by maxing your credit out you can stay competitive.

It would be incredibly boring too. It just becomes a game of who can spend the most money. 

In fact it sounds like exactly the opposite of what I want football to be. Nothing about the fans, entirely about the depth of pockets of the owners. Like we have now, on steroids. And crack cocaine.

Kinda agree, I’m not against FFP as it protects clubs from going nuts and blowing up. 

Not entirely sure what the “fix” is, but the starting point would be to remove parachute payments completely.

Clubs should be sensible enough to protect themselves with relegation clauses. You could even enforce that, automatic 40% wage cuts on relegation regardless of contracts.

Combine that with a wage cap, no special allowances for relegated clubs would be a start to level it off outside the Premier League.

Parachute payment money should then be made available to all clubs outside the PL as grants for academy funding and infrastructure.

Money which is paid back as a percentage of the transfer fee. Remove all rules which allow Premier League clubs to cherry pick talent using set peanut fees.

PL then needs a wage cap, one that is set and introduced in 5 years. £100m which is still obscene, but allow clubs in Europe to pay players bonuses for each game they play.

For example, Pogba on 80k pw, but could earn 50k for each Champions League game played.

Off the top of my head and tbh I think wage caps would be blown apart by the loopholes. I think we would see club boot deals, where Adidas will supply and pay the entire team to wear their boots.

The kit manufacturing money would be cut drastically to fund that. The super agents would be pushing these ideas through to ensure they still get their slice. 

[BaaLocks]

We live in a capitalist world, football clubs are (largely) funded either directly from the stock market or by owners who get their funding from there. The genie came out of the bottle many years ago and it isn't going back while there is money (or fame) to be made in the game.

FC United as the alternative? Have you been to watch them? They aren't any different to any other club - just a load of Utd fans who prefer watching football up close and personal. But besides that, they aspire like any other club (when they're not signing about 1968 and other Utd topics). It inherently impossible to support a football team and not want them to succeed, and to want them to succeed more and more. Staying still is going backwards and that isn't acceptable for all but the very few owners and the absolute majority of fans.

The solution? Football cannot really be a life long love affair - it has to be a series of one night stands. Watch a single game, follow a season if you want, but the second you start buying into three year plans and why you're club is being treated unfairly then you're on a path of no ultimate destination.

[GboroRam]

19 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

We live in a capitalist world, football clubs are (largely) funded either directly from the stock market or by owners who get their funding from there. The genie came out of the bottle many years ago and it isn't going back while there is money (or fame) to be made in the game.

FC United as the alternative? Have you been to watch them? They aren't any different to any other club - just a load of Utd fans who prefer watching football up close and personal. But besides that, they aspire like any other club (when they're not signing about 1968 and other Utd topics). It inherently impossible to support a football team and not want them to succeed, and to want them to succeed more and more. Staying still is going backwards and that isn't acceptable for all but the very few owners and the absolute majority of fans.

The solution? Football cannot really be a life long love affair - it has to be a series of one night stands. Watch a single game, follow a season if you want, but the second you start buying into three year plans and why you're club is being treated unfairly then you're on a path of no ultimate destination.

I'm not against success. I'm all for it. I'm against bought success, that puts success ahead of the football. 

I always thought, I want to watch the team playing flowing, attacking football because I think that's the style that will most likely entertain and result in success at the same time. Boring route 1 stuff doesn't interest me, successful or not. I want entertainment and I want to not be watching a game that's rigged in favour of the rich teams.

Of course I've not watched FC United but the model interests me. Their fans enjoy match day far more than I think we do, as they've done away with the constraints that we have that it has to be about money. When you drop out of the rat race of chasing success at any cost, you can actually enjoy the game.

[SamUltraRam]

Just to put things into perspective, last season Leeds won automatic promotion without parachute payments and the season before Sheffield United did it.

I agree that promotion is often the relegated clubs to lose but sometimes when they stick with their old manager, or sack their manager and make a bad appointment , it gives other clubs a chance

[LeedsCityRam]

8 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

Just to put things into perspective, last season Leeds won automatic promotion without parachute payments and the season before Sheffield United did it.

I agree that promotion is often the relegated clubs to lose but sometimes when they stick with their old manager, or sack their manager and make a bad appointment , it gives other clubs a chance

100% this.

The sentiment of the OP is totally right but its like complaining about the weather - its totally futile as we have to operate within the system that we find ourselves in. It ain't changing. What is obvious is that in a division artificially skewed by parachute payments, fighting them on a financial basis (particularly with a FFP handicap) is lunacy.

Leeds, Sheff Utd & Norwich (previous time) got up without parachute payments & without exceeding FFP limits - the thing that linked all 3 was a) a well established & consistent pattern of play, b) recruitment totally geared to that style & c) managers with a vision who were backed by their respective owners. All 3 clubs had serious wobbles on their way up but stuck with the project & are now reaping the financial rewards.

Its obviously tough but this isn't a closed shop - we just need to be much much smarter & more strategic in the way we go about our business. We need an edge.

[Day]

Would love to see a list of where clubs in receipt of parachute payments finished in the table over the years.

Stoke a classic example of getting it badly wrong, Villa were also on the brink before beating us at Wembley. 

Sunderland, did they spend much? Seem to recall they didn’t and the money was covering some horrendous mistakes whilst in the PL. Went down with a squad that wasn’t interested.

[AndyinLiverpool]

This is allowed to continue for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, fans have been suckered into the 'attracting the best players' guff that the Premier league spout. The 'best players' are employed for the global market, not the local fans. Fans are there as scenery and chorus.

Secondly, there's the American dream crap of 'one day it could be is'. I'm now convinced that Leicester's league win was engineered to demonstrate this.

[BramcoteRam84]

Don’t know if anyone saw Matt Slater’s article on this in the athletic over the weekend but I found it really insightful. A couple of key points. Firstly 5 out of the top 8 this season received parachute payments. Secondly an academic study showed teams 2x more likely to get promoted with parachute payments and far less likely to be relegated. Also, while the purpose of parachute payments was to prevent teams from going bust due to sudden loss of premier league riches, the chief exec now admits their purpose now is to encourage those clubs to invest more in the premier league to boost the product, knowing they will have a safety net to go again if they get relegated. Matt Slater said they’re effectively rocket boosters for relegated clubs.

You will always get anomalies but the trend is more and more of the top half of the championship is teams who have recently been in the premier league. And as the money in the premier league grows the payments are getting bigger which means only more disparity.

Football celebs patting themselves and fans on the back for saving football in this country from the evil super league, honouring the pyramid which produces great stories like Leicester are deluded. Leicester got success because they had a billionaire owner and got promoted at the right time - yes outstanding recruitment and strategy has meant they’ve made the most of it but they will be a top flight club now potentially for the next 30+ years. They’re set. Bournemouth are set as a bottom half prem/top half champ club, as are Fulham, Burnley, Baggies. 

Meanwhile the likes of Derby, Coventry (who spent best part of 30 consecutive seasons in the top flight) Ipswich Forest Sunderland Sheff Wed all big clubs are a million miles away from getting back in there. Another 3-5 years of parachute payments I think the chance for those clubs to get back there will be gone. No one is saying these clubs have a divine right but they deserve as much of a chance as all the current bottom half of the premier league plus Leicester and the Hammers. Non parachute funded teams are now relying on luck and mismanagement of teams above just to have a slight chance of promotion. My prediction for next season is Bournemouth plus two of the relegated clubs will win promotion. 
 

Yeah we saved the football pyramid from the ESL!! High Five everyone. But we already have a super league, it’s called the game premier league and it will become permanently fixed between 23 clubs in the next 5 years unless something is done.