This is what we’re up against

[Comrade 86]

12 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Oh and another thing....how did the teams getting the parachute payments get into the Premier League in the first place without said parachute payments? They didn't magic themselves there so again just undermines the point you're attempting to make.

Ok so imagine the guy is Bournemouth, QPR, Leicester, Villa or a host of others and you're the parrot...

[Anag Ram]

3 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Ok so imagine the guy is Bournemouth, QPR, Leicester, Villa or a host of others and you're the parrot...

Is that Mel and Erik Alonso? 

[Gone]

13 hours ago, Highgate said:

We've helped break football by paying so much for our Sky Sports subscriptions, thereby flooding the premier league with unprecedented amounts of cash.  It's no wonder relegated premier league clubs arrive in the championship awash with money....we've given it to them, via Sky. 

The harsh reality is, fans of championship clubs who buy Sky Sports subscriptions are actually making it more difficult for their own team to get promoted. 

We’ve also created a full fan base who will only follow a team on the telly, this is a huge part of the problem now imo. We sold our game out and we’ll never get it back. 

[Jayram]

12 hours ago, ram1964 said:

Don't think anyone  would be giving a toss about this if we were in the premiere leauge, but we're are not through poor management ,qestional coaching,and poor recruitment all of our own doing or not doing to be more precise.

It's never been a level playing field and never will be, and I am sure it's getting more bias towards top flight clubs. However if it was just about pumping money In to  a club to become successful Mel has surely disproved that theory.

Let’s be honest none of us would give a toss about parachute payments/FFP if we were comfortably bobbing along in the Prem so it’s hypocritical of us to whine about it. As for making football finances fairer I seem to recall that Morris (and a few others) wanted to effectively duplicate the Premier League model for clubs in the Championship when the last EFL TV deal was made with Sky, and have more of the EFL money redistributed to the detriment of L1 & 2 clubs. Football is a sport full of self interest, the turkeys are never going to vote for Christmas so we are stuck with it as it is.

[Leeds Ram]

The money can often be slightly deceptive I think. Martin Bain the former chief exec at Sunderland discussed the financial problems of coming down and the difficulty of offloading players on big contracts that then completely tie your hands for the next season or two. Sunderland were a particularly serious case but it's not uncommon I imagine for teams to have bloated big money squads of players that don't fit, don't like this division but can't shift.  Many teams who come down need big re-arrangements so the disparity is often not as ridiculous as it looks strictly on paper. After-all how often do the 3 who come down go straight back up? 

Having said that at some point a cap is going to have to be considered before it all blows up in our faces, that or the money will naturally start winding down to more sensible levels in a post covid era. In this sense the pandemic and new financial vulnerabilities of many clubs should allow us to re-think the model and scale back the fees and obscene wages.

I think at this level the argument that it screws competition is pretty spurious tbh as so many different teams have been up and down in the last 15 years alone. Numerous teams at this level, even small teams have shown if you're run sensibly with a decent manager and a consistent long term philosophy then success is perfectly possible. The problem for us is that we haven't quite had this combination and atm we've been run into the ground and are being managed by a bloated amateur. 

[GeneralRam]

We've had our chances to go up over the past decade and a bit and we blew both of them. Should look at why we failed rather than cry about money in the game.

Edited May 27, 2021 by GeneralRam

[1967RAMS]

On 24/05/2021 at 09:57, 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.

With the amount of money we have spunked up the wall over the last 7 years or so. It’s the height of hypocrisy to have a pop at others for having money and the ability to spend it. We had our chance and our incompetence blew it. Glass houses springs to mind 

[1967RAMS]

On 24/05/2021 at 10:48, Jourdan said:

Look at some of the title wins across Europe. Lille, Sporting, Atletico. How did this happen if there are irretrievable levels of financial inequality in the game?

Look at some of the performances in the Premier League. How did Leicester and West Ham finish 5th and 6th ahead of the likes of Spurs and Arsenal?

Look at the Championship. Luton, Barnsley and Wycombe had fantastic seasons despite this inequality.

Football will always be like that. The haves, the have nots. That’s what makes the sport so incredible - seeing teams beat the odds.

I’d say the same if I supported any other club. We have nothing to complain about. This system has been in place for decades. We have just never played it well.

I’d totally share your point if we were a model club, had always lived within our means, and had still fallen short.

But we had a spell of four top six finishes in six seasons and pushed the club to the limit financially after having a spell of being amongst the biggest spenders in the league. We missed our opportunity. No point crying about financial inequality now. We weren’t in 2015.

Brilliant post, it’s incredible how people would rather find excuses than examine our own inadequacies.

[angieram]

Just now, 1967RAMS said:

With the amount of money we have spunked up the wall over the last 7 years or so. It’s the height of hypocrisy to have a pop at others for having money and the ability to spend it. We had our chance and our incompetence blew it. Glass houses springs to mind 

I disagree. There are very fine margins in football and I think we have spent what we felt we needed to at the time to stay competitive. Precisely because we knew we were competing with teams with parachute payments and PL income that have increased every season - and by quite big margins.

Our spending, whilst more than many smaller clubs, is still less than those teams, several of whom gambled even more than us and got away with it because they got promoted.

I feel that our biggest mistake has been to tie players we signed in the Clement season into some fairly hefty contracts. But we are where we are and we're having to deal with it.

A few people on here say they would have been happy if we hadn't done any of that but I think they are in the minority and I think we would be getting just as many complaints about the club as we have done the last couple if seasons if the club hadn't shown ambition.

Even the EFL itself, who are hardly our biggest fans, think the system is broken and have publicly said so. So, I don't think it's hypocrisy to call the situation out.

 

[1967RAMS]

46 minutes ago, angieram said:

I disagree. There are very fine margins in football and I think we have spent what we felt we needed to at the time to stay competitive. Precisely because we knew we were competing with teams with parachute payments and PL income that have increased every season - and by quite big margins.

Our spending, whilst more than many smaller clubs, is still less than those teams, several of whom gambled even more than us and got away with it because they got promoted.

I feel that our biggest mistake has been to tie players we signed in the Clement season into some fairly hefty contracts. But we are where we are and we're having to deal with it.

A few people on here say they would have been happy if we hadn't done any of that but I think they are in the minority and I think we would be getting just as many complaints about the club as we have done the last couple if seasons if the club hadn't shown ambition.

Even the EFL itself, who are hardly our biggest fans, think the system is broken and have publicly said so. So, I don't think it's hypocrisy to call the situation out.

 

I never once complained about the money we spent, I didn’t even complain about the excessive transfer fees and contracts handed out under the Clement era. I stupidly felt it would come good eventually. It’s not what we spent but how we spent it that has caused the more we are drowning in now 

[strawhillram]

22 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

The money can often be slightly deceptive I think. Martin Bain the former chief exec at Sunderland discussed the financial problems of coming down and the difficulty of offloading players on big contracts that then completely tie your hands for the next season or two. Sunderland were a particularly serious case but it's not uncommon I imagine for teams to have bloated big money squads of players that don't fit, don't like this division but can't shift.  Many teams who come down need big re-arrangements so the disparity is often not as ridiculous as it looks strictly on paper. After-all how often do the 3 who come down go straight back up? 

Having said that at some point a cap is going to have to be considered before it all blows up in our faces, that or the money will naturally start winding down to more sensible levels in a post covid era. In this sense the pandemic and new financial vulnerabilities of many clubs should allow us to re-think the model and scale back the fees and obscene wages.

I think at this level the argument that it screws competition is pretty spurious tbh as so many different teams have been up and down in the last 15 years alone. Numerous teams at this level, even small teams have shown if you're run sensibly with a decent manager and a consistent long term philosophy then success is perfectly possible. The problem for us is that we haven't quite had this combination and atm we've been run into the ground and are being managed by a bloated amateur. 

I love the bloated amateur bit the best

[GenBr]

23 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

The money can often be slightly deceptive I think. Martin Bain the former chief exec at Sunderland discussed the financial problems of coming down and the difficulty of offloading players on big contracts that then completely tie your hands for the next season or two. Sunderland were a particularly serious case but it's not uncommon I imagine for teams to have bloated big money squads of players that don't fit, don't like this division but can't shift.  Many teams who come down need big re-arrangements so the disparity is often not as ridiculous as it looks strictly on paper. After-all how often do the 3 who come down go straight back up? 

Every Prem team outside of the top 6 should have relegation clauses in their players contracts and if they don't they deserve everything they get if they can't then pay for those players when they are in the lower leagues. Most of the top 6 this year have multiple players on tens of thousands of pounds per week that are leagues above anything most of the teams in this league can field.. The likes of Stoke and Sunderland have been run badly in recent years, but its hard to argue that parachute payments don't confer a massive advantage - these clubs also get to lose more money each season for a limited time as well and the advantage they gain is clear to see if they have even a semi competent owner. 

Derby stupidly tried to compete with the parachute teams from a spending perspective and did a particularly poor job of it as well. Its possible to get promoted without parachute payments of course, but you usually either need to find a way around the rules or do a Brentford or do a Leeds.

[Rammy03]

14 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Derby stupidly tried to compete with the parachute teams from a spending perspective and did a particularly poor job of it as well. Its possible to get promoted without parachute payments of course, but you usually either need to find a way around the rules or do a Brentford or do a Leeds.

Still yet to be promoted

[May Contain Nuts]

Do a Leeds?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theathletic.com/news/leeds-united-accounts-loss/CoKlT1ZDPvJu%3famp=1

"Leeds lost £62m during 2019-20 season as they won promotion to Premier League

Leeds posted an overall loss of £62 million during the campaign, with total administration costs for the club running to a huge £108 million.

The wage bill was £78 million, while they handed out £20 million in promotion bonuses

Leeds also took out £43 million in loan funding after the end of the accounting period"

 

Even accounting for covid losses it's hardly a shining example of tight purse strings and financial restraint. If they had spent the same one season earlier and failed to get promoted they'd be ducked too wouldn't they? Another example of people slightly hypocritically praising the successful bending of rules whilst damning their own club because they failed to get promoted and another team did?

 

(Genuine questions because I've had a few beers and I've not done anything in the way of proper anlaysis)

Edited May 27, 2021 by Coconut

[Spanish]

On 09/04/2021 at 09:34, Spanish said:

Quoted from Swiss Ramble

"By my calculations, #LUFC just about within the FFP £39m loss over the 3-year monitoring period, as they can deduct the £20m promotion bonus, £13m allowable expenses for academy, community & infrastructure and £16m COVID impact (13th month additional expenses £9m, TV rebate £7m)."

 

3 minutes ago, Coconut said:

Do a Leeds?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theathletic.com/news/leeds-united-accounts-loss/CoKlT1ZDPvJu%3famp=1

"Leeds lost £62m during 2019-20 season as they won promotion to Premier League

Leeds posted an overall loss of £62 million during the campaign, with total administration costs for the club running to a huge £108 million.

The wage bill was £78 million, while they handed out £20 million in promotion bonuses

Leeds also took out £43 million in loan funding after the end of the accounting period"

 

Even accounting for covid losses it's hardly a shining example of tight purse strings and financial restraint. If they had spent the same one season earlier and failed to get promoted they'd be ducked too wouldn't they? Another example of people slightly hypocritically praising the successful bending of rules whilst damning their own club because they failed to get promoted and another team did?

 

(Genuine questions because I've had a few beers and I've not done anything in the way of proper anlaysis)

Coconut I posted this at the beginning of April 

[uttoxram75]

4 minutes ago, Coconut said:

Do a Leeds?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theathletic.com/news/leeds-united-accounts-loss/CoKlT1ZDPvJu%3famp=1

"Leeds lost £62m during 2019-20 season as they won promotion to Premier League

Leeds posted an overall loss of £62 million during the campaign, with total administration costs for the club running to a huge £108 million.

The wage bill was £78 million, while they handed out £20 million in promotion bonuses

Leeds also took out £43 million in loan funding after the end of the accounting period"

 

Even accounting for covid losses it's hardly a shining example of tight purse strings and financial restraint. If they had spent the same one season earlier and failed to get promoted they'd be ducked too wouldn't they? Another example of people slightly hypocritically praising the successful bending of rules whilst damning their own club because they failed not get promoted?

 

(Genuine questions because I've had a few beers and I've not done anything in the way if proper anlaysis)

We've done nowt different than most of these clubs, Bournemouth, Watford, QPR, Leeds, Villa etc, etc, we just never quite got promoted, fine lines.

[May Contain Nuts]

10 minutes ago, Spanish said:

 

Coconut I posted this at the beginning of April 

Cheers Spanish

So, yeah, sailing very close to the wind, tying a hell of a lot into promotion bonuses after doing as much as possible to guarantee promotion (similar to Wolves) and taking advantage of the relaxation of some rules owing to covid.

No outrage though, because they were promoted and Bielsa is a god.

If we'd done the same and failed I feel  we'd still be being castigated for it the same way we are for our own failures. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Coconut

[May Contain Nuts]

7 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

We've done nowt different than most of these clubs, Bournemouth, Watford, QPR, Leeds, Villa etc, etc, we just never quite got promoted, fine lines.

Exactly.

[Spanish]

8 hours ago, Coconut said:

Cheers Spanish

So, yeah, sailing very close to the wind, tying a hell of a lot into promotion bonuses after doing as much as possible to guarantee promotion (similar to Wolves) and taking advantage of the relaxation of some rules owing to covid.

No outrage though, because they were promoted and Bielsa is a god.

If we'd done the same and failed I feel  we'd still be being castigated for it the same way we are for our own failures. 

I think they built a solid team and decided that that year was the one to push for it.  Can’t argue with their decision making.  we saw how much they had moved forward and we had regressed when they were at PP. That separation has just continued.  If anything shows our decline it is the comparison between the 2 clubs

[angieram]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

I think they built a solid team and decided that that year was the one to push for it.  Can’t argue with their decision making.  we saw how much they had moved forward and we had regressed when they were at PP. That separation has just continued.  If anything shows our decline it is the comparison between the 2 clubs

You see, I think that's what Derby thought in 15 - 16. That's why we spent big but it didn't work out for us.

If Leeds hadn't got promoted last season, they'd be in big trouble now. Better players getting restless for a move, others losing value, more spending on that one elusive ingredient, doubt getting into players' heads, fans starting to get restless.

I think it's much harder to get out of the Championship than it is to play in the Prem.

Football is a cycle. Unless you have lots of money, exceptional quality and a bit of luck with where opponents are in their cycle, every club will go through these playing - and increasingly due to the rules, financial - peaks and troughs.