End Parachute Money

[Macintosh]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Where are you getting your figures from? Norwich's wage bill in 18/19 (3rd season in Championship) was £54m. I'd be very surprised if it was as low as you're suggesting, 2 year later and after a season in the PL.

Varying sources, which all vary considerably, however, this one does a regression of wages throughout the seasons. How much any can be relied upon is anyone's guess!

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/norwich-city-fc/payroll/2019/

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, Macintosh said:

Varying sources, which all vary considerably, however, this one does a regression of wages throughout the seasons. How much any can be relied upon is anyone's guess!

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/norwich-city-fc/payroll/2019/

You shouldn't take those sites seriously...

[CornwallRam]

I wonder how people would feel about a completely level playing field?

Imagine if wages were paid directly by the league - could be a £10m 'subscription' from each club and TV money making up the rest. Each club get the same wage structure, eg, 5 players at £25k, 5 at £20k, 5 at £15k, 5 at £10k and 10 at £5k. Clubs choose which players are in which tier and are set at the start of each season and can be altered in January. No transfer fees, and fixed two year contracts. Clubs can transfer list players who are then available for a 'free transfer'.

OK, it would need a lot of details ironing out, but the point I'm making is how would we feel if things were completely even financially? If the size of the club made no difference - Barnsley, Derby and West Brom each had the same wage bill. It would certainly change things, but would we want it?

Even more drastic if applied to the Premier League - Watford have the same clout as Man City...which of course means it would never happen.

 

[Ram-Alf]

27 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I wonder how people would feel about a completely level playing field?

Imagine if wages were paid directly by the league - could be a £10m 'subscription' from each club and TV money making up the rest. Each club get the same wage structure, eg, 5 players at £25k, 5 at £20k, 5 at £15k, 5 at £10k and 10 at £5k. Clubs choose which players are in which tier and are set at the start of each season and can be altered in January. No transfer fees, and fixed two year contracts. Clubs can transfer list players who are then available for a 'free transfer'.

OK, it would need a lot of details ironing out, but the point I'm making is how would we feel if things were completely even financially? If the size of the club made no difference - Barnsley, Derby and West Brom each had the same wage bill. It would certainly change things, but would we want it?

Even more drastic if applied to the Premier League - Watford have the same clout as Man City...which of course means it would never happen.

 

 

[jono]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

I wonder how people would feel about a completely level playing field?

Imagine if wages were paid directly by the league - could be a £10m 'subscription' from each club and TV money making up the rest. Each club get the same wage structure, eg, 5 players at £25k, 5 at £20k, 5 at £15k, 5 at £10k and 10 at £5k. Clubs choose which players are in which tier and are set at the start of each season and can be altered in January. No transfer fees, and fixed two year contracts. Clubs can transfer list players who are then available for a 'free transfer'.

OK, it would need a lot of details ironing out, but the point I'm making is how would we feel if things were completely even financially? If the size of the club made no difference - Barnsley, Derby and West Brom each had the same wage bill. It would certainly change things, but would we want it?

Even more drastic if applied to the Premier League - Watford have the same clout as Man City...which of course means it would never happen.

 

Far better that there are mandatory relegation clauses in all PL wage contracts .. then the supposed need for parachute payments vanishes.
OR a temporary wage only subsidy paid by the EFL to relegated clubs from what were once parachute funds. What’s your wage bill now gents  ? what’s the current average champ wage bill. ? We’ll pay the difference for 3 years. 

[The Key Club King]

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. 

[Tombo]

10 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

I wonder how people would feel about a completely level playing field?

Imagine if wages were paid directly by the league - could be a £10m 'subscription' from each club and TV money making up the rest. Each club get the same wage structure, eg, 5 players at £25k, 5 at £20k, 5 at £15k, 5 at £10k and 10 at £5k. Clubs choose which players are in which tier and are set at the start of each season and can be altered in January. No transfer fees, and fixed two year contracts. Clubs can transfer list players who are then available for a 'free transfer'.

OK, it would need a lot of details ironing out, but the point I'm making is how would we feel if things were completely even financially? If the size of the club made no difference - Barnsley, Derby and West Brom each had the same wage bill. It would certainly change things, but would we want it?

Even more drastic if applied to the Premier League - Watford have the same clout as Man City...which of course means it would never happen.

 

The problem is that the Premier League would have to follow suit for this to work and they never would. No domestic top flight league will even up the playing field in their own backyard while there's Champions Leagues to be won. It puts the Premier League at a disadvantage compared to European Leagues where they are not so hampered.

The sort of change you refer to would have to be at UEFA, or even FIFA level, and would be the biggest change in football for probably about a century. Far far beyond the scope of anything the EFL have the ability to do.

[Ambitious]

Parachute payments are decided by the Premier League, I believe. Therefore, in order to get rid of them, you are asking those who directly benefit from them to change the rules to something that will not benefit them. It's not going to happen. 

The EFL have openly said that they don't like the parachute payment system, but I don't see it changing without a reform in the governance of football in the English game. It's becoming much more difficult to integrate the Premier League and the Championship, really there needs to be more adjustments made to align the two - again, difficult as you're asking one of the two parties to give up a lot for what real benefit? Increased competition and a threat to your investment.

Ultimately, I believe there will be a cut away and the Premier League will have two divisions of 12-14 teams each to ease the fixture congestion of top teams and still keep the promotion/relegation intrigue without the huge financial drop for those who do go down. I honestly believe the Premier League 2 was the blueprint to how they eventually want to run the Premier League. 

[TigerTedd]

On 13/11/2021 at 11:41, DCFC Kicks said:

But promoted clubs need to spend to compete in the PL. If they got relegated into the Championship in their first PL season and didn't have parachute payments they'd be stuck with a bunch of players on high wages and got out of business.

The source of the problem is the Premier Leagues never ending greed and 'profit above all else nature'. Football died in England in 1992.

The answer is so frustratingly simple, it makes me angry that it’s not been implemented yet.

The hit the nail on the head here. This is exactly why parachute payments were created in the first place. But they’re clearly not fit for purpose.

In order to fulfil the original brief, without the unintended consequence of giving relegated teams an unfair advantage, all that needs to be done is to ringfence the parachute payments to only be spent on paying off premier league contracts, and not on new purchases.

in fact, you could take it to the next level and just say that all premier league contracts must be paid off in full upon relegation, using the parachute payments. Premier league players then become free agents and can find their own club, or sign a new, reduced contract, within ffp, with their current club. But that solution is a bit more extreme and might encourage players on big contracts to welcome relegation. 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

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.  
 

[DCFC Kicks]

13 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

The answer is so frustratingly simple, it makes me angry that it’s not been implemented yet.

The hit the nail on the head here. This is exactly why parachute payments were created in the first place. But they’re clearly not fit for purpose.

In order to fulfil the original brief, without the unintended consequence of giving relegated teams an unfair advantage, all that needs to be done is to ringfence the parachute payments to only be spent on paying off premier league contracts, and not on new purchases.

in fact, you could take it to the next level and just say that all premier league contracts must be paid off in full upon relegation, using the parachute payments. Premier league players then become free agents and can find their own club, or sign a new, reduced contract, within ffp, with their current club. But that solution is a bit more extreme and might encourage players on big contracts to welcome relegation. 

Change will never happen though. It would require the Premier League to do something for the good of the game which goes completely against it's nature. If something doesn't benefit the Premier League financially they won't do it.

The problem with the PL is it combines the ability to make money with the natural competitiveness of sport. When those two things combine it creates something horrible.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, DCFC Kicks said:

Change will never happen though. It would require the Premier League to do something for the good of the game which goes completely against it's nature. If something doesn't benefit the Premier League financially they won't do it.

The problem with the PL is it combines the ability to make money with the natural competitiveness of sport. When those two things combine it creates something horrible.

Wow, what’s saddest about that is that you could be describing how most of the world works at the minute. We probably should be used to it by now. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by TigerTedd
I really shouldn’t jump straight from the COP26 thread to this one, it does no good for my normally positive demeanour.

[angieram]

This thread from Swiss Ramble is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand Championship finances and the contrast between Premier League and Championship.

 

[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! 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/nov/29/premier-league-and-efl-in-secret-talks-to-remove-parachute-payments

[Philmycock]

7 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/nov/29/premier-league-and-efl-in-secret-talks-to-remove-parachute-payments

Believe it when I see it, so much greed and selfishness in modern day football

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/nov/29/premier-league-and-efl-in-secret-talks-to-remove-parachute-payments

"with the vice-chairman of West Ham, Karren Brady, vocally defending the parachute payment system. Arguing that clubs would go bankrupt without the money, she wrote in the Sun that Tracey Crouch had “fallen into a do-gooder trap” by proposing reform. “Maybe Tracey and [EFL chair Rick] Parry confuse competition with fairness,” she wrote"

It's fair if the parachute payments are shared by other clubs, There is NO! competition when other clubs start off with a war chest of 10s of millions when relegated.

The smaller clubs in the Premier who fight against relegation most seasons will be against this proposal...imo

[Macintosh]

17 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

"with the vice-chairman of West Ham, Karren Brady, vocally defending the parachute payment system. Arguing that clubs would go bankrupt without the money, she wrote in the Sun that Tracey Crouch had “fallen into a do-gooder trap” by proposing reform. “Maybe Tracey and [EFL chair Rick] Parry confuse competition with fairness,” she wrote"

It's fair if the parachute payments are shared by other clubs, There is NO! competition when other clubs start off with a war chest of 10s of millions when relegated.

The smaller clubs in the Premier who fight against relegation most seasons will be against this proposal...imo

It makes sense if the relegated clubs get promoted the next season because it saves the PL two further parachute payments. It also makes sense to loan the better players to the relegated teams because it improves their chances. They certainly will be hopping mad if a team like Newcastle went down and they won't be happy Brentford are spoiling the party right now.

[Eatonram]

Surely every premier league player contract should include a 70% reduction upon relegation. Then you no longer need the parachute money. 

[ramsbottom]

2 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Surely every premier league player contract should include a 70% reduction upon relegation. Then you no longer need the parachute money. 

I can't imagine any footballer signing a contract if that was put in front of them ? Thing is, what alternatives are there??  The story says they need to come up with some, but don't mention any possibles...