Parachute payments

[cheapseats]

Now we are up, whats the view on these?.

Still feel theres a big problem-looking at the list of promoted clubs over the last 5-10 years its nearly all yo-yo clubs and I think that the competition in the championship is distorted too much.

I wonder if a rule that said that parachute money can't be spent on new players after relegation i.e. they have to be funded from the working budget might work?

 

[MASE]

Parachute payments are a bit like that twat of a player you only like when he plays for you.

 

[Project Zeus]

I think they're a wonderful idea.

Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk

 

[Ashley]

Horrific, even though we are now beneficiaries of them.

 

[congo_red_49]

I don't like the concept of them one bit, as it literally encourages top flight teams to spend beyond their means, as they have a nice little safety net if they do get relegated.

There would also be no need for them if things like TV money were more equally distributed between all league clubs.

However, as we've had to battle against teams who have benefitted from them across multiple seasons, it would only be fair if we now benefit in the same way, should we fail to stay up.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Phase them out. They're essentially a safety net should the likes of an Everton or Newcastle get relegated. Teams with big wage bills who would face bankruptcy without them.

They're designed as a fail-safe for the big clubs, even if the majority of beneficiaries are your Burnley's and Norwich's (and now, probably, your Nottingham Forest's).

 

[Strummer]

Scrap them, redistribution of distorted TV revenue more equitably, and make sure, no, demand, that all player-contracts are written with mandatory salary reductions for relegated clubs.

 

[Haych]

The best thing added to football, I hope they remain in place for at least 5 seasons.

 

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Should only apply to teams that are playing in next year's Premier League.

But they should then apply in perpetuity.

 

[Statto]

I still don't like them. But, unless they decide to revoke them (and why would they), they will be here to stay.

It's actually quite nice for us to be on the other side of it considering last time we went down they didn't exist, and even if they had, this wouldn't have stopped Platt spaffing millions up the wall on shit Italians.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

For context on fairness, since parachute payments came into effect 26 teams have benefitted. Granted, the size of payments has increased but that's 26 teams that have had the opportunity to use that money wisely and build a stable and sustainable infrastructure. Or, not.

 

[Cortez the Killer]

They should be trebled.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

 

[Collymore!]

Have I ever mentioned how much I love parachute payments?

I think they’re a great way to offset the cost of relegation in a sensible and stable way.

 

[Rzar]

Let's be honest chaps they should still be abolished.

They have ruined the competition in the Championship.

The only solution going forward is to remove promotion and relegation from the Premier League and make it a closed shop.

 

[Flaggers]

Phase them out. They're essentially a safety net should the likes of an Everton or Newcastle get relegated. Teams with big wage bills who would face bankruptcy without them.

They're designed as a fail-safe for the big clubs, even if the majority of beneficiaries are your Burnley's and Norwich's (and now, probably, your Nottingham Forest's).

In much the same way as VAR was brought in to give Liverpool a title and Man U access to champions league football

 

[Strummer]

Let's be honest chaps they should still be abolished.

They have ruined the competition in the Championship.

The only solution going forward is to remove promotion and relegation from the Premier League and make it a closed shop.

You had us in the first half, not gonna lie.

 

[Jah]

Clear to see what can happen without them. We are still playing catch up after 23 years in the wilderness without one

 

[Eddie Yates]

We won't need em

 

[Your Dad's Ashamed Of You]

Not bovvered. We're not going to need 'em.

 

[Yoghurt Slice]

I still don't like them. But, unless they decide to revoke them (and why would they), they will be here to stay.

It's actually quite nice for us to be on the other side of it considering last time we went down they didn't exist, and even if they had, this wouldn't have stopped Platt spaffing millions up the wall on shit Italians.

Christ, maybe we can finally erase the trauma of Platt from our memories

 

[Phooey]

In much the same way as VAR was brought in to give Liverpool a title and Man U access to champions league football

Brilliant!

 

[RRRREDUN]

Discussed this with my Notts County supporting friend. He gave me the figures for Norwich (yes those relegated people who seemed not to spend anything).

Well, they did spend (net £23 million}.

They have increased their wealth. Even finishing bottom, they will get £84,000,000, split into 3 lots of £28,000,000. Spread throughout the season.

Then there are the parachute payments. £43,000,000. Add this money to their savings (remember they only spent £23,000,000}.
These figures suggest that Norwich almost planned for relegation and will yo yo up and down until they accumulate enough money to really make a fist of the Premier League.

Not for me, but I can see the logic.
People dislike parachute payments because clubs like Norwich are milking the system; when relegated, they are financially massively better off than the rest of the Championship.
Like Fulham and Bournemouth.

 

[EmmersonForest4]

Now we are up, whats the view on these?.

Still feel theres a big problem-looking at the list of promoted clubs over the last 5-10 years its nearly all yo-yo clubs and I think that the competition in the championship is distorted too much.

I wonder if a rule that said that parachute money can't be spent on new players after relegation i.e. they have to be funded from the working budget might work?

I think parachute payments are shite and they do ruin football. Will I hand the parachute payments no I wouldnt because we have been fecked over by them so many times. So I am in favour of getting rid of them for everyone.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

I mentioned in my last post that 26 different teams have benefitted from PP since they were introduced. Of these, only four are now (relatively) established in the EPL; Wet Sham, Newcastle, Villa and Palace. Five have fallen to L1 and five seem to rotate between EPL and Championship on 1-3 year cycles. The rest are a mixed-bag of Championship mediocrity and crisis.

So, 26 teams have had the opportunity to use the boost of PP to kick-on and stabilise but most have failed, and miserably. There are lessons in there I'm sure.

Personally, I'm not anti-PP as I view it as one mechanism to disperse the concentrated wealth of the EPL and, at least, provide opportunities to grow that might not be there for some. I think the problem is more to do with how the initial income boost of season 1 in the EPL is used, and where PP is used as a banker for the gambles taken in that season. We only have to look down the A52 for the best recent example of this.

 

[Redemption]

I'll allow them.

/thread