Night King Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 According to Rob Keith Hill has had a go against parachute payments. Does it give them an unfair advantage? Or just give them financial stability? Has to be questioned if it's right for teams to use to spend 8 million on 1 player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greeton Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Wouldn't be moaning if they were receiving them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcclesallOwl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Won't get a more sore loser in football than Keith Hill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codrowe Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 They will scrap em the season we go down after our season in prem i guarantee it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozzy85 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 i cant make my mind up on the matter to be honest, on the one hand its giving teams that come down loads of money to spend and go straight back up with (potentially), but this money is given to clubs like ourselves (whelan,brunt etc) and gives those clubs more money to spend on there promotion challenges. I think since the parachute payments started that the gap between the premier ship and championship has definately shorrtened so im nudging more towards the payments being a positive thing, I think!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wahey89 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I'm for parachute payments. It makes trying to survive the Premier League worth a go. You have to throw money at it in order to survive, there'd be no point us giving our all in the Championship and going up safe in the knowledge we'll come back down and probably down again. Bloody Keith Hill can rumble off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night King Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 I think they should be used to keep a club afloat and help pay staff not spunk on massive transfer fees and wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 He's talking sense IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichSheffWeds Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Its got out of hand though. What do they get £48m or something ridiculous. There has always been a football pyramid which made football the sport it was. That is now almost dead in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaykz Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Parachute payments were introduced to help relegated clubs continue to pay their high-earning players without going bankrupt. They weren't designed so that a relegated club could spend an absolute fortune on one of the best strikers in the division, improving their squad to the disadvantage of the rest. Blackburn haven't done anything wrong, but something about the system just isn't right imo. But the timing of Keith Hill's comments just make it sound like sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KivoOwl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 It's insane. There shouldn't be any whatsoever. They get enough while they're in the PL, never mind cushioning their blow. Blackburn will average about 13,000, yet their income will outsrtip ours 10 fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG D Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 He's a bit of a numpty but he's spot on with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puppydogben Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 He has a point. Anyone seen the possession stats? Barnsley had 61% away from home according to BBC so I'd be fooked off I was him too. Much prefer Hill to Kean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devon_owl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Unfortunately its a necessary evil, they are both needed to stop clubs going under and they do provide an unfair advantage. I personally think the FA should decide where the money goes as they pay it. Blackburn should be cutting their budget accordingly not breaking their transfer record with an average of 13,000. Just my own view but that's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUMBELOWS91 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Ridiculous situation now where clubs can afford to speculate for 2-3 seasons after relegation. As close to a closed shop as it can get. The Premier League are killing the game off outside the top 30-40 clubs. EPL2 within 5 years I reckon. After that it's goodbye Rotherham/Doncaster etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hayden lewis Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 where did it get blunts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevdi9 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 It should never have been bought in clubs survived without it before and would do again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birstall Owl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Would something similar to the pre-franchising Rugby League model work? If a club was relegated the Super League contract was void, what about if it is built into all Prem players contracts that if their club is relegated their contracts have to renegotiated? I'm I talking out of my arse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manor Owl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I can remember the first season of the Premier and Sky involvement. Sky television as a network took off on the back of football. At the start of the first season I remember some clubs spending silly money in expectation of what they would get at the nd of or during the season. I remember thinking" how can club x afford these transfers". It started there. I think parachute started the season after for the reason mentioned. Over the years a few clubs have reached the Premier almost by accident, Swindon, Barnsley Bradford Hull. Remember Derby under Billy Davies. They refused to spend money and were criticised. The fans always demand big signings. The manager always gets sacked in February or March by a chairman trying to preserve status, forgetting that this was the manager that got promotion in the first place. I imagine that some parachute payments are effectively spent before relegation in panic buys in January. Of course the other issue is that players have escape clauses in contracts in case of relegation. The need for parachute is therefore diminished. What Blackburn did was against the spirit of parachute but Bolton had many players whose contracts were due to expire. Not many left so they must have used theirs to fund these new contracts. Wolves bought a few players but nothing as blatant as Jordan Rhodes. They all get money next year, presumably if they do not get promotion. You have to query what exactly that is funding. Additionally Premier salaries, parachute, reduced gates, how does that fit with Financial Fair Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G Wisbech Owl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Rewards failure, gives the likes of Blackburn an unfair advantage, if they don't get promoted this season they will be in real trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now