Premier League comment on parachute payments.

[Tommy Crawshaw]

I've been having a look at Premier League relegation stats and parachute payments over recent years.

 

The excuse often used that relegated teams don't have an advantage with PP as not many come straight back up the following season is true but in the last 14 seasons out of the 42 relegated teams 11 have been promoted again the following season. So it's an average of nearly one every season.

What is obvious though is that many teams get promoted again after spending just a few seasons in the Championship.

 

Here are the teams that have had more than one promotion from the Championship over the last 15 seasons.

 

x3   Burnley, Hull, Norwich

x2   Birmingham, Cardiff, Newcastle, Q.P.R., Reading, Sheffield Utd, Sunderland, Watford, West Brom., West Ham.

 

Here is a list of the amounts some clubs have received in parachute payments just over the last 5 seasons.

 

£100M  Hull C.

£96.3M Cardiff, Fulham (plus both set to receive a further £50.4M over the next 2 seasons)

£92M   Sunderland

£90.6M  Q.P.R.

£90.4  Aston Villa

£77.5M  West Brom., Stoke C., Swansea C. (plus each get £15.5M next season if not promoted this season)

£76.5  Middlesbrough

£74.9M  Norwich C.

£42.6M  Huddersfield T.  (plus £34.9M next season)

£40.9M  Newcastle Utd

£26.8M  Wigan, Reading

 

What is clear that for a yo-yo team that gets relegated and promoted on a regular basis there is a lot of money to be made from parachute payments.

 

And next season 9 teams will be getting parachute payments (if West Brom. and Fulham don't get promoted) 

[MAL]

2 hours ago, Ian said:

Parachute payments were originally designed to fund the massive wages of relegated players until their contracts expired. The issue is that many relegated clubs sell these players anyway and then use these funds and the parachute payments to attract the best championship players.

 

For me the solution is to scrap parachute payments but the PL act as a safety net for any clubs who think they can’t afford to carry on paying wages......almost like a 21st club with no playing rights, just acting as a transfer broker.

 

So If Villa get relegated and realise that they’ve got a player on their books who is on £5 million a week, his contract can be transferred to the PL who then pay his wages until they find another club for him

 

That is open to a worse situation than now pal

 

All that would happen, is Villa & every other club for that matter, would just buy anybody they wanted.

 

Club - Hey Messi, come and sign for us.

 

Messi - You can't afford me.

 

Club - We will give you a million a week.

 

Messi - Let me think about it.

 

Club - And a 20 year contract.

 

Messi - Pass me the pen.

 

Club - Do you happen to know Ronaldo's number?

 

 

 

 

[steelcityowlsfan]

2 hours ago, Harrysgame said:

TBH, why should they. They have their brand which in normal times generates great wealth for them and it's member's. The PL was not set up for any altruistic purposes it is a commercial business run for the benefit of its share holders ie clubs.

It’s their brand that’s killing the lower leagues. Teams trying desperately to get into the elite league whilst battling teams with a £40 million head start. 
 

The riches of the PL have created a huge chasm now which without a reset or rethink, could see many clubs no longer exist in the near future. 
 

 

[Ian]

2 hours ago, MAL said:

 

That is open to a worse situation than now pal

 

All that would happen, is Villa & every other club for that matter, would just buy anybody they wanted.

 

Club - Hey Messi, come and sign for us.

 

Messi - You can't afford me.

 

Club - We will give you a million a week.

 

Messi - Let me think about it.

 

Club - And a 20 year contract.

 

Messi - Pass me the pen.

 

Club - Do you happen to know Ronaldo's number?

 

 

 

 

And when they stop up, which they would with those two, they go bankrupt.....plus the prem league have to sanction any transfers and contract which would be unlikely in your scenario 

[Guest The Claw]

On 6 May 2020 at 10:38, @owlstalk said:

 

Just to be picky but for clarification for the readers, this quote is from the Premier League and not Sky Sports

Thanks for that

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, The Claw said:

Thanks for that

There was a change to the title after I posted that

[Harrysgame]

9 hours ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

It’s their brand that’s killing the lower leagues. Teams trying desperately to get into the elite league whilst battling teams with a £40 million head start. 
 

The riches of the PL have created a huge chasm now which without a reset or rethink, could see many clubs no longer exist in the near future. 
 

 

Not saying it's right but their priority is their own wealth.

[Guest]

Anyone who can support a comment like that from the PL is beyond me, £39m quid a year doesn’t affect nowt ?
 

Unbelievable really that

[Tommy Crawshaw]

1 hour ago, Royal_D said:

Anyone who can support a comment like that from the PL is beyond me, £39m quid a year doesn’t affect nowt ?
 

Unbelievable really that

 

Exactly!

 

Look at the money Hull have had in parachute payments.

The season they beat us in the play offs they received £26M. Since their relegation the season after they have received another £76.5M.

 

in the last 5 seasons Fulham and Cardiff have each received £96M and next season they will get another £35M (unless promoted this season).

 

How can the Championship possibly be a level playing field with clubs getting those amounts of money as a leaving present for a brief stay in the PL.

[@owlstalk]

7 hours ago, Tommy Crawshaw said:

 

Exactly!

 

Look at the money Hull have had in parachute payments.

The season they beat us in the play offs they received £26M. Since their relegation the season after they have received another £76.5M.

 

in the last 5 seasons Fulham and Cardiff have each received £96M and next season they will get another £35M (unless promoted this season).

 

How can the Championship possibly be a level playing field with clubs getting those amounts of money as a leaving present for a brief stay in the PL.

 

 

If you take parachute payments away, and FFP away, you're left with the exact same situation though, as some clubs will simply have way more money than others.

It's a right mess

[horny owl]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

If you take parachute payments away, and FFP away, you're left with the exact same situation though, as some clubs will simply have way more money than others.

It's a right mess

But it would be fairer than parachute payments

 

If a club owner can prove he has money to spend let him spend it

 

There is no way that failure payments from the PL are fair 

[casbahowl]

Are Sky just being their mischievous, sensationalist selves here?

Is this “direct quote” attributed to any individual and if so who? .......... 

[Mid Wicket]

On 07/05/2020 at 09:08, Jakes Grandad said:

Just taking that statement on face value it is correct because not every 

Half a post??

Just taking the statement on face value it is correct as not every team bounces straight back, the problem is it distorts the wage bill of other clubs in the league as they have to compete or their better players move on...

 

[Blue and white]

The whole system is as bent as a butchers hook.

[Dick_Turpin]

On 06/05/2020 at 16:28, scram said:

I understand why people rail against the parachute payments and to say that the payments do not give clubs in the championship a competitive advantage is errant nonsense

 

However...

 

The payments were introduced in order to allow clubs to compete in the PL - by being able to speculate to sign players who otherwise would not have signed

 

The problem (as ever!) is the wages paid to players and the huge disparity between the clubs in the PL - and everybody else

 

It's not that the EFL clubs should get more money - because that just goes in the pockets of players and agents to perpetuate the cycle of misery

 

The real truth is that player wages in the PL are obscene and largely unsustainable

 

Unless/until that is addressed then the EFL clubs have little chance of being a top flight competitive club 

 

We may need to go back to basics and each club can only spend up to the limits of its income

And this is the problem - it’s a Premier League solution to a Premier League problem. They’re unlikely to change it to suit EFL members to the detriment of their own members. The EFL could kick against it but in a war with the PL I would imagine the winner is pretty obvious. 

[vulture_squadron]

If we had got them people wouldn't be complaining. They cover the extra wages you need to pay in the Prem. Not all players will accept a relegation wage reduction clause and you need to compete for good players when in the Prem.

 

We have seen they don't always advantage teams. Sunderland tanked, Hull tanked etc. Also teams have gone up without them and Brentford might have done this year.

 

The most important thing is trading well. If you're Prem signings are good you can sell them on if relegated.

 

 

[Bluesteel]

Just wait, we were one of the clubs to go down before decent parachute money was brought in. 
 

Now we will be one of the few punished for spending to keep up with parachute cash. Before they change it again 

[the third man]

6 minutes ago, vulture_squadron said:

If we had got them people wouldn't be complaining. They cover the extra wages you need to pay in the Prem. Not all players will accept a relegation wage reduction clause and you need to compete for good players when in the Prem.

 

We have seen they don't always advantage teams. Sunderland tanked, Hull tanked etc. Also teams have gone up without them and Brentford might have done this year.

 

The most important thing is trading well. If you're Prem signings are good you can sell them on if relegated.

 

 

Its that long since we didn't receive them, I don't think that effects anyone's opinion on this matter

 

if you take the risk of signing a player without a relegation clause, that's your problem, and if every player who was signed by a PL club had one, then it would be a level playing field

 

whether the teams use the advantage is up to them, just because they waste the money doesn't mean they didn't get an advantage from it

 

 

[Tommy Crawshaw]

2 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

If you take parachute payments away, and FFP away, you're left with the exact same situation though, as some clubs will simply have way more money than others.

It's a right mess

 

The trouble is we're in the situation now we're it's acceptable, even expected for championship clubs to lose £39M over 3 years. There's only a few champ clubs that have mega rich owners that can maintain such losses or even more if FFP was lifted.

I've long thought maybe the best way to go would be to follow the Bundesliga model with a Premier League 2. Bundesligas 1 & 2 are more evenly aligned. They have a TV deal that covers both divisions, with the money distributed more evenly between the 40 clubs. There is no need for parachute payments as relegation from the top division not such a financial disaster as here. 

[pazowl55]

17 minutes ago, Tommy Crawshaw said:

 

The trouble is we're in the situation now we're it's acceptable, even expected for championship clubs to lose £39M over 3 years. There's only a few champ clubs that have mega rich owners that can maintain such losses or even more if FFP was lifted.

I've long thought maybe the best way to go would be to follow the Bundesliga model with a Premier League 2. Bundesligas 1 & 2 are more evenly aligned. They have a TV deal that covers both divisions, with the money distributed more evenly between the 40 clubs. There is no need for parachute payments as relegation from the top division not such a financial disaster as here. 

They get more money then our championship clubs but the money isn't distributed between them evenly. Top teams get more of the share.