Premier League comment on parachute payments.

[Tommy Crawshaw]

56 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

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

 

I didn't say every club gets the same, of course B1 clubs get more but it's more evenly distributed. Not like the disparity there is here with Premier League teams getting £100M + In TV money and championship clubs getting £2M.

[pazowl55]

42 minutes ago, Tommy Crawshaw said:

 

I didn't say every club gets the same, of course B1 clubs get more but it's more evenly distributed. Not like the disparity there is here with Premier League teams getting £100M + In TV money and championship clubs getting £2M.

I mean teams in the same division. From what I read it's like Leeds getting 25m and Luton getting 10m. But it is much much higher what they receive compared to us regardless.

[Nero]

On 06/05/2020 at 10:31, steelcityowlsfan said:

A quote from the Premier League on parachute payments. 
 

Sounds like Rick Parry will have a job on his hands convincing the powers that be to scrap parachute payments. 
 

 

 

If you look at the stats it is very complex, but possible to cobble together something that supports the PL point of view.

This is, as they know however, disingenuous. It ignores the lengths that clubs go to level the playing field : I.e. by losing money every year.

If Championship owners didnt shell out vast sums of money on losses, the PL sides would return virtually every year.

So parachute payments do definatively distort competition and cause massive losses for clubs who don't benefit.

[airborne_rat_of_s6]

On 06/05/2020 at 10:42, 0wl18 said:

Get rid of parachute payments, all players to have mandatory relegation wage drops of let’s say 50% with a release clause to allow them to leave.

This would be most excellent! Can you imagine the effort being put in to avoid relegation. The tears cried  by players on being relegated would be real for once! 

[DJMortimer]

4 hours 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.

 

 

 

This is all quite true, but largely completely irrelevant to the discussion. Parachute payments grossly distort the natural integrity of the competition at Championship level and promote the endless cycle of reckless spending trying to bridge that gap. Just because a few clubs make an arse of it or others overachieve does not change the overall situation.

 

Given the nature of football signings and finance how can it be fair that some clubs are working to a budget multiple times that allowed for their rivals that they haven't even generated for themselves?

[DJMortimer]

3 hours 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. 

 

There's plenty to learn from systems like this, the NFL and no doubt others in improving how football operates. However, that all assumes one fundamental thing - that there is an appetite for open competition with a relatively level playing field for all those involved. Sadly, I don't believe that to be the case. The near monopoly of a few select clubs and the overwhelming majority of media coverage towards them is no accident it seems to me.

 

Very quickly after the inception of the Premier League I became convinced that those behind it knew full well that it was largely for the benefit of a small number of interested parties. The comments of Martin Edwards, then chairman of Manchester United, about smaller clubs "bleeding the game dry" and needing to be "put to sleep" have stuck with me, especially considering the plights of near neighbours Bury, Macclesfield and Bolton. One only has to recall how the BBC became something like the marketing department for United in the early 1990s, even having their annual goal of the season competition devoted purely to them one season. The fact that the corporation's pension fund had a 10% stake in that club was a complete coincidence I'm sure. If I recall correctly, there was also a similar arrangement between at least part of the ITV network and Arsenal.

 

The reaction of the Premier League and much of it's membership during the current crisis has done nothing to persuade me that attitudes have changed much, despite the severe change in social conditions.