Parachute Payments



ChrisAshley said:
We managed to get relegated with them.
Click to expand...
About a 40% being promoted we really helped the numbers for a case to keep parachute payments
blade01 said:
Think I heard the other day that the PL have offered to double the money they give to the EFL but it's still well short of what the EFL wanted.

Find the "unfair competition" argument a big hypocritical because there's never been fair competition in the EFL.
Forest Green Rovers will never been able to pay out massive wages, so have virtually no chance of ever reaching the Championship, never mind the PL.
How come in league 1, Sheff Wed and Ipswich have much bigger player budgets than anyone else, so they have an unfair advantage over the other teams.
What are the EFL going to do about their own clubs?

The EFL introduced FFP, which (in general) has worked really well, these days very few clubs ever go into admin
Any clubs that try to cheat (by overspending) are generally punished with points deductions, but those clubs are still kept alive, so FFP generally works.
Quite bizarrely, the clubs that are caught cheating the system, use the excuse, the rewards are so high in the PL and the fact the PL relegated teams are able to keep most of their PL players, means it's more difficult to compete, so we feel we need to cheat in order to compete.

Now think about why the PL owners decided to vote in "parachute payments"?
It was to make the league a better spectacle, in every other country in the top leagues, there's a massive difference in standard between top and bottom.
So the PL have decided they'll encourage promoted teams to spend and dish out big contracts because if they are relegated, they can still afford most of them.
This has helped make the PL the most watches league in world football, every single team, even those near the bottom are decent, every match is tough.

None of the relegated clubs are getting into financial troubles and risk going bust because FFP is in place and they will face points deducts before it becomes more serious.

It reminds me of fans of Darlington and Hartlepool complaining to the league that they don't stand a chance of ever competing,
so neighbours Newcastle, Sunderland and Boro should be forced to hand over 5 million each season to support the smaller clubs in that area.
Sounds like madness but you can just imagine the media saying Darlington and Hartlepool need to survive and be able to buy better players, so the bigger clubs must now pay a support subsidy over to the them, how would Sunderland fans feel about that?
Click to expand...

I do not want to get political but this sounds like the government parties arguing there view points about redistribution of wealth
 
Last edited:
Get Into Em said:
Does it really create a gap though?

There's been plenty of teams in the last decade to have been relegated from The Premier League and have since languished in both the Championship and League One for a period of time. These include:
Sheffield United
Boro
West Brom
Sunderland
Norwich
Watford
Swansea
Hull
Stoke
Huddersfield
QPR
Cardiff
Reading
Wigan

14 teams that I can think of. If a 'gap' was real, then you'd find most of the teams above fighting for promotion from the Championship - which you don't.

I'm aware some may be wrong, but I'm also aware there's probably more teams that I've missed. Fulham and Villa had a long period in the Championship but are now in The Premier League, for example.
Click to expand...

I agree with parachute money also comes with demoralised players and players on huge money they can't shift.

It's not the massive advantage people make it out to be.
 
I think it creates a gap.....its unfair.....if clubs cant budget correctly and set up clauses in players contracts then its their own fault......Just look at Forest , theyve been totally irresponsible and gambled ( 30 players signed ÂŁ200 Million ). Why should they be bailed out next year if they go down
 
Hongkongphooey said:
Better for the Premiership clubs, if the same clubs who get relegated then get promoted the following season, more money for them in the long run.
Click to expand...

Aye, but you'll still have that season where you go up with money and then you go down with money again. Norwich not going up this season still leaves them sound financially. They look like they plan for it in a certain way because they never over spend in either league they're in, but always make sure they're never too far away from promotion or relegation ha!
 
columbo70 said:
I think it creates a gap.....its unfair.....if clubs cant budget correctly and set up clauses in players contracts then its their own fault......Just look at Forest , theyve been totally irresponsible and gambled ( 30 players signed ÂŁ200 Million ). Why should they be bailed out next year if they go down
Click to expand...
We've been one of the biggest beneficiaries of parachute payments over the years. Churlish for us to complain about others getting it.
 
DrewC said:
About a 40% being promoted we really helped the numbers for a case to keep parachute payments

I do not want to get political but this sounds like the government parties arguing there view points about redistribution of wealth
Click to expand...

Totally agree......parachute payments are an example of PL only protecting their own interests trying to make their league the best it can.
Where as the EFL have a different agenda, they aren't bothered about the PL and just want to make the EFL league the best it can.
Then you have the FA, a 3rd football body and guess what......they are also full of self interest.

I would have bee much better if the PL and EFL were ONE organisational but it's too late now.

I suppose parachute payments gives the smallest clubs (like Bournemouth) a chance to thrive in the Premier League.
Take parachute payments away and the dream has gone, also you'll find that almost every year the same 3 promoted teams will be instantly relegated in the 1st season
The reason is...the quality players won't agree to join a promoted club who is likely to be relegated if big relegation clauses are added to the contract.
So promoted clubs will receive the 120 million Sky money but struggle to offer big contracts, so they will struggle to attract talented players.

and you'll get some results where the top 6 clubs beat the promoted teams 8-0, which wouldn't be a good look for the PL.
 
Last edited:
blade01 said:
Totally agree......parachute payments are an example of PL only protecting their own interests trying to make their league the best it can.
Where as the EFL have a different agenda, they aren't bothered about the PL and just want to make the EFL league the best it can.
Then you have the FA, a 3rd football body and guess what......they are also full of self interest.

I would have bee much better if the PL and EFL were ONE organisational but it's too late now.

I suppose parachute payments gives the smallest clubs (like Bournemouth) a chance to thrive in the Premier League.
Take parachute payments away and the dream has gone, also you'll find that almost every year the same 3 promoted teams will be instantly relegated in the 1st season
The reason is...the quality players won't agree to join a promoted club who is likely to be relegated if big relegation clauses are added to the contract.
So promoted clubs will receive the 120 million Sky money but struggle to offer big contracts, so they will struggle to attract talented players.

and you'll get some results where the top 6 clubs beat the promoted teams 8-0, which wouldn't be a good look for the PL.
Click to expand...
I would argue that payouts in EPL should be more on a sliding scale plus the parachute plus a Salary Cap a bite like the NFL.
 
Get Into Em said:
Does it really create a gap though?

There's been plenty of teams in the last decade to have been relegated from The Premier League and have since languished in both the Championship and League One for a period of time. These include:
Sheffield United
Boro
West Brom
Sunderland
Norwich
Watford
Swansea
Hull
Stoke
Huddersfield
QPR
Cardiff
Reading
Wigan

14 teams that I can think of. If a 'gap' was real, then you'd find most of the teams above fighting for promotion from the Championship - which you don't.

I'm aware some may be wrong, but I'm also aware there's probably more teams that I've missed. Fulham and Villa had a long period in the Championship but are now in The Premier League, for example.
Click to expand...

The gap was a joke this season though.
 
columbo70 said:
I think it creates a gap.....its unfair.....if clubs cant budget correctly and set up clauses in players contracts then its their own fault......Just look at Forest , theyve been totally irresponsible and gambled ( 30 players signed ÂŁ200 Million ). Why should they be bailed out next year if they go down
Click to expand...
Fear for Forest, if they go down, it’s going to get very interesting watching them trying to off load players on 3-4 year (they might be stuck with them?) deals that will put the club in huge financial difficulty...if they don’t get promoted back at the first attempt? I can see administration and points deduction on the horizon.
Everton too will be practically bankrupt if they go down.
 
paws said:
I couldn't really understand why parachute payments were introduced, grossly unfair to clubs in the Championship who have worked very diligently without parachute payment help to get their clubs into promotion places and play off places, no doubt it's supposed to subsidise the big wages players were on in the Premiership.
Click to expand...
I think it was to allow clubs to pay premiership wages to their players and honour their contracts when relegated.
 
paws said:
Aye, I thought that would be it, but it should be in their contracts that if they go down their wages should as well, unlike what Poyet did with Rodwell, it nearly killed us.
Click to expand...
Some on here think that every player who gets relegated will agree to a cut in wages, they just have to look when we were relegated to see that is a load of bollocks. How much were we paying that arsehole, 40 grand a week, christ what a time that was to be alive.
 
Earlier in this thread I said we'd benefitted more than most through parachute payments. However after further research I've learned they only started in 2007, so we've only had one lot of payments.🤭
 
How did Nottingham Forest not fall foul of FFP as, according to their accounts filed, have lost money for the last 5 years at least?

I suspect that this years losses will also be huge as they have a nett spend of ÂŁ180M this season!
 

Back
Top