sir albion
New member
Maybe if we had decent scouts that could find young talented players it wouldn't be such an issue
We'll simply have to buy Bloom out, and bankrupt ourselves, ourselves.
I pledge £10.
I also don't understand why the club voted to increase the loss "for the greater good". What "greater good"??
M
The club were prepared to agree to an (unspecified) increase on its own merits due to the parachute payments having increased so much since the original allowable losses were agreed. It was only the element of the £13m allowable loss above the club's preferred level that was for the greater good. This latter element was agreed to in the interests of getting an agreement. The fact that an agreement was reached is the greater good.
Just need another £199,999,990 ? Anyone else ?
But doesn't that negate everything the club has previously been saying? Parachute payments are a big part of the overall problem......
I've received email from PB on the greater good point. It was sent to me before your post, so wasn't made in response to your concerns. Rather, it was anticipating them.
"It's worth noting that this isn't in any way a "one way" deal designed to further ease a relegated PL club's transition to the Championship.
Subject to final ratification by the Premier League:
- football league clubs, including Championship clubs, will see annual solidarity payments (currently a "gift" from the Premier League) increase in value, become guaranteed and contractual and, significantly, index linked to future PL TV deals
- parachute payment terms for relegated PL clubs will be reduced from 4 years to 3 years (for clubs spending 2 or more consecutive seasons in the PL) and to just 2 years (for those spending just 1 season in the PL)
This package of measures has been very skilfully negotiated by The FL to:
- ensure greater financial stability for all 72 FL clubs (solidarity payments are worth a lot to us but they are worth even more to smaller league 1 and league 2 clubs)
- create an even more competitive championship (in time, the maximum number of clubs with parachute payments at any one time/season will reduce to 7 - from 10/11)
- deliver an FFP framework that, for the first time, is bought in to by Championship clubs AND PL clubs so that future arguments should, in theory, be irrelevant and avoided
When you consider this wider package of changes that, I stress, remain subject to final agreement with the PL, hopefully you can see why we talk about considering the "greater good" in our decision to vote in favour of change.
I hope this helps provide more important perspective."
I'm staggered that an acceptable loss of £13 Million is even being discussed in the second tier of English football. Unbelievable really.
How can the likes of Tony Bloom, a very wealthy man, keep a club like ours competitive without outside investment?
Surely "uninterested" rather than "disinterested" in the original post?
What difference does it make to us? Either the relegated team takes a pay cut and parachute payments aren't needed, or the relegated team keeps it's PL sized wages, which are covered by parachute payments. It's still the same set of players; they're no better or worse.I am told that Burnley have a clause in their players agreement that wages go back to the previous level if relegated. Why cant the Premier League and Football League insist on that clause in all contracts then there would be no need for parachute payments at all.
Maybe if we had decent scouts that could find young talented players it wouldn't be such an issue
What difference does it make to us? Either the relegated team takes a pay cut and parachute payments aren't needed, or the relegated team keeps it's PL sized wages, which are covered by parachute payments. It's still the same set of players; they're no better or worse.
Besides, how many of us would whine about the unfairness of parachute payments if we got promoted and needed that safety net to be able to recruit some new players?
I think this justifies its own thread, as well as being in the other one:
I've just spoken to PB, who said the following:
1) the club voted in favour of the change. The principle reason why the club did is because since the original acceptable losses under FFP were agreed, the parachute payments for clubs being relegated from the PL have increased by c50%, thus dramatically penalising clubs without parachute payments. The club would have preferred the increase in acceptable losses not to have been as high as it turned out to be, but decided to vote in favour "for the greater good".
2) the acceptable loss next season will now be £13m, not the £5m it was previously agreed to be. He described the additional acceptable loss of £8m as "massive", which of course it is.
3) he declined to answer my question concerning whether TB would be prepared to fund a loss of as high as £13m next season (citing commercial sensitivity and the fact that the Board will need to discuss the outcome of today's meeting first - which is entirely reasonable. I was a bit cheeky asking, tbh) but stressed the following:
a) By agreeing to an increased acceptable loss, TB has the opportunity to fund losses of up to £13m next season if he is prepared to go that high.
b) the club's ambition remains to be promoted to the PL and the club's policy will continue to be to have a squad that is competitive.
c) the club took the decision to vote in favour, taking due cognisance of the possibility that, after promotion, we may, "God forbid" be relegated at some point thereafter.
4) rumours of TB becoming disinterested in the club or of intending to sell are "nonsense".
5) as previously stated, he expects the club to have met the FFP limit of £8m loss last season. Further, the club is "on track" to meet the maximum loss of £6m this season.
He reiterated his prior statements that he wishes to be as open with fans (yes, that was the word he used) as possible, hence agreeing to answer my questions.
He knows I'm making this post.