Premier League Parachute Payments

[grummitts gloves]

Good thing or bad thing? On one hand you can argue that it will help stop clubs going bust who get relegated from the Premiership. On the other hand, you could say that it disadvantages other clubs in the Championship in going for promotion.

Look at West Brom, up and down like a bloody yoyo. Would Newcastle have done so well if they hadn't received the 'relegation money'? If a club signs players on stupid contracts that they can't afford to pay if they get relegated, then tough, live with it! We had to in 1983.

Now the Premier League wants to increase the amount of money paid to relegated clubs. Surely rewarding failure and bad financial management?

They should scrap it and if the Premiership has got money to throw away, then why not divide it equally amongst all the Football League clubs?

 

[BHAFC4EVER]

Arent they on about extending the amount of years relegated clubs get it for?

 

[darkcore1977]

Yes they want to extend the payments from 2 years to 4 years. For me thats really taking the piss clubs should give contracts to players where if you go down your salary goes down.Simples.

 

[The Modfather]

Do not understand, or agree with it.

Why is failure being rewarded?

If you get relegated then clubs should cut their cloth accordingly

 

[Napper]

Pompey are getting x 2 payments for 2 years at over 10 million a payment

That can't be right

 

[crodonilson]

To protect the clubs that fall out of the Premier League, this can only be a good thing.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

To protect the clubs that fall out of the Premier League, this can only be a good thing.

Possibly agree they need some protection as the average contract is 3 years and they do have to pay higher wages. However why 4 yrs?, this rewards teams for signing players they can not afford and does give the teams an unfair advantage over other championship teams.

 

[sten_super]

To protect the clubs that fall out of the Premier League, this can only be a good thing.

You are class.

I can see the need for some kind of parachute payment. However note that Newcastle managed to get rid of most of their rubbish players over one summer; why do clubs receive these money for two years (let alone the proposal to extend it!)? Give them one parachute payment to last the first 12 months (and therefore 3 transfer windows) and then they are on their own.

I suspect that the reason for this is to reduce competition in the Championship. Once they have the same 23 teams making up the Premiership (with 6 alternating) then they will be in a much stronger position when it comes to voting to get rid of relegation from the league and securing the gravy train for their exclusive use.

 

[wizo7]

On the flip-side...the parachute payment could be seen as a extra reward for getting to the premiership in the first place?

 

[beorhthelm]

i can see clubs going into the premiership with the intent of coming back down. why not? promotion, dont worry about improving the squd much, season of glamour ties then £50m income over the next 4 years. if you get up again the year after does the payment continue? nice little earner i reckon.

 

[1234andcounting]

How on earth did the top flight of professional football survive for over 100 years without parachute payments. This whole concept, even when set in the context of the tawdry financial illiteracy that is the Premier League, is totally sickening. It inverts the the whole concept of competitive sport; if you win you get prizes; if you lose you get nothing. Funny how arch-capitalists are in favour of creating a dependency culture.

 

[buller89]

As it stands, if the team gets promoted at the first try ala Newcastle, the payment is split between the rest of the clubs in the football league. The payment only continues while they are outside of the prem.

 

[sten_super]

As it stands, if the team gets promoted at the first try ala Newcastle, the payment is split between the rest of the clubs in the football league. The payment only continues while they are outside of the prem.

Not that we should make out that the Football League is much better. The distribution of Premiership monies (whether they are the standard annual payments or redistributed parachute payments) are weighted ridiculously heavily towards Championship clubs. I can't remember the exact distribution but it's something like 80% to Championship, 15% to League 1 and 5% to League 2 clubs.

 

[Gary Leeds]

Players can write into their contract that if a team is promoted they get a wage increase, clubs can have it written in that if they get relegated then there is a wage decrese or a termination of a contract. Simples, why do they need the extra money if they fail?

A club makes millions while in the Premiership yet lower league clubs go bust for debts a fraction of the payments made to the teams relegated. If the PL want to increase support within the fans outside of the elite they really should look at throwing some cash further down the ladder.

 

[Philcounty]

I think it is something like £12m a year for 2 years at present and they want to increase it to £16m for years 1 and 2 and £8m in years 3 and 4.

I think it is highly unfair and will just widen the gap between the Premiershite and the football league. Teams like Hull and Burnley could be among the last outsider teams to make it up there, from now on it will just be the same teams bouncing between the leagues.

 

[crodonilson]

If you look at the number of teams who have played in the EPL since its inception it's not the same clubs getting relegated and bouncing straight back. Usually only 1 if any go straight back up, this season with Newcastle and West Brown bouncing straight back is the first time I can remember two clubs going straight back up.

 

[Philcounty]

If you look at the number of teams who have played in the EPL since its inception it's not the same clubs getting relegated and bouncing straight back. Usually only 1 if any go straight back up, this season with Newcastle and West Brown bouncing straight back is the first time I can remember two clubs going straight back up.

The parachute payments have only been in place since 2007 have they not?

 

[crodonilson]

The parachute payments have only been in place since 2007 have they not?

They've been in place for a lot longer than that, at least a decade I would say, perhaps even from the very beginning.

 

[Gazwag]

Newcastle have done so well if they hadn't received the 'relegation money'?

BBC & Sky would have had them on very week instead of every other week to make up for it

 

[Perkino]

I think it is a stupid idea.

Teams should be fighting to stay in the premiership for the big money.

I'd like to see it scrapped and maybe we would see some of the poorer run clubs in freefall. there are probably too many professional football clubs in the UK anyway.

If we get promoted next season and Wolves get relegated from the Premiership not only will they have a squad of players who will have experience of playing against the likes of Terry and Rooney but they then get an additional £10million. We on the other hand have been playing Hartlepool and Brentford and get about £250,000 for winning the league.
We then start the 2011/2012 season in the same league, how are we going to challenge them for the title as well as the other teams who were previously premiership teams that have been receiving payments for a few years.

All it does is makes it harder for League 1 clubs to stay up in the Championship