Are Parachute Payments fair?

[Doc Lynam]

Won't happen because it need all the clubs to work together and they won't.

Gazingdowns point in relation to parachute payments being dropped, if they were, the clubs would have to have safeguards in their contracts or face financial oblivion. The clubs that didn't do this and took a gamble would only have themselves to blame.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

1 year, 2 Million, job done.......... current state of affairs is laughably unfair!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Parachute payments were the bribe that was offered to the weaker First Division teams to get them to sign up to a new football universe where Arsenal, Spurs, Manchester United, Chelsea and a few others set the rules to suit themselves.

 

[El Presidente]

That would be the players prerogative, but if there were no parachute payments the majority of clubs that want to run on a sound business model would have to go for this option Shirley!?

IF the clubs want to run on a sound business model you are correct, but many don't.

Many very successful businessmen don't use their heads once they are involved with a football club, and we are very lucky that Tony Bloom does not run the Albion that way, as otherwise he would not have stuck £150 million into the club.

 

[El Presidente]

Parachute payments were the bribe that was offered to the weaker First Division teams to get them to sign up to a new football universe where Arsenal, Spurs, Manchester United, Chelsea and a few others set the rules to suit themselves.

Is the correct answer!

 

[ferring seagull]

Parachute Payments

I agree with 'Rugrat' that the setting up of the Premier League created a completely unfair situation.

However that is what we have got and I fully understand the problems of a club going down from the PL in terms of being able to continue to meet the wages of players on ridiculous wages. As the Premier League make the parachute payments, they should control payment thereof so that those funds can only be used for wages of players who remain contracted to those relegated clubs, and not directed into other things (like signing more overpaid lumps)

Did I read once that if a club was in receipt of parachute payments that if they were re-promoted, the balance of PP was distributed to Football League clubs. Can anyone confirm if this is true.

 

[The Sock of Poskett]

Frankly, if you want a parachute, you should have to pay for it. Go for quality rather than cheapness, is my advice.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Agree with everyone who has pointed out it is the only real reason to get a competitive premiership.

However, I'd also agree with the ideas that:

1. They can only be used to pay existing wages, not fund a completely new push to get promoted again.
2. The club should have to provide evidence that the wage bill is shrinking as each year goes by. I know they work on a sliding scale anyway, but a proviso of getting any payment should be that, after 1 year, you cut the expenditure by x% in line with the club turnover. Almost easing a side back to the finances of a Championship club.

 

[DavePage]

Like most things that seem unfair, that is until you actually need them yourselves.
Let’s hope that when we go up, will will not need them for many years.

 

[SurreySeagulls]

Parachute payments are a bribe. Without them the rich would be a fat and bloated as they are now. Christ sake Reading have just spunked £65k a week on the Russian with a silly name on a four year contract. So that is £3.1m on basic salary alone for the duration of the contract let alone any other bonuses you care to throw into the contract. So you suddenly purchase another 3 or 4 of these types of players then your wage bill just balloons. Football is utter madness on salaries.

 

[Surf's Up]

The money should be available to pay the wages of existing players only - not new transfers etc.

If they have to be paid I agree totalmente with this

 

[Doc Lynam]

BBC Sport - Blackburn Rovers sign Leon Best in £3m deal

What a joke!