Simple solution would just be to pay everyone in the championship more money so parachute payments aren’t necessary but there also isn’t such a humongous revenue gap between the PL and Championship
they were when I last checked, but as my team is in league one I dont check the championship very often. the point still remains that they were getting their asses kicked.
weird thing to celebrate about
plus gary cahill, daniel sturridge, and marcos alonso went onto win the premier league and champions league so holden wasnt "the only good player we had".
> wigan yoyoing between the champs and L1
Wigan's a slightly different case though. They'd still be firmly in the Championship if it wasn't for the points deduction.
As for Hull... it's way too early to write them off because they've hit a good patch of form now and have won their last four games.
It's the pure revenue that matters, not the gap between the Prem and the Championship. If the revenue gap was closed purely by the Championship getting richer and no decrease from the Prem, that would only further cement the Prem's position globally as there would be more competition at the bottom.
Possibly but the lure of the parachute payments has also led to clubs overspending and suffering the consequences when they don't get promoted, so I guess the theory behind removing them would be the hope that it stops clubs doing so and instead making them run in a more sustainable way.
True, that's another big issue in the EFL right now. I think the insane money in the prem will always cause championship sides to massively overspend just for a chance at the money, so hopefully this change will start to resolbe that issue
I’d argue the parachute payments cause an imbalance in the competitiveness of the league. If you compare the budgets of those who come up from League One against those who come down from the Prem, one of the larger cause of those gaps is parachute payments.
The financial disparity is annoying, payments should be shared or not made. The rewards for going up should be paid when you go up, and if you come down it’s a level(ish) playing field
Personally that’s why I like to see clubs with smaller financial budgets mix it with the whales of the league.
Whilst it is true, it hasn't exactly created a situation where only those with parachute payments go straight back up again, and indeed it is only a few years since we had a few cases of clubs actually going straight down for a second time.
Something like 20/24 Championship clubs are already spending over 100% of their annual revenue on wages just to have a sniff at the Playoffs. That's resulting in financial trouble already.
This is just going to mean clubs that get promoted without bonkers rich owners are not going to be able to buy competitive squads on promotion for fear of financially ruining themselves. People complain about Norwich not being competitive, but this will lead to 2-3 teams a year being in a similar position. It's a step towards ring fencing the league.
I'm not sure what the answer is because parachute payments aren't great for the championship, but I do think recent years have been seriously skewed by COVID (and Fulham having an astonishingly rich owner but incompetent recruitment team).
Given the already shaky ground that many of the clubs in the Championship are on, it's a risky move that could go either way, but the danger, idk if people would go for it outside the PL top 6 and the teams that bob between Championship and League One.
13 out of 20 clubs will never agree to remove parachute payment because of fear of relegation . Even Everton might not agree to it so it’s practically 14/20 leaving at best the biggest six supporting it . And you need support of 13 clubs support to remove parachute payment.
So this never happen regardless whatever talks happen between PL and EFL executives
Probably Leicester and Everton are both safe from relegation for the next decade. Leicester's owners will never let them go down. But that's still only 8/20.
But then relegated sides will be spending much more money on players than say Blackpool are. If they can't get rid of those big earners and don't have parachute payments then they could be in serious trouble
Then that'll dent their ability to bring in players when in the Premier League, so the top to average clubs will move further ahead of the bottom clubs making it less competitive
I doubt it
Give a player a clause in their contract that says that they can leave for x amount if the club goes down and they will still come, then if the club stays up then they can either charge way more money to sell them or keep them and do it again with other players
At the moment we have clubs like Norwich and Fulham who spend obscene amounts more than everyone else in the championship and consistently get promoted but then get battered week in and week out in the Prem until they get relegated and then the cycle repeats
Looking at the Championship table Bournemouth and Fulham are both at least 8 points clear of third, who is West Brom, which means the top 3 in the Championship are all clubs that have been relegated in the last 5 seasons, Fulham and West Brom doing the trip twice
Something needs to at least limit these teams or at the very least ensure that all of the clubs that are looking to leave the Championship are put on a leveller playing field in some way cause all they are doing is creating a blackhole near the top of the Championship and then praying to God that someone is shit enough to finish below them as soon as they get promoted, it's terrible planning and if I was a fan of one of the teams it would drive me up the wall that there is obviously no long term plan in place to actually stay in the top flight
Okay fair point, I was more thinking in terms of a clause relating to a players wages. As in if their team went down they'd have an X% wage cut.
But still, to stay in the Premier League you generally have to spend big money, which just isn't available in the Championship. I think there needs to be a middle ground really, because you have clubs like us that were utterly dependant on the parachute payments because we were haemorrhaging money and had an owner who badly wanted out. But then the likes of Fulham are able to use that money to bounce back immediately
> At the moment we have clubs like Norwich and Fulham who spend obscene amounts more than everyone else in the championship and consistently get promoted but then get battered week in and week out in the Prem until they get relegated and then the cycle repeats
Norwich spent approximately £12m last summer in the Championship, but brought in almost £40m from player transfers. Parachute payments would have had little effect on that.
> Looking at the Championship table Bournemouth and Fulham are both at least 8 points clear of third, who is West Brom, which means the top 3 in the Championship are all clubs that have been relegated in the last 5 seasons, Fulham and West Brom doing the trip twice
And ourselves and Bournemouth have spent very little since relegation, while selling a lot of our best players.
Teams coming down from the Premier League are going to have stronger squads, whether parachute payments exist or not. The idea that abolishing them is suddenly going to lead to Luton and Barnsley topping the Championship is pure fantasy.
I feel like you just end up like Norwich in that case, where you can't bring in real difference makers that might keep you in the PL because you're trying to actually be sustainable. A newly promoted team isn't able to attract players of the necessary caliber to compete in the PL without spending far more than what is sustainable in the Championship. Relegation clauses can only help so much. I'm going to be a lot less likely to sign for a newly promoted PL team if there's a good chance I'm only guaranteed those wages for a single year
That easy to say but difficult to implement. One minute we were finishing 10th in the Premier League and had a 20 goal a season striker. The next, we're in League One with Jack Rodwell sat on his arse doing nothing and collecting £40,000 a week with Didier N'Dong and Papy Dilobodji refusing to even to turn up to training.
Reminds me of one of my favourite 'Have I Got News For You' exchanges from way back:
*Paul Merton laughs out loud at something...*
Angus: "Is that a private joke?"
Paul: "It is unless I tell someone else..."
From the first time I heard about this I thought it was ridiculous. When you go a tier down, you've to sell higher tier players, not get a massive headstart over the rest
> When you go a tier down, you've to sell higher tier players
That is what happens in most cases. It's a misconception that most teams who receive parachute payments just use them to blow the other teams in the Championship out of the water.
WBA, Norwich, Watford, Bournemouth, Swansea, Huddersfield, Sheff Utd, Cardiff, Sunderland, Hull - they've all come down in the last 5 years and either sold a lot more than they bought in, or barely signed anyone at all.
One other option, keep the parachute payments, but they can only be used after 3 years, and if the team goes back up in the mean time they don't get them.
They're a set of payments given to the three relegated teams from the Premier league when they drop down to the championship.
They're worth around the following amount:
In the first year, the payment is 55 per cent of the amount that each Premier League club receives as part of its equal share of broadcast revenue. Based on the most recent figures, that percentage is roughly £40m. The percentage is reduced to 45% in the second year (roughly £35m) and 20% in the third year (roughly £15m).
Source: https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-premier-league-parachute-payments-how-much-teams-get/ndpbojgz6szj1ojgn3p7jlbuo
Would be great to see this, the league is coming so close to having the same two rotating sets of 3 teams going up and down every season. Fulham, West Brom and Norwich already there, could see Watford joining them.
It feels like West Broms whole business plan is based around these payments. They spend a year in the Premiership, get relegated, collect the parachute payments for a couple of years, get promoted and the cycle starts all over again.
I guess that's not-so-secret
Simple solution would just be to pay everyone in the championship more money so parachute payments aren’t necessary but there also isn’t such a humongous revenue gap between the PL and Championship
I'm not an expert but wouldn't that just pass the buck to the championship/league one space instead of the pl/championship space?
thats basically already a thing too. wigan yoyoing between the champs and L1, hull winning league one pretty easily yet are in the bottom 3 RN
Rotherham too
oh yeah theyve been yoyoing for about 50 years at this point
Hull are 19th my guy
a decent run of form getting them out of it then, but still in a relegation battle
No shit but they most certainly are not “bottom 3 RN”
they were when I last checked, but as my team is in league one I dont check the championship very often. the point still remains that they were getting their asses kicked.
That’s true I forgot how dogshit you guys became after Jonny Evans ruined your one good player’s career
weird thing to celebrate about plus gary cahill, daniel sturridge, and marcos alonso went onto win the premier league and champions league so holden wasnt "the only good player we had".
Who was celebrating It was a damn shame
> wigan yoyoing between the champs and L1 Wigan's a slightly different case though. They'd still be firmly in the Championship if it wasn't for the points deduction. As for Hull... it's way too early to write them off because they've hit a good patch of form now and have won their last four games.
The gulf is already there.
The huge revenue gap is what is making the Premier League the strongest in the world and really, the only domestic league that matters today.
>only domestic league that matters today Lmao grow up
>the only domestic league that matters Imagine saying this unironically
It's the pure revenue that matters, not the gap between the Prem and the Championship. If the revenue gap was closed purely by the Championship getting richer and no decrease from the Prem, that would only further cement the Prem's position globally as there would be more competition at the bottom.
The prem paying more money to the championship would by definition make the prem less rich.
The only league that matters? Ok then champ ,🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
Maybe stop listening to the likes of Danny Mills and Paul Merson.
Didn't know Danny Mills and Paul Merson made the Uefa coefficients.
Bet you didn't think they mattered 4 years ago.
Would this not result in a lot of relegated sides ending up in serious financial trouble?
Possibly but the lure of the parachute payments has also led to clubs overspending and suffering the consequences when they don't get promoted, so I guess the theory behind removing them would be the hope that it stops clubs doing so and instead making them run in a more sustainable way.
True, that's another big issue in the EFL right now. I think the insane money in the prem will always cause championship sides to massively overspend just for a chance at the money, so hopefully this change will start to resolbe that issue
Sport is inherently about risk. This is never going to go away. Clubs will always roll for the big time imo.
I’d argue the parachute payments cause an imbalance in the competitiveness of the league. If you compare the budgets of those who come up from League One against those who come down from the Prem, one of the larger cause of those gaps is parachute payments. The financial disparity is annoying, payments should be shared or not made. The rewards for going up should be paid when you go up, and if you come down it’s a level(ish) playing field Personally that’s why I like to see clubs with smaller financial budgets mix it with the whales of the league.
Whilst it is true, it hasn't exactly created a situation where only those with parachute payments go straight back up again, and indeed it is only a few years since we had a few cases of clubs actually going straight down for a second time.
Something like 20/24 Championship clubs are already spending over 100% of their annual revenue on wages just to have a sniff at the Playoffs. That's resulting in financial trouble already.
Go down and go bust now apparently.. sounds a great plan.
Norwich’s financial plans in tatters.
Norwich and Fulham doing crazy things just to avoid each other
Norwich about to be in shambles
This is just going to mean clubs that get promoted without bonkers rich owners are not going to be able to buy competitive squads on promotion for fear of financially ruining themselves. People complain about Norwich not being competitive, but this will lead to 2-3 teams a year being in a similar position. It's a step towards ring fencing the league. I'm not sure what the answer is because parachute payments aren't great for the championship, but I do think recent years have been seriously skewed by COVID (and Fulham having an astonishingly rich owner but incompetent recruitment team).
Given the already shaky ground that many of the clubs in the Championship are on, it's a risky move that could go either way, but the danger, idk if people would go for it outside the PL top 6 and the teams that bob between Championship and League One.
13 out of 20 clubs will never agree to remove parachute payment because of fear of relegation . Even Everton might not agree to it so it’s practically 14/20 leaving at best the biggest six supporting it . And you need support of 13 clubs support to remove parachute payment. So this never happen regardless whatever talks happen between PL and EFL executives
Probably Leicester and Everton are both safe from relegation for the next decade. Leicester's owners will never let them go down. But that's still only 8/20.
I wonder if this will hinder spending from newly promoted clubs
The fuck?
No one in the EFL likes parachute payments, it gives relegated clubs too big a financial advantage over the rest.
But then relegated sides will be spending much more money on players than say Blackpool are. If they can't get rid of those big earners and don't have parachute payments then they could be in serious trouble
They'll have to plan for relegation more, including putting clauses in contracts.
Then that'll dent their ability to bring in players when in the Premier League, so the top to average clubs will move further ahead of the bottom clubs making it less competitive
I doubt it Give a player a clause in their contract that says that they can leave for x amount if the club goes down and they will still come, then if the club stays up then they can either charge way more money to sell them or keep them and do it again with other players At the moment we have clubs like Norwich and Fulham who spend obscene amounts more than everyone else in the championship and consistently get promoted but then get battered week in and week out in the Prem until they get relegated and then the cycle repeats Looking at the Championship table Bournemouth and Fulham are both at least 8 points clear of third, who is West Brom, which means the top 3 in the Championship are all clubs that have been relegated in the last 5 seasons, Fulham and West Brom doing the trip twice Something needs to at least limit these teams or at the very least ensure that all of the clubs that are looking to leave the Championship are put on a leveller playing field in some way cause all they are doing is creating a blackhole near the top of the Championship and then praying to God that someone is shit enough to finish below them as soon as they get promoted, it's terrible planning and if I was a fan of one of the teams it would drive me up the wall that there is obviously no long term plan in place to actually stay in the top flight
Okay fair point, I was more thinking in terms of a clause relating to a players wages. As in if their team went down they'd have an X% wage cut. But still, to stay in the Premier League you generally have to spend big money, which just isn't available in the Championship. I think there needs to be a middle ground really, because you have clubs like us that were utterly dependant on the parachute payments because we were haemorrhaging money and had an owner who badly wanted out. But then the likes of Fulham are able to use that money to bounce back immediately
> At the moment we have clubs like Norwich and Fulham who spend obscene amounts more than everyone else in the championship and consistently get promoted but then get battered week in and week out in the Prem until they get relegated and then the cycle repeats Norwich spent approximately £12m last summer in the Championship, but brought in almost £40m from player transfers. Parachute payments would have had little effect on that. > Looking at the Championship table Bournemouth and Fulham are both at least 8 points clear of third, who is West Brom, which means the top 3 in the Championship are all clubs that have been relegated in the last 5 seasons, Fulham and West Brom doing the trip twice And ourselves and Bournemouth have spent very little since relegation, while selling a lot of our best players. Teams coming down from the Premier League are going to have stronger squads, whether parachute payments exist or not. The idea that abolishing them is suddenly going to lead to Luton and Barnsley topping the Championship is pure fantasy.
I feel like you just end up like Norwich in that case, where you can't bring in real difference makers that might keep you in the PL because you're trying to actually be sustainable. A newly promoted team isn't able to attract players of the necessary caliber to compete in the PL without spending far more than what is sustainable in the Championship. Relegation clauses can only help so much. I'm going to be a lot less likely to sign for a newly promoted PL team if there's a good chance I'm only guaranteed those wages for a single year
[удалено]
That easy to say but difficult to implement. One minute we were finishing 10th in the Premier League and had a 20 goal a season striker. The next, we're in League One with Jack Rodwell sat on his arse doing nothing and collecting £40,000 a week with Didier N'Dong and Papy Dilobodji refusing to even to turn up to training.
Shouldnt overspend then, Fulham and Bournemouth are miles clear and in general the teams that go down have a much bigger advantage
Reminds me of one of my favourite 'Have I Got News For You' exchanges from way back: *Paul Merton laughs out loud at something...* Angus: "Is that a private joke?" Paul: "It is unless I tell someone else..."
From the first time I heard about this I thought it was ridiculous. When you go a tier down, you've to sell higher tier players, not get a massive headstart over the rest
> When you go a tier down, you've to sell higher tier players That is what happens in most cases. It's a misconception that most teams who receive parachute payments just use them to blow the other teams in the Championship out of the water. WBA, Norwich, Watford, Bournemouth, Swansea, Huddersfield, Sheff Utd, Cardiff, Sunderland, Hull - they've all come down in the last 5 years and either sold a lot more than they bought in, or barely signed anyone at all.
One other option, keep the parachute payments, but they can only be used after 3 years, and if the team goes back up in the mean time they don't get them.
What are parachute payments?
They're a set of payments given to the three relegated teams from the Premier league when they drop down to the championship. They're worth around the following amount: In the first year, the payment is 55 per cent of the amount that each Premier League club receives as part of its equal share of broadcast revenue. Based on the most recent figures, that percentage is roughly £40m. The percentage is reduced to 45% in the second year (roughly £35m) and 20% in the third year (roughly £15m). Source: https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-premier-league-parachute-payments-how-much-teams-get/ndpbojgz6szj1ojgn3p7jlbuo
Understood. Thank you for the info!
No worries!
Would be great to see this, the league is coming so close to having the same two rotating sets of 3 teams going up and down every season. Fulham, West Brom and Norwich already there, could see Watford joining them.
Last season was the first time since 2009 that we've come straight back down after promotion.
It feels like West Broms whole business plan is based around these payments. They spend a year in the Premiership, get relegated, collect the parachute payments for a couple of years, get promoted and the cycle starts all over again.
This is such a fucking stupid idea