Should Parachute Payments be abolished.

[Robbie]

Parachute payments were introduced by the Premier League in the 2006/07 season as a method of limiting the financial damage a relegated team may endure when dropping down to the Championship.

Parachute payments also exist for teams that have been relegated from the Championship, League 1 & League 2 as well.

Unfortunately, parachute payments gives relegated clubs an unfair financial advantage over all those other clubs in those respective leagues where those relegated Clubs find themselves.

The evidence is there for all to see where we are now in the age of the yo yo club that gets relegated, then gets promoted again.

Parachute payments have clearly made the football league less competitive when it comes to clubs trying to gain promotion.

This state of affairs just cannot go on and needs to be addressed by the FA & EFL. 

My suggestion would be to abolish parachute payments for relegated clubs, & distribute that money, that would have been used for parachute payments, to all the other league clubs.

I would also put a cap on transfers and wages in all four leagues, as a fixed lump sum in each league, not an amount based on percentage of turnover, which unfairly benefits the rich Clubs.

A good article on parachute payments follows.

Premier League parachute payments gap 'a major concern' says EFL

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65323385.amp

 

[Fan of Big Tone]

It does seem unfair and as you say @Robbie it just creates yo yo clubs, I’ll read the article you linked too perhaps that will help me understand why the payments were created.

[Piethagoram]

@Robbie "I would also put a cap on transfers and wages in all four leagues, as a fixed lump sum in each league, not an amount based on percentage of turnover, which unfairly benefits the rich Clubs."

This fails to recognise that clubs competing in Europe, from other countries, may not be restricted like this

Clubs being promoted to the PL, have to offer longer than 1 year playing contracts in order to compete. Relegation clauses in player contracts may be a deal breaker... so the existing PL clubs remain "safe" in the system

[Robbie]

@Piethagoram

In addition to the fixed cap on wages and transfer fees, I would put a cap on foreign players allowed in each PL squad too.

Reducing foreign players would allow more British players the opportunity to play at the highest level and this in turn should help our National teams to become much stronger.

This is veering off the topic, but I would go back to having only the Champions from each Of the PL in Europe competing in a knockout Champions Cup. 

The runners up in each PL league would compete for the Europa Cup by knock out.

A purely knockout system for both competitions would cut down on the matches played and would allow FA Cup and League Cup replays to be re-established again.

[Piethagoram]

20 minutes ago, Robbie said:

@Piethagoram

In addition to the fixed cap on wages and transfer fees, I would put a cap on foreign players allowed in each PL squad too.

Reducing foreign players would allow more British players the opportunity to play at the highest level and this in turn should help our National teams to become much stronger.

This is veering off the topic, but I would go back to having only the Champions from each Of the PL in Europe competing in a knockout Champions Cup. 

The runners up in each PL league would compete for the Europa Cup by knock out.

A purely knockout system for both competitions would cut down on the matches played and would allow FA Cup and League Cup replays to be re-established again.

@Robbie Russia tried the exact system you proposed some years back. It failed badly, both domestically and for the national team. The quality of their domestic league took a big tumble

[Robbie]

@Piethagoram League 2 has a limit of two foreign players in a squad. 

I think it would work just as well in the PL.

 

[Piethagoram]

@Robbie Sorry, it didn't work in Russia, so it wouldn't work in the PL. What happened in Russia, was wages for Russian born players rocketed.. but they were no where near where the foreign talent standard was.

You fail to realise the cache of the PL, are the international television rights. Any restriction on international players, would significantly reduce PL television income streams

[Robbie]

@Piethagoram. I think most fans outside the PL  deplore how powerful the PL & TV money is becoming.

Television money that is not distributed fairly down the football leagues is what is wrong with football.

The PL & TV companies control the narrative.and it is just not right.

Every one of the 92 league clubs should have an equal vote.

I'm afraid that the current direction of football & how revenue is shared is not going to suit teams like Notts and teams down the football pyramid.

The Premier League and the TV Companies need their wings clipping and hopefully that will begin to happen when a football regulator is in place.

 

[Piethagoram]

@Robbie What is needed is that the overseas tv rights monies have to be split down the pyramid. Currently, I believe, it's 100% to PL only.

We need an EFL3 to recognise that NL is more or less full time pros now.. i.e. expand the 92

[liampie]

the sensible thing would be to make sure premier and league clubs have clauses in the players contracts to cover to cover relegation, it might be difficult for clubs to retain players but i think it would open up the market and make teams more wiser with spending. i think parachute payments should be scrapped because it gives teams a better chance of signing players at least at the top levels.

its intended to help with balancing the wages but some teams use it to sign them which is just unfair.

maybe stricter rules on how the money is spent needs to be implemented if they dont scrap them completely.

[Chris]

I don't think you can pull to parachute payments, whilst it might not be fair I think that more enthusiasm on balancing your own books accordingly needs to be addressed before anyone considers removing what is a lifeline for most struggling clubs.

The system is unfair to an extent but so is football in general, at least in terms of clubs being forced into being competitive.

The Premier League is extremely lucrative and there have been talks of reducing the money paid which falls down the leagues. In an ideal world, the Premier League would understand that their profits and income can generate a more exciting system. However, they're only interested in keeping the money for themselves. It was a huge mistake by Derek Pavis voting in favour of the Premier League to form and branch away from the English Football League (as did all who voted in favour - off the top of my head, I think there were only two who objected). As for me, the PL and EFL should have worked closely but the blueprint for the PL was always aimed around greed. We have seen the same with the talk of the European Super League.

It's taken the EFL some time to adapt, and the rebranding so far has helped to generate more income, but there's going to be further issues if you remove the parachute payments.

We ourselves would have been stuffed without the money from our relegation from League Two and made life dangerous within the National League. Yet, I do see how it is unfair but at the same time it really is a lifeline for teams.

[Wheelbarrow repair man]

@Robbie

Speaking of Yo Yo Clubs. I think one of the other N.C.F.C teams have benefitted most out of said payments that Being Norwich City.

[Robbie]

@Chris @Wheelbarrow repair man

I just don't think that the excuse of parachute payments as a lifeline for clubs being relegated stands at all.

Parachute payments clearly stifles competition in the lower league and encourages the phenomenon of yo yo clubs. We've seen it in the Championship year after year.

It is simply not fair and that fact should override any justification for keeping parachute payments.

Football needs fixing and the first priority is to make football more exciting and less predictable.

That means stopping Parachute Payments & putting a cap on transfers and players wages.

[Chris]

It is a lifeline, but not for every club.

It offers the majority of teams financial stability, with the modern game the way it is - it isn't uncommon for owners to sell up (or try) leaving the club in difficult circumstances. In our own case, without the payments to ourselves, our first season in the National League could have been much harder.

The funds helped the club operate between Alan Hardy's exit and the arrival of the Reedtz brothers who acted quickly, but the parachute payments meant we were able to do stuff before. Against his credit, Neal Ardley worked tirelessly to keep Notts in a good position, and it's something that tends to be overlooked due to him being the manager who unfortunately was at the helm when we got relegated. Alan Hardy took Notts down, him, along with Kevin Nolan and Harry 'useless' Kewell.

Clubs need to take into consideration what their finances might look like without the parachute payments, making sure players wages are affordable. Yet, a lot rely on being able to afford their talent. In some cases, players would want to move on due to a large drop in wages. Other than them wanting to return to their previous playing level, due to chasing the international dream, better wages etc.

Numerous teams have been saved from administration due to the induction of the parachute payments, which was part of their intended design.

However, I believe it's three more times likely that teams who receive them end up being promoted back the following season.

We don't know how this number would change if abolished, nor how many teams may find themselves in Bury's situation. Personally, I think football should be fairer, but the removal of it could cause further implications to our game.