The on topic thread

[Jatz]

I think they would increase relative to the increase in PL money.

Thought they might.

I reckon that's bad news for the Championship.

 

[SM]

Thought they might.

I reckon that's bad news for the Championship.

Don't really think so. Unless the club is a Newcastle or someone like that who has a lot of other revenue streams, a club is still going to lose a lot of it's high earners from the PL. Parachute payments really don't help much beyond retaining a core of players.

 

[Jatz]

Don't really think so. Unless the club is a Newcastle or someone like that who has a lot of other revenue streams, a club is still going to lose a lot of it's high earners from the PL. Parachute payments really don't help much beyond retaining a core of players.

That's what it's intended for but it's rarely how it's used.

QPR went out and spent big money on Austin who helped fire them back to the PL. Without the parachute payments, that transaction probably doesn't happen.

I've never agreed with the parachute payments in any case.

 

[SM]

That's what it's intended for but it's rarely how it's used.

QPR went out and spent big money on Austin who helped fire them back to the PL. Without the parachute payments, that transaction probably doesn't happen.

I've never agreed with the parachute payments in any case.

And they'll get a 50m fine for their troubles.

If it wasn't for parachute payments clubs would go the way of Portsmouth a lot more often.

Out of interest, how many sides do you reckon have bounced straight back from relegation - because presumably that would be the evil side effect of the parachute payments you don't like?

How many of the relegated clubs who then didn't bounce back, then took several seasons to stabilise before then challenging for promotion again - because this is the positive side effect of it. If you took away parachute payments, the gulf between the leagues would just increase and instead of mildly irritating the 21 clubs who don't have those payments - arguably far less because some will still be receiving payments of their own - and making it a little bit tougher to get promoted (remember QPR limped over the line they didn't romp to it as Champion), you're basically making three clubs each year extinct because of the huge gulf in the revenues and the wage bill they need to adjust.

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Are the parachute payments going to increase? The gulf between PL and Championship will continue to grow further apart if they do.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/02/parachute-payments-clubs-relegated-premier-league

According to this, while the parachute payments have increased, it will reduced to three years by the looks of it, two if they get relegated after one season. (Using next season as an example (Note: Only as an example since the changes take place for the 16-17 season): West Brom will get three years of 55%, 45%, 20%, or £120m all up. Watford will only get two years of 55% and 45%, or £100m all up.)

That's a big improvement over the £64m total Hull, Burnley, and QPR are getting now.

Championship clubs will get £6 million a season (up from £2.3m), League 1 gets 900k (up from 360k), and League 2 600k (up from 240k).



As I've also noted, the bigger concern will be on the growing gap between the Championship and League 1 as the Championship starts to get richer and more competitive.

 

[SM]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/02/parachute-payments-clubs-relegated-premier-league

According to this, while the parachute payments have increased, it will reduced to three years by the looks of it, two if they get relegated after one season. (Using next season as an example (Note: Only as an example since the changes take place for the 16-17 season): West Brom will get three years of 55%, 45%, 20%, or £120m all up. Watford will only get two years of 55% and 45%, or £100m all up.)

That's a big improvement over the £64m total Hull, Burnley, and QPR are getting now.

Championship clubs will get £6 million a season (up from £2.3m)... though I think there's something wrong with the article, because it implies that League 1 and League 2 teams will actually get less than what they currently do.

As I've also noted, the bigger concern will be on the growing gap between the Championship and League 1 as the Championship starts to get richer and more competitive.

Yep, Championship is still an incredibly competitive league and will only continue to do so. The bigger disconnect is the gap between League 1 and beyond, and that's less to do with the parachute payments as the total payments associated with the Championship.

 

[Jatz]

Yep, Championship is still an incredibly competitive league and will only continue to do so. The bigger disconnect is the gap between League 1 and beyond, and that's less to do with the parachute payments as the total payments associated with the Championship.

Again, I disagree with that.

Watford, Bournemouth and Norwich are all 70 million behind the 17th placed PL from this season. Straight up, they're at a massive disadvantage. When it becomes 100 mil, the newly promoted clubs will be that far behind before a ball has even been kicked.

They of course don't need to spend 70 million to catch up but they realistically do need to spend. Burnley lost no admirers but really never looked like staying up without the investment in the squad.

I strongly believe more and more that not being relegated in the next couple of years, should* set you up strongly to remain in the division.

*I say should, unless you have a crazy owner (Mike Ashley etc).

 

[Jatz]

And they'll get a 50m fine for their troubles.

If it wasn't for parachute payments clubs would go the way of Portsmouth a lot more often.

Out of interest, how many sides do you reckon have bounced straight back from relegation - because presumably that would be the evil side effect of the parachute payments you don't like?

How many of the relegated clubs who then didn't bounce back, then took several seasons to stabilise before then challenging for promotion again - because this is the positive side effect of it. If you took away parachute payments, the gulf between the leagues would just increase and instead of mildly irritating the 21 clubs who don't have those payments - arguably far less because some will still be receiving payments of their own - and making it a little bit tougher to get promoted (remember QPR limped over the line they didn't romp to it as Champion), you're basically making three clubs each year extinct because of the huge gulf in the revenues and the wage bill they need to adjust.

Smart clubs have relegation clauses in contracts. If a club hasn't done their due diligence and put those clauses into contracts, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[SM]

Again, I disagree with that.

Watford, Bournemouth and Norwich are all 70 million behind the 17th placed PL from this season. Straight up, they're at a massive disadvantage. When it becomes 100 mil, the newly promoted clubs will be that far behind before a ball has even been kicked.

They of course don't need to spend 70 million to catch up but they realistically do need to spend. Burnley lost no admirers but really never looked like staying up without the investment in the squad.

I strongly believe more and more that not being relegated in the next couple of years, should* set you up strongly to remain in the division.

*I say should, unless you have a crazy owner (Mike Ashley etc).

QPR's throwing money around certainly secured their spot in the PL.

Conversely, do you know how much Stoke pays on average each year to 'secure' their spot
in the PL? Southampton? Etc.

 

[SM]

Smart clubs have relegation clauses in contracts. If a club hasn't done their due diligence and put those clauses into contracts, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Relegation clauses just increase the liklihood that players will leave. Look at us. Every single player had a relegation clause, which is just increasing the desire of a number of players to jump ship. Sure we don't have to sell, but that's a pretty toxic environment in that case.

 

[SM]

Again, I disagree with that.

Watford, Bournemouth and Norwich are all 70 million behind the 17th placed PL from this season. Straight up, they're at a massive disadvantage. When it becomes 100 mil, the newly promoted clubs will be that far behind before a ball has even been kicked.

They of course don't need to spend 70 million to catch up but they realistically do need to spend. Burnley lost no admirers but really never looked like staying up without the investment in the squad.

I strongly believe more and more that not being relegated in the next couple of years, should* set you up strongly to remain in the division.

*I say should, unless you have a crazy owner (Mike Ashley etc).

Also, you're now talking PL. The opportunity to get promoted out of the Championship is unaffected. Yes it means it's a lot harder to stay up, but after a bit of yo-yoing you'd be able to establish yourself. WBA did that a number of years ago, nothing has inherently changed. As FT pointed out, the bigger issue is the gap to League 1.

 

[Jatz]

QPR's throwing money around certainly secured their spot in the PL.

Conversely, do you know how much Stoke pays on average each year to 'secure' their spot
in the PL? Southampton? Etc.

QPR threw most of their money around the first time and actually stayed up (albeit very narrowly). I don't think it's fair to compare the new clubs to that basketcase though. As always, there are exceptions to the rule. Hull is another example from this season. Things like injuries can impact no matter how much you spend.

Not specifically but I'm guessing you're about to tell me?

I'm not arguing that they have to spend 70 million just to catch up. I'm suggesting that they start well and truly behind the 8 ball when they do join the PL.

 

[Jatz]

Also, you're now talking PL. The opportunity to get promoted out of the Championship is unaffected. Yes it means it's a lot harder to stay up, but after a bit of yo-yoing you'd be able to establish yourself. WBA did that a number of years ago, nothing has inherently changed. As FT pointed out, the bigger issue is the gap to League 1.

I don't believe that's a bigger gap at all. Brentford made the playoffs the season after coming up. Wolves did really well as well. Southampton did the double promotion.

You don't see clubs doing that the season after they get promoted to the PL.

 

[SM]

QPR threw most of their money around the first time and actually stayed up (albeit very narrowly). I don't think it's fair to compare the new clubs to that basketcase though. As always, there are exceptions to the rule. Hull is another example from this season. Things like injuries can impact no matter how much you spend.

Not specifically but I'm guessing you're about to tell me?

I'm not arguing that they have to spend 70 million just to catch up. I'm suggesting that they start well and truly behind the 8 ball when they do join the PL.

Why do they start behind the 8-ball? They have roughly 70m to spend luckily enough, and I'd wager they would have to spend only a fraction of that to compete.

Again, the issue is not the PL and clubs being able to stay up in the PL, that's always going to come down to the management of the club rather than the specific funds available. A club like Burnley for instance didn't care if they went straight back down.

You started by having a go at parachute payments and have now moved on to a completely different issue. In fact, if payments to Championship clubs were ceased the gap you're complaining about would be even larger! Norwich's squad would have been gutted and they would have no hope of promotion let alone competing in the PL next season.

 

[SM]

I don't believe that's a bigger gap at all. Brentford made the playoffs the season after coming up. Wolves did really well as well. Southampton did the double promotion.

You don't see clubs doing that the season after they get promoted to the PL.

Again, what's your point? Is it that there's a gap between the PL and Championship or between the top half of the PL and bottom half? The latter has always been true, the former isn't.

 

[Jatz]

Why do they start behind the 8-ball? They have roughly 70m to spend luckily enough, and I'd wager they would have to spend only a fraction of that to compete.

Again, the issue is not the PL and clubs being able to stay up in the PL, that's always going to come down to the management of the club rather than the specific funds available. A club like Burnley for instance didn't care if they went straight back down.

You started by having a go at parachute payments and have now moved on to a completely different issue. In fact, if payments to Championship clubs were ceased the gap you're complaining about would be even larger! Norwich's squad would have been gutted and they would have no hope of promotion let alone competing in the PL next season.

Because the clubs around them received 70 million for this season. Bournemouth didn't receive the 70 million that Leicester just did. That puts them at a big disadvantage.

It has morphed, no question. I don't think the parachute payments should be ceased but I think they should be reduced.

Again, what's your point? Is it that there's a gap between the PL and Championship or between the top half of the PL and bottom half? The latter has always been true, the former isn't.

That the jump from the championship to the PL is harder than the jump from League 1 to the Championship.

It's easier to come up and be competitive in the Championship because it's such an even league.

 

[SM]

Because the clubs around them received 70 million for this season. Bournemouth didn't receive the 70 million that Leicester just did. That puts them at a big disadvantage.

It has morphed, no question. I don't think the parachute payments should be ceased but I think they should be reduced.

That the jump from the championship to the PL is harder than the jump from League 1 to the Championship.

It's easier to come up and be competitive in the Championship because it's such an even league.

So you think that clubs in the Championship should receive even less money, which in turn would put them at a further disadvantage as you put it?

And yet within two seasons Crystal Palace have come tenth in the PL. They just finished above Everton, for instance. Everton who are a club who have never been relegated, and therefore have had, what, 20 years of PL payments more than Palace - an exagerration sure but this is to your first 'but Bournemouth don't have the 70m Leicester got last year'.

If anything your argument seems to be strip payments from the PL clubs and give equal payments throughout the football league pyramid.

 

[Jatz]

So you think that clubs in the Championship should receive even less money, which in turn would put them at a further disadvantage as you put it?

And yet within two seasons Crystal Palace have come tenth in the PL. They just finished above Everton, for instance. Everton who are a club who have never been relegated, and therefore have had, what, 20 years of PL payments more than Palace - an exagerration sure but this is to your first 'but Bournemouth don't have the 70m Leicester got last year'.

If anything your argument seems to be strip payments from the PL clubs and give equal payments throughout the football league pyramid.

I think relegated clubs shouldn't be receiving 120 million over 3 years.

Yep, they did. I think it's going to be harder to beat the drop as the money becomes more and more though. Not impossible, just harder.

That's a whole other matter.

I think we can both agree that the current systems aren't perfect at least?

 

[SM]

I think relegated clubs shouldn't be receiving 120 million over 3 years.

Yep, they did. I think it's going to be harder to beat the drop as the money becomes more and more though. Not impossible, just harder.

That's a whole other matter.

I think we can both agree that the current systems aren't perfect at least?

I'm just struggling to reconcile you in the same breath saying that Championship clubs should be paid less, and that it's so hard for Championship clubs to succeed in the PL.

 

[Hatchy1992]

Was good and Chef and Hatchy are great company.

Epic night. Was good to meet you guys.

 

[Jatz]

I'm just struggling to reconcile you in the same breath saying that Championship clubs should be paid less, and that it's so hard for Championship clubs to succeed in the PL.

The relegated championship clubs should be paid less of a parachute payment. I'm not talking about the exisiting clubs that aren't on that payment.

And then for those clubs that do come up, they start financially much further behind than the existing club.

That's two separate points.

 

[chef]

Epic night. Was good to meet you guys.

Great to faces to user names. And even got to meet pantskyle 's brother, who has better taste in football teams.

Was an amazing night hey buddy.

 

[SM]

Fun game, let's see how everyone goes.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/SHED/201415-top-epl-scorer-a-z

 

[elhadjihenry]

Fun game, let's see how everyone goes.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/SHED/201415-top-epl-scorer-a-z

18, missed:

Spoiler: missed

Diouf, Erikson, Fellaini/Fer, Jelavic, Mane, Oscar, Walters, Zaha

 

[jod23]

Didn't he kick a goal on matchday 38 2011-12 which literally stopped the show?

That was an important goal and given the circumstances obviously huge. But it was a great goal because of the circumstances not because of the skill level or audacity of the goal etc