parachute payments

the three teams that came down from the premier league last season (blackpool west ham and birmingham)get £15,47500 . now lets say you need a squad of 24 first team players and you pay your top 7 players £20k a week thats £7 million and pay the next 12 earners £10k a week thats another £6 million that still leaves you with £2,47500 for the other 5 players say there on £300k a year thats £1.5 million leaving £97500k for say accadamy / youth players what an unfair advantage that is against the rest of the teams in the championship ,as these 3 teams in effect could operate with there wage bill covered by the parachute payments ,whats your thoughts

I've always said in the past, and still strongly believe, that parachute payments are a way for the Premier League to make their elite group smaller and smaller, a way to ensure that the teams that do go down have a more than fighting chance of coming straight back and and by doing so prevent any possible minnows from getting to the top table....

Parachute payments give relegated teams a massively unfair advantage over teams struggling with what they have, and I strongly believe that we should go back to how it use to be, simply put, if your relegated and you can no longer afford to pay the players wages... SELL THEM... it was never a difficult philosophy to follow pre Sky and Premier League days, and if we ever hope to see a diverse mixture of teams at the top again, then doing away with parachute payments is the only way.... although I'm sure the likes of Birmingham, WBA, Blackpool, etc, etc, would not be happy with that as the cord would definitely be cut from their yo-yo's.....

the three teams that came down from the premier league last season (blackpool west ham and birmingham)get £15,47500 . now lets say you need a squad of 24 first team players and you pay your top 7 players £20k a week thats £7 million and pay the next 12 earners £10k a week thats another £6 million that still leaves you with £2,47500 for the other 5 players say there on £300k a year thats £1.5 million leaving £97500k for say accadamy / youth players what an unfair advantage that is against the rest of the teams in the championship ,as these 3 teams in effect could operate with there wage bill covered by the parachute payments ,whats your thoughts

You wouldn't be complaining if we got to the Prem

the three teams that came down from the premier league last season (blackpool west ham and birmingham)get £15,47500 . now lets say you need a squad of 24 first team players and you pay your top 7 players £20k a week thats £7 million and pay the next 12 earners £10k a week thats another £6 million that still leaves you with £2,47500 for the other 5 players say there on £300k a year thats £1.5 million leaving £97500k for say accadamy / youth players what an unfair advantage that is against the rest of the teams in the championship ,as these 3 teams in effect could operate with there wage bill covered by the parachute payments ,whats your thoughts

next season there will be 8teams in champ with various amounts of parachute payments, so will only get harder as fair play will impact on other sides who dont have it! much harder as parachute pay is income so can be used above fair play rules

It makes it more difficult nowdays as the fuckers have extended the parachute payments to 4 years - effectively giving teams that come down 4 seasons of unfair advantage over the skint teams that've been there for years.

Take the Jacks for example, if they come down next season then they'll have a £15m war chest for 2 seasons to enable them to buy their way back up. I believe this dropsn to £8m for the 2 following seasons?

Perhaps we wouldnt need to lose our identity and parade around in Red tops if this pesky ruling wasn't in place.

I am sure if a team from the premiership gets relegated and then their paracute payments kick and then they go straight back up ( West Ham or Blackpool ) they cannot recive on going parachute payments as they go on to collect promotion dividends starting afresh so in either teams case the 3 years remaining parachute payment is curtailed and the exsisting second year payment is split amoungst the Championship although not sure if the relegated teams get a share.

as i said they could actually get by with no wage bill

Perhaps we wouldnt need to lose our identity and parade around in Red tops if this pesky ruling wasn't in place. [/quote]

We don't need to anyway. I am yet to hear a logical explanation for the change of colour. But that's another topic entirely. As you were.

I've always said in the past, and still strongly believe, that parachute payments are a way for the Premier League to make their elite group smaller and smaller, a way to ensure that the teams that do go down have a more than fighting chance of coming straight back and and by doing so prevent any possible minnows from getting to the top table....

Parachute payments give relegated teams a massively unfair advantage over teams struggling with what they have, and I strongly believe that we should go back to how it use to be, simply put, if your relegated and you can no longer afford to pay the players wages... SELL THEM... it was never a difficult philosophy to follow pre Sky and Premier League days, and if we ever hope to see a diverse mixture of teams at the top again, then doing away with parachute payments is the only way.... although I'm sure the likes of Birmingham, WBA, Blackpool, etc, etc, would not be happy with that as the cord would definitely be cut from their yo-yo's.....

Totally agree, bloody great aint it.

With today's competition laws I cant believe they are even legal

They didn't help Pompey though.

Next season Birmingham, Blackburn, Wolves, Bolton and West Ham or Blackpool will all get the £16m which is the equivalent of our total wage bill. It used to be £12m for two years so at least no one else in the league will get anything so with the top 5 sewn up the rest of us will be fighting for 6th place.

16m for 2 years and then 8m for two years seems crazy but we wouldn't be complaining if we got it. In reality Birmingham's finances are a mess, West Ham's are similar and Bolton are in debt to their owner for 85m so 16m may not be enough for them.