Generic clubs in financial crisis Thread

[WestYorksRoyal]

How necessary are parachute payments these days when the Premier League transfer market has gone nuts?

Let's look at last year's relegated trio.

Leicester sold Maddison and Barnes for c. £80m combined, plus Castagne for another £10m. Tielemans' contract expired and he was a big earner. Parachute payments just allowed them to buy Winks and Coady and contribute to a squad way better than the Championship.

Southampton sold Lavia, Livramento and Ward-Prowse for c. £125m. Not much more to add.

Leeds were the lowest, with only c. £30m transfer revenue mostly from Tyler Adams. But that's because they included a load of relegation release clauses in contracts which allowed players to leave on loan; they have lost several such as Harrison, Sinister and Aaronson that way which will have bought their wage bill down substantially.

I don't think any of them needed parachute payments. The argument is, without parachute payments clubs won't invest in enough talent upon promotion. But if you're investing in quality players, presumably they will have resell value if it doesn't work out? And if they're shit signings without a resale value, why should clubs get a safety net when we didn't for the money we pissed away on Aluko, Puscas and Baldock?

Parachute payments out. Relegation firesales in.

[Snowflake Royal]

Parachute payments only exist because people decide to spend so much on wages and transfer fees when they go up to begin with, if they didn't exist, then clubs would likely not be spending as much when going up, or it would be one hell of a gamble it they did.

It's a safety net for when people come down, so that clubs know they can spend more than what they would do without, unless they were being silly. Obviously an extremely difficult aspect to change now as it would cripple the 3 relegated clubs this season, however it would also make people think twice around the wages that would be offered and the length of contract given to said players.

Clubs did it before they existed. They were brought in because so many clubs bet their existence on getting promoted / never getting relegated and were almost destroyed in the process.

It exists so the PL doesn't become a joke with all the promoted clubs beaten by 5 or 6 goals each week, or clubs don't immediately implode after relegation.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Parachute payments only exist because people decide to spend so much on wages and transfer fees when they go up to begin with, if they didn't exist, then clubs would likely not be spending as much when going up, or it would be one hell of a gamble it they did.

It's a safety net for when people come down, so that clubs know they can spend more than what they would do without, unless they were being silly. Obviously an extremely difficult aspect to change now as it would cripple the 3 relegated clubs this season, however it would also make people think twice around the wages that would be offered and the length of contract given to said players.

Clubs did it before they existed. They were brought in because so many clubs bet their existence on getting promoted / never getting relegated and were almost destroyed in the process.

It exists so the PL doesn't become a joke with all the promoted clubs beaten by 5 or 6 goals each week, or clubs don't immediately implode after relegation.

As opposed to what, the gap being considered wider than it's ever been this season? Look at the current bottom 3.

Clubs wouldn't immediately implode if they weren't offering out wages that they knew they couldn't sustain a year later, it would certainly effect the financial power of what they could offer as well as length of contracts. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't make the PL stronger, it obviously does with it's financial power and I can't see it massively changing at all.

Before the parachute payments existed, how many clubs went bust in the Championship due to spending too much in the Premier League? Wimbledon and that's for a different situation. Bringing in parachute payments has probably weakened the financial position of more clubs than what it hasn't over the years by clubs gambling to reach the Premier League and then suffering as a result.

[Snowflake Royal]

Parachute payments only exist because people decide to spend so much on wages and transfer fees when they go up to begin with, if they didn't exist, then clubs would likely not be spending as much when going up, or it would be one hell of a gamble it they did.

It's a safety net for when people come down, so that clubs know they can spend more than what they would do without, unless they were being silly. Obviously an extremely difficult aspect to change now as it would cripple the 3 relegated clubs this season, however it would also make people think twice around the wages that would be offered and the length of contract given to said players.

Clubs did it before they existed. They were brought in because so many clubs bet their existence on getting promoted / never getting relegated and were almost destroyed in the process.

It exists so the PL doesn't become a joke with all the promoted clubs beaten by 5 or 6 goals each week, or clubs don't immediately implode after relegation.

As opposed to what, the gap being considered wider than it's ever been this season? Look at the current bottom 3.

Clubs wouldn't immediately implode if they weren't offering out wages that they knew they couldn't sustain a year later, it would certainly effect the financial power of what they could offer as well as length of contracts. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't make the PL stronger, it obviously does with it's financial power and I can't see it massively changing at all.

Before the parachute payments existed, how many clubs went bust in the Championship due to spending too much in the Premier League? Wimbledon and that's for a different situation. Bringing in parachute payments has probably weakened the financial position of more clubs than what it hasn't over the years by clubs gambling to reach the Premier League and then suffering as a result.

The same as have gone bust with it. None. But there were lots in huge trouble. As there are starting to be again. Because clubs don't plan for failure, they gamble and hope.

If clubs going up to the PL do so on high championship budgets, they just won't attract players.

The entire problem is the collosal bullshit that is hoarded wealth by PL clubs. Until you solve that, parachutes or not, it's the same shit show.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Clubs did it before they existed. They were brought in because so many clubs bet their existence on getting promoted / never getting relegated and were almost destroyed in the process.

It exists so the PL doesn't become a joke with all the promoted clubs beaten by 5 or 6 goals each week, or clubs don't immediately implode after relegation.

As opposed to what, the gap being considered wider than it's ever been this season? Look at the current bottom 3.

Clubs wouldn't immediately implode if they weren't offering out wages that they knew they couldn't sustain a year later, it would certainly effect the financial power of what they could offer as well as length of contracts. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't make the PL stronger, it obviously does with it's financial power and I can't see it massively changing at all.

Before the parachute payments existed, how many clubs went bust in the Championship due to spending too much in the Premier League? Wimbledon and that's a different situation. Bringing in parachute payments has probably weakened the financial position of more clubs than what it hasn't over the years by clubs gambling to reach the Premier League and then suffering as a result.

The same as have gone bust with it. None. But there were lots in huge trouble. As there are starting to be again. Because clubs don't plan for failure, they gamble and hope.

If clubs going up to the PL do so on high championship budgets, they just won't attract players.

The entire problem is the collosal bullshit that is hoarded wealth by PL clubs. Until you solve that, parachutes or not, it's the same shit show.

They will always attract players, but maybe not the same calibre of player. From a financial perspective, perhaps that is better for clubs? As you say, clubs gamble and hope, but you can do that with or without parachute payments.

But yes, the wealth of the PL is killing the rest of the pyramid.

[Sutekh]

Fold the Premier League, bring the division back into the FL.

[WestYorksRoyal]

As opposed to what, the gap being considered wider than it's ever been this season? Look at the current bottom 3.

Clubs wouldn't immediately implode if they weren't offering out wages that they knew they couldn't sustain a year later, it would certainly effect the financial power of what they could offer as well as length of contracts. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't make the PL stronger, it obviously does with it's financial power and I can't see it massively changing at all.

Before the parachute payments existed, how many clubs went bust in the Championship due to spending too much in the Premier League? Wimbledon and that's a different situation. Bringing in parachute payments has probably weakened the financial position of more clubs than what it hasn't over the years by clubs gambling to reach the Premier League and then suffering as a result.

The same as have gone bust with it. None. But there were lots in huge trouble. As there are starting to be again. Because clubs don't plan for failure, they gamble and hope.

If clubs going up to the PL do so on high championship budgets, they just won't attract players.

The entire problem is the collosal bullshit that is hoarded wealth by PL clubs. Until you solve that, parachutes or not, it's the same shit show.

They will always attract players, but maybe not the same calibre of player. From a financial perspective, perhaps that is better for clubs? As you say, clubs gamble and hope, but you can do that with or without parachute payments.

But yes, the wealth of the PL is killing the rest of the pyramid.

I mean, define "killing". The quality of the lower leagues is a different level to pre-PL days; I think the standard of professional football as a whole in this country is the envy of other countries. And the PL and the money it brings in is a big part of this.

It's the lack of regulation that is the issue. Stop pussyfooting about with politics; the regulator should enforce better sharing of wealth and stronger financial controls. Of course, won't happen. The big clubs used to lobby that a regulator was unnecessary. They have resoundingly lost that argument, so are now refocusing their energy to limiting its powers and making it a paper tiger when it arrives.

[Sutekh]

The same as have gone bust with it. None. But there were lots in huge trouble. As there are starting to be again. Because clubs don't plan for failure, they gamble and hope.

If clubs going up to the PL do so on high championship budgets, they just won't attract players.

The entire problem is the collosal bullshit that is hoarded wealth by PL clubs. Until you solve that, parachutes or not, it's the same shit show.

They will always attract players, but maybe not the same calibre of player. From a financial perspective, perhaps that is better for clubs? As you say, clubs gamble and hope, but you can do that with or without parachute payments.

But yes, the wealth of the PL is killing the rest of the pyramid.

I mean, define "killing". The quality of the lower leagues is a different level to pre-PL days; I think the standard of professional football as a whole in this country is the envy of other countries. And the PL and the money it brings in is a big part of this.

It's the lack of regulation that is the issue. Stop pussyfooting about with politics; the regulator should enforce better sharing of wealth and stronger financial controls. Of course, won't happen. The big clubs used to lobby that a regulator was unnecessary. They have resoundingly lost that argument, so are now refocusing their energy to limiting its powers and making it a paper tiger when it arrives.

Can't help but feel I'd rather have leagues not envied, none of the big names, a more level playing field, less money and therefore have more of a game than a huge behemoth being controlled by its tail.

[Sutekh]

Good COMMUNICATION from the Donald Sindon chairman after the Aldershot debacle

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/20 ... m-morfuni/

Remember the days when Reading had a chairman who would issue a statement to the fans?

[Dirk Gently]

Good COMMUNICATION from the Donald Sindon chairman after the Aldershot debacle

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/20 ... m-morfuni/

Remember the days when Reading had a chairman who would issue a statement to the fans?

Don't like

I have been having discussions with Michael Flynn and Jamie Russell regarding strengthening our squad in the January transfer window, which I will personally be overviewing.

"Personally overviewing" often means "I'll choose the players we'll buy regardless of what the manager says".

[From Despair To Where?]

Wayne Hatswell is a coach at Swindon?

Anyone else remember this absolute screamer from him?

https://youtu.be/xkBkr7bD7bw?si=dWhEsG-RAoIkTU7M

[genome]

Everton docked 10 points

[Whore Jackie]

Everton docked 10 points

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

[Stranded]

Everton will still stay up.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Everton docked 10 points

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

This. Everton have chosen a great season for the punishments because the 3 promoted teams are so poor and Dyche is a good manager. Any of the last 2 seasons, this would have been fatal.

PL have set a precedent here though. The City case is bigger and more complicated. If they get off lightly at the end of it, the PL will need to explain why.

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

Everton docked 10 points

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

This. Everton have chosen a great season for the punishments because the 3 promoted teams are so poor and Dyche is a good manager. Any of the last 2 seasons, this would have been fatal.

PL have set a precedent here though. The City case is bigger and more complicated. If they get off lightly at the end of it, the PL will need to explain why.

City will get off scot free. It will have nothing to do with justice, fairness or legality but everything to do with money, power and influence, of which the owners have an almost unlimited supply.

[Stranded]

Everton docked 10 points

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

This. Everton have chosen a great season for the punishments because the 3 promoted teams are so poor and Dyche is a good manager. Any of the last 2 seasons, this would have been fatal.

PL have set a precedent here though. The City case is bigger and more complicated. If they get off lightly at the end of it, the PL will need to explain why.

Yep Everton will finish 16th on about 36pts I reckon.

I can't even recall what the City charges actually related to but a quick google suggests 25 of them were breaches of the P&S rules that Everton have just been charged of breaching.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

This. Everton have chosen a great season for the punishments because the 3 promoted teams are so poor and Dyche is a good manager. Any of the last 2 seasons, this would have been fatal.

PL have set a precedent here though. The City case is bigger and more complicated. If they get off lightly at the end of it, the PL will need to explain why.

City will get off scot free. It will have nothing to do with justice, fairness or legality but everything to do with money, power and influence, of which the owners have an almost unlimited supply.

There is an independent commission who publish their rulings. If City get off, the reasoning has to stand up to public scrutiny.

[Silver Fox]

Everton docked 10 points

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

People always say this will happen when someone gets a deduction and as yet nothing has happened, probably because it's going to be impossible to prove they'd have stayed up without whatever the offending club doing what they did

[WestYorksRoyal]

Everton docked 10 points

Opens the door for Burnley, Leeds and Leicester to sue Everton for relegation damages.

People always say this will happen when someone gets a deduction and as yet nothing has happened, probably because it's going to be impossible to prove they'd have stayed up without whatever the offending club doing what they did

I mean, Leeds and Burnley in 19th and 20th can fcuk right off. If this penalty was applied last year they'd still have gone down. But no doubt Leeds will appeal because the entire English footballing landscape is designed to discriminate against them