leedswolf
08-08-2007, 12:48
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/burnley/6936715.stm
View Full Version : Burnley could sue the PL
kidder_wolf_II
08-08-2007, 12:53
What an idiot. He wouldnt be doing this if Burnley had played in the premiership and seen how important that money is to relegated clubs.
paddingtonwolf
08-08-2007, 12:55
What a $$$$
I hope he is successful, Burnley scrape promotion in the playoffs and are then relegated with about 11 points and some huge earners on their wage bill.
I hope he is successful, Burnley scrape promotion in the playoffs and are then relegated with about 11 points and some huge earners on their wage bill.
Salop Wolf
08-08-2007, 12:57
Is it really just £3.25m per season. I had the feeling it was more than that.
leedswolf
08-08-2007, 13:00
Must admit, I thought it was more than that. BTW I wonder if he returned the cheque from the PL fund he would've received a few weeks ago? Doesn't that constitute an 'illegal subsidy'?
kidder_wolf_II
08-08-2007, 13:08
Ye lets follow Burnleys route and let the premier league keep all the money and all us championship clubs will struggle for money while they get even bigger than they already are.
Any money that the PL gives out to the FL is more than welcome IMO
Any money that the PL gives out to the FL is more than welcome IMO
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 13:11
I thought it was in the region of £7m per season - those were the figures mentioned when we got a share of Birmingham's parachute money.
leedswolf
08-08-2007, 13:13
I thought it was somewhere in the £14 - 16m area over 2 seasons
EddieClamp-tops
08-08-2007, 13:16
I can see his point - as the parachute payments get bigger it becomes more and more difficult for other clubs to make the jump to the Premiership.
If, as I believe, the Championship and the Premiership are different organisations, run by different bodies, it could be deemed discriminatory for only 3 out of 24 clubs to be receiving a financial subsidy from an outside source.
Maybe someone is finally beginning something that will eventually make money a little less important in football, rather than more important.
If, as I believe, the Championship and the Premiership are different organisations, run by different bodies, it could be deemed discriminatory for only 3 out of 24 clubs to be receiving a financial subsidy from an outside source.
Maybe someone is finally beginning something that will eventually make money a little less important in football, rather than more important.
5150
08-08-2007, 13:19
What a great spokeman for the Burnley fans.....he obviously thinks that Burnley will never get there (and either reap the rewards of staying up or of the parachute payment).......why bother competing then !!
Templeton Peck
08-08-2007, 13:22
Doesn't the payment go up to something insane after this season? 15M a year?
johnybig32
08-08-2007, 13:23
It is right thought, with all the money that is in the top league now teams that come doen will be so much stronger and soon teams in this division wont be able to compete with any relegated teams.
There is an exact comparison with this potential situation and the champions league. The teams who get all the money fro the CL are far superior to any other teams.
I mean, can you ever invisage teams apart from CHelsea, Man u, Liverpool and Arsenal being in the top 4?
There is an exact comparison with this potential situation and the champions league. The teams who get all the money fro the CL are far superior to any other teams.
I mean, can you ever invisage teams apart from CHelsea, Man u, Liverpool and Arsenal being in the top 4?
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 13:25
Spurs will overtake Arsenal this year. Everton made the top 4 3 years ago.
Templeton Peck
08-08-2007, 13:40
It is right thought, with all the money that is in the top league now teams that come doen will be so much stronger and soon teams in this division wont be able to compete with any relegated teams.
There is an exact comparison with this potential situation and the champions league. The teams who get all the money fro the CL are far superior to any other teams.
I mean, can you ever invisage teams apart from CHelsea, Man u, Liverpool and Arsenal being in the top 4?
Not really no. Spurs may break in this year but only after 3 years of silly spending. Arsenal will drop out because they can't do the same.
Good luck to Burnley I say I just wish they'd fight against the transfer window as well while they're at it.
There is an exact comparison with this potential situation and the champions league. The teams who get all the money fro the CL are far superior to any other teams.
I mean, can you ever invisage teams apart from CHelsea, Man u, Liverpool and Arsenal being in the top 4?
Not really no. Spurs may break in this year but only after 3 years of silly spending. Arsenal will drop out because they can't do the same.
Good luck to Burnley I say I just wish they'd fight against the transfer window as well while they're at it.
John
08-08-2007, 13:45
Good luck to Burnley
Seconded.
Seconded.
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 13:48
Spurs have spent a fair amount of money very well, but they've recouped a good 60-70% of that to be fair to them.
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 13:52
Good luck to Burnley I say.
Seconded.
There is every possibility that we may be a benficiary of these payments in the next 2-3 years. If parachute payments are scrapped, then a promoted club will never stay up. If you take away the safety net of these payments, then you'll be left with 3 CEO's a year who take the TV money and run, without taking the 'risk' of buying quality players in an effort to stay up. Relegation is a frightening enough prospect already (financially) without taking away the parachute payments.
Seconded.
There is every possibility that we may be a benficiary of these payments in the next 2-3 years. If parachute payments are scrapped, then a promoted club will never stay up. If you take away the safety net of these payments, then you'll be left with 3 CEO's a year who take the TV money and run, without taking the 'risk' of buying quality players in an effort to stay up. Relegation is a frightening enough prospect already (financially) without taking away the parachute payments.
John
08-08-2007, 14:20
If parachute payments are scrapped, then a promoted club will never stay up.
Rubbish. How much did Steve Coppell increase his wage bill by?
If you take away the safety net of these payments, then you'll be left with 3 CEO's a year who take the TV money and run, without taking the 'risk' of buying quality players in an effort to stay up.
Or players and thier agents will have to start accepting performance related pay, so thier weekly wage drops to CCC level if they are relegated. They can't demand money that isn't going to be there.
Rubbish. How much did Steve Coppell increase his wage bill by?
If you take away the safety net of these payments, then you'll be left with 3 CEO's a year who take the TV money and run, without taking the 'risk' of buying quality players in an effort to stay up.
Or players and thier agents will have to start accepting performance related pay, so thier weekly wage drops to CCC level if they are relegated. They can't demand money that isn't going to be there.
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 14:26
Rubbish. How much did Steve Coppell increase his wage bill by?
Not as much as Wigan, Bolton, Pompey, Fulham, West Ham, Boro etc do in an effort to survive. But if you want to pick out an exception rather than the norm, go for it. I'll do the same and find one of your posts that isn't utter $$$$$$$$.
Or players and thier agents will have to start accepting performance related pay, so thier weekly wage drops to CCC level if they are relegated. They can't demand money that isn't going to be there.
Totally unrealistic. That would take the bottom ten Premier League clubs to agree to - and then to stick to. A beautiful and fluffy idea, though.
Not as much as Wigan, Bolton, Pompey, Fulham, West Ham, Boro etc do in an effort to survive. But if you want to pick out an exception rather than the norm, go for it. I'll do the same and find one of your posts that isn't utter $$$$$$$$.
Or players and thier agents will have to start accepting performance related pay, so thier weekly wage drops to CCC level if they are relegated. They can't demand money that isn't going to be there.
Totally unrealistic. That would take the bottom ten Premier League clubs to agree to - and then to stick to. A beautiful and fluffy idea, though.
AmericanWolf
08-08-2007, 14:27
There is every possibility that we may be a benficiary of these payments in the next 2-3 years. If parachute payments are scrapped, then a promoted club will never stay up. If you take away the safety net of these payments, then you'll be left with 3 CEO's a year who take the TV money and run, without taking the 'risk' of buying quality players in an effort to stay up. Relegation is a frightening enough prospect already (financially) without taking away the parachute payments.
Other way around Del Whoppio. The parachute payments give an incentive for CEO's to do just that, because it's extra guaranteed money for a single season's investment. Let's say I buy Championship Team A for 10 million, invest 15 million, and win promotion. Now, I'd get 30 million or so in extra revenue the first year I'm up, plus call it 20 million in parachute. I can double my investment by going up, and then doing absolutely nothing. Without the parachute payments, newly promoted clubs would have a greater incentive to spend more of their new revenue on players to try and stay up. Yes it would make it more difficult for relegated teams to survive, they'd have to sell a lot of their talent to make ends meet, but at the same time why should relegated teams automatically be in with a shot at re-promotion purely because they just came down? I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of parachute payments. I'd rather see an extra couple million spread out to each team in the league for investment in academies and youth development.
Other way around Del Whoppio. The parachute payments give an incentive for CEO's to do just that, because it's extra guaranteed money for a single season's investment. Let's say I buy Championship Team A for 10 million, invest 15 million, and win promotion. Now, I'd get 30 million or so in extra revenue the first year I'm up, plus call it 20 million in parachute. I can double my investment by going up, and then doing absolutely nothing. Without the parachute payments, newly promoted clubs would have a greater incentive to spend more of their new revenue on players to try and stay up. Yes it would make it more difficult for relegated teams to survive, they'd have to sell a lot of their talent to make ends meet, but at the same time why should relegated teams automatically be in with a shot at re-promotion purely because they just came down? I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of parachute payments. I'd rather see an extra couple million spread out to each team in the league for investment in academies and youth development.
John
08-08-2007, 14:32
Totally unrealistic. That would take the bottom ten Premier League clubs to agree to - and then to stick to. A beautiful and fluffy idea, though.
No it wouldn't.
spacktard.
They can't all sign for the same team, so if they want to play in the premiership they have to scale down thier wage demands.
It's quite simple if you've got more thn one brain cell.
No it wouldn't.
spacktard.
They can't all sign for the same team, so if they want to play in the premiership they have to scale down thier wage demands.
It's quite simple if you've got more thn one brain cell.
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 14:34
Other way around Del Whoppio. The parachute payments give an incentive for CEO's to do just that, because it's extra guaranteed money for a single season's investment. Let's say I buy Championship Team A for 10 million, invest 15 million, and win promotion. Now, I'd get 30 million or so in extra revenue the first year I'm up, plus call it 20 million in parachute. I can double my investment by going up, and then doing absolutely nothing. Without the parachute payments, newly promoted clubs would have a greater incentive to spend more of their new revenue on players to try and stay up. Yes it would make it more difficult for relegated teams to survive, they'd have to sell a lot of their talent to make ends meet, but at the same time why should relegated teams automatically be in with a shot at re-promotion purely because they just came down? I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of parachute payments. I'd rather see an extra couple million spread out to each team in the league for investment in academies and youth development.
I see your reasoning. Reading aside, money needs to be spent in order to stay up. I'd be less inclined to spend it if it was going to seriously harm us if we went back down again. I'd be more inclined to do a Watford, spend nothing, and hope to bounce back. I think promoted clubs would risk LESS if the parachute money wasn't available.
I see your reasoning. Reading aside, money needs to be spent in order to stay up. I'd be less inclined to spend it if it was going to seriously harm us if we went back down again. I'd be more inclined to do a Watford, spend nothing, and hope to bounce back. I think promoted clubs would risk LESS if the parachute money wasn't available.
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 14:37
No it wouldn't.
spacktard.
They can't all sign for the same team, so if they want to play in the premiership they have to scale down thier wage demands.
It's quite simple if you've got more thn one brain cell.
OK, so Wolves go up, and in preseason offer contracts including huge wage cuts in the event of relegation, to safe guard us from financial ruin.
Sheffield Utd go up, offer the same player the same basic wage, but without the relegation clause. Who will he choose?
By insisting on this paycut, you would seriously harm your competitiveness in the transfer market. Unless everybody does it and it becomes the norm.
spacktard.
They can't all sign for the same team, so if they want to play in the premiership they have to scale down thier wage demands.
It's quite simple if you've got more thn one brain cell.
OK, so Wolves go up, and in preseason offer contracts including huge wage cuts in the event of relegation, to safe guard us from financial ruin.
Sheffield Utd go up, offer the same player the same basic wage, but without the relegation clause. Who will he choose?
By insisting on this paycut, you would seriously harm your competitiveness in the transfer market. Unless everybody does it and it becomes the norm.
John
08-08-2007, 14:40
OK, so Wolves go up, and in preseason offer contracts including huge wage cuts in the event of relegation, to safe guard us from financial ruin.
Sheffield Utd go up, offer the same player the same basic wage, but without the relegation clause. Who will he choose?
By insisting on this paycut, you would seriously harm your competitiveness in the transfer market. Unless everybody does it and it becomes the norm.
It would become the norm if the parachute money was not available. Only a few chairman would choose to follow the bradford/ leeds model.
By forcing the relegated clubs to sell a few players it also creates a more level playing field in the CCC
Sheffield Utd go up, offer the same player the same basic wage, but without the relegation clause. Who will he choose?
By insisting on this paycut, you would seriously harm your competitiveness in the transfer market. Unless everybody does it and it becomes the norm.
It would become the norm if the parachute money was not available. Only a few chairman would choose to follow the bradford/ leeds model.
By forcing the relegated clubs to sell a few players it also creates a more level playing field in the CCC
Del Woppio
08-08-2007, 14:41
It would become the norm if the parachute money was not available. Only a few chairman would choose to follow the bradford/ leeds model.
By forcing the relegated clubs to sell a few players it also creates a more level playing field in the CCC
It would take a brave/stupid man to start that, John. It would also make it near impossible for promoted clubs to survive.
By forcing the relegated clubs to sell a few players it also creates a more level playing field in the CCC
It would take a brave/stupid man to start that, John. It would also make it near impossible for promoted clubs to survive.
AmericanWolf
08-08-2007, 15:45
No, because a different sort of club would hopefully be getting promoted. You'd see championship clubs investing more in younger players and signing them to longer contracts, building teams organically instead of just buying talent. You'd hope that the team you have on promotion would be good enough to stay up.
Salop Wolf
08-08-2007, 15:55
The clubs could be a bit clever by signing players on contracts which either state they can leave if relegated or have a wage drop. At least that would be a start to eradicating the Benito Carbone effect which crippled Bradford City.
only problem is would players of a good enough quality sign up to those terms?
only problem is would players of a good enough quality sign up to those terms?
Templeton Peck
08-08-2007, 16:12
The clubs could be a bit clever by signing players on contracts which either state they can leave if relegated or have a wage drop. At least that would be a start to eradicating the Benito Carbone effect which crippled Bradford City.
only problem is would players of a good enough quality sign up to those terms?
You'd never get the elite obviously but then thats the same as it is now - all the relegation candidates scrabble around for the same players year after year.
only problem is would players of a good enough quality sign up to those terms?
You'd never get the elite obviously but then thats the same as it is now - all the relegation candidates scrabble around for the same players year after year.
Phoenix
08-08-2007, 16:30
Scrapping the parachute payments would either send clubs to the wall, or stop teams like Wolves, Birmingham, Bolton etc from challenging the elite. Without parachute payments, 3 teams would go up and come straight back down leaving 17 teams in there own league.
It all sounds so easy on here, clubs should do this, spend more money sell if they go down etc, but its not SIs Football Manager.
It all sounds so easy on here, clubs should do this, spend more money sell if they go down etc, but its not SIs Football Manager.
Templeton Peck
08-08-2007, 16:40
Scrapping the parachute payments would either send clubs to the wall, or stop teams like Wolves, Birmingham, Bolton etc from challenging the elite. Without parachute payments, 3 teams would go up and come straight back down leaving 17 teams in there own league.
It all sounds so easy on here, clubs should do this, spend more money sell if they go down etc, but its not SIs Football Manager.
We'll never challenge the elite anyway - we'd need hundreds of millions and that would be the same without the parachute money. IMO this would be the first step to making football sensible again which would enable us to have a much better chance of winning honours than we will ever have under this system.
It all sounds so easy on here, clubs should do this, spend more money sell if they go down etc, but its not SIs Football Manager.
We'll never challenge the elite anyway - we'd need hundreds of millions and that would be the same without the parachute money. IMO this would be the first step to making football sensible again which would enable us to have a much better chance of winning honours than we will ever have under this system.
fenella
08-08-2007, 16:50
We nearly had the three relegated teams getting promoted straight away last season. And you wouldn't bet against it happening this year. And it will surely happen more and more often. Which is a bad thing.
I thought the idea of the parachute money was to allow newly promoted clubs to offer 3 to 4 year contracts to new players without the worry of how they would honour those contracts in the case of relegation.
But it doesn't seem to work like that. Instead, relegated teams seem to be the using the money to buy new players, just like we did with Seol and Olifinjana. That doesn't seem fair.
I think Burnley are right.
I thought the idea of the parachute money was to allow newly promoted clubs to offer 3 to 4 year contracts to new players without the worry of how they would honour those contracts in the case of relegation.
But it doesn't seem to work like that. Instead, relegated teams seem to be the using the money to buy new players, just like we did with Seol and Olifinjana. That doesn't seem fair.
I think Burnley are right.
gordonchas
08-08-2007, 17:53
The clubs could be a bit clever by signing players on contracts which either state they can leave if relegated or have a wage drop. At least that would be a start to eradicating the Benito Carbone effect which crippled Bradford City.
A little bit of an aside, but Carbone has been scapegoated often enough. He was a free transfer signing who was paid 40,000 a week by Bradford City, but when they went into administration (the first time) their total debts were £36m. His wages were but a drop in the ocean.
However, his particular case (along with the ITV Digital red herring) served to deflect attention well away from Mr Geoffrey Richmond.
A little bit of an aside, but Carbone has been scapegoated often enough. He was a free transfer signing who was paid 40,000 a week by Bradford City, but when they went into administration (the first time) their total debts were £36m. His wages were but a drop in the ocean.
However, his particular case (along with the ITV Digital red herring) served to deflect attention well away from Mr Geoffrey Richmond.
Akaman
08-08-2007, 19:34
I see your reasoning. Reading aside, money needs to be spent in order to stay up. I'd be less inclined to spend it if it was going to seriously harm us if we went back down again. I'd be more inclined to do a Watford, spend nothing, and hope to bounce back. I think promoted clubs would risk LESS if the parachute money wasn't available .
Yep, then promotion to the premier league would be treated like a day out, like a non-league club getting Arsenal in a cup tie "we knew we were gonna get beat but it was nice to come here, let's hope we can get another chance in the next few years".
Parachute payments give relegated clubs extra time to get their finances back in order after losing Premiership riches. Keep them in place, I say
Yep, then promotion to the premier league would be treated like a day out, like a non-league club getting Arsenal in a cup tie "we knew we were gonna get beat but it was nice to come here, let's hope we can get another chance in the next few years".
Parachute payments give relegated clubs extra time to get their finances back in order after losing Premiership riches. Keep them in place, I say
AmericanWolf
08-08-2007, 20:04
No, it's the other way around. If the financial incentives offered only reward staying in the premiership, then teams have a greater incentive to invest not just in getting to the premiership, but staying in the premiership. Now they might get 30 million a year for staying up, or 20-30 million over two years if they go down. If you did away with parachutes, the only reward is for staying up. That means teams will spend more to stay up once they get up.
When we got promoted, it seemed almost like we were hedging, figuring that since we might go back down there was no point in really splashing out on buying a lot of new talent. Same with a lot of other teams. Not having parachutes would encourage teams to spend more on their chance in the top flight.
The risk-reward structure as it is now with parachutes is totally screwed. I don't understand why teams should get paid for being relegated. If a club isn't financially sound enough to survive the drop, and savvy enough to incorporate relegation provisions in players' contracts, then the hell with them -- the premiership shouldn't be subsidizing poor business management.
When we got promoted, it seemed almost like we were hedging, figuring that since we might go back down there was no point in really splashing out on buying a lot of new talent. Same with a lot of other teams. Not having parachutes would encourage teams to spend more on their chance in the top flight.
The risk-reward structure as it is now with parachutes is totally screwed. I don't understand why teams should get paid for being relegated. If a club isn't financially sound enough to survive the drop, and savvy enough to incorporate relegation provisions in players' contracts, then the hell with them -- the premiership shouldn't be subsidizing poor business management.
