"Top clubs" want to change parachute payments

[Paul Waine]

Report in Times that the big clubs want to change the rules with parachute payments. It seems they don't like clubs that don't spend the parachute money on more players/more wages. It seems they "object" to club owners that don't spend the parachute payments. Blackpool/Oystons have been mentioned. Hull/Allam also mentioned.

And, Burnley have been mentioned for not investing massively in players when we got promoted to Prem in 2014/15. It seems they don't like the idea of Burnley reporting a big profit.

Who knows, are they bothered that Burnley didn't throw money away on some of the players that they wanted to "move on?" Or, are they bothered that Burnley were more strategic and spent their money wisely and are now back in the Premier League - and will be again next season.

It's got to be the other side of financial fair play. Maybe it is time for forced re-distribution of the wealth of the super-rich clubs.

Or, am I just a football socialist?

[BennyD]

To me it looks like we are the football capitalists and the big clubs are the socialists. We do the job right, we buy players we can afford and invest in the business, whilst they squander money and tell every one else what to do and then do something different that benefits only them.

[Pstotto]

100 clubs at the mercy of 5 teams... with a live and let die motivation, actively wanting to kill football off and reduce it to a European Super league and nothing else, methinks.

I think there should be a fixed wage and fixed admission prices rather than it being a fix.

[bfcjg]

Most fans pundits etc hold us up as an example of how a club should be one. I think the phrase "should have done or should do a Burnley "will be quoted more and more.

[Sidney1st]

Ideally clubs would run within their means, BUT its all monitored correctly and enforced strictly.

City are basically sponsored by one of their owners other businesses, which means it can be increased to whatever they like to cover running costs and that isn't really right.

If clubs were given x amount of time to get their finances in order it would be surprising how quickly wages would stop rocketing along with player transfer fees and agents fees.

It would have to be implemented by Fifa though so it isn't going to happen.

[Hipper]

The whole Premier League concept was about the top clubs getting more money.

The idea behind parachute payments was that if you got relegated it would give you a cushion to deal with players on expensive contracts. Barry Kilby famously wanted to end them, but of course took them when we could!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ampionship" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.standard.co.uk/sportheadline ... 3.html?amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chester Perry]

Same basic story as the Times that can actually be read without a subscription

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eview.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Quickenthetempo]

Parachute payments are like a benefit payment to help with the costs of the premier league and it's higher wages.
If you don't pay the higher wages then why should you need the payments?
It's just like not receiving benefits if you have 10k in your bank. You can support yourself.

[Royboyclaret]

Which is fine in theory Quickenthetempo but in practice all promoted teams increase their wage bill significantly, although some more than others I agree.

However, if some clubs fail to make a realistic attempt at retaining their PL status and are relegated immediately then their parachute payments are reduced from three years to two years under the existing arrangements.

Personally don't see any need to amend this ruling, although the big six clubs might view things very differently.

[FactualFrank]

If you remove the parachute payments, then surely that means Championship clubs invest less and therefore there's less chance that the Premier League can get stronger? This is why the 'top' clubs want want such a change - They're just afraid of more competition.

[Sidney1st]

What's classed as a realistic investment?

[Chester Perry]

What's classed as a realistic investment?

good question - we have been slaughtered on our visits to the premier league for the quality (or lack of) of our infrastructure, many right minded people (my opinion) want teams to reduce/eliminate debt yet now we are being expected to blow everything on transfers and wages.

Infrastructure takes time so carrying money over a financial year is a necessity sounds like they want us to justify their ludicrous spend on wages - especially for youngsters who have yet to make the first team squad - maybe they want us to take their rejects who at 20 -22 earn significantly more than our established 1st team players.

Most championship clubs accrue an enormous amount of debt to get promotion - just look at the Boro financial results thread

These people are Bonkers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci40ae8BlcE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[IanMcL]

West Brom are also financially viable.

[Paul Waine]

Same basic story as the Times that can actually be read without a subscription

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eview.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good to read another version.

There's no logic in criticising the clubs that have been promoted to the Prem. They might have already spent a lot to win promotion. They might not be owned by a wealthy billionaire who is ready to spend (call it "invest" if you like) in additional/upgraded players. Maybe the players the club wants to sign are more expensive than the transfer budget. All of these things have got nothing to do with parachute payments - because the latter only start after relegation.

It's unfair to criticise Hull, or any other club that sells players in the Jan transfer window. They may be selling players that won't extend their contracts. It maybe that selling some key players will condemn the club to relegation (though, no one is saying Hull were "giving up" when they were selling), but Premier League has already decided that 3 clubs will go down. Why does it help them to be relegated with even larger debts?

Some great comments with the DM article: I particularly like "Did ManU consult Blackpool before they blew 90m on Pogba?"

Premier League finances are crazy. A lot of the billionaire owners are "extravagant" with their money. For many it will end in tears. Changing parachute payments will only be a "sticking plaster." Non-story on a quiet news day.

UTC

[Woodleyclaret]

I have never watched a Champions league game as most are over hyped and boring.I might change my mind if we qualify next year.

[dsr]

What's classed as a realistic investment?

Bolton, Blackburn, Cardiff, QPR ...

[dibraidio]

Bolton, Blackburn, Cardiff, QPR ...

...Portsmouth, Charlton, Coventry, Blackpool?

[Goody1975]

It's up to us to make this a meaningless discussion in regards of Burnley FC.

[Quickenthetempo]

It's all abit like your employer giving you 50 quid a night digs money for working away but you back pocket it and sleep in the car.

[Goody1975]

It's more like getting a promotion at work on a fixed term contract and continuing to turn up to meetings in your old suit and ten year old car, the difference is Portsmouth, Bolton etc decided to buy a top end Range Rover and a £1600 Armani suit.

[ashtonlongsider]

I think the so called big clubs have too much power and influence anyway. Now they appear to be dictating how the rest run there financial affairs. It would be best if they did bring in a European Super League and then we'd really see how 'big' some of these so called top clubs really are.

[Sidney1st]

Interesting article suggesting that UTD is still laden with debt from the Glazer buyout and it's about £400 million.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... anged.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet they want the smaller clubs to spend more money.....

[Royboyclaret]

Sidney, I think the Glazers will argue that whilst the debt remains pretty much the same as when they took over United, Income has increased almost fourfold to over half a billion per annum.

They suggested back in 2005 that United were underperforming off the pitch and a look at their latest accounts shows just how right they were and how they have transformed the club.

[Spijed]

Sidney, I think the Glazers will argue that whilst the debt remains pretty much the same as when they took over United, Income has increased almost fourfold to over half a billion per annum.

They suggested back in 2005 that United were underperforming off the pitch and a look at their latest accounts shows just how right they were and how they have transformed the club.

When Man. Utd. sign a star player they can easily make the money back purely on shirt sales alone.

[Quickenthetempo]

When Man. Utd. sign a star player they can easily make the money back purely on shirt sales alone.

Don't Adidas pocket all Uniteds shirt sales?

[Chester Perry]

When Man. Utd. sign a star player they can easily make the money back purely on shirt sales alone.

That has proven to be a myth several times over - even the commercial director at Real Madrid who first came out with the statement following the Beckham signing admits it was a bunch of crap - it is impossible because of the kit deals with Nike, addidas, puma etc - top kit deal is utd £75m a season if performance criteria is met

[Rowls]

It's all abit like your employer giving you 50 quid a night digs money for working away but you back pocket it and sleep in the car.

It's more like getting a promotion at work on a fixed term contract and continuing to turn up to meetings in your old suit and ten year old car, the difference is Portsmouth, Bolton etc decided to buy a top end Range Rover and a £1600 Armani suit.

I think it's more like giggling in the team meeting and slurping coffee out of a plastic cup whilst wearing a pair of shoes that were given to you by your dad. Oh, and keeping your jacket on even though it's a little too hot because you haven't ironed the reverse of your shirt properly.

[Sidney1st]

Sidney, I think the Glazers will argue that whilst the debt remains pretty much the same as when they took over United, Income has increased almost fourfold to over half a billion per annum.

They suggested back in 2005 that United were underperforming off the pitch and a look at their latest accounts shows just how right they were and how they have transformed the club.

It states as much in the article about their revenue, but they've still alledgedly got debts of £400 million or so.

[Chester Perry]

It states as much in the article about their revenue, but they've still alledgedly got debts of £400 million or so.

An unusual case where there were two winners neither of which was Utd - the Glazers - have taken enormous (to us) amounts of money out in "consultancy" fees and selling non voting shares. The real winners are the bankers - original loans at nearly 16% then countless rounds of refinancing and then the share restructuring and sale of the non voting ones - in all over £1billion has left unitied coffers to finance the purchase by the Glazers - incredible stuff

[Vegas Claret]

Will be interesting to see if the BIG clubs offer us 50 million for Keane so that we can re-invest to their liking or if they will try cheeky low bids.........

Hypocritical mother fooooooooooooooookers

[ontario claret]

I've been expecting this topic to come up for a long time now. It will soon be followed by the Big Six wanting to start a permanent Champions League with the top clubs on the continent.