I know it's not going to make any difference to their season, but it can't exactly be pleasing for Leicester fans to see their double-change on 83 minutes, when losing 1-0, being the introduction of Justin and Skipp. Hardly screams "going for it". I imagine that very few Leicester fans want RVN in charge next season.
Since Leicester City last scored a league goal at home, Southampton have sacked a manager, appointed a new manager, sacked that manager and appointed another manager until the end of the season.
I think we’ve been there. Struggling team managers are always working with hands tied. They have inferior players, some of which are kicking off behind the scenes & it’s a continual battle to gain confidence & any momentum. They make strange & limited substitutions.
Liverpool game yesterday there was a flag, “It’s not going to be Nineteen Forever” Good to see a great tune referenced from a great album … Blaze of Glory, Joe Jackson
When Leicester & Southampton were relegated in 2022/23 and promoted the following season £102m in parachute payments were saved...these savings have been split between Premier League clubs. Should Burnley and Leeds be promoted today then a further £51m will be saved...this will also be divided between PL clubs.
Might help narrow the gap between the championship and the PL. The parachute payments help relegated clubs deal with the financial problems of relegation, if they’re not needed they could help strengthen the championship. Stronger championship, more chance of promoted clubs competing = less boring PL.
Given the financial implications of relegation clubs need support to avoid defaulting on payments and sliding down the league’s. Parachute payments bring money into the championship: relegated teams buy competitors top players as they chase promotion. If you stop parachute payments it will level the playing field for promotion, but risk some clubs spiralling. It could mean promoted clubs won’t risk giving it a go (much like saints), because relegation would be catastrophic. And this won’t make the PL more competitive. A better option is keeping the parachute payments, maybe 2 years rather than 3. Promoted teams get a small proportion of PL revenue to help them compete. If the second year of parachute payments is not used then this goes to the team who loses the playoff final. I don’t know.
Would make the gap even bigger if you did that I think. Promoted teams wouldn’t want to risk spending anything like what would be needed to compete as they would be scared of having those sorts of deals in the Championship with way less revenue. I also thought if a team got promoted whilst in the parachute payment period the money they would’ve got got split between all the 72 league clubs. Not sure where I’ve got that from though, FM maybe
Indeed. It’s the financial gap that makes this necessary, that’s the problem. And even though that’s unfair to other Champ teams it would break the promotion principle if it went There’s no perfect way to fix it without levelling the field, which obvs won’t happen
Surely to give teams who get promoted while still receiving parachute payments a better chance of competing, they should continue to receive them in the Prem, at least for the first season?
To me the obvious thing to do with those unused parachute payments is reinvest it into grassroots level football.
No way this gets voted for by the other 17 . We are at a stage where the top 17 are pretty safe. Then there’s a group of about 5-8 clubs who are the yo-yo ones (we’re in this how) who should be at a significant advantage over the rest of the championship but can’t catch up with the 17 PL teams. We’ve missed the boat on being in the 17 now unfortunately. Brentford, Palace, Bournemouth, Everton etc will be able to comfortably finish 12-17 every season and be 10+ points clear of the bottom 3 fpr years to come
