On the basis that it doesn't affect us, the separate table would be the one that is part of the existing deal. Why in that situation would our terms be reprinted in a deal that relates only to PL clubs from next season onwards?
Ehab refers to the payments increasing and there is nothing available to us, that indicates otherwise.
He could do it but the law protects other creditors so an Administrator would need to be appointed. At that point AA loses control of the club and I don't think he likes other people telling him what he can or cannot do.
I've no idea if it does or it doesn't, I'm just saying it's not happened in the past. Ehab may well know something we don't, equally he may have got it wrong, he often does.
Promoted clubs who are relegated after just a single year in the Premier League will no longer benefit from full parachute payments from the 2016/17 season. The change in the rules means that promoted clubs Bournemouth, Watford and Norwich will miss out on a year of parachute payments if they go straight back down. The parachute payments system is also changing so that the money - at least £64m but likely higher - will be distributed to relegated clubs over three years rather than four. Clubs who go back down after a single year in the Premier League will only get the first two years of payments rather than the full three years. The new rules will not affect the three clubs most recently relegated from the top flight - Hull, QPR and Burnley. They will receive £64m split over four years - £24m in the first year, then £19.3m, then £9.6m for each of the next two years. From the 2016/17 season, relegated clubs will receive 55 per cent of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs in the first year after relegation, 45 per cent the following year and 20 per cent in year three. Clubs relegated after a single season will receive 55 per cent and 45 per cent over two seasons with the third payment eliminated entirely.
It is quite an odd thing to get wrong though Presumably someone must have suggested to him that it was the case ? (Or he's right of course)
Odd? If he's wrong it would be more negligent than odd wouldn't it? I mean he says that our retaining the players we have and spending what we spent is a gamble, and one they were only prepared to make because of the increased payments. If that decision has been made based on incorrect information when they could have just contacted the PL for written confirmation it's a ridiculously unprofessional thing to have happened.
It is almost impossible for them (the Alams and their advisors) to have made a mistake here. I don't know when the negotiations for the "new deal" between the PL and the TV companies started taking place, but most likely at least a year before the end of the "old deal". All the resident PL clubs at the time would have been consulted with by the PL body, as lets face it, no party would have known at the time which 3 of the member clubs would be relegated at the end of the season. This would mean all 20 incumbent clubs would have wanted to protect their own and each others interests in case they were one of the 3 to be relegated at the end of the 2014-15 season . This would have been fed into the PL-TV negotiating process to get the best "parachute payment" payout & structure.
True When I said odd, I meant more that it was such a specific thing that it isn't like their one of their statements which often remind you how little they know about football. This was odd in that it is a very specific detail which can't have just been made up during an interview. It's obviously, as you say, been discussed and used for planning purposes Maybe he's right though. We'll see (or hopefully we won't!)
Maybe they're wrong about this in the same way they were wrong about the ASI fund spending? Oh wait...it was the keyboard warriors who were wrong. Unless anyone tries desperately to shoe horn the word "morally" in again. Not because they're wrong or owt.
If withholding the ASI money from your own fans, purely out of spite, was the correct thing to do, then Ehab got it bang on.
Whilst I accept that I may have this wrong, I have only seen one article that says that we are unaffected by the change, which seems a little "odd" to me. The above table from the excellent Swiss Ramble Blog http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-premier-league-tv-deal-master-and.html does not mention that clubs already in receipt of parachute payments will receive less nor does the article. I have to say that there could be a chance that the payments to Hull City should we not be promoted would be: 2016/17 28.7m + 2017/18 21.6m + And that we would not receive 9.7m in 2017/18 Even if you take away the increase in parachute payments, every club benefits from the increase in solidarity payments so our 2nd year figure would increase to 23.5m. Again this figure does not appear anywhere. Another blogger Daniel Geey muddies the water for me as well. Below is his example of the difference between a club having one season in the PL against one with more. http://www.danielgeey.com/premier-league-parachute-payments-explained/ "Watford are promoted and participate in the Premier League in the 2015-16 season. Unfortunately, they are relegated at the end of the season. For the 2016-17 season they compete in the Football League Championship. They will receive the first of two parachute payments following relegation. In year one, the club receives 55% of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs and in year two, 45% of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs. Based on the equal share figures in the 2014/15 season being almost £48m and the likely uplift from the new broadcasting deal, the club could expect to receive a similar amount to Burnley, QPR and Hull will receive (£60m+) but over a two year period[1]. Similarly, if West Ham for example, were relegated at the end of the 2015-16 season, they would receive the first of three parachute payments. In year one, the club receives 55% of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs and in year two, 45% of the equal share and in year three 20% which could equal around £70m+ over three years." To be honest if we get it or not, the only thing that is certain is that any increase in TV money will not see its way down to the supporters, no matter what club they follow, players and their agents will benefit more. As the riches increase in the game the divide between supporter and club gets wider.
