I agree. But the prem is an uneven playing field anyway, with multimillionaire owners ploughing £millions in each year. Smaller clubs don't stand any chance. Distribution of money in football is a huge problem throughout
Isn't that what FFP is set out to address? Unless Peter Cullum wants to inject a few zillion for renaming the stadium the Deliadome, of course?
I'd be sorry to see Norwich go down as much as grant holt murdered us every game. Stay up is the best from a financial perspective
I believe it's even more than that, if I'm interpreting your comment correctly. Rather than £16m over four years, it's £15m in Year 1, £17m in Year 2, then £8m in both years 3 and 4, to give a total of £48m. (Edit: These figures may be out of date, there's talk of an increase to a total of £60m total over 4 years from 2012-13, but I can't find an exact breakdown) Whilst it does unbalance the playing field somewhat, it might be the lesser of two evils. If there were no parachute payments, then promoted clubs would struggle to attract the talent needed to survive, without seriously endangering themselves should they be relegated. You couldn't offer Premier League level players multi-year deals as you wouldn't be able to afford them, and you'd struggle to spread transfer fees over a longer period of time. The more established Premier League clubs would be in a much better position to stay up, and you'd get 17 stable clubs in the league, only deposed by serious mismanagement. The only way a championship side could stay up would be with the assistance of a wealthy backer who could absorb the losses should they get relegated, or by gambling on the long term security of the club. Parachute payments are helpful for the Premier League in keeping the relegation battle interesting, and they do mean at least some of the wealth of the top division filters down into the championship. I'm not saying the balance is right (I'd rather every club in the football league received a significant sum of PL money, with the amount decreasing down the leagues), but parachute payments are often used by the relegated club to recruit from the championship, spreading a little of the money. Relegated clubs are often in a state of some disarray upon relegation, meaning clubs that have been building for a longer period are more suited to a promotion push. For example, next season I'd expect Ipswich to strongly contend for promotion as they continue building the club up, whilst Fulham for example (if relegated) may not be so well positioned. Fulham would have a manager who has probably never watched championship football, and a combination of difficult to move on high-earners, and talented players looking to better themselves. The big change in personnel may mean things take time to gel, whilst Ipswich (for example) will have probably made astute additions to their squad and be ready to push from the first game. Fulham may come good (like Wigan this season), but it would take time. Sorry, went on a bit of a rant there...
ffc could easily do a wolves and go down again, that's why we need to stay up, but cant see it, sunderland will and deserve to stay up
So basically, you see nothing really wrong in rewarding failure with circa £48m ? I bet clubs like Huddersfield, Brighton, and Sheff Weds do As you allude to, it would be better (and fairer) if the 'prize' money was divided up more fairly. As it is, it hands the relegated sides a massive advantage to get straight back up at the expense of the other 21 clubs. Demoted sides can afford to keep most of their prem players, as their (reduced, hopefully) wages are subsidised by parachute payments. The fact that QPRcelona, Wigan and Reading are all currently top eight, kind of bears (bares?) me out
Not so sure, it's in their hands (and fulhams to a lesser extent compared to us), Sunderland could blow it Still a few twists to come in the last three games
I don't see it so much as rewarding failure, perhaps more a "thanks for trying, here's some cash to stop that attempt from ruining you". Perhaps what I'm saying is just a rewording of "failure"!? But I agree it must be a bitter pill to swallow for clubs that haven't seen promotion in a while. Part of the problem is that the PL cares more about itself than it does the rest of the football league. They'd rather have a good relegation battle (which is aided by parachute payments), than a level playing field in the championship. Removing parachute payments means that clubs become more and more reliant on sugar daddies to get promoted/survive in the Premier League, which would surely seem equally frustrating for the clubs you've mentioned. "Solidarity payments" to championship clubs are currently ~£2.3m a season, meaning they make ~£9.2m in the time a relegated club receives ~£60m, which is clearly not right. How to correct that though, I don't know! Whilst QPR, Reading and Wigan may currently be top 8, two thirds of the clubs promoted over the last 15 seasons have apparently achieved that without the aid of parachute payments, and how many teams bounce back at the first time of asking? I don't have a stat on that, but common consensus seems to be that it's not a regular occurrence. That would appear to indicate that the payments can't be that effective.
I often think that at time TBH. Yesterday for example we were playing the league 1 Leeds trio. Is there anything in this?? Oh and stay up to get better quality players rather than ex Leeds
They were our best three players. Edit: Hence, I believe at least Snoddy and Howson to be Premier League quality.
For me Hucks, Howson and Snodgrass are lower prem/championship players and Bradley is Championship at best. Just looking at stats if we go down. The team finishing last will get £62/63 million plus a 18million (last years figure so maybe slightly more) first parachute payment so £80million minimum in first year. Chances of coming straight back up 25% (Sourceremier League). Most teams stay in the Championship for a few seasons and going down to league one straight away a la Wolves is rare. Staying up for me is a no brainier!
Heart says; relegation then champions. Head says; stay up and keep building a prem mid table side and prem mid table staduim. Bah!
Somewhat amusingly, Sports Interactive have used Football Manager to predict the final Prem table and come up with this: please log in to view this image Boooo! http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/25/football-manager-predicts-how-the-season-will-end
I must admit I think we'll go down on goal difference with Sunderland surviving. So annoying that they're the ones who dug themselves out - that was the edge we have on Fulham and Cardiff.
I think so as well, too little too late from DM, might well be on 35/6 points now if he had sacked CH sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we will get the £63m for this year - i.e. our accounts for this season will include this figure, plus whatever other revenue (I believe about £25m for us) meaning a total revenue of £88m or so. If we're relegated, the parachute payments will be paid at the end of next season, meaning we will get £18m plus our other revenue (probably a little bit less than £25m, unless significant player sales are made) giving a total revenue of £43m. In other words, relegation will mean we have half the revenue for (hopefully just one) season in the Championship. So player sales revenue could be necessary unless (a) the wage cut clauses in player contracts are very favourable and/or (b) we don't buy players...
Got to be PL for me. I think they show 1, maybe 2, championship games on a weekend here but basically relegation means dropping off a media coverage cliff. It probably means I'll be resurrecting a Canaries Player subscription. I'd probably feel differently if I was able to attend regularly. I've always felt my enjoyment of a game was largely unrelated to the league it was played in.
