Championship thread 23/24 (38 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Terry Gibson's perm

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
All three of the relegated teams should be in the top six the parachute payments will see to that.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Terry Gibson's perm said:
You have to question what they are parachuting from, why would a team like Luton need them so far they have pushed the boat out and signed a free agent from Rotherham.
Click to expand...

£233m between all the parachute clubs in 20/21. That’s almost £10m each for every club is distributed fairly. Which would make the bottom 6/7 clubs (including us) financially viable and halve the losses of all bar the top 7/8 according to 21/22 records.

Yes clubs like Bristol that didn’t go up and lost loads would be fucked. But you’d hope you could get to a place where clubs are limited on wages and relegated clubs just face the choice of selling off or eating the wages. Maybe with some kind of fund for injured players.

A budget of £250k would be £13m/year. TV rights with equally split parachute payments would be £15m or so. So you could say wages can’t exceed the TV money. Leaving ticket and commercial revenue to run the rest of the club like staff and facilities.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
£233m between all the parachute clubs in 20/21. That’s almost £10m each for every club is distributed fairly. Which would make the bottom 6/7 clubs (including us) financially viable and halve the losses of all bar the top 7/8 according to 21/22 records.

Yes clubs like Bristol that didn’t go up and lost loads would be fucked. But you’d hope you could get to a place where clubs are limited on wages and relegated clubs just face the choice of selling off or eating the wages. Maybe with some kind of fund for injured players.

A budget of £250k would be £13m/year. TV rights with equally split parachute payments would be £15m or so. So you could say wages can’t exceed the TV money. Leaving ticket and commercial revenue to run the rest of the club like staff and facilities.
Click to expand...

never happening
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
A man can dream. A sustainable football pyramid is there and it wouldn’t even cost the PL teams much, maybe just a bit more caution crafting relegation clauses.
Click to expand...

The main issue I think is the football league and the premier league hierarchy agree it and it means 3 teams are relegated - it would get restricted to two if changes were made
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
The main issue I think is the football league and the premier league hierarchy agree it and it means 3 teams are relegated - it would get restricted to two if changes were made
Click to expand...

Yeah they’d hold the EFL to ransom like always. Probably ask for automatic first dibs on registration of all U17s or something ridiculous while they’re at it.
 
Balli001

Balli001

Well-Known Member
Martin180 said:
I think Southampton will lose whatever talent they had and will not even make the playoffs.
Leicester seem to be buying well unfortunately
Click to expand...
I think Southampton could walk the league personally. Already got Tella and Armstrong on the books
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Parachute Payment idea: £250k/wk first team budget for each Championship side (academy products exempt) and parachute payments are made directly to players for any amount over £20k/wk. The first £20k comes out the wage budget. Only contracts signed before relegation counted.
Click to expand...
I prefer this idea to just giving the club the money. It is, after all, supposed to be a safety net due to the vast gulf in EFL and PL income and therefore wages.

But at the same time it could still give them an unfair advantage as the relegated teams could decide to keep their star players as someone else is footing the bill. So you could have the likes of maddison playing for you and only paying 20k pw to his wages.

Ultimately I think the entire parachute payments need doing away with and making clubs act more responsibly and sustainably. But it won't happen because this system gives the PL all the bargaining power - it pretty much forces you to spend huge amounts to try and compete but 3 clubs have to fail every year and they are then relying heavily on PL payments to remain solvent and don; want to rock the boat. Money's shit isn't it?

My thought was maybe the clubs should be forced to put some of the PL cash aside every year like a pension, which is then paid back to them if relegated, or after three-five years if they aren't. So they have a safety net but it is their own money. I know that would put less established clubs at a disadvantage as they'd have a lower budget for a few years, but I see that as more as rewarding success for those teams that have managed to stay up.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I prefer this idea to just giving the club the money. It is, after all, supposed to be a safety net due to the vast gulf in EFL and PL income and therefore wages.

But at the same time it could still give them an unfair advantage as the relegated teams could decide to keep their star players as someone else is footing the bill. So you could have the likes of maddison playing for you and only paying 20k pw to his wages.

Ultimately I think the entire parachute payments need doing away with and making clubs act more responsibly and sustainably. But it won't happen because this system gives the PL all the bargaining power - it pretty much forces you to spend huge amounts to try and compete but 3 clubs have to fail every year and they are then relying heavily on PL payments to remain solvent and don; want to rock the boat. Money's shit isn't it?

My thought was maybe the clubs should be forced to put some of the PL cash aside every year like a pension, which is then paid back to them if relegated, or after three-five years if they aren't. So they have a safety net but it is their own money. I know that would put less established clubs at a disadvantage as they'd have a lower budget for a few years, but I see that as more as rewarding success for those teams that have managed to stay up.
Click to expand...

The fact is though that you’ll end up with a load of mediocre players who don’t want to leave the gravy train and even forced to sell the ones you can. I’d also be banning transfers while you’re at your limit. £250k/week is just about 11 players on £20k/week. Maybe make it £25/30k cut off.

Ot you say the full wage goes against the wage budget but the PL pay above £25k to protect the club. I dunno. But the basic idea is you can keep one or two stars, or a chunk on reduced wages.
 
San Francisco

San Francisco

Well-Known Member
skyblue93 said:
Fee less than £500k as well. Bargain for a proven good player at this level. Would’ve loved him for our RWB spot - he’s absolutely rapid.
Click to expand...

Less than 500k?? The fact that Doug is completely unwilling to give Robins that before the Vik sale is telling.
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
San Francisco said:
Not that player in particular, I'm suspicious at the fact that Robins can't make signings until Vik is sold. You'd think he'd be given some cash beforehand to make up some numbers.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's true. You don't part with that much cash up front when signing players, and we've just sold 15k (now 16k) Season tickets, with the club getting the cash up front. I think it is just part of the negotiating process with clubs that will be the hold up. The bit that I hope is not holding us back, is the relatively recent turnover in our recruitment team. That would be bloody annoying.
 
San Francisco

San Francisco

Well-Known Member
Terry_dactyl said:
Is that a fact?
Click to expand...

Looks like it.

Sky Blue Harry H said:
I don't believe that's true. You don't part with that much cash up front when signing players, and we've just sold 15k (now 16k) Season tickets, with the club getting the cash up front. I think it is just part of the negotiating process with clubs that will be the hold up. The bit that I hope is not holding us back, is the relatively recent turnover in our recruitment team. That would be bloody annoying.
Click to expand...

Fair point about the turnover. I think with regards to the amount of players we need to bring in, the more days, weeks, etc. we go without news then the more tetchy people are going to get. Don't think there are any other teams in the Championship that need to bring in 10+ players.
 
alexccfc99

alexccfc99

Well-Known Member
San Francisco said:
Looks like it.



Fair point about the turnover. I think with regards to the amount of players we need to bring in, the more days, weeks, etc. we go without news then the more tetchy people are going to get. Don't think there are any other teams in the Championship that need to bring in 10+ players.
Click to expand...
Leeds, QPR, Watford, Brum (They have made a start to be fair)

off the top of my head
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
alexccfc99 said:
Leeds, QPR, Watford, Brum (They have made a start to be fair)

off the top of my head
Click to expand...

Not really thought about it before, but most Championship clubs have a bit of an issue with regards to bulking up their squad with PL loans, a lot of which come later in the transfer window. That leaves those clubs a bit more exposed in the early stages of the season. I'm secretly hoping that Sporting Lisbon will let us have several potential wonder kids from just below their first team, as a measure of good faith in the Vik transfer!
 
D

DrPoolittle

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
The main issue I think is the football league and the premier league hierarchy agree it and it means 3 teams are relegated - it would get restricted to two if changes were made
Click to expand...

Right! It’s long been an ambition of the premier to reduce the number of relegation places
 
no_loyalty

no_loyalty

Well-Known Member
Farke confirmed as the new Leeds manager.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 33 (members: 0, guests: 33)
Top