Parachute payments - are they fair to other teams?

[oxford blue]

Next season Sunderland will receive a parachute payment of £35m. This is probably more than time times Wycombe's turnover and even more compared to Accrington, two promoted clubs. Is there justification for payments beyond the first season?

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

Next season Sunderland will receive a parachute payment of £35m. This is probably more than time times Wycombe's turnover and even more compared to Accrington, two promoted clubs. Is there justification for payments beyond the first season?

Shouldn't be needed if all players have a relegation clause in their contracts that brings their wages down to the average Championship level.

Of course a club could be left with players it doesn't want but then that applies to all clubs.

 

Probably better paying the clubs promoted to the PL to give them a better chance of competing but then the whole balance of the PL financially is a farce.

[Corky]

They were introduced so that clubs losing the larger sum of money wouldn't struggle as badly financially after relegation (although that didn't go so well). Now with the huge TV deal, the gap is so much greater and it has allowed relegated clubs to flex financial muscle and still spend hefty amounts on fees and wages.

 

I don't think they are required any more. Clubs should have the resources to adapt after relegation with the amount they receive whilst in the Premier League.

[Ian Nacho]

I was thinking about it the other day, for clubs like Sunderland it's vital because they're an absolute mess. However, I believe Middlesbrough got £40m parachute payments and they spent that in the summer which isn't fair.

[orangecity23]

What makes it doubly unfair is the Financial Fair Play rules. If a non-parachute payment team needs to splash out on players to compete, by borrowing money or their owners investing to try to improve their business, they get a big slap on the wrist, as the Football League goes HURR DURR DURR, NO MONEYS FOR YOU (special punishment for spending too much money - cash fine. Because that will stop clubs getting into dangerous amounts of debt and not make the situation worse!) while Sunderland or whoever go and splash out 10 million quid on some shite striker. Then you have to listen to morons who support shit teams (Spurs, Derby, Forest, Spurs, Sunderland, Forest, Spurs and Forest) complaining about FFP rules and Leicester City until the end of time, as you listen to the dumbest cretins who ever hauled their carcass onto an Internet message board or comment on an article on the BBC or Guardian football websites tell you "DERE PREM TITLE SHULDNT COUNT COS THEY CHEATED IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP, IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPURS, THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY A CONSPIRACY, LOOK AT ALL THE PENALTIES THEY GOT IT WAS FIXED" (note - no mention of Spurs penalty for handball awarded for ball striking back of Raheem Sterling being remembered by any Spurs fan on the internet exists, anywhere). Or, my personal favourite "THEY SHOUDL EB FINED AND RELEGATED TO CHAMPOIONSHIP, CLUBS LIKE FOREST NEVER BROKE THE FFP RULKES ES NOT FAIR" https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo

[Manwell Pablo]

You win promotion you get all the benefits that go with it, including parachute payments. 

 

If if they were that much of an advantage then Sunderland wouldn’t have to worry about playing Accrington Stanley.

[ajthefox]

12 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

I was thinking about it the other day, for clubs like Sunderland it's vital because they're an absolute mess. However, I believe Middlesbrough got £40m parachute payments and they spent that in the summer which isn't fair.

So it's unfair that a club who are well managed get them but a team that are managed poorly should get them because they've got themselves in a mess? 

 

How is that fair?

[sylofox]

Nothing is fair in football. FFP is not fair its set up to make the big boys bigger.

[Jattdogg]

14 hours ago, sylofox said:

Nothing is fair in football. FFP is not fair its set up to make the big boys bigger.

Not to mention officiating and hoarding players in foreign leagues (ah hem chelsea)

Edited 13 May 2018 by Jattdogg

[MC Prussian]

I think the payments are fine, it's the final recompensation for having it made to the Premier League.

 

The biggest issue is the handling of these funds, especially if you're going down the league ladder like Sunderland have just done.

Some may argue it's an unfair advantage, but I'm not so sure.

In the end, you're still required to invest wisely and chucking a lot of money around doesn't guarantee you instant sucess - just look at Leeds as a negative example. Or Cardiff for a more positive one.