| Proposal for a fairer system of parachute payments 08:25 - Aug 5 with 671 views | Guthrum |
Parachute payments were intended as a safety net, to ease the financial shock of falling from the Premier League, with its generous provision of TV money, to the relatively poorer Championship. This with special reference to the high wages of retained players.
Rather than the current lump sum payments, which have mainly had the effect of distorting the transfer market in the Championship, I am proposing something with more finesse, tailored to that last specific issue.
First season after relegation
For each player who was in the matchday squad (starter or sub) on at least five occasions during the relegation season in the Prem, the club receives a subsidy of up to 60% on their wages. This would also apply to any player who missed 30 or more games in that season due to illness or injury (and did not make the five-match threshold), but only if nominated by the club. There should be an overall cap on the subsidies granted per club, set at something like £18m.
Second season after relegation
Conditions as above, but the subsidy is reduced to a maximum of 30%, with an overall cap of £9m.
Third season after relegation
Conditions remain the same, but the subsidy is reduced to 10%, with a cap of £3m.
Clubs would have to supply a list of qualifying players and their wages at the start of the season. If a player on that list is subsequently sold during the season, the club retains the payment (becomes too administratively complicated otherwise and it is fair to allow the money to subsidise the purchase of a replacement). The money counts towards the club's general income, for FFP and all other purposes. Payments would continue in the event of further relegation to League One or below.
This will save the Prem some money (which could, perhaps, be distributed otherwise in Solidarity Payments, or to grassroots projects), reduce inflationary pressure in football, would not leave relegated clubs so dominant in the transfer market for several seasons (rewarding failure), but still cushion the impact of dropping into the Championship and allow players more easily to stay with a club to fight for re-promotion. |  |
| |  |
| Proposal for a fairer system of parachute payments on 10:26 - Aug 5 with 584 views | Oldsmoker |
Your fundamental point is that the parachute payments are an unfair advantage on those Championship sides who don't receive them and I agree with you.
When you lay down rules everyone maximises the rules.
In the food industry, the govt. sets maximum levels of salt and sugar in some products. No manufacturer exceeds the maximum but all their products are at the maximum levels allowed.
Your suggestion on subs would mean a deliberate rotation of the subs bench that would allow them to receive the maximum money. |  |
| |
| Proposal for a fairer system of parachute payments on 10:32 - Aug 5 with 564 views | monty_radio |
Difficult to see how this would get voted through, especially given the increasing swathe of yo-yo clubs unlikely to vote against their own interest and the owners with an unswerving eye on the main-chance. |  |
| |
| Proposal for a fairer system of parachute payments on 10:35 - Aug 5 with 553 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Parachute payments were intended to provide continuing financial reward to grossly overpaid, underperforming players. As such they seem to be working. A fairer system would be to not reward failure and have no parachute payments at all. That might have the benefit of making clubs live within their means and not overpay useless players. Given the recent experiences of clubs like Bolton, Portsmouth and Sunderland this might be preferable. | |
| |
| Proposal for a fairer system of parachute payments on 10:38 - Aug 5 with 547 views | chicoazul |
The easiest and fairest way is to remove them completely. |  |
| |
| Proposal for a fairer system of parachute payments on 10:39 - Aug 5 with 542 views | BrixtonBlue |
Looks good in principle. Surely the problem, though, then switches from clubs offering massive transfer fees to massive wages instead, knowing they'll get bailed out if they go down? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
