Parachute Payments

[Cjay]

Has there ever been a stupider concept in football?

I really never got the reasoning for them.

Team gets relegated, they fail, so what we will do is give them access to funding well above what any side in the league they will be in next season has.

What logic is that?

Hasnt done Sunderland any good or Villa who nearly went bankrupt or Hull or Boro or QPR or WBA.

The premise is sound, the idea being that relegated clubs have extremely high costs having played in the Premier league and thus it would help them while they adjust.

But that isnt what they were used for, they quickly became used to create a mini Premier league where those that have them could drive up the transfer market to ridiculous levels and the have nots couldn't compete financially.

Take parachute payments away and we had the highest revenue of any side by some distance i read, £40mil, but we have to scrimp and save to get by.

Its ridiculous.

[Sara]

A wage cap might be a better leveller.

[SG90]

It's ruining the wage bills too, Roofe wanting £40k a week because others at other clubs are getting that too. There should be a wage cap to stop silly wages.

[Irish Ian]

It's ruining the wage bills too, Roofe wanting £40k a week because others at other clubs are getting that too. There should be a wage cap to stop silly wages.

Probably about 70 years too late to ask for that SG. But high wages have ruined this sport.

That and I am not a fan of loaned players either.

[SG90]

Probably about 70 years too late to ask for that SG. But high wages have ruined this sport.

That and I am not a fan of loaned players either.

I'll get hate for this but Cellino was right to have the wage cap in place. Radz has pushed the wage bill higher yet hasn't made us better. Paying big wages is not sustainable in this league.

[YorkshireSquare]

Shouldn't be any need for them, teams should structure their contracts with relegation clauses such that there isn't a massive financial impact.

That said, the difference between TV money is the main issue, it's so vast of course there is a financial shock to the clubs. As we know the inept Football League have just signed up to a new TV deal which will see this only grown. Big teams such as Villa, Derby, Leeds together could have negotiated an TV deal together for a similar amount to what the Football League got for all 72 teams.

[SG90]

Shouldn't be any need for them, teams should structure their contracts with relegation clauses such that there isn't a massive financial impact.

That said, the difference between TV money is the main issue, it's so vast of course there is a financial shock to the clubs. As we know the inept Football League have just signed up to a new TV deal which will see this only grown. Big teams such as Villa, Derby, Leeds together could have negotiated an TV deal together for a similar amount to what the Football League got for all 72 teams.

Reading, Bristol City and Brentford voted in favour and that's the problem. Why are they speaking for everyone in the league? No disrespect meant of course, but they will be happy with a poor tv deal as it will give them a short term boost. We'd never be allowed a seat on the EFL board, but there needs to be a representative from Villa/Derby, Wednesday, Forest who will fight for the clubs who bring in the tv money to provide more money.