BFTG - Forest

[Snowflake Royal]

they lost 23m in season 16/17, after a profit of £5m the season before (which inc parachute payments)

so

+5
-23m
-35m (if they hadn't paid out the promotion bonuses)

would be north of £50m loss over 3 years, so same ballpark as us. With the bonuses is nearer to a 75m loss.

may have been thinking more of the season before promotion.

[Hound]

they lost 23m in season 16/17, after a profit of £5m the season before (which inc parachute payments)

so

+5
-23m
-35m (if they hadn't paid out the promotion bonuses)

would be north of £50m loss over 3 years, so same ballpark as us. With the bonuses is nearer to a 75m loss.

may have been thinking more of the season before promotion.

From memory they had some financial issues after relegation but seemed to sort things out and be pretty rubbish but stable. Then went and spent an absolute shit load and brought promotion pretty successfully

ie what we tried to do and failed miserably by buying rubbish

[tmesis]

Yet parachute payments exist. The EFL don't want real financial fair play and neither do the Premier League. Got to keep their heritage clubs at the top and stop anyone from daring to challenge the established order.

I don't see anything to suggest the EFL wants the clubs that come down to have an unfair advantage (even if they do). What would be the point? How does the football league benefit from that situation?

[The Green Programme]

Wolves spent massively the year they went up, with huge bonus payments - I think some of the other teams didnt break FFP but were bloated by parachute payments - Burnley - Norwich second time around - think before they were in a big financial mess but managed to see Maddison for £25m which kept them going, and then managed to go up despite selling him

Yeah, but that's the point with Wolves, if you've been run carefully and well you can afford the odd splurge.

not sure it could be classed as an odd splurge. nabbed from wiki so not sure how accurate but

When Wolves's accounts covering the 2017–18 season were published on 5 March 2019, they recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16 million, of which around £20 million was due to bonuses paid to staff and players for achieving promotion to the Premier League.[4][5] It was noted that the loss, which was more than double the loss in the previous financial year, represented a deficit of more than a £1 million per week.[6]

£16m was spent on one player alone - Ruben Neves

and going back the season before looks like they spent 30 odd mill on transfers. So they basically cheated like fcuk

Exactly.

In other words if you go up after spending far more than you earn (which without getting into the realms of accountancy manipulation and interpretations, is the basic principle behind FFP) you get away with it because of the massive cash boost.

Forest themselves spent a fortune a couple of years back and have had to curb spending recently.

Villa were one of the worst culprits after buying every big non Prem name over two windows in a massive gamble for promotion; including making compo payments to Bruce.

They had Grealish in their back pocket to try and repay the debt if it all went wrong but went up and got away with it

The bottom line is this…
If it works… it’s worth it…. When it doesn’t, it can be a nightmare…

And as for the likes of Bournemouth with their 11,000 max fans; if they don’t go up this year… where do they go from there… sell everyone and start again…
Or break the rules?

[Millsy]

Yet parachute payments exist. The EFL don't want real financial fair play and neither do the Premier League. Got to keep their heritage clubs at the top and stop anyone from daring to challenge the established order.

I don't see anything to suggest the EFL wants the clubs that come down to have an unfair advantage (even if they do). What would be the point? How does the football league benefit from that situation?

Fair point. I'm no economist SO JUST GENERALLY GUESSING but the way I see it though is not necessarily that they want those that come down to have an unfair advantage. Of course those that come down will be paying such ridiculous wages they absolutely need parachutes to keep them alive. But why do they have such a large wage bill? Because to stand a chance in the PL you need to do that. Why? Because there's a massively uneven distribution of wealth in the game so you need to pay huge wages to stand a chance. Why? The system is built around the huge clubs who can spend freely and with impunity.

That's the status quo which mustn't change. Huge clubs, who think they have a God-given right to be the be all and end all in English footy (SuperLeague etc), attract all the money, be able to spend it as they wish. Screw the rest of the league.

EFL rules to me are basically just protecting that setup so Orion1871's point stands. I guess it's the equivalent of trying to sort out the enormous wealth gap in society by banning poor people from spending. Simple stupid law to paper over the cracks rather than actually dealing with the issues for a fairer society.

Not sure what the alternative is though. Stricter financial controls on PL clubs too? Wage caps? Much more even distribution of revenue throughout the leagues? Then it would have to be worldwide in some way or ENglish PL clubs wouldn't be able to compete internationally? If it could work though we wouldn't need the parachute system and there would be much more fluidity.

[morganb]

Couldn't there be a standard PL player contract that says "for any player, if you play well enough then the team stays in the Premier League and your big bucks wages continue. However, if the team gets relegated then you end up on the pittance that is paid to Championship players."

Also, couldn't parachute payments be held in a trust by the EFL so that it is paid out directly to the players rather than to the club who spend it on whatever they like? Does it have to be a set amount or could it be tailored towards the wage bill declared in the accounts of each relegated club. Surely if they sell their players on the high wages the amount should decrease accordingly?

[South Coast Royal]

Yeah, but that's the point with Wolves, if you've been run carefully and well you can afford the odd splurge.

not sure it could be classed as an odd splurge. nabbed from wiki so not sure how accurate but

When Wolves's accounts covering the 2017–18 season were published on 5 March 2019, they recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16 million, of which around £20 million was due to bonuses paid to staff and players for achieving promotion to the Premier League.[4][5] It was noted that the loss, which was more than double the loss in the previous financial year, represented a deficit of more than a £1 million per week.[6]

£16m was spent on one player alone - Ruben Neves

and going back the season before looks like they spent 30 odd mill on transfers. So they basically cheated like fcuk

Exactly.

In other words if you go up after spending far more than you earn (which without getting into the realms of accountancy manipulation and interpretations, is the basic principle behind FFP) you get away with it because of the massive cash boost.

Forest themselves spent a fortune a couple of years back and have had to curb spending recently.

Villa were one of the worst culprits after buying every big non Prem name over two windows in a massive gamble for promotion; including making compo payments to Bruce.

They had Grealish in their back pocket to try and repay the debt if it all went wrong but went up and got away with it

The bottom line is this…
If it works… it’s worth it…. When it doesn’t, it can be a nightmare…

And as for the likes of Bournemouth with their 11,000 max fans; if they don’t go up this year… where do they go from there… sell everyone and start again…
Or break the rules?

Just on Bournemouth, they sold Danjuma for in excess of £25 million or so and only spent £1.5 million on Ryan Christie so I suspect for the time being they will be ok.

[Hound]

not sure it could be classed as an odd splurge. nabbed from wiki so not sure how accurate but

When Wolves's accounts covering the 2017–18 season were published on 5 March 2019, they recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16 million, of which around £20 million was due to bonuses paid to staff and players for achieving promotion to the Premier League.[4][5] It was noted that the loss, which was more than double the loss in the previous financial year, represented a deficit of more than a £1 million per week.[6]

£16m was spent on one player alone - Ruben Neves

and going back the season before looks like they spent 30 odd mill on transfers. So they basically cheated like fcuk

Exactly.

In other words if you go up after spending far more than you earn (which without getting into the realms of accountancy manipulation and interpretations, is the basic principle behind FFP) you get away with it because of the massive cash boost.

Forest themselves spent a fortune a couple of years back and have had to curb spending recently.

Villa were one of the worst culprits after buying every big non Prem name over two windows in a massive gamble for promotion; including making compo payments to Bruce.

They had Grealish in their back pocket to try and repay the debt if it all went wrong but went up and got away with it

The bottom line is this…
If it works… it’s worth it…. When it doesn’t, it can be a nightmare…

And as for the likes of Bournemouth with their 11,000 max fans; if they don’t go up this year… where do they go from there… sell everyone and start again…
Or break the rules?

Just on Bournemouth, they sold Danjuma for in excess of £25 million or so and only spent £1.5 million on Ryan Christie so I suspect for the time being they will be ok.

thought it was about 25m euro but yes same point. Also got rid of some hefty wages in the summer but sure the likes of Billing and Solanke are still on plenty. Mind you - 2 sellable assets there as well

[Franchise FC]

Couldn't there be a standard PL player contract that says "for any player, if you play well enough then the team stays in the Premier League and your big bucks wages continue. However, if the team gets relegated then you end up on the pittance that is paid to Championship players."

Also, couldn't parachute payments be held in a trust by the EFL so that it is paid out directly to the players rather than to the club who spend it on whatever they like? Does it have to be a set amount or could it be tailored towards the wage bill declared in the accounts of each relegated club. Surely if they sell their players on the high wages the amount should decrease accordingly?

On your first point, that would be great if it didn’t have a massively negative effect on actually getting a player to sign. Why would a player do that when there’s plenty of clubs that would be less likely to get relegated ? Said player may even take a short term lower salary to have it ‘guaranteed’

Only change would then be if a moderately ‘big’ club gets relegated

[Mr Angry]

Why not simply have either no parachute payments whatsoever, or just 1 Year covering 50% of the clubs TV money from their last season in the PL?

As I see it, the parachute payments are there to help those relegated clubs quickly rejoin the PL, and if you look at recent relegations/promotions, that certainly seems to have been the effect on teams such as Fulham, West Brom, Norwich, Villa and Watford (to name but 5).

The fact that Fulham can keep a £100k per week striker despite being relegated makes a mockery of any semblance of competitiveness in the Championship.

Without parachute payments, clubs would have to balance their books better in the event of relegation; Fulham might want to keep Mitrovic - but would have to sell 5 other players in order to do so.

[Franchise FC]

Why not simply have either no parachute payments whatsoever, or just 1 Year covering 50% of the clubs TV money from their last season in the PL?

As I see it, the parachute payments are there to help those relegated clubs quickly rejoin the PL, and if you look at recent relegations/promotions, that certainly seems to have been the effect on teams such as Fulham, West Brom, Norwich, Villa and Watford (to name but 5).

The fact that Fulham can keep a £100k per week striker despite being relegated makes a mockery of any semblance of competitiveness in the Championship.

Without parachute payments, clubs would have to balance their books better in the event of relegation; Fulham might want to keep Mitrovic - but would have to sell 5 other players in order to do so.

You’ve described perfectly why the PL DO provide parachute payments.
Without them the promoted (and then relegated) teams would have zero chance of competing because of the almost zero chance of signing anyone.

Why would there be ANY reason they’d be concerned with any other competition.
It’s not about trying to get teams promoted back to the PL, but simply making the PL competitive. Despite the fact that the top few are by far and away leaving some of the others behind, there’s no doubt that the PL is extremely competitive in a way that no other top league is anywhere in the world.

[Hound]

so making the PL competitive at the expense of the EFL.

guess thats the crux of the problem and why its difficult to resolve

[RoyalBlue]

Why not simply have either no parachute payments whatsoever, or just 1 Year covering 50% of the clubs TV money from their last season in the PL?

As I see it, the parachute payments are there to help those relegated clubs quickly rejoin the PL, and if you look at recent relegations/promotions, that certainly seems to have been the effect on teams such as Fulham, West Brom, Norwich, Villa and Watford (to name but 5).

The fact that Fulham can keep a £100k per week striker despite being relegated makes a mockery of any semblance of competitiveness in the Championship.

Without parachute payments, clubs would have to balance their books better in the event of relegation; Fulham might want to keep Mitrovic - but would have to sell 5 other players in order to do so.

You’ve described perfectly why the PL DO provide parachute payments.
Without them the promoted (and then relegated) teams would have zero chance of competing because of the almost zero chance of signing anyone.

Why would there be ANY reason they’d be concerned with any other competition.
It’s not about trying to get teams promoted back to the PL, but simply making the PL competitive. Despite the fact that the top few are by far and away leaving some of the others behind, there’s no doubt that the PL is extremely competitive in a way that no other top league is anywhere in the world.

There are other ways of ensuring a more level playing field (look at how MLS manage it) , which would also allow clubs in the EFL to have more chance of making the EPL rather than have to battle against the constant yo-yo created by parachute payments for relegated EPL clubs, which sees the majority of them promoted again during that period.

[Zip]

so making the PL competitive at the expense of the EFL.

guess thats the crux of the problem and why its difficult to resolve

This is how I see it so it comes as no surprise the division with so many of the points deductions is the Championship with teams spending so much to compete with the relegated clubs. Something has to change.

[Franchise FC]

Why not simply have either no parachute payments whatsoever, or just 1 Year covering 50% of the clubs TV money from their last season in the PL?

As I see it, the parachute payments are there to help those relegated clubs quickly rejoin the PL, and if you look at recent relegations/promotions, that certainly seems to have been the effect on teams such as Fulham, West Brom, Norwich, Villa and Watford (to name but 5).

The fact that Fulham can keep a £100k per week striker despite being relegated makes a mockery of any semblance of competitiveness in the Championship.

Without parachute payments, clubs would have to balance their books better in the event of relegation; Fulham might want to keep Mitrovic - but would have to sell 5 other players in order to do so.

You’ve described perfectly why the PL DO provide parachute payments.
Without them the promoted (and then relegated) teams would have zero chance of competing because of the almost zero chance of signing anyone.

Why would there be ANY reason they’d be concerned with any other competition.
It’s not about trying to get teams promoted back to the PL, but simply making the PL competitive. Despite the fact that the top few are by far and away leaving some of the others behind, there’s no doubt that the PL is extremely competitive in a way that no other top league is anywhere in the world.

There are other ways of ensuring a more level playing field (look at how MLS manage it) , which would also allow clubs in the EFL to have more chance of making the EPL rather than have to battle against the constant yo-yo created by parachute payments for relegated EPL clubs, which sees the majority of them promoted again during that period.

Isn’t the MLS the PL equivalent, not the EFL ?

[Millsy]

Parachute payment is basically just there to pay off the braindead contracts clubs sign players for without decent relegation clauses.

Get rid of them and contracts will change overnight. Players might then jump ship to PL when their teams are relegated but so what? At least it makes the Championship competitive and fair.

[Snowflake Royal]

so making the PL competitive at the expense of the EFL.

guess thats the crux of the problem and why its difficult to resolve

This is how I see it so it comes as no surprise the division with so many of the points deductions is the Championship with teams spending so much to compete with the relegated clubs. Something has to change.

Regulate football finance and scrap the PL. Splitter pcunts.

[The Green Programme]

Why not simply have either no parachute payments whatsoever, or just 1 Year covering 50% of the clubs TV money from their last season in the PL?

As I see it, the parachute payments are there to help those relegated clubs quickly rejoin the PL, and if you look at recent relegations/promotions, that certainly seems to have been the effect on teams such as Fulham, West Brom, Norwich, Villa and Watford (to name but 5).

The fact that Fulham can keep a £100k per week striker despite being relegated makes a mockery of any semblance of competitiveness in the Championship.

Without parachute payments, clubs would have to balance their books better in the event of relegation; Fulham might want to keep Mitrovic - but would have to sell 5 other players in order to do so.

+1

[tmesis]

Why not simply have either no parachute payments whatsoever, or just 1 Year covering 50% of the clubs TV money from their last season in the PL?

As I see it, the parachute payments are there to help those relegated clubs quickly rejoin the PL, and if you look at recent relegations/promotions, that certainly seems to have been the effect on teams such as Fulham, West Brom, Norwich, Villa and Watford (to name but 5).

The fact that Fulham can keep a £100k per week striker despite being relegated makes a mockery of any semblance of competitiveness in the Championship.

Without parachute payments, clubs would have to balance their books better in the event of relegation; Fulham might want to keep Mitrovic - but would have to sell 5 other players in order to do so.

You’ve described perfectly why the PL DO provide parachute payments.
Without them the promoted (and then relegated) teams would have zero chance of competing because of the almost zero chance of signing anyone.

Why would there be ANY reason they’d be concerned with any other competition.
It’s not about trying to get teams promoted back to the PL, but simply making the PL competitive. Despite the fact that the top few are by far and away leaving some of the others behind, there’s no doubt that the PL is extremely competitive in a way that no other top league is anywhere in the world.

There are other ways of ensuring a more level playing field (look at how MLS manage it) , which would also allow clubs in the EFL to have more chance of making the EPL rather than have to battle against the constant yo-yo created by parachute payments for relegated EPL clubs, which sees the majority of them promoted again during that period.

MLS has a wage cap (at a level all clubs can afford), no internal transfer fees (players can only be swapped) and a draft system which offers the best young players to the worst clubs. It also doesn't have guaranteed contracts, so any players that flop can simply be released with no pay-off required.