Parachute Payment Changes

[Luke Imp]

Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34738830

 

[JJ1532]

How much is the basic award payment currently?

 

[BeesKnees]

Bloody typical. We cut our system to the bone to get a budget capable of promotion and then they change the rules. Although we have managed to get promoted it will take years to recover the damage done to the academy and to actually finish building the stadium.

Personally I think it's wrong and the extra money should be shared with every club in the conference. This will increase the gap between League Two and the conference teams, and ensure existing league two clubs that get relegated have an unfair advantage in the first year. To often the reason a league two club get relegated is because they have managed their finances poorly, this just extends how long those clubs can continue to screw up.

This is the cost of relegation as I understand it now.
Premiership solidarity payment £250,000 - Lost on relegation
Football League payment halved to £220,000 for first year.
Academy - halved to 90,000 for two years.

The change will increase the football league payment to £440,000 in the first year and £220,000 in the second year.

 

[EnglishRed]

Why not just increase solidarity payments for all clubs in the national league? Looking after their own again.

 

[yellow]

As if getting out of this league* isn't already hard enough....


*the good way

 

[White Army]

Seems like a good idea to me. Might not be saying that next year though if we're still down here.

 

[Jemfy]

It's clearly a matter of self-interest trumps all.

It would be interesting to see how the vote came down in numbers, imagine it to be almost unanimous.

Edit: I like the above idea of sending down all the extra money as a solidarity payment instead of loading it in to certain clubs. Keep the old parachute payment structure in place though, as something needs to be there to cushion the fall (n.b. ideally the conference would get more money and the gap in funding wouldn't be so large...)

 

[Vanni]

The reason why relegated L2 clubs struggle, and some fold, is because they give 3 year contracts to their players, which isn't a very good idea when they end up playing non-league footy in front of ever decreasing crowds.

 

[Jemfy]

The reason why relegated L2 clubs struggle, and some fold, is because they give 3 year contracts to their players, which isn't a very good idea when they end up playing non-league footy in front of ever decreasing crowds.

Maybe true, but it's their own fault for putting the players on the long term contracts anyway. Unless you are talking about a top end L2 club or a club tying up a youngster to a relatively cheap contract, then anything over 2 years is just insane at L2 level.

 

[Chris FGR]

Parachute payments shouldn't be increased, if anything I'd rather get rid of them altogether. Why reward failure? And if clubs are run badly, why throw more money into the pit?

I do think academy funding should remain in place though. The amount of funding a club receives should be dependent on the category of their academy, not which league their first team is in.

 

[Vanni]

Maybe true, but it's their own fault for putting the players on the long term contracts anyway. Unless you are talking about a top end L2 club or a club tying up a youngster to a relatively cheap contract, then anything over 2 years is just insane at L2 level.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear but I fully agree with you. It's their own fault entirely. The only time that I think they're not at fault is when one of the bigger sides have a bad season and instead of going up go down, ie a totally unexpected scenario.

 

[djs]

It might encourage a few more Lge 2 sides to support the idea of a extra promotion/relegation place.
Probably won't though.

 

[Jemfy]

It might encourage a few more Lge 2 sides to support the idea of a extra promotion/relegation place.
Probably won't though.

It's interesting, and I hope you are right.

I'm guessing the league just re-absorbs the money when a relegated team get promoted again and stop receiving the payments, but it would at least be nice if they went in to the Conference funding. That could then be used to help fund projects etc, or at least form a contingency fund for the next time a club goes under during a conference season.

 

[Jemfy]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear but I fully agree with you. It's their own fault entirely. The only time that I think they're not at fault is when one of the bigger sides have a bad season and instead of going up go down, ie a totally unexpected scenario.

Apologies, should have realised.

The thing that gets me about it is if it happened to a big club who weren't expecting it, who had big players on 3 year contracts (presumably 2 remaining), the surely most of them would be good enough to offload on the cheap to get rid of the liability. Well unless they had been completely mis-managed in to the situation...

 

[Vanni]

I have always been in favour of 3/3, and I don't really care if my club is in relegation trouble or not. The way it is now, with only the title winners guaranteed promotion is unfair, and also a bit silly considering the conference gives the second placed side a trophy

 

[BeesKnees]

Re the players contracts. I just don't understand some clubs. All our contracts have a 20% pay cut built in on relegation and all our contracts are one year plus one or two year options. There is no reason to give a player a fixed three year contract.

 

[Vanni]

Apologies, should have realised.

The thing that gets me about it is if it happened to a big club who weren't expecting it, who had big players on 3 year contracts (presumably 2 remaining), the surely most of them would be good enough to offload on the cheap to get rid of the liability. Well unless they had been completely mis-managed in to the situation...

Good point, but then again a big relegated club would look to keep hold of the better players so they have more chance of going up at the first attempt. The real trouble starts when they fail to do so.

 

[Back in the DHSS]

I'm against parachute payments, it's an unfair advantage. I remember Wolves a couple of seasons ago playing in the third tier, still getting a parachute payment from the premier league on top of a parachute payment from the Championship and still getting 20,000 plus crowds. How do you compete with that if your a freshly promoted bog standard sized league 2 club.

 

[Southern Shayman]

As someone on our forum put it, they'll never get back to a 1 up 1 down system again and this is their next best option.

100% parachute is something like £1 million quid a year advantage to relegated sides.

Ridiculous

 

[Aber gas]

It's a complete joke and a massive kick in the teeth to the majority of clubs in the conference. It's designed to create a closed shop and pretty much negates sporting integrity. Teams that have done well in recent years by putting together a side on a limited budget using shrewd scouting and promoting youth products( I'm thinking Macclesfield, Woking and Halifax ) might as well give up on any hope of playoffs and promotion. This league is hard enough without artificially loading the dice in the favour of the relegated clubs.
Oh and it should absolutely be 3 up 3 down.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

3 up, 3 down, scrap parachute payments. Whilst we're at it make the National League Prem officially 'Division 5'. Or 'League 3'. Or whatever the hell they would call it.

 

[BeesKnees]

As someone on our forum put it, they'll never get back to a 1 up 1 down system again and this is their next best option.
100% parachute is something like £1 million quid a year advantage to relegated sides.
Ridiculous

The parachute payment is nothing like £1m. That is the amount the average relegated club is worse off by if you take into account Sky money, League money, Academy money and reduced crowds. The Parachute payment is currently around £220k FL Money + £90k for a lvl3 EPPP academy, this change will make it £440k + £90k in the first year and £220k + £90k in the second.

 

[Luke Imp]

Yeah, it's never been £1m. When we were relegated, it was something like:

L2 - £250k PL payment, £400k TV, £180k youth funding = £830k (£650k for first team)
Year 1 Conf - No PL payment, £200k TV, £90k youth funding = £290k (£200k for first team)
Year 2 Conf - No PL payment, no TV, £90k youth funding = £90k (£0 for first team)
Year 3 - Nothing (I think Conference TV payments is £40k).

It's about time they've looked to change it and something I've always said but it needed to be spread out over a longer period of time with smaller drops rather than an increase in money. It's massive challenge to iron everything out in two years and that lost money is before you even take into account lower ST sales, home attendances, away attendances, lower merchandise, food, programmes, sponsorships, exec boxes etc etc.

 

[Southern Shayman]

The parachute payment is nothing like £1m. That is the amount the average relegated club is worse off by if you take into account Sky money, League money, Academy money and reduced crowds. The Parachute payment is currently around £220k FL Money + £90k for a lvl3 EPPP academy, this change will make it £440k + £90k in the first year and £220k + £90k in the second.

Ah Ok, my misunderstanding - that makes much more sense.

Yeah, it's never been £1m. When we were relegated, it was something like:

L2 - £250k PL payment, £400k TV, £180k youth funding = £830k (£650k for first team)
Year 1 Conf - No PL payment, £200k TV, £90k youth funding = £290k (£200k for first team)
Year 2 Conf - No PL payment, no TV, £90k youth funding = £90k (£0 for first team)
Year 3 - Nothing (I think Conference TV payments is £40k).

It's about time they've looked to change it. It was massive challenge to iron everything out in two years and that lost money is before you even take into account lower ST sales, home attendances, away attendances, lower merchandise, food, programmes, sponsorships, exec boxes etc etc.

I think you've missed the point completely. If a football club is run properly then it should be structured to cope with the events of relegation - claused contracts etc. I understand the value of limited parachute payments to help cope with non-playing staff that can't be immediately cut and to continue to fund youth projects. But to say, we want more money because we can't react in 2 years and didn't plan properly in the first place is just plain wrong IMO.

 

[Luke Imp]

The reason why relegated L2 clubs struggle, and some fold, is because they give 3 year contracts to their players, which isn't a very good idea when they end up playing non-league footy in front of ever decreasing crowds.

Very, very rare to see 3 years deals handed out.

Parachute payments shouldn't be increased, if anything I'd rather get rid of them altogether. Why reward failure? And if clubs are run badly, why throw more money into the pit?

I do think academy funding should remain in place though. The amount of funding a club receives should be dependent on the category of their academy, not which league their first team is in.

Clubs don't necessarily get relegated because they're badly run.

Agree on youth funding. We have to fundraise and get to £50k a year to keep ours going now.

I'm against parachute payments, it's an unfair advantage. I remember Wolves a couple of seasons ago playing in the third tier, still getting a parachute payment from the premier league on top of a parachute payment from the Championship and still getting 20,000 plus crowds. How do you compete with that if your a freshly promoted bog standard sized league 2 club.

Even taking all of that our of the equation, they'd still be no-where near competing with Wolves purely on an attendance basis.

 

[Luke Imp]

I think you've missed the point completely. If a football club is run properly then it should be structured to cope with the events of relegation - claused contracts etc. I understand the value of limited parachute payments to help cope with non-playing staff that can't be immediately cut and to continue to fund youth projects. But to say, we want more money because we can't react in 2 years and didn't plan properly in the first place is just plain wrong IMO.

I don't think FL Clubs have ever been in the 'we want more' camp but that it's spread out more evenly (I edited my post just before you replied, which is a stance I've always taken).

 

[SomeMightShay]

The amount of funding a club receives should be dependent on the category of their academy, not which league their first team is in.

Or how many millions their hippy Uncle Swampy is prepared to spunk at it.

 

[genesimmons]

Another farce from the fa. Will be like premier leagu, teams becomeing yo yo clubs, relegated into confrence, back up at 1st attempt due to higher parachute payments. They will be able to buy best of confrence players and no doubt a few good ones from l2. Team will get back into football league and wont risk spending to improve squad as they will be assured of another parachute payment. These payments wont help confrence clubs who have not been in football league in past 2 year or have never been there at all, could well send them to the wall trying to compete. God knows where it leaves newly promoted clubs in confrence unless they are backed by multi millionaires. So the fa have fooked up non league football below confrence premier due to its restructureing makeing it more and more southern based and now this. Dont bode well for the already poor non league step 1-4 in north east

 

[Jemfy]

Another farce from the fa. Will be like premier leagu, teams becomeing yo yo clubs, relegated into confrence, back up at 1st attempt due to higher parachute payments. They will be able to buy best of confrence players and no doubt a few good ones from l2. Team will get back into football league and wont risk spending to improve squad as they will be assured of another parachute payment. These payments wont help confrence clubs who have not been in football league in past 2 year or have never been there at all, could well send them to the wall trying to compete. God knows where it leaves newly promoted clubs in confrence unless they are backed by multi millionaires. So the fa have fooked up non league football below confrence premier due to its restructureing makeing it more and more southern based and now this. Dont bode well for the already poor non league step 1-4 in north east

No they haven't made it "more and more southern based" below the conference premier, they've failed to address the long term problems which have lead to it being the case. A big part of that has been the lack of promotion from certain Northern step 5 divisions. Another is the uneven North/South funneling at the step 2 borderline (but this was the case before the conference North/South came in, the league where it happened was just different).

It's stupid, but it's sod all to do with the FA, it's all the Football League's decision I believe. Which makes sense as if you asked football league clubs to vote on if they should have more money or pass it on of course they are going to vote for more money. I don't blame them, but I don't like it either.

 

[Southern Shayman]

Oh don't listen to Gene. He prattles on about everyone hating northern teams at every opportunity.

Wonder how he'll react to all 3 tv ties for the fa cup being Northern teams. No doubt he'll come up with some other ridiculous theory.