Parachute payments

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Parachute payments

Think some of those mentioned benefitted from the four year parachute payment system which started in 2005/06. By my calculation under that system only one in three teams got promoted again within the period they were in receipt. Under the three year system it has gone up to two in three.

By my reckoning (which may be wrong), clubs who have failed to get promoted back to the Premier League under the current system include Cardiff City, Swansea City, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Stoke City, Huddersfield and Hull City.

Parachute payments are obviously a benefit of sorts, but plenty of clubs haven't managed to take full advantage of them. Those that have bounced back either immediately or within two years have tended to be the bigger clubs that you would expect to be challenging for promotion under any circumstances, or the clubs who managed to retain the bulk of a squad that would be expected to perform well in this division anyway such as Norwich and Fulham.

The way many clubs operate financially at this level is clearly a problem, but I reckon citing parachute payments as being the problem is way too simplistic.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Parachute payments

By my reckoning (which may be wrong), clubs who have failed to get promoted back to the Premier League under the current system include Cardiff City, Swansea City, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Stoke City, Huddersfield and Hull City.

It might be worth adding that Cardiff, Swansea and Middlesbrough have all had failed playoff attempts to get back to the PL since their most recent relegations. Huddersfield look like they might achieve the same this season. Both Sunderland and Hull have been promoted quickly back to the top flight prior to their most recent relegation.

Not sure what my point is, just seemed worth adding!

[Rjk]

Re: Parachute payments

By my reckoning (which may be wrong), clubs who have failed to get promoted back to the Premier League under the current system include Cardiff City, Swansea City, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Stoke City, Huddersfield and Hull City.

Parachute payments are obviously a benefit of sorts, but plenty of clubs haven't managed to take full advantage of them. Those that have bounced back either immediately or within two years have tended to be the bigger clubs that you would expect to be challenging for promotion under any circumstances, or the clubs who managed to retain the bulk of a squad that would be expected to perform well in this division anyway such as Norwich and Fulham.

The way many clubs operate financially at this level is clearly a problem, but I reckon citing parachute payments as being the problem is way too simplistic.

I also have a general feeling, without really being able to back it up that the premier League is becoming more of a closed shop.

premier League teams finances have grown so much over the years, they also seem to have become a lot smarter with it as well - the merry go round of dinosaur managers seems to have come to an end and most exciting talent in terms of management as well as players seems to end up here.

I think (could be wrong) that for about the last 4 years running, 2 out of the 3 promoted teams were still receiving parachute payments - and I'd say it was pretty likely that the pattern will continue this season.

the club's that have gone up in this period without parachute money are the likes of Brentford, Leeds, Sheffield United and wolves, so it is still very much possible, but it just feels to me that it is becoming harder to do.

when you consider that the amount of money teams get in parachute payments alone is bigger than the entire operating budget of some teams then it isn't a big surprise.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Parachute payments

Apart from the current top two in the Championship and one or two others (eg Forest and Middlesbrough, who paid getting on for ten million for a player last summer), the Pandemic has a profound effect on transfer spending at this level, but the Premiership appears not have to have been affected at all, so you would assume that the gap between the two divisions must grow with or without parachute payments (which I think should be scrapped immediately).

As for City, it’s all been said already about how we’ve wasted tens of millions of pounds in the transfer fees - I know Murphy has not helped himself at all, but it’s a disgrace that our third highest ever signing, who we signed at the age of twenty three, is, almost certainly, going to leave us on a free at twenty seven having been out on loan this season. We’ve not just signed players with no resale value, but when we did sign someone of the “right” age they went backwards at a rate of knots.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Parachute payments

I also have a general feeling, without really being able to back it up that the premier League is becoming more of a closed shop.

premier League teams finances have grown so much over the years, they also seem to have become a lot smarter with it as well - the merry go round of dinosaur managers seems to have come to an end and most exciting talent in terms of management as well as players seems to end up here.

I think (could be wrong) that for about the last 4 years running, 2 out of the 3 promoted teams were still receiving parachute payments - and I'd say it was pretty likely that the pattern will continue this season.

the club's that have gone up in this period without parachute money are the likes of Brentford, Leeds, Sheffield United and wolves, so it is still very much possible, but it just feels to me that it is becoming harder to do.

when you consider that the amount of money teams get in parachute payments alone is bigger than the entire operating budget of some teams then it isn't a big surprise.

I've had a look at the stats of teams relegated from the Premier League 2001-2020. For each side I've looked at how often those sides have won automatic promotion, any promotion, or any top 6 finish in the Championship in any of the following 3 seasons. Amazingly, only 1 side has managed relegation, promotion, relegation and then promotion in that time - Birmingham City from 2005/06.

Automatic promotion within 1 year/2 years/3 years:
2000s - 8/2/1 (11)
2010s - 4/1/1 (6)

Any promotion within 1 year/2 years/3 years:
2000s - 8/2/2 (12)
2010s - 9/0/4 (13)

Top 6 finish within 1 year/2 years/3 years:
2000s - 14/7/7 (28)
2010s - 16/3/4 (23)

I have no idea when parachute payments came into effect, but there is a suggestion that it was easier for relegated teams to get back to the Premier League after 3 seasons in the 2000s than it was a decade later.

Next, I thought I'd check a hunch I had where it seems to me that it's the same old sides fighting for promotion. It turns out I was wrong.

Between 2001-2010, 28 different sides finished in the top 6 of the Championship, 20 different sides won promotion and 13 different sides finished in the top 2.

Between 2011-2020, 31 different sides finished in the top 6 of the Championship, 23 different sides won promotion and 17 different sides finished in the top 2.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Parachute payments

Next, I thought I'd check a hunch I had where it seems to me that it's the same old sides fighting for promotion. It turns out I was wrong.

Between 2001-2010, 28 different sides finished in the top 6 of the Championship, 20 different sides won promotion and 13 different sides finished in the top 2.

Between 2011-2020, 31 different sides finished in the top 6 of the Championship, 23 different sides won promotion and 17 different sides finished in the top 2.

Great work.

So, the Premier League - not quite the closed shop some believe it to be.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Parachute payments

Great work.

So, the Premier League - not quite the closed shop some believe it to be.

I should maybe add that of the 23 different sides that won promotion in the 2010s, 12 of them had also won promotion in the 2000s while 7 of the 17 different sides that finished in the top 2 in the 2010s had done so in the previous decade.

8 of the 12 sides only promoted in the 2010s (not the 2000s) had played in League 1 since 2000; 5 of them had played in the bottom tier since then.

20 years ago who would have guessed Swansea, Bournemouth and Brentford would have made the Premier League? I think any well-run club playing good football, with an eye for bringing in quality players, can make it.

[Rjk]

Re: Parachute payments

I've had a look at the stats of teams relegated from the Premier League 2001-2020. For each side I've looked at how often those sides have won automatic promotion, any promotion, or any top 6 finish in the Championship in any of the following 3 seasons. Amazingly, only 1 side has managed relegation, promotion, relegation and then promotion in that time - Birmingham City from 2005/06.

Automatic promotion within 1 year/2 years/3 years:
2000s - 8/2/1 (11)
2010s - 4/1/1 (6)

Any promotion within 1 year/2 years/3 years:
2000s - 8/2/2 (12)
2010s - 9/0/4 (13)

Top 6 finish within 1 year/2 years/3 years:
2000s - 14/7/7 (28)
2010s - 16/3/4 (23)

I have no idea when parachute payments came into effect, but there is a suggestion that it was easier for relegated teams to get back to the Premier League after 3 seasons in the 2000s than it was a decade later.

Next, I thought I'd check a hunch I had where it seems to me that it's the same old sides fighting for promotion. It turns out I was wrong.

Between 2001-2010, 28 different sides finished in the top 6 of the Championship, 20 different sides won promotion and 13 different sides finished in the top 2.

Between 2011-2020, 31 different sides finished in the top 6 of the Championship, 23 different sides won promotion and 17 different sides finished in the top 2.

apparently parachute payments came into effect in the 06/07 season.

on the face of it there doesn't seem to be much difference between the 2000s and the 2010s, with 12 and 13 teams promoted within the first 3 years.

however that works out as 1.2 or 1.3 a year.
for the last 4 years there have been 2 a year promoted with parachute payments, and it seems likely that there will be at least 2 this year, possibly 3 - it just feels as though there has been a bit of a step change over the last few years.
I could be wrong and maybe next season we will see teams without parachute payments dominating the league, but I doubt it

[Lawnmower]

Re: Parachute payments

Some of the teams who have benefitted from parachute payments since the new system was introduced in 2015/16:

Bolton Wanderers, Blackburn Rovers, Reading, Wigan Athletic, QPR, Hull City, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Swansea City, Stoke City, West Brom, Huddersfield Town and, of course, Cardiff City.

Perhaps they're not the enormous advantage some assume them to be.

Have a look at the teams going up in the last few seasons.

Fulham, Norwich, a few times, Burnley, Newcastle, West Brom a couple of times, us
( in our final season of parachute funds), the top 2 ( maybe 3) this season, Villa, Hull ( I think the year they can’t up with us), these are just off the top of my head.

Seems that at least 1 normally 2 of the top 6 and generally at least 1 of the top 2 are benefitting from parachute money.

And due to Covid’s effect on budgets the difference is getting bigger

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Parachute payments

Have a look at the teams going up in the last few seasons.

The teams going up also tend to be well-supported, or have wealthy owners, or are well-managed and well-run. Parachute payments are clearly not the be-all and end-all if you look at the stats.

To be honest, I don't know what people want these days. Financial fair play? In my opinion, that system is, and always has been, absolute nonsense. It's just a joke, as the clubs who get punished are never those who are successful - they're always the clubs who've failed in one way or another.

Do we want some sort of a level playing field? If so, how could that possibly be achieved?

Whatever happens, we'll always have big clubs, small clubs, clubs who are well-run, clubs who are a circus, clubs with wealthy owners, clubs without. That's always been the way and I'd guess it always will be.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Parachute payments

Ladies and Gentlemen you have been listening to a party political broadcast on behalf of the dirty stinking capitalist premier league .

We can do anything we want as most of you are stupid .

Cheers .

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Parachute payments

I should maybe add that of the 23 different sides that won promotion in the 2010s, 12 of them had also won promotion in the 2000s while 7 of the 17 different sides that finished in the top 2 in the 2010s had done so in the previous decade.

8 of the 12 sides only promoted in the 2010s (not the 2000s) had played in League 1 since 2000; 5 of them had played in the bottom tier since then.

20 years ago who would have guessed Swansea, Bournemouth and Brentford would have made the Premier League? I think any well-run club playing good football, with an eye for bringing in quality players, can make it.

I think it's great when the likes of Brentford, Burnley , Watford etc kick a few arses in the poncey league

Maybe one day we will get up there for more than a season but I doubt it .

[Pearcey3]

Re: Parachute payments

The teams going up also tend to be well-supported, or have wealthy owners, or are well-managed and well-run. Parachute payments are clearly not the be-all and end-all if you look at the stats.

To be honest, I don't know what people want these days. Financial fair play? In my opinion, that system is, and always has been, absolute nonsense. It's just a joke, as the clubs who get punished are never those who are successful - they're always the clubs who've failed in one way or another.

Do we want some sort of a level playing field? If so, how could that possibly be achieved?

Whatever happens, we'll always have big clubs, small clubs, clubs who are well-run, clubs who are a circus, clubs with wealthy owners, clubs without. That's always been the way and I'd guess it always will be.

There is no obvious answer. In one sense FFP should protect clubs from themselves and put an end to ridiculous overspending with transfer embargo’s and point deductions. Yet some of the worst offenders like Villa have gotten away with it by winning promotion in the nick of time.

The biggest problems appear to be in the Championship where huge debts are being racked up by too many clubs. It’s the division where the FFP breaches are regularly occurring with a number of teams being hit by points deductions. Maybe things will slowly change and clubs will get their act together but right now it’s a long way from that.

[Rjk]

Re: Parachute payments

it should at least be a level playing field. the current system where some clubs get well more than double the income of others is basically not fair.
you could take any club in this league, say Peterborough, and hive them an extra £35 million a year for 2 or 3 years to spend on wages and transfers and they should at least be challenging for the playoffs.
the fact that we had it and did nothing says a lot about us

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Parachute payments

The biggest problems appear to be in the Championship where huge debts are being racked up by too many clubs. It’s the division where the FFP breaches are regularly occurring with a number of teams being hit by points deductions.

2018/19 - Birmingham were deducted 9 points, which meant they finished 17th as opposed to 14th.

2020/21 - Sheffield Wednesday were deducted 6 points, which meant they were relegated (ironically instead of Derby).

And, of course, this season we have Derby's 21 points, that will see them relegated, and Reading's 6 points, which might see them relegated or mean nothing at all.

The point I was making above is the teams who get punished are those who are knackered anyway. It's not those who achieve any sort of success.