Championship clubs to be forced to play under 23s by the premier league ?

[The Humble Realist]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jul/26/premier-league-wants-championship-to-house-loan-players-in-new-finance-deal

Cant say I'm a fan of this. 

Not sure the premier league should be meddling with the rules of the championship.

I'm already concerned the 5 subs rule in the prem will actually lead to talent being hovered up to the top league (to fill squads) leading to an overall drop in quality over the next few years. 

[Lrrr]

Rule about clubs needing to play a number of players under the age of 23 - maybe

Rule about clubs needing to play a number of players under the age of 23 which are PL loans - **** right off

The first scenario City would be fine on - Semenyo, Scott, Massengo, Conway, Wilson, Tanner, Benarous. I think it would encourage Championship to buy better U23's from L1 and L2 at an earlier stage and we could see a shift in average squad ages. Would see more money going to L1 and L2 clubs if championship clubs were looking to buy their players more regularly.

[hertsexile]

Just another way for the Premiership to try and take control of lower league talent. They could help by spending some of their money on developing their own talent. Parachute payments need to be scrapped 

[Davefevs]

If this happens, then it will be the end of football.  Stop hoovering them up in the first place.

Sod any tv deal, breakaway from the PL instead…leave them on their own.

[ExiledAjax]

Utter bullshit. The demand/request to come up with a way to redistribute funds wasn't an invitation to see how much flesh the PL can extract from the EFL. Just because no one cares about PL2.

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

Rule about clubs needing to play a number of players under the age of 23 - maybe

Would need to check compatibility of a rule like that with age discrimination laws. Age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. If a 30 year-old could prove they got bombed out of a team in favour of a 22 year old purely because of age and to satisfy a quota...there could well be a claim there.

[Sleepy1968]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

If this happens, then it will be the end of football.  Stop hoovering them up in the first place.

Sod any tv deal, breakaway from the PL instead…leave them on their own.

Exactly. The day something like this happens is the day I start to save £700+ quid a year.

[2015]

Part of me thinks there is a bitterness from the Premier League towards EFL just because lower league football is still so popular in this Country, more so than any other Football League pyramid in Europe and they will try and do anything to destroy it if possible just to line their own greedy pockets.

[cidered abroad]

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Part of me thinks there is a bitterness from the Premier League towards EFL just because lower league football is still so popular in this Country, more so than any other Football League pyramid in Europe and they will try and do anything to destroy it if possible just to line their own greedy pockets.

Well said!  Non premier League football in this country has always been very different to most other countries in that quality of football and attendances are vastly superior to the majority of other countries.

England's Premier League cannot begin to realise that they would not exist if the leagues below were turned into regional, part time professional, meaningless games in local grounds with minimal capacity.

 

[2015]

45 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Well said!  Non premier League football in this country has always been very different to most other countries in that quality of football and attendances are vastly superior to the majority of other countries.

England's Premier League cannot begin to realise that they would not exist if the leagues below were turned into regional, part time professional, meaningless games in local grounds with minimal capacity.

 

It must really hurt them that no matter how rich the Prem may be, that there are millions of supporters in this Country who do not support a Prem side. The whole Super League thing still lingers, the big 6 clubs do not and never will understand the passion the supporters of the clubs from outside of their bubble and they don't know that the average English 'legacy' fan which is what they called us cares more about the League system in general than seeing the best play the best every week. 

This story posted by The Guardian is standard, every year there will be something else, just for them to try and take more. It won't happen.

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, 2015 said:

This story posted by The Guardian is standard, every year there will be something else, just for them to try and take more. It won't happen.

Unfortunately this time it's not standard. This "request" (or perhaps more accurately this "thought") from the PL has come about as a direct response to the requirements of the government, by way of the Fan Led Review, that "football" reform the distribution of funds from the PL down through the pyramid.

That review, and the subsequent responses to it, has put pressure on the PL and EFL to shake it out and figure out a new redistribution plan. If the cannot do that then the threat is that a redistribution plan would be forced upon them by legislation and regulation.

The review itself sprung (in part) from the Super League proposals of last year. So here we essentially see the PL leveraging it's own **** up to try and squeeze something outrageous out of the EFL in return for money it has basically been told it has to give the lower levels of the pyramid.

So no, this is not just the annual puff piece written after the annual pre-season PL meetings. This is a piece about a discussion that has a serious threat. Reform of the financial distribution model is going to happen, and so anything proposed or floated should be taken note seriously than in previous years. 

Note that I don't think this will happen. Not even the EFL will vote this kind of thing through.

[maxjak]

Totally agree regards the U 23 Bullshit......but the prospect of parachute payments being replaced by league position rewards seems a possible step in the right direction?

[ExiledAjax]

24 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Totally agree regards the U 23 Bullshit......but the prospect of parachute payments being replaced by league position rewards seems a possible step in the right direction?

Depends on the differences between monetary positions. If it's a straight line where (for example) each position gets £0.5m more than the one below, then it might be ok.

If however you instead get something like: Winner gets £20m; places 2 - 6 get £10m each; 7 - 21 get £2m; and 22 - 24 get £1m each, well that will still bake in inequality. I believe you would see the same teams appearing in broadly the same positions each season. We have seen that in the Prem already where the teams that play in Europe have slowly become all too predictable. If we are to see this meritocratic redistribution then it has to have the removal of cemented inequality as one of its main objectives.

Also, I don't see why the distribution of funds has to be solely linked to final League position. Why not also have some linked to other aspects of running a Club? Aspects such as demonstrating good financial prudence, good fan engagement, having excellent corporate governance, or other measures that reward the proper maintenance of this massive community assets. Incentivise these things and we might see fewer instances of clubs going all out and mortgaging their futures in the pursuit of better results, more points, and promotion. We might see less financial instability.

 

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Totally agree regards the U 23 Bullshit......but the prospect of parachute payments being replaced by league position rewards seems a possible step in the right direction?

The PPs distribution has its merits, but the cynic in me says the better teams ends up getting more money, and is that right.  We already see a disproportionate amount of times certain teams are shown on sky, and they get paid for each appearance too.

I don’t know what the answer is…apart from there is a little bit of me that would like the EFL to breakaway from the PL.  I think the PL getting left with no relegation might see it struggle as it becomes left competitive.  It’s kinda why I wanted the Super League to go ahead…on the proviso they were banished from domestic football too.

[maxjak]

 

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The PPs distribution has its merits, but the cynic in me says the better teams ends up getting more money, and is that right.  We already see a disproportionate amount of times certain teams are shown on sky, and they get paid for each appearance too.

I don’t know what the answer is…apart from there is a little bit of me that would like the EFL to breakaway from the PL.  I think the PL getting left with no relegation might see it struggle as it becomes left competitive.  It’s kinda why I wanted the Super League to go ahead…on the proviso they were banished from domestic football too.

Mmmm...........interesting angle, quite revolutionary?  I  do not believe the solution is perfect, with regard to payments for league position?, but it has to be an improvement on parachute payments?  It does introduce finance on merit rather than reputation, so side's like Luton and Huddersfield last season would have had a bigger slice of the pot, which would aid them in the long run?                       Better teams, does not necessarily mean richer teams, as in the example i have pointed out, hopefully it would prove fairer than parachute P 's, as a team progressing up the league could gradually accumulate funds to boost their chances?         Plus, every game has weight, as a league position or 2, even in mid table means extra bunce?    The arrogance of the Prem also annoys me, but the idea of an elite Super League does not appeal to me, as it completely takes away the opportunities of sides like Huddersfield   Luton  & (BRISTOL CITY) to make a break through?

Edited July 27, 2022 by maxjak

[NcnsBcfc]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The PPs distribution has its merits, but the cynic in me says the better teams ends up getting more money, and is that right.  We already see a disproportionate amount of times certain teams are shown on sky, and they get paid for each appearance too.

I don’t know what the answer is…apart from there is a little bit of me that would like the EFL to breakaway from the PL.  I think the PL getting left with no relegation might see it struggle as it becomes left competitive.  It’s kinda why I wanted the Super League to go ahead…on the proviso they were banished from domestic football too.

I think the thing for me with PP @Davefevs is the restrictive nature of FFP, that means the clubs on PP have a massive advantage financially for 3 years after they are relegated.

It can't be right, that Champ clubs are only allowed to lose £39m in three seasons, whereas over that time frame PP clubs are handed £90m.

It just means the relegated clubs generally get to keep their squad intact, whilst cherry picking the rest of the championship clubs best players. Thus making the Championship one of the least competitive leagues as 2 out of 3 promotion places usually go to a PP club  with the other 17 or so clubs fighting over the 1 place.

Something has to give somewhere as at the moment it just feels like a real restriction of trade issue for non PP clubs for me.

Would much rather allow larger FFP amounts (Possibly £60-70m allowed) over the 3 year period, allied to a reduction in the PP payments to that sort of figure.

Edited July 27, 2022 by NcnsBcfc

[Davefevs]

38 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I think the thing for me with PP @Davefevs is the restrictive nature of FFP, that means the clubs on PP have a massive advantage financially for 3 years after they are relegated.

It can't be right, that Champ clubs are only allowed to lose £39m in three seasons, whereas over that time frame PP clubs are handed £90m.

It just means the relegated clubs generally get to keep their squad intact, whilst cherry picking the rest of the championship clubs best players. Thus making the Championship one of the least competitive leagues as 2 out of 3 promotion places usually go to a PP club  with the other 17 or so clubs fighting over the 1 place.

Something has to give somewhere as at the moment it just feels like a real restriction of trade issue for non PP clubs for me.

Would much rather allow larger FFP amounts (Possibly £60-70m allowed) over the 3 year period, allied to a reduction in the PP payments to that sort of figure.

I agree.  The bit where I said “PPs distribution has its merits” was referring to spreading it out as per the new proposal…not the existing method, which is crap.  Sorry if that was ambiguous.  It’s just unfair.

A salary cap based on turnover as per FIFA proposal or as per SCMP won’t help either, unless PPs are removed.

That first season of relegation, three teams get £132m between them, there’s probably another four (one or two will’ve gone back up) sharing £90m (from previous relegations) and then 17 clubs sharing £70m (£4m(ish) each.  That’s £300m carved up unfairly.  This season it’s only two other clubs sharing £70m because Fulham and Bournemouth went straight back up and Cardiff only got 2 years for going up and straight back down. So….

The three relegated teams get 11x as much as the 19 (Watford, Norwich and Burnley)

The two previously relegated get 8x as much as the 19 (Sheffield Utd and WBA)

Its lucky some relegated clubs come down in a mess, or recruit / offload poorly, or else the playoff places would be a closed shop most seasons.

There must be a narrowing of the gap.

PPs are there to stop clubs going bust / get into difficulty…but that’s not to say they should be able to either count it as income for P&S for the entirety of receiving in.  I do accept you have to honour player contracts, and I also accept you can’t you force a player to take a relegation wage cut.  But you could say to the club something like.  You can use PPs as income in your P&S return for the first year you are down to cover existing contracts, but you’ve 12 months to sort out.  Needs a bit more thinking, but something of that ilk as a starting point.

[ExiledAjax]

Kieran Maguire had his say on this on POF Podcast today.

He agrees with me that the "sliding scale" of payments replacing PPs has a risk of entrenching teams into "traditional" positions. It sounds good, but it's effectively going to allow the PL to be certain that the same half dozen clubs yo-yo between the Championship and the PL, so allowing those clubs to become stronger, so meaning the promoted teams are stronger and the PL brand remains strong and isn't diluted by having 3 immeasurably weak teams every season. The fact that stops any kind of competition in the Championship is moot so far as they are concerned.

On the B-teams by stealth proposal to force U23 players to be taken on loan by the Championship - well he's understandably dismissive of that notion. He sees it unlikely to be agreed to bey the EFL.

I wonder which 4 teams in the Championship would be left bereft of a PL sugar daddy team?

Oh and PS. apparently Chris Kirchner has been suspended from the board(s) of his own companies. Banter.

[Sir Geoff]

Just a thought and not sure how workable it would be but what about the unused Parachute payments i.e Fulham's for the next 2 years being distributed between Championship clubs not in receipt of pps rather than it going back into the Premier League pot.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I think the thing for me with PP @Davefevs is the restrictive nature of FFP, that means the clubs on PP have a massive advantage financially for 3 years after they are relegated.

It can't be right, that Champ clubs are only allowed to lose £39m in three seasons, whereas over that time frame PP clubs are handed £90m.

It just means the relegated clubs generally get to keep their squad intact, whilst cherry picking the rest of the championship clubs best players. Thus making the Championship one of the least competitive leagues as 2 out of 3 promotion places usually go to a PP club  with the other 17 or so clubs fighting over the 1 place.

Something has to give somewhere as at the moment it just feels like a real restriction of trade issue for non PP clubs for me.

Would much rather allow larger FFP amounts (Possibly £60-70m allowed) over the 3 year period, allied to a reduction in the PP payments to that sort of figure.

It's not just that- as I looked at it again the other day and subject to equity injections the PL clubs have an extra £22m per season in loss allowance FFP wise!!

I won't bother for now to try and get into how Covid has complicated it all so let's stick with a) The usual limits and b) Equity injections to the max.

1. Championship perennial- £13m x 3=£39m + allowable costs.
2. Championship-PL-Championship=£13m, £35m and £13m=£61m + allowable costs.
3. PL-PL-Championship=£35m x 2 + £13m=£83m + allowable costs.

That before we even get onto Parachute Payments- and again subject to equity- is a gap of £22m and £44m respectively in the 3 year loss limit.

Couple of scenarios...

Championship Perennial

1. T-2=FFP loss of £10m
2. T-1=FFP loss of £5m
3. T=FFP loss of £24m permitted.

Newly formed Yoyo (no Parachute in year of promotion but obvs up-down=Parachute)

1. T-2=Year of Promotion=FFP loss of £25m
2. T-1- PL season=FFP profit of £10m
3. T=Back in the Championship...FFP loss of £46m permitted.

Just shy of double! Before we even look at Parachute Payments.

PL x 2 and then Championship in 3

1. T-2- Penultimate PL season=FFP loss of £5m.
2. T-1- Relegation PL season=FFP loss of £10m
3. T- Championship...FFP loss of £68m permitted!

Up another 50% or just under and therefore even before factoring in extra spending power of Parachute Payments, an extra £44m over and above the Championship perennial! That middle season also may have seen creative accounting, accelerating costs such as impairment of player registrations into that year thereby easing the burden when dropping- which might make the £68m permitted loss look a bit conservative.

Conclusion

Extra spending power brought through Parachute Payments + Extra Loss allowances for seasons spent in the PL=Enormous advantage. The Parachute Payments don't so much increase the loss as the spending allowed. Put the two together though...(equity permitting of course).

Edited July 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had Fulham and Bournemouth stayed down, a crunch would have come- from two angles.

I estimated their Upper Loss Tariff to 2021/22 what with Covid combinations to be £72m- subject to equity of course. Fulham in Year 1 of PP and Bournemouth Year 2.

Had they stayed down, I estimate it would have been £55.5m and in Fulham's case the drop from Year 1 to 2 and Bournemouth's Year 2 to Year 3...double whammy.

West Brom although often well run, their yoyo and Parachute combination sees headroom shrinking.

What with Covid, and rollups- equity permitting- to 2020/21 it was £72m.

To 2021/22 it was £55.5m- but Parachute Payments Year 1 of course.

To 2022/23 it remains £55.5m and is in the 2nd- and final year- of Parachutes.

Stay down and it's a huge double whammy- a crunch down to £39m and Parachutes dropping to zero to be replaced by EFL distributions, to 2023/24.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous