PL v EFL TV deal wrangling

[Mr Popodopolous]

Been going on for a few years now.

MPs aren't happy. Is this the beginning of the end, light at the end of the tunnel

 

Regulator needs to impose a solution. In fairness to him he hasn't got a mandate probably as 14/20 Clubs minimum need to agree to carry it forward.

[Riaz]

It was a disgrace, that when the premier league was created, and they stopped feeding finances down the leagues.

Its created lots of problems and the only real solution, is to start sharing more £££ with the football league.

Its not like that are short of a few bob 

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, Riaz said:

It was a disgrace, that when the premier league was created, and they stopped feeding finances down the leagues.

Its created lots of problems and the only real solution, is to start sharing more £££ with the football league.

Its not like that are short of a few bob 

The original proposed deal when the PL was created was that the PL and the football league would share 25% of collective TV income. 

The football league rejected this as they felt they could make more on their own. 

Now in 2024, the EFL want that 25% that they originally rejected. That was a huge own goal by the football league rejecting that deal back then. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It goes back to that, indeed the ending of the Gate Receipts split in the early 1980s probably.

However a lot of it is manageable if you do away with Parachute Payments, or pool them with Solidarity Payments and reform the system.

What the PLor varied PL clubs probably the bottom 3rd or so, midtable down seem to want is to bump up Solidarity Payments but retain Parachute Payments albeit probably reduced..

...Albeit hand in hand with a merit based system coming in the EFL. Advantage 2 handed to newly relegated or Parachute Clubs...

...Then the new system to incorporate a wage, amortisation etc cap. Fine, but EFL want 70% for Championship, PL want 85% and crucially there maybe an 85% ratio for newly relegated clubs, 70% for non relegated clubs.

Lastly if transfer profits included in the relevant turnover figure- that is yet another advantage handed to relegated sides. The PL cachet hands an easier sell even for newly relegated players.

[Mr Popodopolous]

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 clubs with otherwise equal turnover but say the Parachute v Solidarity is as follows.

£25m other turnover for Club A and Club B.

Club A can spend 70%- that being £17.5m.

Club B can spend 85%- that being £21.25m.

Not insurmountable but then..

Club A gets £15m in combined TV revenue and Solidarity Payments.

Another £10.5m into the budget.

Club B gets £45m in Combined T.V. revenue and Solidarity Payments.

Another £38.25m into the budget.

Advantage baked in, £27.75m. Almost double..

Club A, £28m v Club B, £55.75m.

Almost double.

[W-S-M Seagull]

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

2 clubs with otherwise equal turnover but say the Parachute v Solidarity is as follows.

£25m other turnover for Club A and Club B.

Club A can spend 70%- that being £17.5m.

Club B can spend 85%- that being £21.25m.

Not insurmountable but then..

Club A gets £15m in combined TV revenue and Solidarity Payments.

Another £10.5m into the budget.

Club B gets £45m in Combined T.V. revenue and Solidarity Payments.

Another £38.25m into the budget.

Advantage baked in, £27.75m. Almost double..

Club A, £28m v Club B, £55.75m.

Almost double.

It seems like a double advantage over existing Championship clubs? 

So they get the parachute Payments which is an advantage in itself and then they also get to spend an extra 15%? Which is an extra advantage. 

Seems like they are trying to make the PL a closed shop. Quite funny really considering they cried about the SL not being merit based. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It seems like a double advantage over existing Championship clubs? 

So they get the parachute Payments which is an advantage in itself and then they also get to spend an extra 15%? Which is an extra advantage. 

Seems like they are trying to make the PL a closed shop. Quite funny really considering they cried about the SL not being merit based. 

 

Yes agreed and agreed!

Ironically the gap would still probably be less than now, and no word as to whether it is football wages, wages and amortisation and agents fees or wages, amortisation and agents fees offset by transfer profit added to revenue.

[Sir Geoff]

I sort of get where the Premier League are coming from in their reluctance to hand over more cash to the EFL.

Why should the likes of Palace, Brighton,Brentford give a billionaire owner like SL another couple of million quid each year. Or finance some of the madcap owners of EFL clubs (Reading etc).

I appreciate there are certain allowances on what the extra money can be used for but even so, does a billionaire owner really need an extra couple of million.

Would it not be easier just to scrap parachute payments, instead.

[Robbored]

3 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

I sort of get where the Premier League are coming from in their reluctance to hand over more cash to the EFL.

Why should the likes of Palace, Brighton,Brentford give a billionaire owner like SL another couple of million quid each year. Or finance some of the madcap owners of EFL clubs (Reading etc).

I appreciate there are certain allowances on what the extra money can be used for but even so, does a billionaire owner really need an extra couple of million.

Would it not be easier just to scrap parachute payments, instead.

We know the reason why parachute payments were introduced but one disadvantage is they have created a huge advantage to relegated PL clubs who are able to afford retaining the majority of their PL players.

One alternative would be to have a compulsory clause in all PL players contracts stating that if your club is relegated then your salary is reduced accordingly - possibly a set percentage.

I’m not sure what the difference is between the average PL wage to the average Championship wage but there’s obviously a percentage and if that percentage was applied to relegated players pay - then no need for parachute payments.

Maybe that’s too simplistic way of looking at it……….

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

We know the reason why parachute payments were introduced but one disadvantage is they have created a huge advantage to relegated PL clubs who are able to afford retaining the majority of their PL players.

One alternative would be to have a compulsory clause in all PL players contracts stating that if your club is relegated then your salary is reduced accordingly - possibly a set percentage.

I’m not sure what the difference is between the average PL wage to the average Championship wage but there’s obviously a percentage and if that percentage was applied to relegated players pay - then no need for parachute payments.

Maybe that’s too simplistic way of looking at it……….

PL - circa £60k p.w avg

Champ - circa £14k p.w avg

I do agree re mandatory wage reduction in contracts, although it will take a good few years to get everyone onto new contract “template”.  

In the past I suggested some kind of moratorium period until a player starts using the new “template”.

For example:

Player A on £100k p.w. on a 4-year contract, gets relegated after year 1, so has 3 years left, but no relegation release clause.  Let’s say the standard contract template has a 50% reduction clause in it.

So in year 2, player continues to get paid £100k p.w, but club only has to the put the moratorium amount £50k p.w. Into their wage / turnover calculation.  Let’s say the moratorium period is two years.

So in year 3 player continues to get paid £100k p.w, but club still only has to the put the moratorium amount £50k p.w. Into their wage / turnover calculation.

In year 4, moratorium period is over, player still gets paid £100k p.w, but his full wage has to be used in the wage / turnover calculation.

The club is basically given 2 years post relegation to sort out a new contract, sell the player etc.  if clubs want to agree new contracts with a different percentage that’s up to them.

This isn’t new thinking, this is based on the original proposal of the salary cap a few years back.

 

 

[Robbored]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

PL - circa £60k p.w avg

Champ - circa £14k p.w avg

I do agree re mandatory wage reduction in contracts, although it will take a good few years to get everyone onto new contract “template”.  

In the past I suggested some kind of moratorium period until a player starts using the new “template”.

For example:

Player A on £100k p.w. on a 4-year contract, gets relegated after year 1, so has 3 years left, but no relegation release clause.  Let’s say the standard contract template has a 50% reduction clause in it.

So in year 2, player continues to get paid £100k p.w, but club only has to the put the moratorium amount £50k p.w. Into their wage / turnover calculation.  Let’s say the moratorium period is two years.

So in year 3 player continues to get paid £100k p.w, but club still only has to the put the moratorium amount £50k p.w. Into their wage / turnover calculation.

In year 4, moratorium period is over, player still gets paid £100k p.w, but his full wage has to be used in the wage / turnover calculation.

The club is basically given 2 years post relegation to sort out a new contract, sell the player etc.  if clubs want to agree new contracts with a different percentage that’s up to them.

This isn’t new thinking, this is based on the original proposal of the salary cap a few years back.

So the average wage between the PL and the Championship is roughly 23% (maths isn’t a strength of mine) so a 23% reduction in salary on relegation as mandatory in PL contracts.

Maybe that’s a simplistic way of looking at it.

 

 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Robbored said:

So the average wage between the PL and the Championship is roughly 23% (maths isn’t a strength of mine) so a 23% reduction in salary on relegation as mandatory in PL contracts.

Maybe that’s a simplistic way of looking at it.

 

 

No, a 77% reduction!

[chinapig]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, a 77% reduction!

Well he did say maths wasn't his strong point!

It might help him if you showed your workings though Dave. Write on one side of the paper etc....

[chinapig]

Check out yesterday's PoF podcast to hear Kieran Maguire quote a senior person at a Championship club about the Premier League. Let's just say it wasn't complimentary!

[Robbored]

40 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Well he did say maths wasn't his strong point!

It might help him if you showed your workings though Dave. Write on one side of the paper etc....

My poor maths doesn’t detract from my point tho. Surely there are enough disadvantaged Championship clubs without parachute payments to raise this issue with the FA again with alternative options?

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Check out yesterday's PoF podcast to hear Kieran Maguire quote a senior person at a Championship club about the Premier League. Let's just say it wasn't complimentary!

He's right though - Championship clubs that get promoted tend to pretty quickly forget their roots.

Sad to say but it's exactly the attitude that we would take as well. We would be one of those "little toerags" (was that the phrase Maguire quoted?). Guaranteed if we ever by some miracle get to the PL we will immediately start saying that PPs are essential, that the financial deal is fair etc etc.

Because Football is set up for that kind of selfishness.

"In the interests of the club" is what we hear all the time. Not "in the interests of football' or "in the interests of the eco-system that supports the club". Interests of the club.

In the current set up the things that support those interests fluctuates depending on which division the club is in.

Also, the "club" is really synonymous with "the shareholders". Because clubs are ltd companies the directors have to act in the interests of the company for the benefit of the shareholders. That means making as much money as possible. That means supporting things like PP if your club might benefit from them.

It's a mess and it produces the attitude described by Maguire...but that's inevitable unless fundamental changes are made.

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

He's right though - Championship clubs that get promoted tend to pretty quickly forget their roots.

Sad to say but it's exactly the attitude that we would take as well. We would be one of those "little toerags" (was that the phrase Maguire quoted?). Guaranteed if we ever by some miracle get to the PL we will immediately start saying that PPs are essential, that the financial deal is fair etc etc.

Because Football is set up for that kind of selfishness.

"In the interests of the club" is what we hear all the time. Not "in the interests of football' or "in the interests of the eco-system that supports the club". Interests of the club.

In the current set up the things that support those interests fluctuates depending on which division the club is in.

Also, the "club" is really synonymous with "the shareholders". Because clubs are ltd companies the directors have to act in the interests of the company for the benefit of the shareholders. That means making as much money as possible. That means supporting things like PP if your club might benefit from them.

It's a mess and it produces the attitude described by Maguire...but that's inevitable unless fundamental changes are made.

Self-interested ***** was the phrase I think.

You're right of course but there is also conflict between PL clubs because the big ones want all clubs to put the same fixed amount into the pot whereas the smaller ones want the contribution to be based on each club's revenue.

It's hard to see a resolution until the independent regulator is in business.

[ZumerZetSmithy]

if i fail at my job i loose 100% of my wages  , if a team in PL gets relegated they have failed  so should not be paid extra at all 

[CodeRed]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

So the average wage between the PL and the Championship is roughly 23% (maths isn’t a strength of mine) so a 23% reduction in salary on relegation as mandatory in PL contracts.

Maybe that’s a simplistic way of looking at it.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

No, a 77% reduction!

Far too much maths debating going on!

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

40 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

He's right though - Championship clubs that get promoted tend to pretty quickly forget their roots.

Sad to say but it's exactly the attitude that we would take as well. We would be one of those "little toerags" (was that the phrase Maguire quoted?). Guaranteed if we ever by some miracle get to the PL we will immediately start saying that PPs are essential, that the financial deal is fair etc etc.

Because Football is set up for that kind of selfishness.

"In the interests of the club" is what we hear all the time. Not "in the interests of football' or "in the interests of the eco-system that supports the club". Interests of the club.

In the current set up the things that support those interests fluctuates depending on which division the club is in.

Also, the "club" is really synonymous with "the shareholders". Because clubs are ltd companies the directors have to act in the interests of the company for the benefit of the shareholders. That means making as much money as possible. That means supporting things like PP if your club might benefit from them.

It's a mess and it produces the attitude described by Maguire...but that's inevitable unless fundamental changes are made.

Exactly. Our attitude and that of any club would change in a shot if promoted.

West Brom fans below Kieran Maguire complaining about the PL not wanting to share- they've benefited from PL or Parachute cash from 2002-03 to 2022-23, unbroken inclusive.

Big adjustments if they don't go up, irrespective of takeover.

[Robbored]

15 minutes ago, ZumerZetSmithy said:

if i fail at my job i loose 100% of my wages  , if a team in PL gets relegated they have failed  so should not be paid extra at all 

It’s players contracts that clubs have to honour and without the riches of the PL many have struggled to cope financially - hence the parachute payments.

[Mr Popodopolous]

You could ring fence the aspect of the Parachute Payments over and above the Solidarity Payments to pay off high earners or similar, to partially subsidise their departures elsewhere.

Dual effect of enhancing financial stability and maintaining a better semblance of competitive balance.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, ZumerZetSmithy said:

if i fail at my job i loose 100% of my wages  , if a team in PL gets relegated they have failed  so should not be paid extra at all 

What do you do for a job….all commission based or something like that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

I sort of get where the Premier League are coming from in their reluctance to hand over more cash to the EFL.

Why should the likes of Palace, Brighton,Brentford give a billionaire owner like SL another couple of million quid each year. Or finance some of the madcap owners of EFL clubs (Reading etc).

I appreciate there are certain allowances on what the extra money can be used for but even so, does a billionaire owner really need an extra couple of million.

Would it not be easier just to scrap parachute payments, instead.

I get it on one level too but..the idea is ultimately that clubs are more self-financing, that is the medium to long-term goal.

It isn't a big secret, Parry has made reference to it. He has spoken of how excellent the owner-benefactor model is...until it isn't.

Agree on Parachute Payments.

Edited January 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of automatic wage reductions on relegation, they can even be 20-25% minimum, anything up to 35-40%, probably the Upper level so far 50%.

Still been crunching numbers.and even with Parachutes and a rather generously guessed wage fall of 50%, Leicester and FFP..gotta wonder. To this year I mean.

[sh1t_ref_again]

The issue is protectionism, the PL clubs have an equal vote for any changes to the PL, so they have always tried to ensure if anyone falls out of the cushy little club they have a massive advantage to come straight back up, therefore protecting themselves.

PL was always about greed of the bigger clubs and 2 fingers to football in general, that's what made me laugh at the clubs kicking off over a super league, when in effect it was exactly what the PL did.

Always said only way is to introduce wage reductions into contracts to bring relegated clubs wages in line with Champ

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, sh1t_ref_again said:

Always said only way is to introduce wage reductions into contracts to bring relegated clubs wages in line with Champ

They have wage reductions, just not big enough.

[sh1t_ref_again]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They have wage reductions, just not big enough.

Agreed, hence why I said bring in line, thus reducing the need for the PP, I hate being in a rigged competition where in general only 1 non PP team a team gets up

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Agreed, hence why I said bring in line, thus reducing the need for the PP, I hate being in a rigged competition where in general only 1 non PP team a team gets up

True. Albeit the problem there is that if you cut wages 70-75% it makes it easier to retain on one level, and harder on others, players signed in the PL thereby potentially weakening the competitive balance.