Parachute Payment teams needs asterisks

[redkev]

1 hour ago, JAWS said:

Perhaps Leeds isn't a fair comparison but the point is its possible to go up without parachute payments and an owner with the necessary funds, ambition and nouse. We have one who only has one of those requirements

Funds tick     ambition tick ( open to debate )  Nouse  big fat no no 

[IAmNick]

24 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Exactly.

Wolves bought from L1 ! Played academy kids?

Leeds?

Brentford are an outlier for all sorts of reasons, no-one's doing what they're doing. They're unique. No point trying to replicate them.

I can't think of another team that's been promoted using mostly lower league buys and academy kids and played tippy tap football.

Which is what our plan seems to be.

Genuinely interested if anyone else has managed it. I somehow doubt it.

Those clubs all did it their own way though didn't they - Luton, Wolves, Leeds, and Brentford. Which shows that something new can work. With your reasoning they'd have all given up on their own plans before getting promoted.

I'm not sure our "new" is the right thing by a long shot to be clear, but I also don't agree that just because something hasn't been done before means it won't work now.

I personally think the fact the clubs who manage it having different methods means that the real secret Source is the squad attitude, momentum, and a big dollop of luck.

[Baldyman]

Scrapping parachute payments would indeed bankrupt several clubs and potentially cut the Prem loose completely unfortunately as Clubs just could not risk going up !  Relegated Prem teams should be handicapped for as long as they’re still in receipt of the payments in the Championship. Eg year 1 = -10 points year 2 = -8 points and year 3 -6 points as an example . 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Baldyman said:

Scrapping parachute payments would indeed bankrupt several clubs and potentially cut the Prem loose completely unfortunately as Clubs just could not risk going up !  Relegated Prem teams should be handicapped for as long as they’re still in receipt of the payments in the Championship. Eg year 1 = -10 points year 2 = -8 points and year 3 -6 points as an example . 

What about pooling Parachute and Solidarity Payments and paying by divisional weighting for the current formula?

Or only counting the amount of Parachute Payments equal to Solidarity Payments in FFP returns.

Hopefully the incoming Football Regulator will impose a solution if PL clubs won't budge.

Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[Robbored]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Leeds, Leicester and Southampton already have relegation reduction clauses. Most clubs threatened with the likelihood of relegation will do.

Do those reductions meet the Championship average wage? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Do those reductions meet the Championship average wage? 

That's a separate issue. I doubt it.

However in the first instance deductions ranging from 25-50% are often cited. Is it alone enough? No.

[Baldyman]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What about pooling Parachute and Solidarity Payments and paying by divisional weighting for the current formula?

Or only counting the amount of Parachute Payments equal to Solidarity Payments in FFP returns.

Hopefully the incoming Football Regulator will impose a solution if PL clubs won't budge.

What about pooling Parachute and Solidarity Payments and paying by divisional weighting for the current formula?

Or only counting the amount of Parachute Payments equal to Solidarity Payments in FFP returns.

Hopefully the incoming Football Regulator will impose a solution if PL clubs won't budge.

They definitely need to consider options along those lines that’s for sure . Perhaps the option to waive the handicap if they donate the parachute payment to the solidarity pool instead ? If they choose to keep it then accept the handicap ! 

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's a separate issue. I doubt it.

However in the first instance deductions ranging from 25-50% are often cited. Is it alone enough? No.

I saw a stat on here that there’s approximately 75% difference between the average PL and average Championship wage - that’s a pretty significant reduction.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The basic formula we need to look at and let's assume 2 clubs have equal revenue streams and equal losses plus equal FFP allowables and both have owners who put in equity to the max.

Let's assume a PL perennial is relegated and the 2 align.

1) Parachute Payments- Solidarity Payments. What is that about £40m? £40-45m?

2) Upper Loss limit differential

£35m, £35m, £13m

Vs

£13m, £13m, £13m

That's £44m.

Already you're looking at an £80-85m advantage. Easily, even using this simplistic model.

[IAmNick]

Why not do it the other way and more aggressively limit premiership spending?

That's the only way I can see to make it fair long term, otherwise you're always having a divide in the championship.

[Merrick's Marvels]

8 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Those clubs all did it their own way though didn't they - Luton, Wolves, Leeds, and Brentford. Which shows that something new can work. With your reasoning they'd have all given up on their own plans before getting promoted.

I'm not sure our "new" is the right thing by a long shot to be clear, but I also don't agree that just because something hasn't been done before means it won't work

Who's saying just because something hasn't been done before means it won't work? I'm not.

 I don't have the solution, others are paid to find that. Do you think Jon Lansdown and Brian Tinnion can? With a novice manager in tow?

For what it's worth, I think trying to play tippy tap requires the sort of players the owner doesn't want to pay for, so the alternative is to find a style that's suited to good players from the lower leagues who are cheaper and in our price bracket. Which is what Luton did. You also need a spine of experience.

 

[ChippenhamRed]

5 hours ago, Leabrook said:

Fed up of people crying about it.  Plenty of teams without parachute payments finishing top 10 over the last few seasons and some have gone up.  

That’s like saying it’s OK to take drugs at the Olympics because some clean athletes have won bronze medals.

It’s not a level playing field, and just because some clubs have beaten the odds, doesn’t make it fair.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

That’s like saying it’s OK to take drugs at the Olympics because some clean athletes have won bronze medals.

It’s not a level playing field, and just because some clubs have beaten the odds, doesn’t make it fair.

People also (not saying you) overlook the 2nd advantage the £22m per extra FFP Loss permitted in the PL.

Stratospheric.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

So what's you solution, go out and spend lots of money on top end Championship/ prem players? Think we tried that and Nige spent 2 years getting rid of them and had to sell Semenyo to avoid a points deduction.

We have good players that have come from the academy and L1, so are you really suggesting we get rid of them or stop trying to cherry pick some of the talent to develop. The team is a mix of younger and experienced players.

By tippy tippy, the fact we are trying to change from a team that played on the counter attack, instead trying to be the dominant side. Don't think anyone can pretend it's going to be easy to change particularly mid season, but it no good wetting your bed sheets and posting crap just because we lose to a good Leeds side.

 

I don’t think some of the frustrations on here are because we lost to Leeds last night!  For some it was a bit of the straw that broke the camel’s back!

[sh1t_ref_again]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think some of the frustrations on here are because we lost to Leeds last night!  For some it was a bit of the straw that broke the camel’s back!

Sorry Dave don't see how a loss that was not unexpected by many to a side aiming to go top 2 after 4 wins on the bounce could be the straw that broke the camels back. Accepted it was a poor performance but nowhere near as bad as 1st half against Birmingham and following a good showing at Coventry. To me it was weird, we started well and took the game to Leeds, until the Tanner incident and totally lost our way after.

This place is always so negative after a loss, some of which is fair and good discussion over shape and style, but some just ott nonsense for the sake of posting.

 

 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Sorry Dave don't see how a loss that was not unexpected by many to a side aiming to go top 2 after 4 wins on the bounce could be the straw that broke the camels back. Accepted it was a poor performance but nowhere near as bad as 1st half against Birmingham and following a good showing at Coventry. To me it was weird, we started well and took the game to Leeds, until the Tanner incident and totally lost our way after.

This place is always so negative after a loss, some of which is fair and good discussion over shape and style, but some just ott nonsense for the sake of posting.

 

 

I think for some it’s 6 games without a win…aggregation effect.

I agree some of it is OTT, but not everyone is patient / rational, and in fairness some might argue some are too patient / too rational.

People come at things from different angles, swung by different biases too.

[Robbored]

12 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Sorry Dave don't see how a loss that was not unexpected by many to a side aiming to go top 2 after 4 wins on the bounce could be the straw that broke the camels back. Accepted it was a poor performance but nowhere near as bad as 1st half against Birmingham and following a good showing at Coventry. To me it was weird, we started well and took the game to Leeds, until the Tanner incident and totally lost our way after.

This place is always so negative after a loss, some of which is fair and good discussion over shape and style, but some just ott nonsense for the sake of posting.

Leeds were excellent in every department, not only their press but the way they moved the ball once they’d won it back. In reality they should have put 3 or 4 past us - Max kept it to one with some terrific saves.

What they also did well was when they were out of possession. They stifled City’s passing options all match. They’re a very well coached team. We were nowhere near them

Yeah - oitib is always full of doom and gloom after a home defeat. Threads about who the club should get rid of, the manager making the wrong substitutions and selecting the wrong team and playing in the wrong formation - this is a football forum after all so it’s all perfectly normal.

Travelling home and thinking about the match my main thought was the gulf in class between the two teams - hence my knee jerk thread when I got on here.

 

 

[cidercity1987]

FFP and parachute payments are the biggest load of horse manure ever

Low cost base clubs like Coventry can go crazy, take the risk. It comes off then suddenly then are into the parachute yo yo club top 26 clubs in the country. It doesn't come off and they are in the mire like we have been and possibly back in L1 or lower. The differing outcomes are really only the toss of a coin, one goal here and there, to change the course of a clubs history over a long long period of at least 10 years.

[Leabrook]

2 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

That’s like saying it’s OK to take drugs at the Olympics because some clean athletes have won bronze medals.

It’s not a level playing field, and just because some clubs have beaten the odds, doesn’t make it fair.

It might be like saying that in your head but it’s not in mine. Athletes aren’t allowed to take drugs. One of the worst analogies I’ve ever heard 

Edited February 3 by Leabrook

[ChippenhamRed]

38 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

It might be like saying that in your head but it’s not in mine. Athletes aren’t allowed to take drugs. One of the worst analogies I’ve ever heard 

You’re so close to getting it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, cidercity1987 said:

FFP and parachute payments are the biggest load of horse manure ever

Low cost base clubs like Coventry can go crazy, take the risk. It comes off then suddenly then are into the parachute yo yo club top 26 clubs in the country. It doesn't come off and they are in the mire like we have been and possibly back in L1 or lower. The differing outcomes are really only the toss of a coin, one goal here and there, to change the course of a clubs history over a long long period of at least 10 years.

Some clubs seem to have got more leeway than us..one to monitor closely, I'll post about it on the FFP thread.