Greedy Premiership Monopoly

[maxjak]

I understand that, as two of the Promoted sides from the Championship will have only spent just 1 Season in the Championship, this will mean that the Premiership will save £103 million in parachute payments.  They have had a vote amongst themselves, and have decided (What a massive surprise!!) that the saving of £103 Million will be distributed amongst the Poor Strugging Premiership clubs.  Now around approximately  £5 Million each, will probably pay for sandwiches in the Corporate boxes and free drinks in the Executive Lounge's for a season.    Whereas, if this amount had been distributed around the EFL or the Grass route football schemes, it would have made a significant difference to a number of clubs and projects?   Has there ever been a clearer indication for the vital necessity for the appointment of an independent Arbiter to oversee,  and to  also rein in the Greed and Selfishness of the Bloated Premiership ?    it is a disgrace, and the sooner it is resolved.........the better?  

Edited May 23 by maxjak

[Superjack]

It's corrupt, mate. 

Sadly, the whole sport stinks nowadays. 

The people with the money do what the **** they like. 

And it's not just the Premier League and above, it's anyone in the game that has money beyond their team's level. 

A better example can not be demonstrated than at our club in the last season, or multiple seasons before, for that matter. 

The days of clubs "belonging to the fans" (not that they ever did in reality, obviously), are over forever.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Maybe the Regulator will bring some changes for the better.

EFL distribution, harmonised financial rules and a much needed input to grassroots.

[Grey Fox]

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Maybe the Regulator will bring some changes for the better.

EFL distribution, harmonised financial rules and a much needed input to grassroots.

Is that the regulator who will now not be happening as the legislation can not be passed before the election ? 
 

And is the attitude of the Premier League clubs that surprising , only a few are owned by British people, so why should foreign owners care about the wider English game ? Do investors in New York or Saudi Arabia really give a @@@@ about Accrington or Grimsby or Newport? No , they just want to maximise their return on investment.

Football isn’t a game anymore, it’s business.

[cheese]

Merely a reflection of society as a whole unfortunately.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

Is that the regulator who will now not be happening as the legislation can not be passed before the election ? 
 

And is the attitude of the Premier League clubs that surprising , only a few are owned by British people, so why should foreign owners care about the wider English game ? Do investors in New York or Saudi Arabia really give a @@@@ about Accrington or Grimsby or Newport? No , they just want to maximise their return on investment.

Football isn’t a game anymore, it’s business.

Delayed not denied I hope.

@ExiledAjax knows much more about this than me but I was under the impressions both parties were committed.

I do certainly take your point from a business perspective albeit how some hope to achieve an RoI well that is intriguing- Aston Villa, Birmingham, Fulham and potentially the 40% stake in Ipswich for £100m or so.

Yeah has changed a lot in the last 20 years or so, Abramovich was the first wasn't he? Possibly the advent of the PL and saturation coverage on Sky Sports was the start.

[Davefevs]

OP - thought this was a new board game?

[ExiledAjax]

The regulator is still going to happen. I have spoken to a few people close to the Labour party and sports. All were confident that the Bill will be mentioned in all manifestos and that once parliamentary time is available (and it might well be made available) the Bill will come back.

The Bill is dead under this government but will be resurrected in some form and at some point under the next government.

As to PPs - in the original draft they were excluded from the regulators remit. As they are funds paid directly by the PL to clubs they are not generally covered by the "distribution agreement" between the PL and the EFL. However, in my opinion (and others) that doesn't mean that PPs should be ignored entirely by the regulator. Any distribution agreement should be able to be negotiated in the context of PPs, even if it cannot directly govern them. Amendments were proposed to cover this, and when the Bill finally becomes an Act of being surprised if PPs were entirely excluded.

As to OPs point about unpaid PPs going back to PL clubs. Yes. This is not new. It's always been the way under the PP regime. Ultimately it is the PLs money paid to ex-PL clubs because they were formally PL clubs. The other EFL clubs have no direct claim to those funds and neither does the EFL itself.

Yes they distort our division, yes it would be nice if the unspent £ went to other clubs, but ultimately it's a PL club matter and guess what - those clubs look after themselves.

Edited May 24 by ExiledAjax

[maxjak]

58 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

OP - thought this was a new board game?

If there were such a game...........there would be NO Free Parking......everybody would have their mitts in the Community Chest.........And "GO TO JAIL, DIRECTLY TO JAIL" could possibly be a regular occurence?   And of  course Man City would own Mayfair &  Park Lane?

[chinapig]

On the subject of greed, from The Guardian:

Wolves season ticket renewal prices spark outrage

Wolverhampton Wanderers: The club have released their renewal prices for next season, prompting fury and open revolt among fans at the massive price hikes across the board. Wolves’ most expensive season ticket will now cost £939, while their cheapest remains £525.

Adults in Molineux’s family enclosure have seen the price of their tickets rise by 22.8% to £780, while the price of season tickets for supporters aged under 14 in the same area have gone up by an eye-watering and scarcely believable 133.3% from £105 to £245. Some under-14 fans, seated elsewhere in the ground, are facing a price hike of 176%.

And from Tim Spiers of The Athletic who is a Wolves fan:

Wolves last week: Scrap VAR, the fan experience is so much worse. It's VAR that's damaged the relationship between fans and football.

Wolves this week: Pay us £735-£939 for a season ticket, 17% more than last year, in a city with the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the country

[maxjak]

54 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The regulator is still going to happen. I have spoken to a few people close to the Labour party and sports. All were confident that the Bill will be mentioned in all manifestos and that once parliamentary time is available (and it might well be made available) the Bill will come back.

The Bill is dead under this government but will be resurrected in some form and at some point under the next government.

As to PPs - in the original draft they were excluded from the regulators remit. As they are funds paid directly by the PL to clubs they are not generally covered by the "distribution agreement" between the PL and the EFL. However, in my opinion (and others) that doesn't mean that PPs should be ignored entirely by the regulator. Any distribution agreement should be able to be negotiated in the context of PPs, even if it cannot directly govern them. Amendments were proposed to cover this, and when the Bill finally becomes an Act of being surprised if PPs were entirely excluded.

As to OPs point about unpaid PPs going back to PL clubs. Yes. This is not new. It's always been the way under the PP regime. Ultimately it is the PLs money paid to ex-PL clubs because they were formally PL clubs. The other EFL clubs have no direct claim to those funds and neither does the EFL itself.

Yes they distort our division, yes it would be nice if the unspent £ went to other clubs, but ultimately it's a PL club matter and guess what - those clubs look after themselves.

Good point's,....What irritates me is the amounts involved, Approx £5M to each Prem club, is a relative pittance.  While £103M spread amongst the lower leagues could be a lifesaver for some, and equally finance some great grassroots projects.   The sooner a regulator is appointed the better, so it is encouraging to read your post.        

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Good point's,....What irritates me is the amounts involved, Approx £5M to each Prem club, is a relative pittance.  While £103M spread amongst the lower leagues could be a lifesaver for some, and equally finance some great grassroots projects.   The sooner a regulator is appointed the better, so it is encouraging to read your post.        

What I'd say is that £5m may be a pittance to some PL clubs. It's negligible to any club in Europe certainly, but not so much to those finishing further down. For example to Ipswich it will be significant next season. Not make or break, but significant enough for them to really care about it.

Would it make a bigger impact if invested in grass roots through the Football Foundation (or similar organisations)? Probably yes, but the PL would say that they already provide £millions to football via that route. They do.

I'm not telling you that you are wrong, far from it, but I would say that the specific issue of redistributing "unspent" parachute payments is not that high up on any football stakeholder's issue list.

[Grey Fox]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Delayed not denied I hope.

@ExiledAjax knows much more about this than me but I was under the impressions both parties were committed.

I do certainly take your point from a business perspective albeit how some hope to achieve an RoI well that is intriguing- Aston Villa, Birmingham, Fulham and potentially the 40% stake in Ipswich for £100m or so.

Yeah has changed a lot in the last 20 years or so, Abramovich was the first wasn't he? Possibly the advent of the PL and saturation coverage on Sky Sports was the start.

Like the commitment to cap care home fees for the elderly or to ban no fault evictions? For a concrete jungle , Westminster seems to have a lot of long grass.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

Like the commitment to cap care home fees for the elderly or to ban no fault evictions? For a concrete jungle , Westminster seems to have a lot of long grass.

Genuine question, and not wanting to get too political.

Did those two things you cite have broad cross party support?

[maxjak]

9 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

What I'd say is that £5m may be a pittance to some PL clubs. It's negligible to any club in Europe certainly, but not so much to those finishing further down. For example to Ipswich it will be significant next season. Not make or break, but significant enough for them to really care about it.

Would it make a bigger impact if invested in grass roots through the Football Foundation (or similar organisations)? Probably yes, but the PL would say that they already provide £millions to football via that route. They do.

I'm not telling you that you are wrong, far from it, but I would say that the specific issue of redistributing "unspent" parachute payments is not that high up on any football stakeholder's issue list.

With the greatest respect.......£5 Million is a small   percentage of what Ipswich will generate over just one season....let alone if they manage to stay up

[ExiledAjax]

12 hours ago, maxjak said:

With the greatest respect.......£5 Million is a small   percentage of what Ipswich will generate over just one season....let alone if they manage to stay up

Sure. It's a small part of their revenue. But they will spend nearly all of the extra money that they earn in revenue. That's what newly promoted clubs do because they don't have the massive commercial revenue of the big clubs. They don't pay the highest wages even, but they spend almost everything they earn because the ruthless meritocracy of football demands that they must of they want to continue receiving revenue. It's laid bare in the written reasons behind Forest's PRS award, and the BBC have actually produced an excellent article setting it all out https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522.amp

I'm not defending PL spending, revenue or greed. It may look like I am, but I'm not. I agree that it would be better to see that money go to EFL clubs.

What I am trying to show is that to a club like Forest, Ipswich, or god forbid Bristol City should a miracle ever happen, an extra £5m is significant enough that it's no surprise they would rather have it than see it go to Championship clubs.

Edited May 25 by ExiledAjax

[Abingdon Red]

You should listen to this episode of the Sports Agents where they talk to the EFL chair Rick Parry, it's quite a revealing discussion https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5jYXB0aXZhdGUuZm0vdGhlLXNwb3J0cy1hZ2VudHMv/episode/YzY1NDdjNDUtMjViNS00YTgyLWIzYjUtMjJmMWQ0MWYzYTQz?ep=14

[Grey Fox]

19 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Genuine question, and not wanting to get too political.

Did those two things you cite have broad cross party support?

Labour were quiet on the care issue for the elderly, but not anti, as to renters the tories proposed the bill , supported by labour , the right wing of the Tory party , and the Treasury we’re against.