Should Parachute Payments For Relegated Epl Teams Be Scrapped?

[barney15c]

The EPL has given a breakdown of how the SKY money pot was distributed.
The bottom 3 all received close or more than £100m.
On top of that each of those teams will receive an initial parachute payment of £40m+
So these teams will be going into the championship will have a £140m+ advantage over all the other Championship teams next season, how on earth can this be fair?
Of course these teams have earned the right to their spoils for competing in the EPL , but an extra £40m is not right. I believe the increase in the shares the 20 EPL teams got for last season is up by 40-50% on last season due to the new Sky TV deal, so surely this should be sufficient foir the teams dropping down to adapt to the lower tier. If this continues it will be the same teams yoyo'ing between the 2 divisions.

[AB Editor]

Seems to offer a little stability for those who have only just popped their heads into EPL and decide it's not for them :)

[Ken4155]

It goes without saying that newly promoted sides to the PL need to strengthen their squads in order to stay in the PL - and we just about did that last season. There also have to be ground improvements - i believe we had to make quite costly changes to the away dressing room to cater for those spoilt prima donnas who are used to first class comfort, even when getting ready for a match! The incoming players usually sign 2 or 3 year contracts on PL wages. The parachute payments are meant to ease the wage bill. Just look what happened to teams like Portsmouth a few years back.

[barney15c]

Are there parachute payments for the incoming clubs then, as i was reffering to clubs that were relegated from the EPL.

[Ken4155]

I think, Barney, that all PL sides were guaranteed at least £100m and got more according to their final league position above the bottom three. Those 3 were obviously relegated and, as i indicated, the parachute payments came into effect to help them continue to pay those they had signed when promoted.
You actually make £100m sound like a lot of money but when a footballer, Pogba, is bought for £89m and an entire club, Aston Villa, is sold for just £60m, it doesn't sound that much, does it?

[barney15c]

The £100m earned by right, i have no problem there - its the £40m on top i have an issue with. I believe some of the bigger clubs (those who were highly unlikely to ever get relegated) wanted to scrap the parachute payments for purely financial reasons (a bigger pot shared by fewer clubs) they cited it’s alleged that some clubs are abusing the present system without contributing enough to the English top flight.
eestablished Premier League clubs want to tighten the system of parachute payments for relegated clubs to stop unscrupulous owners “trousering” the vast sums of money on offer.

They highlight Blackpool, who, under controversial owner Karl Oyston, spent just £3.5m on players during a season in the top flight in 2010-11 and made minimal investment in wages. Burnley’s thrift in 2014-15 is also noted: the Clarets went down after keeping transfer outlay below £10m.
http://www.101greatgoals.com/news/man-united-liverpool-plan-scrap-epl-parachute-payments/

[Ken4155]

It's not about how much you spend on transfers, it's the escalated wage bill which, unless a relegated team gets rid of all players on PL wages, will be just as high as when they were in the top league. And i don't see too many of the top Championship sides protesting about these parachute payments - they may just need them one day.
As a result of some shrewd business by the board, Burnley Football Club ensured they cleared all debts and became financially secure for a good few years, irrespective of which division we were in. We were also able to buy back our training ground. But we are very probably still the poorest side in the PL.