Parachute Payments

JBenno · Jul 4, 2014

This seems to encapsulate everything that is wrong with the parachute payment system. Fulham axing 29 'everyday jobs' , no doubt from people in the local community. So that they can spend more money on the pitch, currently looking to spend towards £10 million Ross McCormack! A Championship striker!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/fulham-slash-29-jobs-following-3803408

Similar to the Pompey demise, in which ALL parachute money was used to support average Footballer's wages and none used to support the clubs infrastructrue or local creditors.

Why are there no regulations on what this parachute money can be spent on? As it seems to be used 100% of the time for the opposite reasons to which it is awarded??

Stumpy Tim · Jul 4, 2014

Hang on. Didn't the Albion make a load of people redundant a while ago? Fulham aren't a charity. If those 29 people aren't needed then Fulham should make them redundant.

The McCormack argument is a different debate entirely.

JBenno · Jul 4, 2014

Albion didn't make people redundant then blow all the ££££ on the pitch did they?
We also aren't in receipt of large Premier league payments so have to run a tight ship.

The argument is about what Parachute payments should be spent on?

c0lz · Jul 4, 2014

I will never understand why the need for Parachute Payments,Premiership players who get their team relegated should have their wages fall into line with the championship structure automatically. and so on down the line.

JBenno · Jul 4, 2014

c0lz said:
I will never understand why the need for Parachute Payments,Premiership players who get their team relegated should have their wages fall into line with the championship structure automatically. and so on down the line.

Its basically a get out of jail card for the Premier league organisers when Clubs like Leeds in the early 2000's and then Pompey fall out of the league and implode.
The Premier League can then have a clear conscience and say that they provided support for the club to survive.

beorhthelm · Jul 4, 2014

JBenno said:
Similar to the Pompey demise, in which ALL parachute money was used to support average Footballer's wages and none used to support the clubs infrastructrue or local creditors.

Why are there no regulations on what this parachute money can be spent on? As it seems to be used 100% of the time for the opposite reasons to which it is awarded??

it seems to me the parachute payments here are being used for their intended purpose, to pay for players. or do you beleive there is a specified requirement that a club must spend x on infrastructure. and from where do you get that the infrastructure or local creditors aren't being paid? bordering on slander comparing them to Portsmouth.

sparkie · Jul 4, 2014

Parachute Payments are OK.

FFP is OK.

The combination of the 2 in the present form is *evil incarnate*.

Reform or ditch one or the other !

JBenno · Jul 4, 2014

beorhthelm said:
it seems to me the parachute payments here are being used for their intended purpose, to pay for players. or do you beleive there is a specified requirement that a club must spend x on infrastructure. and from where do you get that the infrastructure or local creditors aren't being paid? bordering on slander comparing them to Portsmouth.

Pay for players or pay for players wages?

withdeanwombat · Jul 4, 2014

c0lz said:
I will never understand why the need for Parachute Payments,Premiership players who get their team relegated should have their wages fall into line with the championship structure automatically. and so on down the line.

In your dreams. These players have contracts, and unless a pay cut for relegation is included a pay cut won't happen, and if it was included it wouldn't get signed.

Hence, parachute payments which should be used to cover this "problem" for the relegated clubs if they cannot offload the high earners who won them relegation .

blueandwhitestripes · Jul 4, 2014

c0lz said:
I will never understand why the need for Parachute Payments,Premiership players who get their team relegated should have their wages fall into line with the championship structure automatically. and so on down the line.

Because the players (agents) hold the whip hand and there will always be clubs who are prepared to offer wages and contract terms that are stacked in favour of those players. I think the only way to tackle this would be some kind of regulation (e.g. wage cap) imposed by UEFA/FIFA and/or the ending of parachute payments. Neither are likely in my opinion as there are too many powerful people looking to protect their interests. Clubs like the Albion have to be very smart in their dealings with players/agents and inevitably we will lose out on some potential deals like Grabban, Bridge, Ward (?).

c0lz · Jul 4, 2014

withdeanwombat said:
In your dreams. These players have contracts, and unless a pay cut for relegation is included a pay cut won't happen, and if it was included it wouldn't get signed.

Hence, parachute payments which should be used to cover this "problem" for the relegated clubs if they cannot offload the high earners who won them relegation .

But its not just being used for high earners when the said club are reported in buying a player for 10 million,as for the contracts not being signed if pay cut was included they would have no choice if it a rule to include all.

Stumpy Tim · Jul 4, 2014

JBenno said:
Albion didn't make people redundant then blow all the ££££ on the pitch did they?
We also aren't in receipt of large Premier league payments so have to run a tight ship.

The argument is about what Parachute payments should be spent on?

Well we could have saved the same amount of money by cutting the playing staff, so yes we did. Any rightly so. I'm not sure why you think Fulham should employ people they don't need. Of course, they may also think that by buying McCormack they'll get back in the EPL gravy train, and be able to hire the 29 again.

JBenno · Jul 4, 2014

Stumpy Tim said:
Well we could have saved the same amount of money by cutting the playing staff, so yes we did. Any rightly so. I'm not sure why you think Fulham should employ people they don't need. Of course, they may also think that by buying McCormack they'll get back in the EPL gravy train, and be able to hire the 29 again.

Completely understand your point of view, and of course you are quite right.

Just smarts a little when you have 29 redundancies versus £10M Marquee signing.....

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Parachute Payments

More options

JBenno

New member

Stumpy Tim

Well-known member

JBenno

New member

c0lz

North East Stand.

JBenno

New member

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius

sparkie

Well-known member

JBenno

New member

withdeanwombat

Well-known member

blueandwhitestripes

Active member

c0lz

North East Stand.

Stumpy Tim

Well-known member

JBenno

New member

Share this page

Forum statistics

Online statistics

Newest members

Share this page