Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 11:55:56 GMT 1
if they lose their best players, they still have a squad of pretty average or below average premier league players on vastly inflated wages on long contracts... its not the wages that the top earners get that is the problem.. Rooney and the others attract sponsors and merchandising that pays their wages, the vast majority of the biggest earners are at clubs who get into Europe every year and that now is serious gravy on top of the massive sky cash. They also fill their grounds every week.. paying a full back at stoke 30/40/50k a week along with a bench player at aston villa on 65k a week is where the problem lies.. filling the championship with 15/20k a week plus players is almost suicidal... The bottom line is town like some other clubs in the division are at a big disadvantage to other teams so to keep in the division is a hard enough job as it is fans should remember that when things are going through a rough patch. At the end of the day money isnt everything but it sure is a big help in securing the best players as im sure town will be finding out at this moment.We can be competitive in this division but its not easy over a whole season and i dont think next season will be any different. lets see if we can consolidate again.
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on May 26, 2015 12:15:55 GMT 1
When your income suddenly drops by £65,000,000. Yet your costs remain largely the same, then your in trouble.... Imaging if town suddenly had a 65,000,000 drop in trunover (i know we dont turnover that) we would be wound up by the end of the day.
Even taking into account the 24 million parachute payments, Hull City are 50,000,000 worse off......
I know exactly which team I would prefer to be, Maybe their owners will throw the dice again, but if not they are another Wigan, or a bolton trying to rebuild in massive debt.... etc etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 12:29:06 GMT 1
When your income suddenly drops by £65,000,000. Yet your costs remain largely the same, then your in trouble.... Imaging if town suddenly had a 65,000,000 drop in trunover (i know we dont turnover that) we would be wound up by the end of the day. Even taking into account the 24 million parachute payments, Hull City are 50,000,000 worse off...... I know exactly which team I would prefer to be, Maybe their owners will throw the dice again, but if not they are another Wigan, or a bolton trying to rebuild in massive debt.... etc etc. And if the proposed name-change goes ahead I can see fans turning away, thus denying them even more finances.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on May 26, 2015 12:42:38 GMT 1
When your income suddenly drops by £65,000,000. Yet your costs remain largely the same, then your in trouble.... Imaging if town suddenly had a 65,000,000 drop in trunover (i know we dont turnover that) we would be wound up by the end of the day. Even taking into account the 24 million parachute payments, Hull City are 50,000,000 worse off...... I know exactly which team I would prefer to be, Maybe their owners will throw the dice again, but if not they are another Wigan, or a bolton trying to rebuild in massive debt.... etc etc. whilst their turnover will obviouslly drop massively, I think I read somewhere that the players salary would also reduce massively if they went down as theyd had the sense to write that into contracts. Seems a sensible and logical thing to do and would negate any need for parachute payments. As it is the parachute payment will give Hull a huge unfair advantage and allow them to bring in top quality players and pay them a fortune on long contracts bit like Fulham did with McCormack and Blackburn did with Rhodes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 13:01:03 GMT 1
I have said before parachute payments are not necessary. Every club should be including relegation clauses in their contracts by now which address unsustainable wages in the lower division. This money should be shared down the leagues to improve the financial health at all clubs.
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on May 26, 2015 13:22:57 GMT 1
When your income suddenly drops by £65,000,000. Yet your costs remain largely the same, then your in trouble.... Imaging if town suddenly had a 65,000,000 drop in trunover (i know we dont turnover that) we would be wound up by the end of the day. Even taking into account the 24 million parachute payments, Hull City are 50,000,000 worse off...... I know exactly which team I would prefer to be, Maybe their owners will throw the dice again, but if not they are another Wigan, or a bolton trying to rebuild in massive debt.... etc etc. whilst their turnover will obviouslly drop massively, I think I read somewhere that the players salary would also reduce massively if they went down as theyd had the sense to write that into contracts. Seems a sensible and logical thing to do and would negate any need for parachute payments. As it is the parachute payment will give Hull a huge unfair advantage and allow them to bring in top quality players and pay them a fortune on long contracts bit like Fulham did with McCormack and Blackburn did with Rhodes Not sure the transfers were really funded by parachute payments, rather owners willing to splash more cash than the club had. Parachute payments will have been used to service debts, cover lost revenues and pay inflated wagebills. Since 2011, Blackburn Rovers have in essence made a loss of 90,000,000. Venky may cover that or has converted loans into equity, but Im not sure you can really say that parachute payments are the reason for the unfair advantage, rather owners that are splashing silly money and racking it up as directors/club debts. Not sure how much we have lost in the same period, but another 60 million ish, would surely have allowed us to compete at the top end of this league, or possibly push on into the premier league.
|
|
|
Post by Torquayterrier on May 26, 2015 13:42:03 GMT 1
Every club that gets relegated faces the same challenges in possible lowering of ST sold etc as some folks opt out of seeing football at a lower level. It happenes when teams get relegated to lg's 1 and 2 but there aren't parachute payments in thos circumstances, it's just because the prem governs itself separate from the FL. The teams coming down from prem should have to manage themselves, if it means losing high earners then so be it, other relegated teams in FL have to do it usually. Interesting to see what Burnley do, they didn't spend big going up and now they have more money coming down so they should be in a very strong position to get a competitive team together even if they lose Ings.
|
|
|
Post by araucaria on May 26, 2015 16:47:52 GMT 1
I've just googled 'QPR parachute payments shared out' and the same for Norwich. The QPR one led to a forum where their fans and fans from other Championship clubs were expecting a share out. The second led to the Mirror website where a headline says all the Championship clubs will be supporting Norwich because they will all get a share of £24m and it says this happened last year as well. I am fully aware that these sources are shit, but where did you come across Scudamore saying no? I dunno to be honest. I thought id heard it discussed, probably on talksport, but maybe I imagined it. Maybe it was this from a couple of years ago- www.theguardian.com/football/2013/may/16/premier-league-championship-parachute-paymentsThough that is talking about the clubs who get parachute payments, NOT getting the solidarity payment thats given to all championship clubs aswell ( at the time £2m) , with their share being split amongst the others. Something Scudamore rejected and blackmailed the championship clubs to withdraw from with the threat of not giving any of them the solidarity payment if they didn't. I found Rotherham fans discussing it on their forum. More than one poster said that the other Premier League teams share the £24m. I went back to the Mirror website and, bugger me, it actually says Premier League not Championship. I saw what I wanted to see, I'm sorry to say. I'm a fully-fledged fuckwit. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on May 26, 2015 17:01:08 GMT 1
never mind, sometimes you read about the wages and the money in the premier league and you just cant quite believe what you just read..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 17:22:12 GMT 1
never mind, sometimes you read about the wages and the money in the premier league and you just cant quite believe what you just read.. And ... There it is ... In a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by reluctantnicko69 on May 28, 2015 12:16:17 GMT 1
People who say parachute payments are unfair should remember that you have to win promotion to get them in the first place.
Burnley have done it twice in 6 seasons, but in 2013/14 (we were skint with our last £8 million para payment already swallowed up by loan repayments) but we got 93 points and automatic promotion on a fairly low wage bill of £14 million - far, far less than Bournemouth, Watford and Norwich.
Everyone goes on about "the fairytale at little Bournemouth", but their wages are fairly astronomical for a club of their size. They may not have spent much on transfer fees but the likes of Elliott ward, Kermogant, Harte, Boruc and Kenwyne Jones don't play for peanuts.
Apparently, Howe DOUBLED his wages of £1 million a year when he left Burnley (16th in the Championship) to go back to Bournemouth (then struggling in League One).
Parachute payments help but Burnley have proved they do not make much difference if you have a top manager like Dyche, who signed Scott Arfield, Dave Jones and Tom Heaton on free transfers in the summer of 2013.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 13:29:48 GMT 1
People who say parachute payments are unfair should remember that you have to win promotion to get them in the first place. Burnley have done it twice in 6 seasons, but in 2013/14 (we were skint with our last £8 million para payment already swallowed up by loan repayments) but we got 93 points and automatic promotion on a fairly low wage bill of £14 million - far, far less than Bournemouth, Watford and Norwich. Everyone goes on about "the fairytale at little Bournemouth", but their wages are fairly astronomical for a club of their size. They may not have spent much on transfer fees but the likes of Elliott ward, Kermogant, Harte, Boruc and Kenwyne Jones don't play for peanuts.
Apparently, Howe DOUBLED his wages of £1 million a year when he left Burnley (16th in the Championship) to go back to Bournemouth (then struggling in League One).Parachute payments help but Burnley have proved they do not make much difference if you have a top manager like Dyche, who signed Scott Arfield, Dave Jones and Tom Heaton on free transfers in the summer of 2013. Well, good luck with that argument on this board. People on here think you're making it up and simply won't believe it. I've been saying it since they came up from L1.
|
|