finance Parachute payments to be reduced

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

On 27/07/2022 at 18:40, Badger said:

Obviously we are totally dependant upon the newspaper reports but the times seemed to indicate that there was agreement in principle on the other matters but that "some" clubs wanted the "under 23s" quota (the Guardian uses the "some" as well) I take this to mean that there is no agreement on the issue.

From what I have observed, clubs pretty keen on getting PL loans if they can get them anyway, so I don't think that it is as significant as the other issues in the deal.

Yup, but I think the loan system is a vicious circle: Talented assets that help teams get to the premier league can simply be taken away upon promotion, resulting in the rug being pulled out from under the feet of newly promoted teams. 

[chicken 2,624]

9 hours ago, Badger said:

If the likely expenditure restrictions are passed the wealth of owners won't make much difference.

I think that it will make it (even) harder for promoted teams as they will not be able to use parachute payments to the same extent to soften the wage drops on newly-recruited players - therefore, it will be evn harder for newly promoted clubs to recruit regardless of the owner's wealth.

And probably even harder to sell for large sums as premier league clubs will know they can wait until the selling club buckles and has to sell at their price to get the wages off the bill.

Really, really dumb. It'd have been better to have given a shrinking budget than absolutely nothing.

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, chicken said:

And probably even harder to sell for large sums as premier league clubs will know they can wait until the selling club buckles and has to sell at their price to get the wages off the bill.

Really, really dumb. It'd have been better to have given a shrinking budget than absolutely nothing.

We don't know how much parachute payments will be reduced, just that they have agreed in principle that they will be. They may add extra flexibility to any spending limitations as well? 

e.g. Can spend 90% of turnover, year one, instead of 70%? That sort of thing.

[king canary 7,605]

19 hours ago, ricardo said:

Just another step on the road towards the inevitable pulling up of the drawbridge.

Exactly.

The Premier League is the cause of almost all these issues and yet is also the one who gets to dictate the solutions.

The obvious route to removing the need for parachute payments is redistributing a decent % of the Premier Leagues wealth to the lower leagues, thus reducing the massive gap between top of the Championship and bottom of the Premier League. Won't happen though as Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. 

Equally the best solution to the lack of competitive game time for u23s is to stop Premier League clubs signing and stockpiling most of the talented young players going and instead letting them mature with the clubs they start at. However that undermines the Premier League clubs ability to sign players, loan them out and then flip them for a significant profit after minimal effort themselves so again it won't happen.

The football league absolutely shouldn't be bending over to allow the top flight clubs an easier method of stockpiling young players but the EFL long ago lost the balls the tell them to go **** themselves.