The Premier League gulf.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

As the financial gap between the Premier League and the Championship is so huge, what about having a system where all promoted Championship clubs are awarded 100 million quid each out of the Premier League revenues on promotion to invest to give them a fighting chance without risking bankruptcy?

Edited November 7, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

As the financial gap between the Premier League and the Championship is so huge, what about having a system where all promoted Championship clubs are awarded 100 million quid each out of the Premier League revenues on promotion to invest to give them a fighting chance without risking bankruptcy?

That's basically the parachute payment up front, so it wouldn't really change anything. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,721]

You are implying those holding the money would be happy to share

[Capt. Pants 4,236]

Shame we're almost a £100m in debt.

[essex canary 496]

5 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Shame we're almost a £100m in debt.

Would be £200 million in debt under this proposal. 

[Capt. Pants 4,236]

It's a great idea as long as Ipswich don't get it.

[Badger 2,405]

I don't think it would solve the problem. Even with money, most premier league quality players don't want to go to promoted clubs. There is a hierarchy of teams that players top players have in the Premier League, promoted clubs are at the bottom. Essentially, promoted clubs get players that nobody else in the premier league wants.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

@Essex Canary To clarify, I mean a 100 million pound prize; I'm not talking about a loan.

The financial gulf between the leagues is enormous and that gulf is the fault of how the Premier League has been commercialised differently to all the rest of the teams. I think that puts the onus on them to solve it and find a way to give promoted teams a chance of competing without risking bankruptcy.

If you say it's equal to the money received by the 20th placed team then overall all Premier League teams would have to get slightly less to pay for it. Not saying they'll like it, but wanted to float the idea out there.

Edited November 8, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't think it would solve the problem. Even with money, most premier league quality players don't want to go to promoted clubs. There is a hierarchy of teams that players top players have in the Premier League, promoted clubs are at the bottom. Essentially, promoted clubs get players that nobody else in the premier league wants.

And yet, we're seeing a clear pattern of those that do survive credibly being the ones with deep pockets behind them.

It's clear you simply can't survive on a shoestring in the Premier League any more.

I mean if people don't think this idea will help, what other ideas to people have? Does everyone think things should be left as they are?

Edited November 8, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And yet, we're seeing a clear pattern of those that do survive credibly being the ones with deep pockets behind them.

Not really sure that there is a "clear pattern." Burnley, Palace, Southampton survived for years without spending very much + I don't think Brentford have spent that much - they year they stayed up we went down, we spent more. Fulham yo-yod for years despite huge expenditure + even after £700 million are only one bad season away from relegation.

I'm not saying £100 million would be unhelpful but I don't think that it would equalise things that much.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

49 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not really sure that there is a "clear pattern." Burnley, Palace, Southampton survived for years without spending very much + I don't think Brentford have spent that much - they year they stayed up we went down, we spent more. Fulham yo-yod for years despite huge expenditure + even after £700 million are only one bad season away from relegation.

I'm not saying £100 million would be unhelpful but I don't think that it would equalise things that much.

So you're saying things are actually fine as they are?

[Badger 2,405]

21 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

So you're saying things are actually fine as they are?

No. I don't think £100 million would solve it though - to make it truly competitive you would need salary caps the same for all clubs - which won't happen and which I disagree with anyway.

My wish (again naive) is for the super league to come along and the "big clubs" to leave English football.

[SwindonCanary 455]

It  Looks like we need a few seasons in the Premiership

[Nuff Said 5,142]

1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

It  Looks like we need a few seasons in the Premiership

Didn’t work for Burnley, Stoke or lots of others.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,721]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Didn’t work for Burnley, Stoke or lots of others.

Remember when Portsmouth were playing Milan in Europe? Wonder what happened a few years after that..

 

What? They got relegated all the way down to League two?

[Nuff Said 5,142]

2 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Remember when Portsmouth were playing Milan in Europe? Wonder what happened a few years after that..

 

What? They got relegated all the way down to League two?

If I had a pound for every time someone used the phrase “established Premier League club” or similar on here, it would, well, pay my winter heating bill. It‘s a myth for all but the big 6 or so clubs, and the odd outlier with a sports washing national wealth fund behind them.

[canarybubbles 1,915]

Another problem is that any system that benefits one set of clubs - your suggestion, parachute payments, etc - will work against other clubs around them. Yes, 100m would benefit the winners of the play-off final enormously, but disadvantage still further the team who lost it.

The only real solution is a more equal distribution of income throughout the football league and perhaps even down to non-league football, but we all know that's never going to happen.

[aBee 151]

£300m promotion prize money across the three who go up plus zero future parachute payments, and prize money reduced by any parachute payments received since last promoted might make some sense in giving clubs the money to compete rather than money to cushion failure. Or the accelerated receipt might make more overextend to gamble on promotion. 

Distributing more evenly down the divisions would just grow the gap between the big 6 and everyone else. 
 

[First Wazzock 902]

Erik ten Hag after Man United were winning by 2 goals but lost 4-3

[Ulfotto 635]

Isn’t the plan to get rid of parachutes payments all together.

As for Brentford according to Soccerbase they have spent 132 million since promotion to the premier league while recouping a big fat zero. The tragic thing is that is deemed not a lot these days.

[duke63 542]

On 10/11/2023 at 15:59, TheDarkKnight said:

It's really not about money. It's about getting value. Andy Robertson cost Hull £2.9m and now he's holds the record for most assists as a full back in EPL history.

The gulf only exists when unprepared clubs get promoted to the EPL.

look at Brighton. They had a plan. They gutted the club of the old guard. They then employed people who had the exact same vision as the owner.

They hired coaches, director of football, football analysts, scouts, etc, who all share the same ideals and for whom are all on the same page.

Their scouting network is incredibly detailed. Their analytics are off the charts.

This is why Brighton are now an established EPL club who have just beaten Ajax 0-2.

"Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

The following is a comparison between Brighton and Manchester United's transfer spending since Brighton have been an EPL club:

Brighton EPL net spending: 

17/18: +£77.2m

18/19: -£63.7m

19/20: -£46.1m

20/21: -£25.6m

21/22: +£3.3m

22/23: +£71.3m

23/24: +£77.2m 

So, they've actually made a profit of £93.6m. Pool that with their TV money, etc, it's safe to say that they are loaded.  Compare this with Manchester United's spending over the same period: 

Manchester United: 

17/18: -£132.9

18/19: -£45.3

19/20: -£134.9

20/21: -£55.7

21/22:  -£96.1

22/23: -£190.4

23/24:  -£131.4 

A loss of £786.7m 

Not really.

Brighton are £211 million insolvent.

they owe their owners £335 million.

 

 

 

[Ulfotto 635]

On 10/11/2023 at 15:59, TheDarkKnight said:

It's really not about money. It's about getting value. Andy Robertson cost Hull £2.9m and now he's holds the record for most assists as a full back in EPL history.

The gulf only exists when unprepared clubs get promoted to the EPL.

look at Brighton. They had a plan. They gutted the club of the old guard. They then employed people who had the exact same vision as the owner.

They hired coaches, director of football, football analysts, scouts, etc, who all share the same ideals and for whom are all on the same page.

Their scouting network is incredibly detailed. Their analytics are off the charts.

This is why Brighton are now an established EPL club who have just beaten Ajax 0-2.

"Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

The following is a comparison between Brighton and Manchester United's transfer spending since Brighton have been an EPL club:

Brighton EPL net spending: 

17/18: +£77.2m

18/19: -£63.7m

19/20: -£46.1m

20/21: -£25.6m

21/22: +£3.3m

22/23: +£71.3m

23/24: +£77.2m 

So, they've actually made a profit of £93.6m. Pool that with their TV money, etc, it's safe to say that they are loaded.  Compare this with Manchester United's spending over the same period: 

Manchester United: 

17/18: -£132.9

18/19: -£45.3

19/20: -£134.9

20/21: -£55.7

21/22:  -£96.1

22/23: -£190.4

23/24:  -£131.4 

A loss of £786.7m 

Do you want to break down the 17/18 figure? According to soccerbase they spend 50 plus and recouped nothing. Looking through soccerbase they only very recently started making transfer profit upon the sale of Ben White in July 2021. After engaging in 100 million plus spending spree over 3 seasons where they clung to there premier league status by the skin of there teeth.

personally I really tire of both Brighton and Brentford as clubs run by people who have made there money from other people misery. They are wealthy well funded clubs who would not exist without there rich owners.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Ulfotto

[RobJames 881]

Maybe if the bottom 14( or less) broke away they would leave the top clubs floundering in a meaningless showpiece league. Stagnating as once English cricket was  before the two leagues came in.

Look at the tables in the champions league. You can spot who the two qualifying clubs will be, every season The rest are just 'extras' to give the competition credibility, just as with the PL.

Let them rejoin the Football League, rejig so as to have six promoted from the old second division... all the way downward. It would cause a re-alignment of wages to one that is realistic.  Currently wages are paid on the TV money, not a players worth. . Make it to the PL and a contract, and a player is 'made for life'.  More so if he can depart a relegated club for another contract elsewhere.

Football will survive the loss of Man City/Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool. Can they survive when having to play each other 8 times in a season ?  At the moment all three domestic trophies are dominated by those six. Paying off the rest with extra money will not address the core problem.

Dump them and you open up the belief that any club can win the title or cup. At the moment we are stuck in a Zombie like existence

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by RobJames

[duke63 542]

5 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Yes really.

Manchester United owe £1billion.

Aren't Norwich £100m in debt?

Yes but we are not insolvent to the tune of £211 million. They owe £211 million more than they have in assets.

[Canary Jedi 579]

How about some lateral thinking to get around the huge gulf.

When a top 6 side plays a newly promoted club they can only play with 10 men.

And for all games involving newly promoted clubs, the VAR officials are made up of local radio pundits or ex-players.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

It's football for TV. There's no real reason for it to remain in England and I doubt it will. Most of the clubs have lost their roots and don't belong to the towns or cities of their name. Even some of the top club's supporters now want to go back to their roots.

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

10 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

Do you want to break down the 17/18 figure? According to soccerbase they spend 50 plus and recouped nothing. Looking through soccerbase they only very recently started making transfer profit upon the sale of Ben White in July 2021. After engaging in 100 million plus spending spree over 3 seasons where they clung to there premier league status by the skin of there teeth.

personally I really tire of both Brighton and Brentford as clubs run by people who have made there money from other people misery. They are wealthy well funded clubs who would not exist without there rich owners.

We need to be a little bit self-aware here, once upon a time we invited the Turners on to the board and they made their money indisputably from the misery of others by facilitating sub-prime lending. 
they just didn’t have the funds or the balls to see it through. 

[duke63 542]

The three promoted sides to date this season:

P 36   W 3   D 6   L 27   F 29   A 83   Pts 15

The bottom six now comprises all the promoted teams over the last two years.

 

Doesn't sound much like entertainment to me. Winning one game in every twelve and losing 3 in every 4.

Edited November 13, 2023 by duke63

[BurwellCanary 216]

9 minutes ago, duke63 said:

The three promoted sides to date this season:

P 36   W 3   D 6   L 27   F 29   A 83   Pts 15

The bottom six now comprises all the promoted teams over the last two years.

 

Doesn't sound much like entertainment to me. Winning one game in every twelve and losing 3 in every 4.

Thats a very telling stat

Be interesting to see what their debt looks like 

[Badger 2,405]

On 10/11/2023 at 15:59, TheDarkKnight said:

The gulf only exists when unprepared clubs get promoted to the EPL.

look at Brighton. They had a plan. They gutted the club of the old guard. They then employed people who had the exact same vision as the owner.

They hired coaches, director of football, football analysts, scouts, etc, who all share the same ideals and for whom are all on the same page.

Their scouting network is incredibly detailed. Their analytics are off the charts.

This is why Brighton are now an established EPL club who have just beaten Ajax 0-2.

 

Just to add a few facts to this...

1. At the end of 2022 their net debt stood at nearly £400 million. Fortunately for them, it is almost all owed to their owner, who charges no interest. Our new owner has already shown that he is not doing that and, like most owners, has charged interest on the money he has lent.

2. They have made one of the lowest profits from player trading in the PL (see below).

3. Brighton's wage bill in 2022 was lower than Norwich's (you could justifiably say that it was better utilised!).

Although there is much to admire about the way Brighton is run, their current success is less to do with their "plan" and more to do with the fan owner who has happily continued to pump tens of millions a year into the club.

The solution to the premier league gulf is obvious - just get an owner who is prepared to give hundreds of millions into the club* without any expectation (as far as I can see) of getting it back. The solution is obvious - the way of achieving this is less so.

* Averaging £30 million pa