Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
InLambertWeTrust!

Adrian Durham on Talks**t yesterday

Recommended Posts

On my way home I tuned into Drive time to hear AD criticising the ''£48m for relegation from the premierleague'' system.Obviously because of Paul Lambert and his coaching staff- the players as well of course!- we will ''benefit'' from the system IF we go down.What do we think of the ''rewards for the relegation'' system? Personally because we''re going to benefit from the system I''m all for it but I can see why other club''s e.g. Barnsley or the blue filth- as an example of a club who probably wont ever get promoted- would be frustrated.However the team worked extremely hard to get promoted last season and the £48m will help City retain the best players so two fingers to those who want to complain!What do you guys think? *obviously the scenario of getting the £48m is based on us going down which I want to stress I dont think is inevitable by any means**£48m is just the figure suggested by AD- i accept that I could be well off with the figure*OTBC [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It allows us to compete at the top. Imagine if we had to insert ridiculous clauses into new signings contracts this year saying that if we go down, they earn nothing more than £5k, it would put off loads of them, leaving us really struggling to put together a premiership team.

The £48m is there to soak up the costs associated with having a team on premiership wages. We can''t just buy players on year long deals as they would leave for free at the end of the year if we did.

It''s not like we''d be financially outmuscling the rest of the championship, look at Hull, Portsomuth, M''Boro. All them are skint despite this money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think such large sums after relegation lead to a two tier Championship and this is not good because the great thing about the Championship is the openness of the League, literally anyone could win it. However, so many clubs have committed themselves to more expenditure than they can afford and then after relegation they are real trouble, this acts as a buffer against that poor management, it might be worth it to keep clubs in business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The deal stinks - even if we will benefit if we go down. It was conceived purely to protect the players wages. I don''t understand why it seems to be so impossible to get players on a contract that contains clauses like: - player will have to take a pay cut if the club is relegated, commensurate with the loss of revenue to the club.  - if player wishes to leave on relegation and is still in contract, he may be sold subject to a agreement of a fee. But no, instead the premier league comes up with a way to ensure players still get fat contracts, penned on the basis of premier league revenues, even after a club has been relegated and suffered an 80-90% drop in revenue. It''s devised only to keep the players pockets lined, while preventing the clubs going into administration, which obviously is bad publicity. Like i say, it stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense to say it helps releagted clubs boucne back straight away. Hasn''t helped Burnley, Hull or Portsmouth....or Middlesborough before that. Norwich and Swansea have beaten these richer sides comfortably last season. Just shows the parachute payment is merely aimed at keeping clubs in business and not giving them an advantage to get back up, because that rarely happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What should be borne in mind is that these future payments are dependant upon Sky and others continuing to recieve the astronomical subscriptions.

Unfortunately the cracks in this are already showing with the recent decision regarding pubs showing matches for a fraction of the previous cost. Although this has yet to be clarified by a court ruling all indications are that the exclusivity deal will be broken.

If pubs can get this deal then how long before viewers can get them in their homes ? The shake up may come an awaful lot quicker than some expect.

A necessary shake up to be honest, as the bigger the balloon is blown the bigger will be the bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="a1canary"]The deal stinks - even if we will benefit if we go down. It was conceived purely to protect the players wages. I don''t understand why it seems to be so impossible to get players on a contract that contains clauses like: - player will have to take a pay cut if the club is relegated, commensurate with the loss of revenue to the club.  - if player wishes to leave on relegation and is still in contract, he may be sold subject to a agreement of a fee. But no, instead the premier league comes up with a way to ensure players still get fat contracts, penned on the basis of premier league revenues, even after a club has been relegated and suffered an 80-90% drop in revenue. It''s devised only to keep the players pockets lined, while preventing the clubs going into administration, which obviously is bad publicity. Like i say, it stinks.[/quote]

Because if you have say Bolton saying, here have 10 grand, we''ll stay up and you can earn that for 3 years or us where we say: here, have 15 grand, but if we go down, that drops to 5, that''s the gamble you have to take...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]It allows us to compete at the top. Imagine if we had to insert ridiculous clauses into new signings contracts this year saying that if we go down, they earn nothing more than £5k, it would put off loads of them, leaving us really struggling to put together a premiership team. The £48m is there to soak up the costs associated with having a team on premiership wages. We can''t just buy players on year long deals as they would leave for free at the end of the year if we did. It''s not like we''d be financially outmuscling the rest of the championship, look at Hull, Portsomuth, M''Boro. All them are skint despite this money.[/quote]..............yes, but they were all relegated before these payments came into force, receiving much less than £48M. i believe the first teams to benefit were those relegated in may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical that the Ginger Whinger only starts to complain about it after his Peterborough came up against Blackpool - it''s not as if no-one knew about it before. However, I do think it is unfair although potentially we could benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×