LUFCTALK

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leed ... y-15275946

Makes for interesting reading.

The Championship is the 7th most richest league in Europe, so it isn't getting small money, though the chasm between the premier league and championship is vaste, especially when you consider the parachute payments for coming down dwarf the TV money for TV-popular aspiring clubs.

The FL obviously need to try and keep money for the lower leagues, which without the popular championship teams they would not get as much. If there were to be a PL2, then surely the league sizes could be reduced, two divisions of 18 would also address fatigue and congestion complaints.

Good read that. Leeds should be getting more money from Sky given the amount of times we are on. Probably the only thing Cellino did during his tenure, I agreed with was to lock Sky out of Elland Road.

Absurd how little money we get for being ( guesswork ) probably the sixth or seventh most televised club in the country. Cellino's protest was ludicrous, but he and Radrizzani are both right the system is flawed. Whilst we are on the subject of money is it just me that don't understand why relegated Premiership clubs get parachute payments. Hardly makes for a level playing field.

ChilwellWhite wrote:Absurd how little money we get for being ( guesswork ) probably the sixth or seventh most televised club in the country. Cellino's protest was ludicrous, but he and Radrizzani are both right the system is flawed. Whilst we are on the subject of money is it just me that don't understand why relegated Premiership clubs get parachute payments. Hardly makes for a level playing field.

I think the parachute payments should be scrapped to be honest, I know its useful to those who do get relegated because the wage structures in the premiership is a lot higher than we can afford and that's one of the reasons its there. Contracts should always have a relegation clause in them that if the club get relegated the club can reduce to an agreed wage structure in the lower league instead of having to fork out the same wages for a league lower, This would encourage players to play at a higher level for fear of losing the bigger wage.

ChilwellWhite wrote:Absurd how little money we get for being ( guesswork ) probably the sixth or seventh most televised club in the country. Cellino's protest was ludicrous, but he and Radrizzani are both right the system is flawed. Whilst we are on the subject of money is it just me that don't understand why relegated Premiership clubs get parachute payments. Hardly makes for a level playing field.

I think it's fairly straightforward, really.
It's part of the reward for winning promotion.
Every time you hear the playoff final described as the "Richest game in world football" it's because they factor in the minimum revenue the winners get from their first year in the EPL combined with the three years' parachute payments if they come straight back down.

Without it, a club like Cardiff would have no hope because they relied more on the motivational skills of Colin than any particular strength in depth in their squad - it was a very average Championship team, but with Warnock at the helm they over-achieved.
The idea behind the parachute payments is to safeguard the financial future of clubs playing in the EPL by giving them a cushion to continue to pay the higher contracts they would've given to both new players and existing squad members for their efforts in getting them to the promised land.

I honestly don't think it's unfair in itself, but actually think the distribution of the TV money could be more evenly spread.

Also, slightly off-topic but Gary Neville's right about Wembley : why are we selling it when a tiny percentage levy on clubs/agents for each transfer would allow us to fund all sorts of grass-roots initiatives.

I can see the argument reference parachute payments & players on Premiership salaries but it just turns some of the clubs into perennial yo yo teams. It's difficult for clubs such as us to attract the same players as say West Brom. If teams are relegated there should be clauses in the players contracts saying wage cuts will kick in on relegation to create a more even playing field. There should be a fairer distribution of monies throughout football, it won't happen of course.

rigger wrote:

ChilwellWhite wrote:Absurd how little money we get for being ( guesswork ) probably the sixth or seventh most televised club in the country. Cellino's protest was ludicrous, but he and Radrizzani are both right the system is flawed. Whilst we are on the subject of money is it just me that don't understand why relegated Premiership clubs get parachute payments. Hardly makes for a level playing field.

I think it's fairly straightforward, really.
It's part of the reward for winning promotion.
Every time you hear the playoff final described as the "Richest game in world football" it's because they factor in the minimum revenue the winners get from their first year in the EPL combined with the three years' parachute payments if they come straight back down.

Without it, a club like Cardiff would have no hope because they relied more on the motivational skills of Colin than any particular strength in depth in their squad - it was a very average Championship team, but with Warnock at the helm they over-achieved.
The idea behind the parachute payments is to safeguard the financial future of clubs playing in the EPL by giving them a cushion to continue to pay the higher contracts they would've given to both new players and existing squad members for their efforts in getting them to the promised land
I honestly don't think it's unfair in itself, but actually think the distribution of the TV money could be more evenly spread.

Also, slightly off-topic but Gary Neville's right about Wembley : why are we selling it when a tiny percentage levy on clubs/agents for each transfer would allow us to fund all sorts of grass-roots initiatives.

Can't agree with you Rigger. Its akin to the 'compensation culture'. If a team gets promoted into the Premiership, their forward planning should account for all eventualities. As NW says, Premiership player contracts should include a clause on salaries. The current situation of parachute payments is a reward for failure.

rigger wrote:

ChilwellWhite wrote:Absurd how little money we get for being ( guesswork ) probably the sixth or seventh most televised club in the country. Cellino's protest was ludicrous, but he and Radrizzani are both right the system is flawed. Whilst we are on the subject of money is it just me that don't understand why relegated Premiership clubs get parachute payments. Hardly makes for a level playing field.

I think it's fairly straightforward, really.
It's part of the reward for winning promotion.
Every time you hear the playoff final described as the "Richest game in world football" it's because they factor in the minimum revenue the winners get from their first year in the EPL combined with the three years' parachute payments if they come straight back down.

Without it, a club like Cardiff would have no hope because they relied more on the motivational skills of Colin than any particular strength in depth in their squad - it was a very average Championship team, but with Warnock at the helm they over-achieved.
The idea behind the parachute payments is to safeguard the financial future of clubs playing in the EPL by giving them a cushion to continue to pay the higher contracts they would've given to both new players and existing squad members for their efforts in getting them to the promised land.

I honestly don't think it's unfair in itself, but actually think the distribution of the TV money could be more evenly spread.

Also, slightly off-topic but Gary Neville's right about Wembley : why are we selling it when a tiny percentage levy on clubs/agents for each transfer would allow us to fund all sorts of grass-roots initiatives.

Exactly how I see it TBH, Radrizzani's idea for a PL2 is daft and in a way detracts from the valid point he (and Cellino!) make about Sky TV money being badly out of balance

But the two of you are missing the point of the EPL : it's about money, not competition.

We live in a market economy in the west and capitalism drives and protects everything.

It's not meant to be fair ..