Parachute Payments

[Chris Harte]

if Bournemouth or Norwich go down then we would get more than them overall due to us being in the Premier League for longer.

Really? Wow! It's almost as though the PL really want to eliminate promotion and relegation.

[saunders_heroes]

if Bournemouth or Norwich go down then we would get more than them overall due to us being in the Premier League for longer.

Really? Wow! It's almost as though the PL really want to eliminate promotion and relegation.

If they want to try it out this season I'm sure we'd all support them.

[ChicagoLion]

if Bournemouth or Norwich go down then we would get more than them overall due to us being in the Premier League for longer.

Really? Wow! It's almost as though the PL really want to eliminate promotion and relegation.

And who is to say they won't.
What it potential does is make a PL of 23 clubs with 6 rotating.

[oswald funkletrumpet]

Which is why it is imperative to get back first time as every year the relegated clubs will have a huge Finacial advantage over the ones allready down there.
This does assume that player contracts do take into account relegation.

you would hope so

most worrying for me is that currently the sky money is 62% of our turnover

still not to worry

[Chris Harte]

if Bournemouth or Norwich go down then we would get more than them overall due to us being in the Premier League for longer.

Really? Wow! It's almost as though the PL really want to eliminate promotion and relegation.

And who is to say they won't.
What it potential does is make a PL of 23 clubs with 6 rotating.

I wouldn't disagree. I just wonder how much extra a newly relegated team that's been in the PL from inception will receive over Bournemouth and Norwich.

[Ads]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

so which would you rather have 32 or a 100? Tough question eh?

If we're relegated though, there will only be one maybe two clubs in the Championship who can compete financially with us.

[Gerrin]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

I tend to agree with this. We're already seeing inflated prices for players getting thrown about. £24 mill for Berahino, £60+ mill for Lukaku and that's not taking into account the wages. If anything the teams spending big for next season will be the ones gambling the most if they get relegated next season.

[Dave]

if Bournemouth or Norwich go down then we would get more than them overall due to us being in the Premier League for longer.

Really? Wow! It's almost as though the PL really want to eliminate promotion and relegation.

And who is to say they won't.
What it potential does is make a PL of 23 clubs with 6 rotating.

I wouldn't disagree. I just wonder how much extra a newly relegated team that's been in the PL from inception will receive over Bournemouth and Norwich.

It's all here

Promoted clubs who are relegated after a single year in the Premier League will no longer benefit from full parachute payments from the 2016-17 season. The change in the rules means that the promoted clubs, Bournemouth, Watford and Norwich, will miss out on a year of parachute payments if they go straight back down at the end of next season.

The parachute payments system is also changing so that the money – at least £64m – will be distributed to relegated clubs over three years rather than four. Clubs who go back down after a single year in the Premier League will get only the first two years of payments rather than the full three years.

The new rules will not affect the three clubs most recently relegated from the top flight – Hull, QPR and Burnley. They will receive £64m split over four years – £24m in the first year, then £19.3m, then £9.6m for each of the next two years.

From the 2016-17 season relegated clubs will receive 55% of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs in the first year after relegation, 45% the following year and 20% in year three. Clubs relegated after a single season will receive 55% and 45% over two seasons with the third payment eliminated entirely.

[oswald funkletrumpet]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

so which would you rather have 32 or a 100? Tough question eh?

If we're relegated though, there will only be one maybe two clubs in the Championship who can compete financially with us.

which is fine is we come back up in a couple of seasons

[bruisedshins]

Reading those figures and the amounts being suggested for next season just accentuate my growing alienation from the modern game, a £32m prize for being one of the worst clubs in the league. Do they also award a prize for players who can kick themselves in the face?

[oldhill_avfc]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

so which would you rather have 32 or a 100? Tough question eh?

If we're relegated though, there will only be one maybe two clubs in the Championship who can compete financially with us.

which is fine is we come back up in a couple of seasons

I don't think it is fine.

The money will fuel inflation of signings as well as salaries.  That means the clubs who remain in the division will be able to fund the signings of players who we wont be able to - even if we were able to convince them to play in a lower division.

In the event of being promoted, we will have a relatively weaker squad and the cost of improving that squad to premier league standard will be that much greater.

[ChicagoLion]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

so which would you rather have 32 or a 100? Tough question eh?

If we're relegated though, there will only be one maybe two clubs in the Championship who can compete financially with us.

which is fine is we come back up in a couple of seasons

I don't think it is fine.

The money will fuel inflation of signings as well as salaries.  That means the clubs who remain in the division will be able to fund the signings of players who we wont be able to - even if we were able to convince them to play in a lower division.

In the event of being promoted, we will have a relatively weaker squad and the cost of improving that squad to premier league standard will be that much greater.

Agree which is why we have to bounce, the gap between the PL and below will be enormous.

[oswald funkletrumpet]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

so which would you rather have 32 or a 100? Tough question eh?

If we're relegated though, there will only be one maybe two clubs in the Championship who can compete financially with us.

which is fine is we come back up in a couple of seasons

I don't think it is fine.

The money will fuel inflation of signings as well as salaries.  That means the clubs who remain in the division will be able to fund the signings of players who we wont be able to - even if we were able to convince them to play in a lower division.

In the event of being promoted, we will have a relatively weaker squad and the cost of improving that squad to premier league standard will be that much greater.

sorry it mas my poor attempt at irony

i reckon we could get away with one season any longer and we will be competing against newly relegated clubs who will have a bigger wedge

[Chris Harte]

Do they also award a prize for players who can kick themselves in the face?

the Villa have been awarding that to Charles N'Zogbia for the last five years.

[Ad@m]

This money argument is bunk. The more clubs earn/are paid the more they have to give out in fees and wages. Our recovery will depend on good sound management rather than money. No point in slashing our wrists over  £32/100 million issue.

so which would you rather have 32 or a 100? Tough question eh?

If we're relegated though, there will only be one maybe two clubs in the Championship who can compete financially with us.

which is fine is we come back up in a couple of seasons

I don't think it is fine.

The money will fuel inflation of signings as well as salaries.  That means the clubs who remain in the division will be able to fund the signings of players who we wont be able to - even if we were able to convince them to play in a lower division.

In the event of being promoted, we will have a relatively weaker squad and the cost of improving that squad to premier league standard will be that much greater.

People have been saying the same for years but the three promoted clubs this year are all managing to stay out of the relegation zone without having spent tens of millions of pounds.

Too much is made of the money issue.  A well run club is a well run club.  If the Villa have done things right, our players will all have relegation clauses in their contracts which will mean their salaries drop in line with our revenue.  If any of them want to try to retain a Premier League salary by moving to a Premier League team then good luck to them, but in the most part I don't think there will be too many clubs after our lot and if we've structured things right we won't have to sell them.