Simon Jordan Reveals His Thoughts On If Parachute Payments Are UNFAIR In The Premier League 👀
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 พ.ค. 2024
- Simon Jordan gives his thoughts on parachute payments within the Premier League.
Subscribe: / talksport
Enjoyed this TH-cam video? 😍
🖥️ talkSPORT's Website: talksport.com/
📲 talkSPORT's Twitter: / talksport
📷 talkSPORT's Instagram: talksport?...
👤 talkSPORT's Facebook: / talksport
📱 talkSPORT's Tik Tok: / talksport
🔴 Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - talksport.com/apps/
🔎 Want to see if you feature on our TH-cam channel? Check out our Best talkSPORT callers playlist: • The BEST talkSPORT Cal...
#talkSPORT
#PremierLeague
#simonjordan - กีฬา
There’s a pretty simple solution to this. When you play in the Premier league you can earn let’s say 100k. If you get relegated you go down to 25k. In the same way clubs are earning less TV revenue. Why should the players not? You win and lose as a team.
It’s not just salaries of players and anyway players won’t sign that. There’s another club who won’t make them so they lose opportunities. Nothing simple about this problem
@@BridgeStamford if it’s across-the-board then they’ll have to sign it because, if I’ve given you 150 grand a week to play at my club in the Premier league what makes you think you’re gonna get 150 grand a week in the championship?
In the same way if you are security guard supervisor and you get kicked out of the control room to be a guard on the front of house you won’t be earning as much.
@@adammohamed.. yeah but you can’t do it across the board as there is huge difference in money across all clubs
Saints had 40% pay reduction in players contract. We sold £130m of players too.
@@da4504 Well something has to give , When there’s major failure in any type of business, the status quote doesn’t maintain. But saints have always been a very clever club.
Ofcourse there is a better way. Have it put in players contracts that they take a paycut if they get relegated.
@@peterholden3672 it should be made mandatory. Clubs shouldn’t be put at risk because of dodgy owners and entitled players. When we get relegated, it means you failed so therefore you lose out financially. It’s called a demotion.
That is already in place
@@IISoMaLiaNII if it’s in place ( which it isn’t ) why do clubs need parachute money?
@@adammohamed..let me know when he/she replies
Leeds Swansea Stoke palace Luton Fulham Bournemouth Brentford etc etc all went up without parachute payments. Parachutes are there cos the drop in tv money doesn’t square with the EFL 39m loses over 3 seasons when clubs next 2-3 seasons to get rid of players on long high wage contracts
But if a team comes up will the players get an increase in wages is so then they should take a cut in wages going down as you shouldnt be rewarded for failure
good luck finding premier league quality players who will agree to a contract like that from a team that has just come up
@@oniondesu9633 there lots of good players that can cut it in the Premier league from the championship but not all
But I was under the impression that there is clause is in the contracts for this type of thing tho Rodwell at Sunderland they forget to put in that clause and he was on 70k a week in league one
what's the alternative? there are yo-yo clubs. like Sheff United, Burnley, maybe Luton, and Leicester has come up. But then there should be something in place to help smaller clubs that rely on big TV money.
Get rid of the players you had in the prem if you go down. That will reduce the wage bill. Forest went up without parachute payments and had to buy good players on prem wages to compete and to stay up. If they get relegated this season there will be a fire sale.
What about champship to league 1
Maybe it's not the payments that make them come up, but simply the fact they had a season of tougher competition so the championship is easier for them to win.
Ahhh nice thought but alas, relegated teams sell off about 90% of players so your theory falls short, watp
@@g-stergaming4502the teams who came back up didn’t sell 90%
why has the premier league got to pay for it
Why should clubs get a big pay off for going down you basicly get nothing if you go down in scottish premier and y
Then you have get of rid of most of your team why the greedy teams in england no suffer the same fate
you think the SPL has hte same money?
Don't they have to do that for finishing 3rd
Definitely unfair to other clubs in the same league there needs to be another way to make it fairer to clubs who have to battle it out with not much money.
Sir Jordanite = Top LAD Proper Clobber ✊
Leicester are up because they didn’t sell the players they should of to comply with FFP. They’ve taken the hit too have an unfair advantage.
In the summer of 2023, Leicester made the following player sales:
Maddison £50 million
Barnes £45 million
Castagne £12.5 million
Hirst £1.5 million
Leicester also lost 7 players on free transfers and wanted to sell players like Soumare, Souttar, Kristiansen, Iverson, Praet, Ward, Thomas etc. but no one was willing to buy them. Who else could they have sold? Even the better players like Dewsbury-Hall and Ricardo didn't have many offers. They came down with by far the biggest wage bill in championship history, partly as a result of being in Europe literally two years ago. I can blame the club for mismanagement in putting terrible players like Daka and Soumare on £80k a week, letting the likes of Tielemans and Soyuncu run their contracts down and having Redogers are a £10million a year contract. However, the PS&R/FFP system is completely rigged and is designed to protect the established big clubs. It's remarkable that a club can sell Maguire for £80 million, Chilwell for £45 million, Drinkwater for £35 million, Fofana for £70 million and Mahrez for £60 million, only be able to sign one player for £15 million in the summer of 2022 for not wanting to breach PS&R, despite having sold a player for £70 million the same summer, and still end up with what looks like the biggest breach of PS&R in the Premier League. This is in large part because of the size of the stadium, despite there being the demand for a bigger stadium as well as plans now going ahead to expand the stadium.
If i see the spam comment "im constantly amazed by the level of discourse....." im going to lose my mind. Surely TH-cam could easily shut this down.
Why does Simon want to look and sound like the smartest guy in the room? He loves hearing himself speak ffs.
Parachute is necessary.... You can't reduce the Prem money.... Teams have to offer 3 year deals+.... And you have to create a step.... But I assume they are just angling for more money to the whole EFL...
Or angling to make it fairer by keeping everyone skint?
@@Beyond_Belief534 The EFL do need a bit more of the Prem money.... But there will always be a need for parachutes... The 20th Prem and 1stChamp prize money will never be close... Its the prize of getting to the Prem
Parachute payments are the dumbest idea ever. "Help the clubs going down, by taking away from other poorer clubs they are joining". Absolute nonsense idea. Far better would be "help the clubs going UP, by taking away from the RICHER clubs they are joining". Or "Help the clubs going down, by giving them parachute money from the league they are being relegated FROM, not relegated TO".
why should rich clubs who earn their own money help smaller clubs? they look out for themselves.
@@Trecesolotienesdos Wrong question. Why should poor clubs help smaller clubs instead of rich clubs is the question here.
Parachute payments are a symptom of the gulf between the Premier league and Championship. Without it clubs being promoted wouldn't bother trying to stay up and risk going bust.
Absolutely. In order for teams to try and compete in the premier league, they have to spend money on transfers and massively increase the wage bill. If parachute payments were to be scrapped, all it would do is create a scenario where either promoted clubs don't even try and stay up or if they do and they fail, they go down and face potential oblivion.
They can always sell their players? Leicester sold James Maddison for circa £40m .. Why the hell do they need parachute payments on top? If they can't afford the squad they have in the Championship - do what every other Championship club has to do : go without them.
All parachute payments do is allow the relegated teams to mostly hold onto a squad of premier league players (and they spend money to add to that squad) granting them an automatic advantage .. Leicester then sell a single £40m player on top of the parachute payments money they get and then spend £45m on new players .. hold on - I thought they were broke after relegation? WTF do they need parachute payments for?
Ok, now let's use another example. Who do Luton or Sheffield United sell to mitigate the financial issues that come with relegation? Neither of them have players that are worth £40 million+, but they both will have increased their wage bill since going up. You could argue they're probably both going down because they didn't spend enough money on players to compete in the premier league, although Luton have made a half decent fist of it. All that scrapping parachute payment would achieve is newly promoted sides not even trying to compete in the premier league and accepting relegation before a ball is even kicked for fear of financial oblivion should they go down. That will just maintain the status quo.
I'll grant you, the current system is far from perfect, but scrapping parachute payments would just widen the gap between the premier league and championship even further. It's not like clubs that haven't received parachute payments haven't been promoted in recent years. Brentford, Forest, Luton and now Ipswich have all been promoted within the past three years without parachute payments.
Allow newly promoted teams to only sign players on one year deals, and give them option to extend if they stay up. Not rocket science.