Fitzhugh Fella Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Does anyone know the answer to this. If a club get relegated from the Prem they get a 2-year parachute payment but if they then go straight back up (re-promotion ) - do they forfeit that 2nd year payment?
Mole Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Clubs obviously get more for being in the Premiership.
Weston Saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Does anyone know the answer to this. If a club get relegated from the Prem they get a 2-year parachute payment but if they then go straight back up (re-promotion ) - do they forfeit that 2nd year payment? Yes Duncan, if they go back up the parachute payment stops. In fact last year or may be the year before there were calls for the money saved by the premier be distributed between the lower leagues. I think some was.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 25 February, 2009 Author Posted 25 February, 2009 Yes Duncan, if they go back up the parachute payment stops. In fact last year or may be the year before there were calls for the money saved by the premier be distributed between the lower leagues. I think some was. Thanks Ron - believe it or not neither Leon or LM could answer this
Channon's Sideburns Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Thanks Ron - believe it or not neither Leon or LM could answer this Which makes my point that collectively we could run SFC better than those currently or previously in charge!!!! OK, perhaps we haven't got that much money invested compared to them...! My shares are worth a couple of Frothy Lattes...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 25 February, 2009 Author Posted 25 February, 2009 Which makes my point that collectively we could run SFC better than those currently or previously in charge!!!! OK, perhaps we haven't got that much money invested compared to them...! My shares are worth a couple of Frothy Lattes... At the time that thought crossed my mind too, but there again we never looked likely to go up in our first year in the CCC so I guess the question was never posed.
Anders Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 I think the £11m gets distributed between the rest of the clubs in this division (minus the clubs that will have parachute payments next season)
Nineteen Canteen Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Thanks Ron - believe it or not neither Leon or LM could answer this Actually, that's very believable and judging by your comments earlier today about all in or all out then based on this as an example of 'knowing the business' we would be better off with all of them out if there will be destruction anyway within 30 secs. How is a very big question though? Does Leon Crouch do anything independently of LM where the club are concerned?
sticksaint Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 As soon as i saw who had posted last on this thread,i thought to myself " i bet he`s (or she) making some comment about crouch or mcmenemy not being able to answer the question" Thanks for not disappointing me ,nineteen canteen!
Mole Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Actually, that's very believable and judging by your comments earlier today about all in or all out then based on this as an example of 'knowing the business' we would be better off with all of them out if there will be destruction anyway within 30 secs. How is a very big question though? Does Leon Crouch do anything independently of LM where the club are concerned? A usual snipe at Saints most sucessful manager ever by the Skate troll.
Tamesaint Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 Does Leon Crouch do anything independently of LM where the club are concerned? It would be nice if Rupes would ask the opinion of LM. If he had we might not have been saddled with the "Revolutionary Dutch coaching Concept". If he was to do so now, perhaps we would be able to escape relegation as we did last year.
70's Mike Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 not really a question we are ever likely to need the answer for
jonah Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 The main thing this shows is that there is a vast difference between being a board member, or even chairman, and being a CEO involved in the day-to-day running of the club where this sort of thing has to be (and would be) known.
JohnnyFartPants Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 A usual snipe at Saints most sucessful manager ever by the Skate troll. I tend to agree with you on this but also would add that it really isn't any of his business how that side of things should work either.
Sheff Saint Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 The main thing this shows is that there is a vast difference between being a board member, or even chairman, and being a CEO involved in the day-to-day running of the club where this sort of thing has to be (and would be) known. Does that mean we can't get rid of Lowe because he's got 10 years knowledge? How did you feel when Rupert took over then?
OldNick Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 To be fair to LM and LC I doubt that many people would know for certain.It would be common sense to realise that the money would not be paid, but knowing whether it is distributed out to the other clubs would not be so clear.
jonah Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 Does that mean we can't get rid of Lowe because he's got 10 years knowledge? I'm not sure whether you really didn't understand my point or not, I'll assume not so I'll try to rephrase it. When there is someone better than Lowe then it makes sense to replace him - pretty much like we aim to improve our playing squad. "Better" constitutes 2 current requirements - firstly, that person has to be affordable; secondly, that person has to be competent enough to run the club. On the first point, our current financial predicament means that we can't afford to have 5 full time executive Directors running the club. AFAIA Cowen works part-time and is paid just £25k pa, and RL also works part-time and I believe that's unpaid (at least I've not heard anyone dispute this when previously stated, but happy to be corrected). Can we find another experienced CEO who wants to work part-time for £25k pa? I suggest not. Can we afford to return to paying a full-time CEO package (£150k+) at the present time? Again, I suggest not *if* we have the choice of a much cheaper option. On the second point, contrary to popular belief during the Go Wilde era, you can't just pluck any old former-CEO from the unemployment line - Hone, Oldknow, Dulieu and Hoos scored 0 out of 4 on that front and their combined cost was probably around 20 times what we are having to pay at the moment (that still makes me shudder). As for getting an inexperienced CEO in, I don't think that's a bad idea but it requires a significant hand-over period and this really is not the time to start on that sort of path. How did you feel when Rupert took over then? The point back then was that we needed someone with City and financial experience to deal with the stadium loans, financing, rights issue, etc - in that respect he was ideal. Conversely, a good time to have moved away to a less financial-oriented CEO was around 2003/2004 when finances were stable... but then it's difficult to see the point in doing that at that time and you could argue why rock the boat etc. And coming full circle, I think in our current financial predicament that Lowe is probably one of the best people to be tasked with sorting out the financial mess the club is in - that's not necessarily the same thing as being the best person to take the club forward in the medium to long term (though IMO he's better than the other major shareholders), but it's what we need in the short term. Back to the original subject, I wonder why they wanted to know?
Mole Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 Jonah you've yet to answer why you were not allowed to post on here when Saints were in an offer period.
jonah Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 Jonah you've yet to answer why you were not allowed to post on here when Saints were in an offer period. Because it's none of your business Matt. Perhaps I was too busy fixing printers at Bourton On The Water?
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Posted 26 February, 2009 I'm not sure whether you really didn't understand my point or not, I'll assume not so I'll try to rephrase it. When there is someone better than Lowe then it makes sense to replace him - pretty much like we aim to improve our playing squad. "Better" constitutes 2 current requirements - firstly, that person has to be affordable; secondly, that person has to be competent enough to run the club. On the first point, our current financial predicament means that we can't afford to have 5 full time executive Directors running the club. AFAIA Cowen works part-time and is paid just £25k pa, and RL also works part-time and I believe that's unpaid (at least I've not heard anyone dispute this when previously stated, but happy to be corrected). Can we find another experienced CEO who wants to work part-time for £25k pa? I suggest not. Can we afford to return to paying a full-time CEO package (£150k+) at the present time? Again, I suggest not *if* we have the choice of a much cheaper option. On the second point, contrary to popular belief during the Go Wilde era, you can't just pluck any old former-CEO from the unemployment line - Hone, Oldknow, Dulieu and Hoos scored 0 out of 4 on that front and their combined cost was probably around 20 times what we are having to pay at the moment (that still makes me shudder). As for getting an inexperienced CEO in, I don't think that's a bad idea but it requires a significant hand-over period and this really is not the time to start on that sort of path. The point back then was that we needed someone with City and financial experience to deal with the stadium loans, financing, rights issue, etc - in that respect he was ideal. Conversely, a good time to have moved away to a less financial-oriented CEO was around 2003/2004 when finances were stable... but then it's difficult to see the point in doing that at that time and you could argue why rock the boat etc. And coming full circle, I think in our current financial predicament that Lowe is probably one of the best people to be tasked with sorting out the financial mess the club is in - that's not necessarily the same thing as being the best person to take the club forward in the medium to long term (though IMO he's better than the other major shareholders), but it's what we need in the short term. Back to the original subject, I wonder why they wanted to know? They didn't - it was me who wanted to know and I assumed they would be able to answer my question, but like I said, they couldn't. Your earlier point about the CEO would have known, is a valid one.
trousers Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 Because it's none of your business Matt. Perhaps I was too busy fixing printers at Bourton On The Water? Ah, ha......so, both Bourton and Hull were flooded in July 2007, resulting in both SaintLee and Jonah disappearing off the face of the Earth for weeks on end.... I knew all these takeover clues would come together in one simple explanation eventually. Trousers dear boy, you're talents are seriously wasted here.
graymalkin33 Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 Well i was wondering about a similar question which may be more pertinant to Saints.... Say Reading get promoted this year and come straight back down. Do they still get 2 years worth of parachute payments? Or does the parachut payments have to be "earnt" by service in the Prem, so for example they have to be in the Prem for 2 years before they get the full 2 year parachut payment. So a club that goes straight back down may only get one year or 2 years at a reduced rate???? I dunno.
jonah Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 They didn't - it was me who wanted to know and I assumed they would be able to answer my question, but like I said, they couldn't. Ah I see, I thought it was a bit odd!
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 Well i was wondering about a similar question which may be more pertinant to Saints.... Say Reading get promoted this year and come straight back down. Do they still get 2 years worth of parachute payments? Or does the parachut payments have to be "earnt" by service in the Prem, so for example they have to be in the Prem for 2 years before they get the full 2 year parachut payment. So a club that goes straight back down may only get one year or 2 years at a reduced rate???? I dunno. As I understand it, there are two parachutes just for having been in the Premiership. For many clubs it would be financially impossible to get up and stay up in one promotion. Rather than spending every penny to try and stay up (Derby?) another way is to get promoted and then use the money wisely to make sure that the club is in a healthier state than the other clubs in the Championship. It may take two or three promotions to secure a firm foothold in the Premiership. There's an interesting article about clubs that bounce straight back: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/aug/08/sport.comment1 If one bounces back then the football League get the saved parachute. If 2 bounce back the the Premier League keeps the second saved payment, but if all three bounce back then the third saved payment is also distributed lower down.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now