HappyLion
Well-known member
Club statement
- Thread starter HappyLion
- Start date
This whole affair has moved at snail’s pace but it is finally being presented for its first reading in the House of Commons. It is no surprise that Sullivan of Wet Spam opposes it as he doesn’t want his income restricted by law. On the other hand it has strong support from Clive Efford, MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, who is a Millwall ST holder.
The bill just tries to even up the playing field so that PL teams get richer and richer, the salaries they pay to their prima donnas get bigger and bigger whilst smaller clubs struggle to make ends meet and some, like Bury and Macclesfield go bust.
The bill just tries to even up the playing field so that PL teams get richer and richer, the salaries they pay to their prima donnas get bigger and bigger whilst smaller clubs struggle to make ends meet and some, like Bury and Macclesfield go bust.
Saxon Lion
Well-known member
The best thing they could do is get rid of the parachute payment, no one should be rewarded for failure.
Lion-in-exile
Well-known member
I'll have good money the 3 teams that come down from The Premiershit last season will replace the 3 that went up!!
lionheart48
Well-known member
Clubs view this as the sole objective of promotion and it is a ridiculous situation, you even get fans claiming it could change their club forever.
If a club reaches the prem the reward should be the season they spent there, not to remain on benefits for the next three years.
Axholme Lion
Well-known member
If we ever got promoted you can guarantee it would be the first season without them.
Budgies' Boy
Well-known member
Bitter, but likely!
Budgies' Boy
Well-known member
Responsibly sourced Cocoa Beans cost money y'know!
HappyLion
Well-known member
No. They should cover wages ONLY of players who's contracts are still running for one season only. Not just give the club money to spend on anything else. The parachute payment was put in place so that clubs could keep their contract obligations to existing players, not to be used for anything else. Like getting even more players to try and get promted. EFL Contolling this directly would stop clubs having access to the money.
lionheart48
Well-known member
Maybe even a points reduction for overspending the divisions average.
BigPaul
Well-known member
It would not work using the division average as the yardstick.
By definition, the average is a middle figure between the top and bottom, so there would inevitably be some clubs above that level.
Sullivan gets a 60k stadium for nothing and Bury and Macclesfield go down the pan
Yes. The rich get richer and the poor continue to struggle
You’re probably right but I’d love it if Luton stayed up and Forest come down!
lionheart48
Well-known member
It's not to disadvantage them but to level the field.
BigPaul
Well-known member
Yes, I understand that. I’m just saying that the upper limit would have to be determined by plucking it out of the air to some degree.
Although he did pay a bit you are correct. He's a tory donor and Boris who was mayor at the time of the fraud is good mates with tory peer and vermin CEO Baroness Brady. Boris, peerages, backhanders, theft from the tax payer, midgets and brasses?????? Nothing to see here whatsoever so quietly move along please,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
