[Archived] Dingles To Sue Premier League

[Finch]

very good!

i dont think they will sue the PL, for a miriad of reasons, 1 being : THEY WILL NEVER WIN THE CASE, and they know that.

discussing the morals etc.... i'd say. "english football, as it is in the rest of the world, is unethical and corrupt (and most fans know why and how) it's not right, but it will never change.

Dingle mocking aside, this has to be an unwinnable case for the simple reason that it will open the way for other clubs in the same situation to sue.

Thin end of the wedge methinks.

[philipl]

I disagree. If you look at the clubs who have been promoted in recent seasons and stayed there (ourselves, Bolton, Reading, Wigan), none of them have been huge spenders or spent massive amounts on wages. I'd like to think that all of them could manage without the parachute payments if they were relegated, it would of course be very difficult, but then that is why you try to avoid relegation. The parachute payments aren't key to allowing them to compete with established sides, they should already have a financial advantage after just one season in the premiership.

That is sort of what they do with the draft system in the United States, except it is a lottery system. It would be dangerous to use that sort of system as it might encourage sides to finish 12-17th for a couple of seasons in order to finance a push for the top of the league. As it is it means that the better you do the more money you get, which means there will never be any reason not to win.

Eddie, look at the table of spending by year on the other thread. We spent net E21m in the year we came up- as much as we spent to assemble the Premiership winning team in the early 90s.

[rebelmswar]

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. They are just trying to get the money together to buy all the left over FEMA trailers from Katrina. Shame on you. :ph34r:

[USRoverME]

Quick question, don't they get money from winning promotion? THAT should be the money used to improve the club. If you decide to bank it and attempt to yo-yo, you'll have to live with your fans' daeth threats. If you spend it and still drop, you gambled tried and lost, but you're still int he same financial boat as the day you promoted....

Basic premise to my mind, give the parachute payment AND whatever promotion money there is ALL that the front end....

[Eddie]

Eddie, look at the table of spending by year on the other thread. We spent net E21m in the year we came up- as much as we spent to assemble the Premiership winning team in the early 90s.

Yes, but you know you are comparing totally different eras there. 21m in 1994-1995 was a huge amount of money, now it is less than the majority of the premiership spends and it is less than a club will recieve from TV money alone. Most of that big money was taken up by one bad transfer and the fact that we had to get ourselves out of a hole with the Cole transfer in January, but even more to the point, we could afford it. While I don't want to treat football as a pure business, it still has to come into play and clubs need to budget and decide how much they are willing to risk when they are promoted. You can't protect them just because it hasn't come off, they need to weigh up the risks and manage accordingly.

[stuwilky]

Not really, that is prize money, reward for doing well.

Not really, a massive part of it is media money - which is unfairly distributed amongst the clubs who compete in the Champions League.

The parachute payment is essentially a reward for doing badly and it is unfair for the other clubs down in the Championship. Are similar payments made to sides that are relegated from the other divisions?

The parachute payment is to enable clubs who get promoted to have a fighting chance of not going bust. Players simply will not sign for a, low wages, or b, 1 year contracts. We've all seen the price of gambling with the dissolution of several clubs recently, and a gamble has cost Leeds two relegations and 25 league points.

[Eddie]

Well I suppose we'll just have to disagree. If you can't afford the risk of the big wages then you either have to keep the squad you have, include relegation wage drops into their contracts or relegation release clauses; it is a realistic threat that has to be dealt with. If sides managed their finances properly then they could survive relegation, it will always cause them financial problems, but it shouldn't lead to financial ruin.

As for the Champions League clubs getting more, that is the direct result of them entering a competition as a result of a good league performance. If you are good enough to qualify then you will get the money.

I don't think this will ever actually come to anything, all I'm saying is that I can totally understand why some Championship teams would feel that the parachute payments give relegated sides an advantage that they probably don't deserve. If someone can really tell me why clubs that have recieved more money the previous season, who are probably (or at least should be) coming down with better players than most of their rivals, deserve to be given money simply because they may not have run the club as they should have then I am happy to change that view.

[Rovermatt]

Whatever the merits of this case it allows the Dingles to get their name in the big important newspapers and ont' telly.

[Cheshireblue]

As ever, you are living in a dream world Eddie.

Every single player in your squad gets paid more when you get promoted. Fact. Don't tell me that you simply sign them up to contracts that don't provide for those increases because you just cannot do that. They either leave to get better wages or they refuse to sign in the first place.

Reading have stayed up for one season which hardly makes them premiership stalwarts, we had already had the best part of 10 years in the premiership, including a title winning year, so we are hardly a decent yardstick for the others, and Bolton have yo-yo'd up and down before finally getting a firm foothold so your arguement is flawed on all fronts.

If clubs cannot afford to get promoted and have a run at the premiership, then what is the point in them competing in the first place? You might as well ringfence the premiership and do away with the other divisions.

As for the champions league, it is a self perpetuating European Super league and in no way rewards clubs for success in their own leagues. When was the last time that anyone other than 8 of the usual 10 teams made the quarter finals, let alone the semi's? It is impossible to break that stranglehold without having already pumped in millions of pounds every year over a very long period of time, and none of said 10 teams have operated at a profit for quite some time.

[Eddie]

As ever, you are living in a dream world Eddie.

Every single player in your squad gets paid more when you get promoted. Fact. Don't tell me that you simply sign them up to contracts that don't provide for those increases because you just cannot do that. They either leave to get better wages or they refuse to sign in the first place.

Reading have stayed up for one season which hardly makes them premiership stalwarts, we had already had the best part of 10 years in the premiership, including a title winning year, so we are hardly a decent yardstick for the others, and Bolton have yo-yo'd up and down before finally getting a firm foothold so your arguement is flawed on all fronts.

If clubs cannot afford to get promoted and have a run at the premiership, then what is the point in them competing in the first place? You might as well ringfence the premiership and do away with the other divisions.

As for the champions league, it is a self perpetuating European Super league and in no way rewards clubs for success in their own leagues. When was the last time that anyone other than 8 of the usual 10 teams made the quarter finals, let alone the semi's? It is impossible to break that stranglehold without having already pumped in millions of pounds every year over a very long period of time, and none of said 10 teams have operated at a profit for quite some time.

I am sure that every single player in your squad has a percentage increase in their wage if you are promoted, but I would imagine that every single player will have a similar reduction in their wages in case of relegation (for the sides for whom that is a risk).

As for my point regarding relatively tight spending sides establishing themselves in the leauge, you've hardly dismissed it. Yes, Reading have only stayed in the league for one season, but I think most would agree that they aren't favourites to go down again, and they certainly didn't struggle last year despite not making huge signings. Bolton yo-yo'd in the late 90's, but if that is what you have to do in order to build a side strong enough to stay in the league then that is what you have to do. Someone has to be relegated, chances are it will be the side that just came up, if not it is likely that it will be a side that was close to it the season before. It has been shown that you don't have to spend huge amounts to stay up, that is best for everyone involved. It secures the long-term future of promoted and relegated sides and if every team used a bit of sense then it would give promoted sides more of a chance. Spending money is hardly guarantee for success, look at Newcastle, Spurs and even Boro.

Last time a surprise team made it to the latter stages of the Champions League? How about Porto v Monaco in the final a few seasons ago? Or even Lille's success last year? Of course it is difficult and it does take a certain amount of money in order to break into that group, but if you are smart in building your side you can do it. Whether you like it or not and whether you think it is fair or not, the Champions League money is at least reward for teams doing well, you can't argue with that fact. Parachute payments are rewards for sides that have failed and are only given in case the side didn't manage their finances properly, even though the instances of sides being "surprised" by relegation are relatively rare.

Also, I have no facts to back this up and I may be well off of the mark, but don't Manchester United operate at a profit (at least before this huge summer of spending and not including the debt that was passed on from the take-over)? What about Arsenal if you don't consider the new ground and look at them either now or before that was done?

[1864roverite]

The dingles are only taking up the option of the first of hour of a solicitors meeting being free

The Premiership will be hardly quaking in their boots fearing little old hard up bumley are going to spend thousands trying to sue them when a club as big and rich as Sheff Utd failed recently in a high profile situation.

Bumley have not got the funds to make the second solicitors appointment let alone get the Premier League to a court house

[yoda]

I do agree its unfair, but then the CL clubs in the Prem get around 20m extra than other clubs which effectively decides the top four before a ball is kicked in angeras well.

A lot of anti competitive aspects of the football need addressing.

Anything that winds a dingle up just has to be fair

[cletus]

When was the last time that anyone other than 8 of the usual 10 teams made the quarter finals, let alone the semi's?

Leeds?

[OhmiBRFC]

Look where they are now though