Relegation Clause.....

[Balti Pie]

Is it killing our chances of getting top level players through the door?
If reports are to be believed, Tommy Doyle is not an option as he won't agree to a 40% drop in wages should we be relegated.
I also recall us missing out on our first choice LCB because we wanted a loan-to-buy triggered by our survival in the Prem (which basically amounts to saying we can afford him now but if we get relegated next year we can't).
I understand that we have had this policy since we were last in the top division, but I dare say it didn't affect our recruitment too badly last time as we tended to target the Championship's top players (O. McBurnie, C. Robinson, L. Freeman) i.e. they were on Championship wages to start with. Now we seem to be targetting top flight players, they'll be understandably foooked off about having a 40% drop in the event of relegation, even though they may have played out of their skin individually.
Is this not exactly what parachute payments are for, to cover the wages of players following relegation?
Discuss!

 

[Slim Man]

Most clubs have it, but they pay more than us in the first instance. And aren't relative certainties to drop.

 

[ben1987]

It would be stupid to jeopardise the future of the club by not inserting these clauses.

We sailed perilously close to the wind last season and skinted ourselves.

Any newly promoted club are odds on to get relegated, we would’ve struggled with N’Diaye and now we’ll struggle even more.
I’m not totally writing us off but we need to overachieve.

We can’t go and stick a load of players on 40/50K with no clause when there’s a really high chance we’ll get relegated.

We need to go down in a good position where we can keep a good chunk of the squad together and have a go at coming back up. Not be forced to sell everyone in a cut priced fire sale because we can’t afford to keep them.

Parachute payments do not guarantee promotion back to the premier league and once they’ve died up your players either walk for free or you have to sell them cheaply before you end up deep in the shit

 

[ben1987]

Also I really really liked Doyle, as a lad and a player he was brilliant.

Say it would cost us £10m for him and 40k a week but we can get this Souza for £10m, £25k a week and he’ll agree to a 40% cut…would a deal like that be better for the club or should we just go get Doyle because we liked him?

Plucking the figures out my bum but I imagine that’s what the club are kinda thinking.

Who’s got the higher ceiling? Will Doyle or Souza likely go on and play for a top team where we can make a profit?

 

[Eric_Brooks]

Last time we went up, we bought championship (Mcburnie) players in the most part and the promotion squad was easy to negotiate. We then ramped it up by buying berge and the clauses were harder to achieve, hence why there is no extension clause. We then double downed with Brewster when really we needed to consolidate.

People generally don’t blame the prince for much, but he was the guy who promised to pay for Mcburnie with his own money (yeh right) and McCabe was left out voted. People can blame wilder but our purchases from this point was down to both of them.

 

[Eric_Brooks]

Also I really really liked Doyle, as a lad and a player he was brilliant.

Say it would cost us £10m for him and 40k a week but we can get this Souza for £10m, £25k a week and he’ll agree to a 40% cut…would a deal like that be better for the club or should we just go get Doyle because we liked him?

Plucking the figures out my bum but I imagine that’s what the club are kinda thinking.

Who’s got the higher ceiling? Will Doyle or Souza likely go on and play for a top team where we can make a profit?

Hard to believe that Vini is actually 2 years older than Tommy. Having only played for a small Belgium team last season. I sincerely hope he costs around the same price as slimane as they have achieve similar to this point. Anything more than than sljmane money would not be value for money, and even with the hike in wages I would go with Tommy.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

The alternate is to have something similar to Leeds in the fact that they all go out on loan, or they have a crazy low release clause so they know they can leave.

I think we're right in our approach to it and I don't think we've a strong alternative as we can't afford not to be able to recover fees that we've paid out.

 

[Macfarlane21]

Relegation clauses will definitely be having a big impact on who we can sign but sustainability is more important. If the players we are looking at (who want higher wages) can't back themselves to get offers from other clubs if we go down it probably says more about their mentality.

Tommy Doyle is a good example of the kind of footballer this applies to. Rumoured that he is available for approx 8m, so is affordable. Reportedly on 70-80k per week at city but can't get near their first team (even for an Asian tour). He knows he won't get that money elsewhere, so will eventually take a pay cut when he leaves. However, probably doesn't want to sign for us with a potential 40% wage cut if relegated. I get it from a personal point of view that in a year from now he could be on up to 75% less than what he is on now. But he surely has to back himself to get another club or to keep his let's say 40k pw with us by keeping us in the PL

 

[Balti Pie]

I'm not sure I believe that most clubs have such a clause. As I said previously, is this not why parachute payments were introduced - to help cover the existing player contracts fooolowing rlegation?


If clubs do insert relegation clauses, and then use parachute payments to improve their squads with the intention of going straight back up, is this not a form of cheating?

I'm not advocating one way or the other btw, I'm just interested in people's views.

 

[Eric_Brooks]

I'm not sure I believe that most clubs have such a clause. As I said previously, is this not why parachute payments were introduced - to help cover the existing player contracts fooolowing rlegation?

View attachment 166756
If clubs do insert relegation clauses, and then use parachute payments to improve their squads with the intention of going straight back up, is this not a form of cheating?

I'm not advocating one way or the other btw, I'm just interested in people's views.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I'm not sure I believe that most clubs have such a clause. As I said previously, is this not why parachute payments were introduced - to help cover the existing player contracts fooolowing rlegation?

View attachment 166756
If clubs do insert relegation clauses, and then use parachute payments to improve their squads with the intention of going straight back up, is this not a form of cheating?

I'm not advocating one way or the other btw, I'm just interested in people's views.

Parachute payments were brought in to encourage sides to have a go and overspend when promoted.
Relegation clauses were just a sensible response to ensure you aren't paying inflated wages for the length of the contract that you can't afford.

 

[Need4speed]

Football clubs at our level, bottom half of the Premiership and top two thirds of the Championship are heading for disaster if they don't stop paying ridiculous money to players. We were in serious trouble if we hadn't got promoted. Everton & Wolves are in a perilous state despite being in the Premier League for a long time. west Brom are basically fucked if they don't get promoted this year and they won't. As for Doyle I like the lad but he is hardly a seasoned professional Yes pay him Premiershiop wages if we are in the Premiership but it is not realistic to continue that if we are relegated. Other clubs that he would realistically get a game for in the Premier league on a regular basis will not pay him more than us. So he will be basically looking for a team who is less likely than us to be relegated that want to sign him

 

[Luke1993]

Hard to believe that Vini is actually 2 years older than Tommy. Having only played for a small Belgium team last season. I sincerely hope he costs around the same price as slimane as they have achieve similar to this point. Anything more than than sljmane money would not be value for money, and even with the hike in wages I would go with Tommy.

He played for Espanyol last season.

 

[TopBoy]

Heard on a podcast a few months ago (not Blades related), that relegation clauses for teams in the Premier are typically around a 20% reduction upon relegation and nothing like the 40-50%. Upon relegation, you either sell your star(s) or use the parachute payments.

 

[Balti Pie]

Heard on a podcast a few months ago (not Blades related), that relegation clauses for teams in the Premier are typically around a 20% reduction upon relegation and nothing like the 40-50%. Upon relegation, you either sell your star(s) or use the parachute payments.

That is really interesting to know that our particular relegation clause reduction is so much more than the average.
So even if such clauses are the norm, maybe ours is putting some of our targets off due to it's severity?
Let's say we're after Doyle and he's on £30k p/w (guess!), he signs, gets player of the year but we don't beat the drop. He then finds himself on £18k p/w. That's some drop!

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Heard on a podcast a few months ago (not Blades related), that relegation clauses for teams in the Premier are typically around a 20% reduction upon relegation and nothing like the 40-50%. Upon relegation, you either sell your star(s) or use the parachute payments.

But the transfer fees are paid over a period so the parachute payments are already taken up with that. You can't spend it twice and it won't cover both.

 

[Stretch]

I enthusiastically support relegation clauses in our situation. The amount of the drop is certainly open for debate but they need to be in there.

 

[Davalon]

You live by your means or end up fucked I guess.

I know it's frustrating as for a club of our stature over my lifetime we've rarely splashed the cash and more often pleaded poverty.

Tis what it is though.

Why we never seem to attract a credible wealthy backer is another debate

 

[Balti Pie]

But the transfer fees are paid over a period so the parachute payments are already taken up with that. You can't spend it twice and it won't cover both.

Good point!

 

[Laney Blade]

Is it killing our chances of getting top level players through the door?
If reports are to be believed, Tommy Doyle is not an option as he won't agree to a 40% drop in wages should we be relegated.
I also recall us missing out on our first choice LCB because we wanted a loan-to-buy triggered by our survival in the Prem (which basically amounts to saying we can afford him now but if we get relegated next year we can't).
I understand that we have had this policy since we were last in the top division, but I dare say it didn't affect our recruitment too badly last time as we tended to target the Championship's top players (O. McBurnie, C. Robinson, L. Freeman) i.e. they were on Championship wages to start with. Now we seem to be targetting top flight players, they'll be understandably foooked off about having a 40% drop in the event of relegation, even though they may have played out of their skin individually.
Is this not exactly what parachute payments are for, to cover the wages of players following relegation?
Discuss!

Yes the EPL states the paracute payments are paid to prevent clubs going down this rocky road.

 

[Balti Pie]

I enthusiastically support relegation clauses in our situation. The amount of the drop is certainly open for debate but they need to be in there.

Yes, we absolutely would've been fooked without it over the last couple of seasons.

 

[bakeblade]

Is it killing our chances of getting top level players through the door?
If reports are to be believed, Tommy Doyle is not an option as he won't agree to a 40% drop in wages should we be relegated.
I also recall us missing out on our first choice LCB because we wanted a loan-to-buy triggered by our survival in the Prem (which basically amounts to saying we can afford him now but if we get relegated next year we can't).
I understand that we have had this policy since we were last in the top division, but I dare say it didn't affect our recruitment too badly last time as we tended to target the Championship's top players (O. McBurnie, C. Robinson, L. Freeman) i.e. they were on Championship wages to start with. Now we seem to be targetting top flight players, they'll be understandably foooked off about having a 40% drop in the event of relegation, even though they may have played out of their skin individually.
Is this not exactly what parachute payments are for, to cover the wages of players following relegation?
Discuss!

We absolutely should insert a relegation clause, I'm sure I read that we didn't with Brewster and have been regretting it since.
I reckon Luton as a well run club will be inserting such clauses, doesn't seem to be restricting them.

 

[blade too long]

no need to have the clause , just sell all the best paid players, its always been the case for the majority

 

[Balti Pie]

If reports are to be believed, the relegation clause is fucking up our chances of landing Souza - apparently our top target.
That's a handful of targets now giving us the brush off due to this clause.
I do agree that we need one in there, but is a 40% drop too much realistically?

 

[FriethBlade]

From the clubs point of view financially, the relegation clauses should be in line with the drop in parachute payments. If you align your cost structure correctly in the premier league and make sure you don't give out contracts for longer than 4 years this approximately works. This obviously ignores all the other revenue drops from attendances, sponsorship etc.

It appears this is exactly what we are doing for the first year as you receive 55% of broadcasting revenue in the first year of relegation, a drop of 45% so the players are actually 5% 'better off' than they should be. Where this clause fails is the following 2 years where parachute payments drop 55% and then 80%.

This is financially prudent and I'm totally behind it. However it has to work both ways so the players need to be getting some kind of survival bonus too and I assume will be.

 

[ancientblade]

Heard on a podcast a few months ago (not Blades related), that relegation clauses for teams in the Premier are typically around a 20% reduction upon relegation and nothing like the 40-50%. Upon relegation, you either sell your star(s) or use the parachute payments.

i think youve made a good point here i posted something similar on another thread maybe we have to just gamble that bit more and reduce the salary drop if were relegated to 20/30% instead of the 40% being quoted another way out obviously is a low release fee in the deal if we go back down has to be a way round it looks like this 40% is ruling us out for doyle and souza

 

[Weasel]

If the relegation clause is putting players off then we either put in a clause which states they can go for x if we are relegated, or we lower the percentage decrease for that individual, or we give them a bigger lump sum signing on fee as 'compensation' for agreeing to the standard percentage decrease clause.

If all parties want the move then there is often compromise involved and ways to help things along. I suspect Doyle could come back to us in loan again this season and if we survive this season (and his current lucrative MCFC contract is another 12 months closer to ending) then we might then look to take him permanently. Only my guess though.

 

[ancientblade]

If the relegation clause is putting players off then we either put in a clause which states they can go for x if we are relegated, or we lower the percentage decrease for that individual, or we give them a bigger lump sum signing on fee as 'compensation' for agreeing to the standard percentage decrease clause.

If all parties want the move then there is often compromise involved and ways to help things along. I suspect Doyle could come back to us in loan again this season and if we survive this season (and his current lucrative MCFC contract is another 12 months closer to ending) then we might then look to take him permanently. Only my guess though.

yeah agree weasel there has to be some way round it maybe both the club and the players involved should be a bit more flexible especially the 2 players both would be automatic choices for us

 

[JOEYDEE]

If the relegation clause is putting players off then we either put in a clause which states they can go for x if we are relegated, or we lower the percentage decrease for that individual, or we give them a bigger lump sum signing on fee as 'compensation' for agreeing to the standard percentage decrease clause.

If all parties want the move then there is often compromise involved and ways to help things along. I suspect Doyle could come back to us in loan again this season and if we survive this season (and his current lucrative MCFC contract is another 12 months closer to ending) then we might then look to take him permanently. Only my guess though.

Good thinking Batman !

 

[Sheffsteel]

Is this not exactly what parachute payments are for, to cover the wages of players following relegation?
Discuss!

Not sure you realise the relegation clauses are aligned with the parachute payments.

Lets' says in the PL a club receives 120 million and we set a wage.
Then if we're relegated if the parachute payments drops to 60 million, that's a 50% decrease.
Then in the 2nd year in the Championship parachute payments drop to 20 million, that's another large decrease.

So of course player salaries much also be drastically decreased otherwise we'll automatically fail FFP (now P&S).

My understanding is that every club in the PL has relegation clauses.
So players have to take into account the chances of each club being relegated.
If Doyle joins Villa, Brentford or Brighton, he's probably going to think his wages are protected.

But any players that comes here, will be advised it's (at best) 50/50 whether we stay
so when you're offered the attractive salary, you should really be looking at salary based on the relegation clause.