Re: parachute payments
The problem we have is that sky have been involved in football, parachute payments are a reality, place money exists, and European competition extends itself to too many clubs. As a consequence teams budgets have been increased, with players only too keen to milk the cash cow for as much as they possibly can.
Supporters demand ambition well beyond what is reasonable from the fundamentals of football clubs as businesses. For a select few their 'ambition' will be successful and they will manage to achieve that european place or cup final and so they will see their efforts rewarded. For the others their gambles fail and they are condemned to debts.
If things stopped there it would not be too bad, having achieved a certain level supporters then expect the club to get to the same level again the next season, and the next season, and the next season... So more money is spent in this persuit.
By competing over big name players, seemingly a requirement for fan numbers 😕 , clubs have allowed those players to earn more than they should when a large number of suppliers (here of footballing talent) come up against a small number of buyers (here football clubs).
The consequence is that budgeting at Newcastle will be fundamentally different to that at Charlton, which in turn is different to Watford.
Of course Newcastle could be said to be stupid for trying to persue European football long beyond the time when the quality of their side enabled them to, and that they have bought bad players for too much money (luque being a prime example). However they do this on the reasonable belief that they will be top half, with a safety net of parachute payment if it all goes horribly wrong (the financiers will have thought about that even if the supporters do not)
For this reason I view the situation of established premiership clubs who have been in this vicious circle of cost increases as being different to the clubs who get promoted and are not involved in the mad persuit of the Luques's of this world.
We would never get Premiership clubs to give up the parachute payment, but I think that a more reasoned approach to the problem could be successfully lobbied for, as chairs of the bigger sides may view the system as a little fairer.
All a matter of opinion, there is a fundamental unfairness in something which distorts the market in favour of those who least need it in the way that parachute payments do.
It is worth noting though that only Birmingham have gone to town with spending their parachute payments of all of the clubs who have been relegated in recent years. All others have spent below £5m and used the other £5m to service real gaps in their finances.
