Relegated clubs buoyed by prospect of richer parachute payment pickings

Posted Tuesday, May 25, 2010 by theguardian.com

• Parachute payments threaten to distort competition
• £16m windfall will exceed that of any other second-tier club

Even if Ian Holloway's Blackpool are relegated from the Premier League next season, they will float gently down under a parachute that all but guarantees they will be one of the five richest clubs in the Championship the following year. Premier League clubs have extended their parachute payments system to cover four years rather than the current two, but it is how those payments are spread that will have the biggest impact for other Football League clubs.

In years one and two of their time in the Championship, clubs dropping from the Premier League will receive £16m a year with another £8m coming in each of years three and four. Of the Championship clubs not due a parachute payment from the Premier League in recent years, Ipswich Town have generated the most income. Yet their total annual turnover in the 2008‑09 season was only £14.7m, down from £16m the previous year. In 2008 Championship mainstays such as Queen's Park Rangers, Preston North End, Coventry City and Plymouth Argyle all had total annual revenues of less than £10m. Offsetting this to some degree will be the solidarity system the Premier League has introduced, through which every other Championship club will receive £2.2m.

However, the disparity involved in teams receiving from the top‑flight table sums similar to the entire turnover of the next richest club is clear. Indeed, although Football League clubs voted through the parachute payments and solidarity system, there is still chuntering about the effect they will have on competitive balance next season and beyond.

Wembley's growing pains"

A lot of energy and planning has gone into ensuring that the pitch at Wembley is second to none," said Wembley's then head groundsman, Steve Welch, in 2006, adding: "The playing surface [will be] as good if not better than the famous Wembley turf of old." It wasn't. After several replacement pitches, Welch was sacked and it still isn't. After several more replacements players are blaming injuries sustained there on the quality of the pitch. Welch had highlighted the energy expended on the "design of the stadium bowl" as evidence that it would work. Four years on and Wembley now says: "Due to light and air circulation we have encountered difficulties." No one at the Sports Turf Research Institute nor Wembley would yesterday respond to Digger's questions about the specific unforeseen challenges pitch-growers are facing – leaving the impression that no one can put their finger on what they are. But say Wembley: "We are determined to get it right."

Oyston leaves a vacancy

Blackpool's promotion to the Premier League means their chairman, Karl Oyston, must relinquish his position as a Football League board member, prompting speculation about who will take on the role from next season. Two men stood against him at the last election: Sheffield Wednesday's Lee Strafford and Tom Glick of Derby County. Strafford will not be eligible this time, having resigned as the Hillsborough chairman. Glick has yet to decide whether to throw his hat in the ring again and there are a few others with obvious ambitions. Adam Pearson, the Hull City director, has previous experience and the Football Association's head of regulation, David Lampitt, who joins Portsmouth as chief executive next month, is another who is tipped for the role. However, Lampitt is not expected immediately to stand. Candidates will canvass at next month's annual conference but there is no obvious enthusiasm for the post. With Oyston, below, having served on the League board in 2005 and 2006, it suggests his experience could be missed.

Arsenal suitor reveals little

Aliko Dangote, linked with a play for Lady Bracewell-Smith's 15.9% stake in Arsenal, yesterday made plain that he will not bid for the shares. This is odd, because 24 hours earlier Dangote had told Nigerian reporters that he had indeed made an offer. A "no-bid" statement such as yesterday's would, under City Code regulations for stockmarket-listed companies like Arsenal, preclude him from bidding for stakes over 30%. But given that Bracewell-Smith's stake is 15.9%, Arsenal fans trying to divine his comments' true meaning are no better informed than if he had said nothing.