The crushing effect of parachute payments...

[Herr Tubthumper]

....isn't currently being felt in The Championship.

Watford 1st
Bournemouth 2nd
Middlesboro 3rd
Derby 5th

Fulham, Blackpool and Bolton all struggling. Makes you think doesn't it.

Quite.

 

[El Presidente]

....isn't currently being felt in The Championship.

Watford 1st
Bournemouth 2nd
Middlesboro 3rd
Derby 5th

Fulham, Blackpool and Bolton all struggling. Makes you think doesn't it.

Absolutely, there's been a huge amount of academic research done to look at the correlation between success in terms of results and other factors (attendance levels, managers, TV revenues, imported v local players etc. ) and the clearest link is in terms of wage levels and NET transfer expenditure.

This applies to practically every major footballing country in Europe, however, I'm currently researching looking at the Championship as an exception to the above, and the results are mixed, but the degree of correlation does seem lower than in other leagues.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Agreed and what's even funnier is that the ex prem clubs are the ones with huge debts aswell i,e bolton and cardiff etc

Which makes the case for sticking with FFP. Going up to come back down with debt is crazy, we need to develop our own players, spend the right money on the right players to strengthen and then give it a go. Too late for this season I fear, but hey, enjoy the ride!

 

[Machiavelli]

Not really, no.

Money doesn't guarantee success, but it massively increases chances of success which is why Chelsea and Manchester City are where they are, and Hartlepool sit at the bottom of the 92.

There are always going to be exceptions which buck the trend in both directions - we've even been one ourselves over the last two seasons.

This is the key point. Exceptions are called exceptions for a reason, and that's because they're exceptions to the rule. It's only when exceptions disprove the rule that they become important. The rule ultimately is that more money buys you better players, etc, and I'll stand by that.
Guinness Boy neglected to mention Norwich, who I still think will get promoted this season along with Derby and another. Fulham and Cardiff are both examples of clubs that have made poor decisions with (sacking and appointing) managers. I'd rather our chairman than theirs too.

 

[jgmcdee]

Don't hold your breath. I believe there's a meeting of clubs this week at which a number of clubs- guess which ones!- are likely to request changes to the rules.

Which strikes me as vaguely akin to inviting a hundred plump turkeys to vote in a referendum asking the question "Do you think the traditional British Christmas dinner should be changed to goose this year?"

That would at least get a result. It's closer to asking the question at the annual Turkey and Goose knees-up.

 

[Machiavelli]

The original concept of FFP was that the non compliant clubs were fined and these monies went into a pot which was then shared out between the clubs who didn't break the rules. If the sensible clubs each had an extra £3M or £4M to stick into their playing budgets it would have made it a slightly more level playing field against the clubs with parachute payments.

This point is well worth repeating. Clubs should have held firm to this original concept. There's a big difference between:
-- if the club overspends, it'll also have to give to charity, and
-- if the club overspends, it'll have to give an additional amount to our rivals

 

[El Presidente]

This point is well worth repeating. Clubs should have held firm to this original concept. There's a big difference between:
-- if the club overspends, it'll also have to give to charity, and
-- if the club overspends, it'll have to give an additional amount to our rivals

Do you think the original concept might have been changed due to:

(a) The generosity of spirit of Championship club chairmen, OR
(b) Advice from barristers that the redistribution to other clubs rule was likely to be deemed unenforceable in law?

 

[Ernest]

The original concept of FFP was that the non compliant clubs were fined and these monies went into a pot which was then shared out between the clubs who didn't break the rules. If the sensible clubs each had an extra £3M or £4M to stick into their playing budgets it would have made it a slightly more level playing field against the clubs with parachute payments.

Without the penalty of fines going to the other clubs it is worthless, Champions League FFP fines go to the clubs so why did the Championship change ?

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you think the original concept might have been changed due to:

(a) The generosity of spirit of Championship club chairmen, OR
(b) Advice from barristers that the redistribution to other clubs rule was likely to be deemed unenforceable in law?

You answer the questions on threads like this, but when you put it that way...