a few cliches in here, but some good point indeed http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11662/8151783/Second-season-syndrome
I would imagine that most/all teams who have suffered from SSS would have kept the same Manager for the 2nd year..? Making the change and bringing in Hughton (albeit enforced) means in my eyes we wouldn't really qualify as 'Second Season Syndrome Sufferers', even if we did go down, which I don't think we will.
I wish I shared your optimism Fleet, I'm fearing the worst for sure and I don't hold with this "it wouldn't be a disaster if we went down" bollocks either. With the new TV deal about to kick in, we'd miss out on fecking squillions of wad . Just our bloody luck eh?
I suppose it just comes down to your vision or hopes for the club KIO. For some of us just knowing we've got a club to watch and support is enough (and who can blame them after our plight of 3 years ago...) but for others this new TV deal heralds the chance to break away from being in our recognised 'place' as a yo-yo/championship team..and try to cement a place amongst the elite.
However much extra money the new TV deal implies (and my understanding is that it is £14M more than this season, i.e. £55M as opposed to £41M), the fact remains that three clubs will still get relegated and all your competitors will be better off too. So I don't quite understand how it will make establishing oneself in the Premiership any easier. Furthermore, the evidence is that more money just means corresponding inflation in transfer fees, player wages and agent fees, so the main effect will be that clubs will be paying more for the same players that they might have signed without the extra money. Don't get me wrong, it will be much better if we can stay up, but it doesn't help to overstate the implications of relegation.
Whilst it is true that your competitors will also get more cash it means that if you are not at the top table you will be being promoted into a league with even more of a financial disadvantage than previously and that whilst it is true that regadless of finance three will go down and three will go up the parachute payments and any form of sane financial management by the boards of the clubs coming down will give the first three to go down under the new system a huge advantage over the rest of the Championship clubs. I can see there being the top division plus maybe half a dozen yo-yo clubs (possibly including us) with the rest of the Championship becoming a fight to avoid L1 unless you end up with a sugar-daddy backer. If and when FFP comes in this will only magnify the discrepancies between the Premier League clubs and the rest as it could stop a Man City situation happening at another sleeping giant like Leeds or Sheff Wed.
No-one disputes that survival is better than relegation. The question is whether talk of "disaster" and losing out on "squillions" is justified or, as I and others think, a gross exaggeration. The other point I would make is that the longer-term implications for the Championship are a consequence of the parachute payment system as such, irrespective of how much those payments are. As a matter of interest, people seem to be assuming that parachute payments are going to rise with the new TV deal, but the level of the payments has to be agreed with the Football League and as of 12 June 2012 no decision to that effect had been taken. It is likely they will rise, but given the increasing disquiet among League clubs, it may be that any rise will be modest. Also, I re-iterate my point that past experience shows that more money is simply inflationary, leading to higher transfer fees, player wages and agents fees; clubs simply pay more to get the same quality of player as before. So the idea that the new TV deal will mean that a mid-table or just surviving PL club will suddenly be able to afford players of much greater quality is, IMO, wide of the mark. Put another way, a Stoke City will not suddenly be able to afford to buy players that only a Man City could afford at the moment.
