This team is better than the one put together for Bielsa. Whether good enough to survive the PL, well that’s another matter. The reason it’s better is we have the parachute money. Just like the PL has become an unfair playing field, parachute money makes the championship another unfair one too.
In all the seasons since parachute payments were made over 3 years, instead of 4 (2014/15 season I think), only once in the last 10 seasons have the 3 clubs with the highest turnover in the Championship actually all won promotion. Funnily enough that was in the 2019/20 season, when we got promoted, having the 2nd highest turnover in the Championship, despite not being in receipt of parachute payments. Fulham were the only team with higher turnover that season. However the biggest spenders that season were Stoke with costs of over £136m, making a loss of approx £86m. The club with the highest turnover in last 10 years was Newcastle with £85m, who won the Championship in 2016/17. Norwich have failed twice to gain promotion with turnover of over £75m, but won the league in 2018/19 with just £33m in turnover, whilst spending approx the same as ourselves that season, £70m. By contrast Brentford's turnover in their 6 seasons in the Championship was £6m less than Newcastle received in 1 season. Prior to gaining promotion to the EPL , those 6 seasons they made a total loss of £3m. Parachute payments help but neither are they a guarantee, nor the lack of such payments a hindrance to success. Of the 56 clubs that have been in receipt of parachute payments over the last 8 seasons, 8 have been promoted at the first attempt, 3 at the second and 4 at the third, whilst 41 have failed, 3 of those being relegation. This post was just an opportunity to give some facts, and is not because I agree or disagree with any of the above posts
Last season, we had the best players, Ipswich did us by being the best team. This season we again have the best players, I think this is what parachute money brings you, quality players, whether the best players are coached to be the best team or gel together is where the problem lays for those who fail, mixed in with a bit of luck on the injury side of things
yep because winning and losing are habits and confidence is a fickle mistress. It ain’t just about how good the players are, it ain’t just about how good the manager is. Relegated teams often start slow as they’re used to losing and have often lost their best players. Some turn it around quickly. But for others, the longer they go without turning their form around, the harder it becomes.. Fundamentally luck also plays a huge part in football. When it deserts you the losing habit kicks in, the confidence goes and the performances drop. It’s often cyclical. Hopefully Lady Luck will desert those pesky blunts sometime before the season’s up, but there’s no sign of it yet.
But the argument was that with the parachute payments you can buy the best for the division and pay them more than the other clubs. Accepting the points you’ve made Luton are proving that’s not necessarily true so you can buck the trend with good recruitment and the right coach/manager (i.e. Bielsa)
The Gary Monk season was only enjoyable (we finished 7th) because we'd become used to finishing 15th every season for 3 or 4 years running. It was nice to have a season where we won a couple more than we lost. In truth, the football was dreadful, we were very fortunate to fluke a number of 1-0 wins that season.
3-1. We pretty much had these at their spot, controlled for most parts and dominated when we needed to. These are the best of the rest in a very poor league.
Sunderland pretty much have to win this to Retain any realistic hope of passing us so should lead to a cracker
Morning all I wonder what humorous little Ditties the Sunderland fans have up their sleeves for Illan Sprake tonight
