We can't compete with the west broms and norwiches either - or anyone else who's owner is spending to maximum permissible losses and get bigger gates with 40% higher ticket prices meaning higher turnover also. People really need to start looking around the league. A few loanees and a couple of 4 mil signings in the championship is not big spending in relative terms.
I thought it was understood that if we don't go up this year (and we probably won't) then we need to sell to stay within our FFP limit. I'm not saying we can't be competitive next year but it will be hard.
Acun/Tan seem confident they can go again. Whether philogene stays or not if PL club comes in is anyone's guess, but whatever we get from sales will go back into recruitment.
Because Leeds/Southampton/Leicester were in the PL for more than one season - so have more parachute money due to come their way. Burnley/Luton/Sheff Utd, if they came down - wouldn't be able to gamble as much in their first season back down - because the parachute payments aren't as generous after one year in the PL. Equally, Luton have earmarked more of their PL money on facilities over players than other clubs. Sheff Utd aren't really building, feels more like firefighting. Burnley may be the one that are most likely to go back up, but that's if Kompany stays. Either way, they all feel a level below the teams that came down last year.
I haven't seen anything about payments being based on how long a club has been in the PL!! Seems like all 3 of those clubs have spent very carefully and so should be in a good state to go again.
It is over 3 years if you spend more than season in PL. Only over 2 seasons if the club were in for only one season. The third season is less than half of the second season. If you get promoted during the time the parachute payments stop.
Possibly so and that will be a danger. But financially, they will be closer to us than Leicester, Southampton and Leeds. That doesn't mean they are close.
They will have as much in the first and second seasons. Clubs up longer than a year get a third year but it is less than half of the second year. In the first two seasons they will be as well off as Southampton, Leicester and Leeds. in some ways maybe better as there wage bills will be less than those three.
Which makes no difference in year 1 or year 2 but yes,there would be no payment in year 3? It fails to justify the argument that the 3 teams coming down this year wouldn't be as competitive as the 3 currently in the League.
Yes, that is the point I was making. And, as I said in another post, the wage bills of the 3 coming down will most likely be less than the three in the Championship at the moment.
Leicester in particular can't just be judged on parachute payments alone. They've won trophies, been in Europe in the very recent past and there is cumulative investment based on prize money and owners backing over years also.
I wasn't saying they wouldn't be as competitive. I was saying they couldn't take quite as many financial risks as Leicester/Leeds/Southampton so would be closer to us in that regard. They'd still be way ahead, but by comparison - I know which clubs I'd rather be competing with for new players.
That’s simply not the case, we’ve seen Acun respond directly to criticisms raised on social media several times, he’s clearly very aware of what people are posting online and feels the need to address those criticisms.
Doesn't help that since tigers+ it's coming from behind a paywall, so even though he's directly contradicting the narratives on here and on other social media, most on social media don't see it, so continue spouting grand theories based on supposition and hearsay which just aren't the case anyway
