Quite.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The crushing effect of parachute payments...
- Thread starter Guinness Boy
- Start date
Quite.
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.
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
Well-known member
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
New member
- Mar 25, 2012
- 931
That would at least get a result. It's closer to asking the question at the annual Turkey and Goose knees-up.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
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
Stupid IDIOT
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
Well-known member
You answer the questions on threads like this, but when you put it that way...