We will not be breaking the wage structure and will not be using income above normal levels of to subsidise increased wages
Thereby increasing the risk of spending for newly promoted clubs but not for those already in the old boys' club, widening the gap still further and resulting in more yo-yoing which the Prem will then use as ammunition when it decides to scrap relegation.
I can't see increased solidarity payments making a blind bit of difference to us. At the end of the day, the other 23 teams will also be getting more money, and if their track records are anything to go by they will simply push up the wages of the most average of players, meaning it's just as difficult for us to compete...
It'll always be difficult to compete in this league, but money's money. Better to have it than not. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
Given that our recruitment is lower down the pyramid and it widens the gap between the championship and L1 it might help.
Not really because it will mean any promoted club can spend an absolute fortune on players on three year contracts, it doesn't increase any risk to them unless they are signing players on 4 year contracts or more but really who does that?
They don't get rewarded for failure though do they. Getting rewarded for failure would mean being paid more than the teams finishing above them. It's rewarding them for previous success but instead of giving the money in a lump sum they are spreading it out to attempt to stop financial recklessness. That doesn't mean i agree with the amount or length of time they get it but i do understand why it exists in some form.
Huddersfield lose millions every year and their owner has pumped £40m in. They're no different to any other club over spending vast amounts of money they don't generate themselves.
Didn't appreciate the magnitude of Hoyle's financial input. How do they comply with FFP (not that it seems it'll ever be applied)? Our owner input, wage bill etc pales into insignificance against that.