My take

Think you hit the nail on the head about at what level and agree current level probably is not worth the effort financially when all factored in.
Hopefully it’s like a snowball where it starts very small but over time it gets bigger and then becomes viable and worthwhile

 

When you look at Brentford, and even Bristol City... even dare I say Peterborough, there are clubs who are much better at this cycle of buy, develop sell repeat. Bristol city kick started it but they are starting to get some very good revenues to reinvest. Brentford to a lesser degree, but they've been recycling their team for a good number of seasons, played good football at times and been where we'd at least aspire to be... and Peterborough who get great fee's a lot of the time.. but aren't progressing on the pitch.

I'm not sure we're as good as those three, but we need to be if this plan is to bear any fruit that the fans wish to taste mid and long term.

 

My criticism of the system under the previous regime was that we shouldn't sell integral players in January to cash in before the end of their contract because it disrupts the team, doesn't allow replacements to bed in, and sees our season's collapse destroying momentum, enthusiasm and our capacity to recruit better in the summer.

This isn't doing that. There's some very sensible arguments on this thread as to why we shouldn't sell players with 12 months to go and I think they have a lot of validity, but the owners have been absolutely clear that is the strategy and at least it allows us to recruit properly at the right time.

My other criticism of the previous regime is that there needed to be one or two more experienced leaders to be successful. Kevin Long completed turned our season round in the short period he was with us, which also led to Mawson making massive improvements as a young player and consequently earnt the club a huge amount of money when we sold him. I think some money written off on a few older players without resale would ultimately recoup more in the long run from the improvement in young players.

I am more worried that this bit doesn't appear to be part of the new regime's strategy.

 

Me too

 

We worked within the rules last year, as in only spent a percentage of turnover on wages. If we hadn't we would have been reprimanded. So there was no deficit. 6 million pays for 12 players on 10 grand a week using your figures.

 

That's what I hope too but if we sign Maranda & this bloke from Leeds that will leave us with 4 players that can play centre back who combined have very little first team experience.

 

He played five games last season and hasn't played a league game in 2019. No way will we be making him our highest earner on 10k a week. If that's true it's no wonder Pinnock left being offered the same.

 

Yeah we worked within FP rules but players were still kept on their Championship wages and the club brought in £6 million less as a result of relegation

i was using the Leeds lad as an example.
People keep saying we got this much I expect the same to be spent I was pointing out that some of that money has to go on wages too

 

I thought at the time of relegation, someone ITK stated most players had relegation clauses which saw very significant salary reductions? Surely we couldn't have met FFP with championship wages and a £6m fall in revenues?

 

FFP not done over one season though is

 

Beg your pardon, SCMP. Which I believe is evaluated at various stages through a season to ensure no potential breach. probably why it seems to be more effective as FFP is staggered over 3 years. Not sure how its evaluated with relegation periods, assume its continuous championship membership.

 

Sibbick is a right back and a raw one at that. It's another signing which the fans of his old club find baffling. There's no way he's part of the centre-half equation.

http://www.wupgb.co.uk/