After the Party is Over

Last season, it was reported that we had a top six budget. The last time we were in the Championship, it was reported that we had a bottom four budget. There is no way that we can compete with the budgets of the clubs with parachute payments. There is no way that we can compete with the clubs with very rich owners who are prepared to invest heavily in order to reach the Premier League. I see no problem with investing our limited resources wisely, but the problem with falling back into the lower division is that the players that fall with the club do so with wages that are unaffordable in the lower division because of SCMP. If they are on long contracts, they have to be paid off. That is why I speculated that the loan system might appeal next season when I wrote my opening post.

I agree that the appointment of Keith Hill was the opening shot in an austerity programme, but I disagree that Keith Hill is a bad manager. On top of austerity, Hill was hit by outrageous luck. He lost Jacob Butterfield, Ricardo Vaz Te and Danny Drinkwater, virtually in a weekend. No manager could have withstood a shock like that. His managerial record before coming to Oakwell, and his managerial record after leaving Oakwell has been fantastic, on budgets that would be in the bottom four in the division. Flitcroft was appointed because the fans wanted it so, at the end of a season that saw a turn around almost as remarkable as the last season.

You talk about the 'beneficial owners' as though they do not have a name. Mr Cryne has shown absolutely no inclination to take money back out of the club, and until he does, I would not be the one to suggest he will. I have also suggested in my opening post that we try to get some players in with experience of the Championship, but I also reflected on how difficult that was likely to be. If you like, that was the purpose of my original post. To question whether the policies that were successful last season can be successful next.