Championship 2018-19

[Bigdoggsteel]

Greed in football. Every club just wants to improve their own position. It's a pity clubs don't realise that a rising tide lifts all boats. Starts at the top, but now it appears to be trickling down too. 

[Parsonblue]

37 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So what are 15 clubs going to do? Break away and form a 15 team league? How will they get promoted to the Premier League when the only way in is via promotion from the Championship which they will be leaving?

It's just nonsense and those clubs with the bigger crowds attempting to throw their weight around and try to bully those in the lower 2 divisions into agreeing to hand over even more cash to them.

So long as the FIFA, UEFA and the FA stand their ground it doesn't matter how many times clubs threaten to break away, it isn't allowed. Of course when the back-handers start changing hands then rules quickly become redundant and people get what they want.

Very similar to the creation of the Premier League and how that broke away from the Football League.  People said the Football League wouldn't break up but it did.  There has been talk of a Premier League second division for years and it wouldn't surprise me if that starts to rear its head again.  As an organisation the Football League has been found wanting in so many areas and, to a certain extent, one can understand why some clubs have become disillusioned with it - again similar to the creation of the Premier League in 1992.  In fairness, the red button is an absolute nonsense and will, ultimately, harm all clubs as fans opt to stay away - particularly on a cold, wet winter's night.  It will be interesting to learn if Rovers are amongst the 15.  I suspect they probably would be. 

[DE.]

Those in charge of the football league are clearly doing a bad job marketing the brand. The Championship is significantly more entertaining than the Premier League but has none of of confidence or swagger that the top division possesses. Even the highlights package is stuck on some barely known freeview channel. 

I'd say all of the FL divisions, even going down to L2, offer the viewer plenty of drama and intrigue. Unfortunately instead the lion's share of investment and wealth has been ploughed into the Premier League, bloating it to the point where it's become a parody of itself. Mourinho complained yesterday that Man City had "two home friendlies" before facing United, but the reality is that practically every home match this season has been a friendly for Man City. This is the first PL season ever where after 12 games none of the top three teams have been beaten. The gap between the bottom half of the PL and the top half of the Championship is, imo, closer than it's ever been. Teams getting relegated from the PL rarely have an easy ride in terms of getting back up, whereas in recent years the likes of Watford, Bournemouth, Brighton, Huddersfield, Leicester and Burnley have either kept themselves up or established themselves as mid to lower table fodder for the bigger teams. 

As it stands few if any Championship clubs seem able to turn a profit or break even. Most are operating under a loss underwritten by the owner. 19 of the 24 clubs in the league in 16/17 made a loss. It's not a sustainable model, so it's understandable if clubs are pushing for the league to do a better job of promoting itself and getting better deals. As it stands they don't have a viable long term business model so that should be causing concern.

[Mattyblue]

The red button/ifollow development is absolute lunacy for non top flight clubs to agree to. There was no clamour from fans for it to happen and the EFL isn’t the PL, so can’t withstand so many games being on TV.

Little financial benefit and enormous potential long term downsides. No surprise it is causing issues between clubs and that amateur organisation on Fishergate Hill.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Mattyblue

[Bigdoggsteel]

If there was to be a PL2, I would like to see 20 clubs in it. 4 promotions to PL1 per year. The top 2 and then 3rd and 4th play off against the teams who come 18th and 17th in PL1, respectively. 

Having said that, I really like the Championship as it stands. 

[Scotland1]

Ex Rover Paul Caddis set to sign for Bradford

[DE.]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

If there was to be a PL2, I would like to see 20 clubs in it. 4 promotions to PL1 per year. The top 2 and then 3rd and 4th play off against the teams who come 18th and 17th in PL1, respectively. 

Having said that, I really like the Championship as it stands. 

The Championship has developed into an exciting league, but with almost every club losing money something is going to have to change. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, DE. said:

The Championship has developed into an exciting league, but with almost every club losing money something is going to have to change. 

Need to divide that sweet TV money out more evenly. The big clubs don't care about football, just themselves. The fact that the idea muted for this "euro super league" is that the 8 founding members can't get relegated for the first 20 seasons tells us all we need to know. 

[Dreams of 1995]

3 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Need to divide that sweet TV money out more evenly. The big clubs don't care about football, just themselves. The fact that the idea muted for this "euro super league" is that the 8 founding members can't get relegated for the first 20 seasons tells us all we need to know. 

Yep.

Let's make sure we get an eight years head start on the rest of them - that should see us right.

Talk about completely undermining the meaning of competition. 

[DE.]

56 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Need to divide that sweet TV money out more evenly. The big clubs don't care about football, just themselves. The fact that the idea muted for this "euro super league" is that the 8 founding members can't get relegated for the first 20 seasons tells us all we need to know. 

Can you imagine how boring it would be? The allure of big club playing big club would wear off pretty quickly when it becomes a regular thing. That's what these geniuses putting forward the idea don't seem to have come to grips with. Eventually the so called Super League would fall into the same state as every other league - you'd have the teams at the top, the middle of the road teams and the lower end teams. A couple of clubs would swap around every season but you'd end up with the same basic pattern as you have in every other league around the world, rendering the whole thing largely pointless on top of being a logistical nightmare.

The Championship should be bringing in far more TV money, really. It's a good quality league with a ton of interesting, diverse teams and plenty of good quality players scattered across the division. Chuck in genuine competitiveness from top to bottom and a full schedule almost every week and it should translate to a strong market. It's surely by far the best second professional tier of football in the world? It feels like the FL are just happy to trundle along under the radar rather than aggressively try to push this league as something unique. 

[CP Company Lad]

On 11/11/2018 at 10:31, chaddyrovers said:

Very true. 

I think he needs to adapt and come up with a plan B. 

But @CP Company Lad how much are you missing Ayling and Bamford? 

Not really tbh. Just a piss poor display. We could have had a penalty before they broke and scored. Bamford will get some goals. The Izzy Brown injury is worrying ? Should of been back in October.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, DE. said:

 The Championship should be bringing in far more TV money, really. It's a good quality league with a ton of interesting, diverse teams and plenty of good quality players scattered across the division. Chuck in genuine competitiveness from top to bottom and a full schedule almost every week and it should translate to a strong market. It's surely by far the best second professional tier of football in the world?

Well it is the richest second tier in the world, so you could argue it is making what it should. I'd tend to argue that football in general is making far more than it should, but that's a whole other debate.

However, looking at it within its own 'ecosystem', the balance is all wrong and more Prem money needs to drip down. The Prem is basically the reason Championship teams have to overstretch themselves. This is:

1) Because of the lure, as we all know, of that Premiership money making teams want (or even need once they get into enough debt) to make the gamble of going up. When it fails, as it mathematically must for most, debts become harder to service.

2) The strain placed on teams coming down from the Prem. To survive up there, they've had to build a wage structure that isn't remotely sustainable down here even with the parachute payments. Selling off all their players though to deal with this will mean they get less than face value for them, and risk a highly destabilising impact of huge personnel turnover. It also reduces (usually) their odds of going back up.

3) The simple proximity of the Prem to the Championship, as our domestic top tier, causes other strains in itself. Prem teams have money, and we know this (and need it), so when they come calling for our players the premiums are huge. This is fine, but it distorts our internal market. We all ask more of each other for our own players, knowing they might be close to Premiership attention, and seeing X player elsewhere as being worth 20 million, thinking this must make our player worth 10-15. Probably worse though, as wages are the real backbreaker of profitability, we are the natural port of call for most failed Premiership players, who are only willing to take small (if any) wage drops to play here. This seems logical in a way - the player thinks OK I didn't quite make it at the 60k p/w bracket but I must still be worth 45-50k. If the leagues were closer financially, this would be true, but that kind of wage is monstrous down here. Clubs should probably stand firmer on this sort of thing, as that player is highly unlikely to earn that in another league usually, but another club making its gamble, or who just sold a player for 20 million and needs to appease the fans with Prem qualitt, will just swoop if you don't.

All of this could be eased significantly and allow teams here to tread water and be stable, if the money distribution was more even, but don't expect it to happen any time soon. It will probably take the bubble bursting, if even that helps.

The package of an exciting, even league could be advertised better I'm sure, but most viewers will ultimately always see the Premiership as the elite, therefore more interesting league, so it would help but not fix matters. Capitalist principles will always suggest that, since they're the main draw for viewers by such a huge margin, the huge, huge bulk of the money is going to stay up there.

[CP Company Lad]

Leeds United should have a bigger slice of the pie. Viewing figures don't lie.

[bluebruce]

1 minute ago, CP Company Lad said:

Leeds United should have a bigger slice of the pie. Viewing figures don't lie.

You do get a bigger slice of the pie. You keep being televised, with extra cash each time. Which further promotes inequality (club with bigger fan base, already has more income from that). Somehow you still manage to fail year after year.

[CP Company Lad]

6 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

You do get a bigger slice of the pie. You keep being televised, with extra cash each time. Which further promotes inequality (club with bigger fan base, already has more income from that). Somehow you still manage to fail year after year.

We do have a lot of fun. Never dull following Leeds.Can't imagine how I'd feel following a dull outfit. Oh and the live game is about 100k. Wow. 

[DE.]

30 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Well it is the richest second tier in the world, so you could argue it is making what it should. I'd tend to argue that football in general is making far more than it should, but that's a whole other debate.

However, looking at it within its own 'ecosystem', the balance is all wrong and more Prem money needs to drip down. The Prem is basically the reason Championship teams have to overstretch themselves. This is:

1) Because of the lure, as we all know, of that Premiership money making teams want (or even need once they get into enough debt) to make the gamble of going up. When it fails, as it mathematically must for most, debts become harder to service.

2) The strain placed on teams coming down from the Prem. To survive up there, they've had to build a wage structure that isn't remotely sustainable down here even with the parachute payments. Selling off all their players though to deal with this will mean they get less than face value for them, and risk a highly destabilising impact of huge personnel turnover. It also reduces (usually) their odds of going back up.

3) The simple proximity of the Prem to the Championship, as our domestic top tier, causes other strains in itself. Prem teams have money, and we know this (and need it), so when they come calling for our players the premiums are huge. This is fine, but it distorts our internal market. We all ask more of each other for our own players, knowing they might be close to Premiership attention, and seeing X player elsewhere as being worth 20 million, thinking this must make our player worth 10-15. Probably worse though, as wages are the real backbreaker of profitability, we are the natural port of call for most failed Premiership players, who are only willing to take small (if any) wage drops to play here. This seems logical in a way - the player thinks OK I didn't quite make it at the 60k p/w bracket but I must still be worth 45-50k. If the leagues were closer financially, this would be true, but that kind of wage is monstrous down here. Clubs should probably stand firmer on this sort of thing, as that player is highly unlikely to earn that in another league usually, but another club making its gamble, or who just sold a player for 20 million and needs to appease the fans with Prem qualitt, will just swoop if you don't.

All of this could be eased significantly and allow teams here to tread water and be stable, if the money distribution was more even, but don't expect it to happen any time soon. It will probably take the bubble bursting, if even that helps.

The package of an exciting, even league could be advertised better I'm sure, but most viewers will ultimately always see the Premiership as the elite, therefore more interesting league, so it would help but not fix matters. Capitalist principles will always suggest that, since they're the main draw for viewers by such a huge margin, the huge, huge bulk of the money is going to stay up there.

Can't disagree with any of that really. The pyramid is clearly broken and as far as I can tell the fracturing is getting worse rather than better. Even with increased parachute payments relegated clubs are struggling to stabilise themselves after being relegated. League 1 is becoming increasingly distant from the Championship, but that's only because Championship clubs are overstretching themselves to the point where it's no longer uncommon for a club to be tens of millions in debt, if not hundreds. The only reason clubs aren't going bust left, right and a centre is because football operates in its own, bizarre ecosystem where money is an incredibly fluid commodity that only really exists when HMRC come calling. 

In theory there's a lot to like about the Championship, but the current model is not built on a solid foundation and realistically could collapse quite rapidly. You wonder what happens to the likes of Aston Villa if they don't go up this season. Bolton are still in all sorts of trouble. Multiple clubs have been hit with embargoes over the past few years. Clubs like us and Ipswich are 100% dependent on our owners footing bills that constantly increase insane debt levels. Almost every club is operating at a loss, and if you aren't then you're probably not going to survive. The whole thing seems completely unsustainable. How much debt can clubs accrue before it becomes too much? Us and Ipswich must be getting close to the £200m mark now? 

[Scotland1]

On 12/11/2018 at 18:28, CP Company Lad said:

Leeds United should have a bigger slice of the pie. Viewing figures don't lie.

No they don’t and it could be argued as a newish holding company who’ve shed there debts (Ken Bates) and left behind creditors with zilch that you’ve already had more pie than anyone else?

Edited November 13, 2018 by Scotland1

[blueboy3333]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 18:49, CP Company Lad said:

Can't imagine how I'd feel following a dull outfit.

Or a successful one, presumably

[arbitro]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11553132/sky-bet-championship-fans-rate-their-season-so-far-part-one-aston-villa-to-hull

It's difficult to argue with the Rovers correspondent.

[arbitro]

Part two of fans appraisals of the season so far.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11553208/sky-bet-championship-fans-rate-their-season-so-far-part-two-ipswich-town-to-qpr

[Dreams of 1995]

On 12/11/2018 at 18:28, CP Company Lad said:

Leeds United should have a bigger slice of the pie. Viewing figures don't lie.

The viewing figures just show you have more fans, as you should being a one club city. It's totally unfair to offer yourselves more money when smaller clubs have been consistently more successful than you over the space of a decade or so.

Money shouldn't be offered based on viewing figures but on success. In that respect you deserve what a mid table Championship club should get, 25,000 fans or not.

[Gav]

You get him told Dreams, I agree by the way, Leeds used to be successful, but that was a long time ago.

If it's based on success, we should get more, because we've been more successful since Tv's went color.

[Silas]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/leeds-united-sky-sports-earnings-14548856.amp

 

'Only 100k", or words to that effect, is a strange one, even in the crazy financial world of football. 

So, Leeds get 760k in a season from extra TV matches. Last time we were in Champ think we had a grand total of 2 matches on. If one was home, one away (guess,  can't be bothered looking), then that's £110k for us.

And we're supposed to agree paying one club in the same division 7 times more than another = financial fair play. 

The disparity might not seem like much to some people, but for many of the bottom half clubs that difference would be a new player. Hell, it's almost a Bradley Dack. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Silas

[Bigdoggsteel]

54 minutes ago, Silas said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/leeds-united-sky-sports-earnings-14548856.amp

 

'Only 100k", or words to that effect, is a strange one, even in the crazy financial world of football. 

So, Leeds get 760k in a season from extra TV matches. Last time we were in Champ think we had a grand total of 2 matches on. If one was home, one away (guess,  can't be bothered looking), then that's £110k for us.

And we're supposed to agree paying one club in the same division 7 times more than another = financial fair play. 

The disparity might not seem like much to some people, but for many of the bottom half clubs that difference would be a new player. Hell, it's almost a Bradley Dack. 

Not anymore! 

[JHRover]

There's the other benefits too. Sure it must annoy supporters to keep having kick off times moved around and yes I sympathise with those genuine Leeds supporters as I do with many others who are messed around by Sky and the authorities.

But lets not make out as though Leeds are suffering through this arrangement. As mentioned, they get considerably more money than others as they receive a fee for live broadcasts, on top of that their profile is enhanced by continual live broadcasts, presumably that means they can also demand bigger sponsorship deals as they have a national/international audience most games. Then lets not forget they also have separate sponsorship deals with Sky Bet who are headquartered in Leeds who therefore pump additional cash into them which other clubs wont get.

Not ideal logistically for their fans but they're doing ok out of it.