SteveRoebuck wrote:
They didn't like it DM
Those clubs that went up all went bust apparently so we cannot compare against them.....you cannot win with some people and their sycophantic ways.
Thanks for the update, Steve.
Toronto, York, Whitehaven, Barrow and Keighley didn't hit financial troubles when in League One, their problems came about when they were playing the 'bigger fish'. This is when they over-stretched themselves.
There's no doubt a direct link between a club's finishing position and the amount they invest in players/coaches. The fifth best funded team is unlikely to finish top. The best funded team is unlikely to finish fifth. Unfortunately, we don't know the League One pecking order.
My best guess would be that the promoted teams over the last five seasons are likely to have had budgets in the top three, although with the lottery of the play-offs a worse funded team might sneak up.
Again trying to keep things in context, if we've been the top funded club over the last five seasons, Richard Horne has used the budget poorly. If we're the fifth best funded team, he's done well, achieving more than he should. We can't answer that question as we don't know about the finances.
Of course, a team needs to work within a sustainable budget as 'any club' is better than 'no club' but there needs to be ambition as well. The 'five year plan' to get us to Super League implied we do have the necessary resources to play at a higher level. Perhaps we don't?
Super League was probably a pipe dream but being a financially stable mid-table team in the Championship ought to be a realistic ambition. Sheffield have been able to do it. Why can't we?
