What will all this money really mean?

[a1canary 0]

We''ve all talked about the importance of staying up to get a slice of the new TV deal, to the extent that it''s almost as id some fans think it''s protection from relegation. But of course 3 clubs will still go down next year, so what will the deal really mean for Premier League clubs? I guess it will further inflate the price of championship/L1 hot properties which are already over priced. What might someone have paid for Jordan Rhodes if he was transferred from Huddersfield after the new TV deal?

Will most of the money just get leeched out of the system by wages and agents? The more we pay players, the harder it becomes to manage them and the more the balance of power shifts for all but the biggest clubs. If it just means that any EPL club can sign a squad of European ''superstars'', i don''t expect that to neccessarily be a good thing.

It''s going to be interesting...!

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

The extra money will have limited impact.That said, I firmly believe it''s better to be this side of the money tracks, in the PL and raking it in while debt-free.

[Indy_Bones 441]

It''s fair to point out that all teams in the prem will benefit from the increased money, so we''re not gaining any ground on them that way per se, but it does mean that we can potentially bring in a higher calibre of player due to the increased money (even if everyone else is doing the same).What it also means it that should the worst happen in the future, then we''d back getting relegated whilst being debt free, with a squad of prem quality players, and the finances to very actively and strongly challenge for an immediate return to the top flight.I genuinely believe that in a short space of time, we''ll see the same 20-26 teams in the top flight, with the bottom 6 of those ''yo-yo-ing'' between the champ and prem, because unless a new owner comes into a champ club and spends a big chunk of money, those clubs will simply will not be able to compete with the quality and finances the relegated teams will have in the vast majority of cases.Every year we stay here helps our long term future, as long as the board continue to be sensible rather than pulling a Leeds or Pompey...

[Tumbleweed 106]

Exactly, the reason it is so important to NCFC is that it should help considerably if and when we get relegated again as we will have had the opportunity to have benefitted from the extra funding and bigger parachute payments. And it is not just in players'' fees and wages but about all round infrastructure and investment- such as in the academy, training facilities, coaching and support staff, marketing, stadium improvements etc. So the money should help us gain a competitive advantage above those without it in all aspects of the club, each one assisting in its own way.

[SwindonCanary 455]

Every Premiership team will benefit from the increased money, but unlike the top six who already pick up astronomical amounts of money through Champions League, sponsorship and merchandise and world wide support, it will make a much bigger difference to us.   

[Salopian 1]

Very little difference, I suspect, certainly in terms of money spent on big signings. Only the big boys can afford to splash out every year, but they have their TV stations, world-wide marketing and bog crowds. The minnows like us have to be content to build up a squad over the years, and even then may fail - Wigan, for instance and nearly Stoke.

 

The reason for doubting little further massive splashing out, despite the massive "TV money", comes from all the demands on the money. We have already spent some (undisclosed) sum on Garrido, apart from the £8.5 on RvW. In addition there is still some debt to repay, there is further cash to find for the upgrading of the academy, plus running costs. "Rainy day" money will be held back for January, and perhaps something towards possible ground extension in 2014. On top of all this is the fact that player''s wages will be higher.

 

I expect us to make a few more signings, but certainly not three "big" signings, costing £20m or more which some posters have suggested. The name of the game is consolidation, and building over years. I think that we may sign one "biggish" player (say £6m) and perhaps two or three others together for a similar sum. Players will leave, but I don''t expect much in the way of transfer income.

[Power Hamster 0]

My guess is that it will simply inflate the (already ridiculous) prices and wages of already established "big name" players. But there will still be the bargain buy £2m players (Michu for example) if you know where to look.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

For us, probably the biggest benefit of the TV money is that we will be able to streak a considerable distance clear of our traditional peers in the Championship, such as Leicester, Forest, Ipswich. Should we go down at any point we will be in a better position to return than ever in our history.

Of more importance in my opinion to our Premier League chances is the fact that we have no debt to service next season, which means we will be on an equal footing to our peers in this league, Swansea, WBA, Stoke and West Ham. That''s the sort of comfortable mid-table bracket that we should be aiming for next season. The fact we will be into a third year in this league should also give us a greater head-start over the promoted Clubs, Hull, Cardiff and Watford/Palace, than we had this year - for example West Ham came into this league with a larger budget than ours this season - I don''t expect that to be the case with the 3 promoted Clubs next year.

The longer you stay in this league, the more likely you are to continue to stay in it.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Having supported City for over 40 years, IMO, there have always been two fundamental approaches to the PL (or Div1 before that). The big teams collect star players and depend to a great extent on their individual abilities to consistently get results. For the others, the focus tends to be on building a team which can achieve ''synergy'', where the team achieves a level beyond the individual abilities making it up. For City, this happened in the early 90s under Walker, who capitalized on the players built into an effective team by Brown and Stringer before him. A classic example of getting this wrong was QPR this year, who thought that splashing money on players like the big teams would work for them. Patently it didn''t. Strangely, in spite of his price tag, I think RvW will fit in well at City because he is relatively young and eager to prove himself in the PL. IMO, it''s important that the players coming in have the right temperament as well as their individual abilities. We certainly don''t want to go the way of QPR!

[Hackedoff 0]

Also with it being our 3rd season and 2 names already comfirmed for next season it will give us a slight advantage if the 3 promoted clubs were interested in said players

[cornish sam 944]

I''m sorry Beefy, but whilst I kind of agree with you I''d disagree on your choices of peers. Swamsea and West Brom, yes, definitely, though through their astute buying and selling and already being debt free Swansea have a march on us, however, West Ham and Stoke?!? With the clearing of the debt and the increased TV money we can''t consider either of those peers in the financial sense. True they have rich backers which we don''t, but they both also have substantial debt and far far greater wage bills, this means that their relative spending power is decreased by FFP and also (as discussed in another thread a while ago) they will fall victim to the wage increase cap sooner than the likes of ourselves and Swansea who have significant headroom before we reach the stage when we''re only allowed an extra £4m.

 

Unfortunately, having said all of that I can''t think who other than Swansea and West Brom would be our peers on those criteria, perhaps based on income when debt servicing has been taken into account Everton and Newcastle as well?