Or without a rich benefactor, like we did the first time under SD?

Or is it now the case the only way for clubs such as Preston to go up is to hope they get in the playoffs each season.

With the debate about the gap between the Championship and the Prem there seems to be no chance for many clubs at this level to get promoted directly unless they go up via the playoffs and what we saw under SD will never happen again.

I mean a newly promoted team from League One literally went up automatically last season, up against the two largest wage bills the Championship has ever seen.

Ipswich last year

Aren't Ipswich owners incredibly wealthy though and they wrote off a substantial amount of debt?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:50 pm

Ipswich last year

With quite a large amount of money about them - the benefactor approach that the OP also mentioned - though the idea is investment for growth/return rather than benefactor given that one of the investors is a pension fund

We were in our last year of parachute payments under Dyche. Also it was Coyle who started our path to the premier league, as uncomfortable as that may be for some.

It has reached the stage where the relegated sides are having to re-build. Either because players want out or to clear the wage bill.
More teams will get their shot at the PL but it is getting more difficult to maintain with so many ultra-wealthy foreign owners and the money generated by European competition.

we could well be about to see a PP team get relegated. It's going to be rare as hens teeth to see a team outside one that has PP finish top two I reckon

Shaggy wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:59 pm

We were in our last year of parachute payments under Dyche. Also it was Coyle who started our path to the premier league, as uncomfortable as that may be for some.

We had no parachute money in Dyche’s first promotion season.

Shaggy wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:59 pm

We were in our last year of parachute payments under Dyche. Also it was Coyle who started our path to the premier league, as uncomfortable as that may be for some.

I would think that parachute payments post-Coyle were 10/11, 11/12, 12/13 - although it's possible they were for 4 years back then - albeit hugely reduced in the 4th year I think? Dyche promoted us in 13/14 having been forced to sell Charlie Austin a day before the season and relying exclusively on free transfers (until January, when he signed Ashley Barnes for £400k). I'd say that we were pretty brassic and realistically had lost our competitive advantage from the Coyle promotion, personally.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:04 pm

We had no parachute money in Dyche’s first promotion season.

I believe it was the final year though not vey much back then

It was also the introduction of FFP and the club was in record levels of debt

Spijed wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:58 pm

Aren't Ipswich owners incredibly wealthy though and they wrote off a substantial amount of debt?

Maybe they are, but they're not the only ones in The Championship, plus that wasn't actually the OP's question.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:08 pm

I believe it was the final year though not vey much back then

It was also the introduction of FFP and the club was in record levels of debt

Year four after relegation? When did you get four years?

We definitely had no money. Charlie Austin went two days before the season started and we only got Ashley Barnes in January because a group of fans bought some shares to pay for him.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:23 pm

Year four after relegation? When did you get four years?

We definitely had no money. Charlie Austin went two days before the season started and we only got Ashley Barnes in January because a group of fans bought some shares to pay for him.

It didn't last long - but it did happen


Football League agrees £48m parachute payment deal with Premier League
- Relegated top-flight clubs to receive £48m over four years
- Clubs had harboured concerns over 'take it or leave it offer'
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-payments

Leeds Utd have not had Parachute payments for quite a long time ...

£48 million over four years too.

Not sure how much we got in year four but we were broke just about.

The odds are against, and probably widening year on year, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a team without wealthy owners, or parachute payments, can be promoted.

It’s a pretty similar scenario in the PL with relegation. You need a few clubs to have a poor season or to be spot on with your own recruitment and have a great team ethic (much like Parker instilled this season, I’d suggest), to have a fighting chance.

Next season will be a real challenge, but I’m not writing us off just yet. Just as fans of less well off Championship clubs will start next season with lofty ambitions.

If the dream disappears before a ball is kicked, it’s a sorry state of affairs…. It does seem to be creeping ever nearer to that though.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:32 pm

£48 million over four years too.

Not sure how much we got in year four but we were broke just about.

Indeed we were - Directors putting money in to pay wages and only getting the Barnes transfer done by bringing in new board members via share issues

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:58 pm

With quite a large amount of money about them - the benefactor approach that the OP also mentioned - though the idea is investment for growth/return rather than benefactor given that one of the investors is a pension fund

How much did Ipswich spend on transfers and wages 2023 24 compared to other teams ?

Bet they were some distance behind Leeds, Leicester, Southampton, Boro and many others.

Most clubs that season will have spent way more than Ipswich so it is irrelevant how much the owners have if they didn't spend it.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:37 pm

How much did Ipswich spend on transfers and wages 2023 24 compared to other teams ?

Bet they were some distance behind Leeds, Leicester, Southampton, Boro and many others.

Most clubs that season will have spent way more than Ipswich so it is irrelevant how much the owners have if they didn't spend it.

I think like Birmingham this season - they took advantage of different financial rules in League 1

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:39 pm

I think like Birmingham this season - they took advantage of different financial rules in League 1

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ipswich ... on_id/2022

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ipswich ... lpos=&w_s=


If these figures are accurate what you are claiming is miles off the reality

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:36 pm

Indeed we were - Directors putting money in to pay wages and only getting the Barnes transfer done by bringing in new board members via share issues

We didn’t bring new board members in, they offered a share deal to supporters who raised the Barnes money.

You don’t get parachute payments in the first season do you? That’s what I was led to believe.

Foshiznik wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:47 pm

You don’t get parachute payments in the first season do you? That’s what I was led to believe.

Seems to be one of those weird bits of mis-information that has got out and spread around the fan base, no idea why, but this is incorrect, you absolutely do get parachute payments and they can be seen in every relegated clubs accounts.

Yes, in theory a team could finish in the top 2 without PP or a rich benefactor, but the odds are getting longer by the season at least according to the historical outcomes and stats.

Ultimately, money talks in any business and generally speaking, the more a club can afford to spend the more likely they are to succeed.

There are several reasons why we have had so many promotions during the last 16 years including clever management and coaching however, without the Premier League money, I highly doubt we would have had quite so many promotions.

I do appreciate that the manager, coaching staff, medical team etc all have a part to play, but I would argue that money is still the key difference maker. For example, without money clubs can’t afford to have state of the art training facilities, a plethora of staff or even afford decent wages for their chosen manager.

The perfect example of this is Man City. Realistically, what is the key difference maker between the pre money Man City compared to post money? Player quality - money, training facilities - money, stadium - money, manager and staff - money, the people making decisions on all of the above - money…….. The cash obviously needs to be spent wisely, unlike Man Utd’s recent history, but I genuinely don’t think we are going to see many/any clubs come from nowhere to earn promotion to the Premier League for the foreseeable future. For example, I suspect Wrexham will suddenly find their level next season if they win promotion.

If Ipswich are ruled out due to having a benefactor, I’ll raise you Luton the year before.

Yes, it’s possible.

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:34 pm

If Ipswich are ruled out due to having a benefactor, I’ll raise you Luton the year before.

Yes, it’s possible.

Luton didn't go up automatically. Ourselves and Sheffield United did

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:46 pm

We didn’t bring new board members in, they offered a share deal to supporters who raised the Barnes money.

Brian Nelson and Terence Crabbe were appointed directors in December 2013 and Jan 2014 respectively

a share issue saw 15 shares sold at £200 each - probably to supporters and 3333 shares sold at £150 each

It was common for shares to be priced differently depending on volume bought later in 2014 both Mike Garlick and John Banaszkiewicz converted sizeable (at least at the time) loans to shares at a rate of £100 each

all here https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ory?page=3

Spijed wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:58 pm

Aren't Ipswich owners incredibly wealthy though and they wrote off a substantial amount of debt?

Not sure that’s the same as doing an “uncle Jack”.

I think he means owners spending through the nose for top players.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:38 pm

Brian Nelson and Terence Crabbe were appointed directors in December 2013 and Jan 2014 respectively

a share issue saw 15 shares sold at £200 each - probably to supporters and 3333 shares sold at £150 each

It was common for shares to be priced differently depending on volume bought later in 2014 both Mike Garlick and John Banaszkiewicz converted sizeable (at least at the time) loans to shares at a rate of £100 each

all here https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ory?page=3

They was part of the move to buy back Turf Moor and Gawthorpe. Others involved in that were listed in the programme for some time as associate directors. This wasn't the share sale which got us Ashley Barnes.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:46 pm

We didn’t bring new board members in, they offered a share deal to supporters who raised the Barnes money.

Tony is right. I was one of them. The deal was that that we loaned money to the club. If we were promoted we would get our loan money back plus shares. If we had not been promoted the loan debt would have simply been converted into shares and no money returned.

Culmclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 9:54 pm

Tony is right. I was one of them. The deal was that that we loaned money to the club. If we were promoted we would get our loan money back plus shares. If we had not been promoted the loan debt would have simply been converted into shares and no money returned.

I really good friend of mine invested significantly in it and when the time came he took all his return in shares.