Post by rickyqpr on Feb 1, 2023 9:15:16 GMT
The January Championship Transfer Window showed just how lower league football has developed.
There were very few Championship players purchased by the Prem clubs, Bristol City and Stoke City must be pleased that they took in real money, but for the rest, it was begging bowl time.
There were some good players picked up by Championship clubs, but with no money to purchase, the vast majority were loans. The worrying thing being that most clubs around us improved their squads, but we sat on our hands. It would appear that without selling, we were right up against the FFP ceiling. This is all the more frustrating when Sky keep reminding us of the extraordinary fees paid by Chelsea and the like. What a very unbalanced football world we live in. It was also noticeable that Championship clubs purchased very few players from the lower leagues. The Premier League now is so elite, as we sit and watch last years promoted team spend huge sums of cash to stay there. Forest even loaned out the Huddersfield players that they bought last window, so they could continue purchasing even more. How the world has changed since we were last in the top tier.
But the loan market is fraught with difficulties and extra expense. Most loan deals are structured with a down payment and then an ongoing proportion of the player’s wages. The deals are usually weighted so that if the player is fit, then they are expected to be selected. If fit and not selected, then the proportion of wages increases. So, although a squad can have more than five loans, the manager can only select 5 in any matchday squad. So if you go over 5, then if all fit, the club ends up paying more for the out of favour player. This was the situation we faced this window. It seems we wanted to return Roberts, but we had already gone through the threshold of games, so now we have to keep him and select him when fit. The deal for Richards seems to be of a different structure as we have an obligation to purchase in the Summer, so presumably, less onerous, so he is the one that features the least. Just seems barmy that you end up picking and developing another team’s youngsters at the expense of your own. I would rather see Richards or Sinclair than Roberts for example.
Not just at QPR, but it must lead to some very difficult team selections. But we do seem to pick Laird, Ireogbunam and Roberts whenever fit – and probably Lowe now as well. Ireogbunam is a great talent, but hopelessly out of form at the moment. Had he been our own player, he would have been dropped, but as a loanee, he seems to start.
Obviously, we have no idea of the individual deals or the severity of the clauses, but the imbalance, coupled with the vast gap between leagues is hardly helping the game, or our cause.
Unless something changes, the game as we knew it is lost.
Any thoughts?
There were very few Championship players purchased by the Prem clubs, Bristol City and Stoke City must be pleased that they took in real money, but for the rest, it was begging bowl time.
There were some good players picked up by Championship clubs, but with no money to purchase, the vast majority were loans. The worrying thing being that most clubs around us improved their squads, but we sat on our hands. It would appear that without selling, we were right up against the FFP ceiling. This is all the more frustrating when Sky keep reminding us of the extraordinary fees paid by Chelsea and the like. What a very unbalanced football world we live in. It was also noticeable that Championship clubs purchased very few players from the lower leagues. The Premier League now is so elite, as we sit and watch last years promoted team spend huge sums of cash to stay there. Forest even loaned out the Huddersfield players that they bought last window, so they could continue purchasing even more. How the world has changed since we were last in the top tier.
But the loan market is fraught with difficulties and extra expense. Most loan deals are structured with a down payment and then an ongoing proportion of the player’s wages. The deals are usually weighted so that if the player is fit, then they are expected to be selected. If fit and not selected, then the proportion of wages increases. So, although a squad can have more than five loans, the manager can only select 5 in any matchday squad. So if you go over 5, then if all fit, the club ends up paying more for the out of favour player. This was the situation we faced this window. It seems we wanted to return Roberts, but we had already gone through the threshold of games, so now we have to keep him and select him when fit. The deal for Richards seems to be of a different structure as we have an obligation to purchase in the Summer, so presumably, less onerous, so he is the one that features the least. Just seems barmy that you end up picking and developing another team’s youngsters at the expense of your own. I would rather see Richards or Sinclair than Roberts for example.
Not just at QPR, but it must lead to some very difficult team selections. But we do seem to pick Laird, Ireogbunam and Roberts whenever fit – and probably Lowe now as well. Ireogbunam is a great talent, but hopelessly out of form at the moment. Had he been our own player, he would have been dropped, but as a loanee, he seems to start.
Obviously, we have no idea of the individual deals or the severity of the clauses, but the imbalance, coupled with the vast gap between leagues is hardly helping the game, or our cause.
Unless something changes, the game as we knew it is lost.
Any thoughts?