Not like Wednesday offering loads to take a player from a neighbouring team to warm their bench….. Just so they can maintain their massive status.
Their lower wage bill means there's less need to sell players to survive I guess. But it also puts them in the yo-yo club category, and means they'll struggle to extend players contracts once they've established themselves.
What you mean like us although our string is a little bit longer than theirs so we usually manage a few season at Championship level before our better players go elsewhere for more money whether that's in the last year of their contract and an undisclosed fee or at the end of it and on a free, and we sign players not at the same level as those that leave and go down.
Not claiming the way we do things is any better than what they do, mainly because I don't think that is true. I was only really replying to the idea that Rotherham don't complain about a 7m loss on relegation, and the fact that is only true because their wage bill doesn't lead to such a shortfall when relegated.
It's all likely to happen at the end of the window, isn't it? (as usual). Premiership clubs will decide who they want to go out on loan. Clubs that are looking for a particular type of player will panic buy 1st/2nd/3rd choice. As they do that, it will free up money that goes down the food chain, and further deals are done. Maybe we are waiting for movement on Helik, Styles, Anderson, and that might happen at the end of the window in the last-minute merry-go-round.
The question then is…. Why are our wages so high/theirs so low. When we have a bigger crowd, and a similar sized club…
Yup, it’s not like the club and in particular Duff hasn’t said this already. Just another opportunity for some to moan for sake of moaning.