I see a lot of people suggesting that we instigate a complete overhaul of the squad by selling 10 players and replacing them with 10 better players. I am saying that I don't think that is either (i) possible; and (ii) a good idea. The reasons are the same reasons most clubs in our position don't do it: you typically don't get good value for your money (can you sell that many players and attract the right replacements, in one go, without making a big net loss and/or signing a load of duds?) and the instability caused generally means you lose rather than gain places.I'm a Menshevik, though, so am an advocate of gradual revolution.
For promoted clubs I'm saying that I'm not sure the comparison holds because there are no places to lose, no stability to disrupt, and the money is different. Even for promoted teams it doesn't guarantee success. For every Leeds or a Sunderland there is an Ipswich or a Luton or a Fulham. That's a slightly different convo, too, about the relative strengths of the Premier League and Championship season to season.
Of course if you do it well, it doesn't matter. The point is that it is extremely unusual for a club to do it well because a lot of the conditions that determine whether it is done well are outside of a club's control (largely market forces - availability of a market to sell into and assets to buy)
