The financial backing helps massively. Saying that those with more money don't tend to be more successful in football would be ridiculous. Just because there might be young, innovative managers out there that doesn't mean that a) they are going to be appointed or b) that they will actually be successful at individual clubs which all differ. Not many clubs want to take a punt on an unproven manager.
Take my team for example, we only ended up with Eddie Howe due to being in a huge mess financially, but he turned out to be an astute tactician with the belief that team spirit is the most important factor and a possession-based philosophy. He ended up saving us from relegation despite a -17 point deduction and Jimmy Quinn's best efforts to fuck it up, taking us up the following season, and being in second in L1 before leaving to go to Burnley. That's a fantastic example of how with the right manager you don't need the funds to succeed, just as you suggest.
But we didn't go up, and we ultimately lost out to the three of the richest clubs in that division: Brighton, Southampton, and Peterborough. It wasn't until we ended up spending almost £2m in transfer fees and compensation to bring Eddie Howe back that we went up. It's incredibly difficult to move up the leagues with less money than those above you, because those teams can pay higher wages for better coaching staff, and better players. Just see Yeovil who just could not compete financially.
Some clubs are just bigger than others and have more money to spend, and that's fine. It's when they get the advantage of the FA handing them money via parachute payments etc. that I have a problem.
EDIT: Sunderland said to be closing in on signing Jack Rodwell from Man City. Thoughts?
