Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS SUMMER/AUTUMN 2020 (MUST CONTAIN LINK)
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:09 pm
So SD told us nothing would happen before today’s deadline, that does not mean we don’t have targets for the final deadline...
http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48686
It's the hope that kills you.elwaclaret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:09 pmSo SD told us nothing would happen before today’s deadline, that does not mean we don’t have targets for the final deadline...
I’ll have a bet with you, there won’t be a single club in the top two divisions that cease trading and at the very worst there will be a handful from the league and upper none league.AfloatinClaret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:45 pmWhat's the melt-down in aid of? My understanding is that we still have another week or two to sign players from other than the EPL? That should be good for another 20-30 pages, particularly now that the Dyche out!/Board out!/Sign everybody! brigade seem to have resurfaced and even if we don't, far from being the end of the world, I suspect that it might be for the best.
It might not look that way right now, it may look even less so come the end of this season, but at the beginning of the 2021/22 season (whichever division we're playing in) when we're there for the kick-off and not one of the dozens of clubs who've ceased trading over the summer, it'll look a very smart move.
Football Clubs are 'businesses' in the leisure/entertainment industry, just the same as cinemas/theatres/pubs/restaurants; this year is not first and foremost about making the top-6/8/10, or even in the worst case, avoiding relegation, it's about managing to continue trading and still being around next year and to my mind, reducing/minimising costs to stay within or close to our likely income is for BFC, the best way to achieve that. Lots of our competitors are still throwing money around, but they're already so deep in a financial hole of debt and contracted player salaries that relegation will bankrupt them anyway, so like a losing gambler, they're simply chasing their losses - they've no more to lose, only their creditors have - and if they do lose their EPL place, there's every likelihood that they'll spiral on down as so many have before them. We fortunately still have a choice and if the Directors can keep the club debt-free, or close to it, whilst SD and the players work equally hard to stay in the EPL we will do it but should we fail, then there's a high probability that we can halt the decline at the Championship and re-group from there.
That is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially, given the lack of matchday that is likely to be lenders rather than local businesses, though the more that do the more likely football creditors are going to be squeezed - for some clubs that could be the 2nd or 3rd time that administration has happened.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:13 pmI’ll have a bet with you, there won’t be a single club in the top two divisions that cease trading and at the very worst there will be a handful from the league and upper none league.
Talking of signing a few much needed players putting the entire future of the club at risk is utter utter nonsense.
If it’s been anything like the last couple of months the next two weeks should be absolutely pulsating for us in terms of incomings!The Enclosure wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:06 amThats all folks the big boy's window has slammed shut.
.
Now onto part two, the also rans window.I will get the popcorn.
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:53 amThat is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially, given the lack of matchday that is likely to be lenders rather than local businesses, though the more that do the more likely football creditors are going to be squeezed - for some clubs that could be the 2nd or 3rd time that administration has happened.
Our board are unlikely to want to take such a course of action - that appeared to be Barry Kilby's thinking post the ITV Digital collapse and the reason that Turf Moor and Gawthorpe were sold, he did not want administration because he knew that it would be local businesses who would suffer at our expense. It is worth remembering that many suppliers to all but the biggest clubs are also sponsors, I like to believe that Barry knew that and wanted to be able to look them in the eye knowing that he had done as much for them as they had done for the club.
There is another issue which is going to come to the fore if the current situation prolongs (and no one really knows when it will end) and that is clubs not being able to service their transfer debt - on Monday @SwissRamble did a long and detailed thread on debt - the scale of transfer debt is huge and has grown significantly this window with many small upfront payments and agreements in place for sizeable scheduled payments. It benefits a selling clubs accounts as they book the full transfer price but does little to help immediate cash flow. It will only take one or two significant clubs to fail to make their scheduled payments to create a sizable domino effect which would have a dramatic impact on cash flow across the game.
It is not a game our board have chosen to play this summer, preferring to strengthen the balance sheet and our future position in regard to both creditors and debtors (our own liabilities). It is also likely to have been why we were so adamant about cash up front in the sale of any of our star assets (I believe like many on here that the board were willing to make such a sale so they could then go out and strengthen the team/squad in the way in which we need, I am less convinced of Sean's willingness for such a plan, particularly when his apparent choice of replacement for Tarks got injured). According to the last published accounts (published after the January transfer window) we should now only have conditional transfer monies owed to us while we owe around £8m - £9m and have no more than £7m (probably less) of conditional payment liabilities. There is not another club in the league that has such low figures.
In less straightened, uncertain and unpredictable times it may be legitimate to say that is a sign of weakness, but at the moment it can be viewed as a position of strength. The trauma of the ITV digital years led to our club refusing to commit to significant debt unless it had the monies in place to cover them. I believe this was part of the reason for the growing cash pile (at least initially), of course that cash pile will have proven invaluable in these times and we appear to be the only club (or one of a very small number) that has not taken recourse to lenders or owners to help them deal with operational challenges even before we consider transfers.
Many clubs will be factoring incoming transfer payments if they can, passing the risks to the lenders and bringing the cash flow forward to the here and now. In turn the lenders will pricing the risk into their fees meaning that the cost of such a transaction is likely to be 10% - 15% (occasionally more as the number of such lenders is dwindling) of the transfer balance. Last summer such fees were around 7%. That is a high price, that comes straight off the bottom line.
Meanwhile our club, like all in the Premier League will be factoring the known reductions in central payment incomes to themselves (normally responsible for around 85% of our income and likely to be closer to 90% or more currently as season ticket money should be held in case of the need to refund) in the current and next season (currently around £40m and climbing) and calculating what else they may have to face in terms of rebates to broadcasters and sponsors together with lost matchday and commercial income. At the same time they will be addressing their fixed costs to align with revised income forecasts.
This, explained far more concisely by Chester Perry than I could manage.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:53 amThat is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially...
Great post Chester Perry. Good to wake up to someone who understands where the club is and the actions being taken to keep Burnley football club for the long term.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:53 amThat is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially, given the lack of matchday that is likely to be lenders rather than local businesses, though the more that do the more likely football creditors are going to be squeezed - for some clubs that could be the 2nd or 3rd time that administration has happened.
Our board are unlikely to want to take such a course of action -
Quote curtailed - only to save space.
We have massively underperformed in the last 3 to 4 transfer windows, even by Burnley standards. Did MG have a crystal ball 4 windows ago?BUT, on the other hand, is he being extremely clever and shrewd and despite the flack he's taking, simply protecting the medium term future of the club? In which case he should be applauded! It's a really tough one right now and only time will tell. I find I'm reluctant to criticise the chairman too vociferously, just in case he's got it right all long! But I still wanted us to make more signings!! Weird isn't it?
You are possibly correct - but Bolton were in the top 2 divisions not too long ago and they came very close to ceasing trading. It’s not like they are in the best of places now either.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:13 pmI’ll have a bet with you, there won’t be a single club in the top two divisions that cease trading and at the very worst there will be a handful from the league and upper none league.
Talking of signing a few much needed players putting the entire future of the club at risk is utter utter nonsense.
Just think if we would have not ‘underperformed’ - we might have beat last years record points tally by even more and finished top 6 ?
Could also mean Championship players wanting to play in the Prem and asking their club to sanction a move.BigChaCha wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:28 amFor those saying that the premier league is not our market for players and that we can still buy in the Championship etc... Do you not think we could have already purchased from the lower leagues already?
Prices for Championship players will now start going up significantly from yesterday when the Premier League window closed and there will now be more focus on the Championship so it's going to be even more competitive and far more expensive to buy players in that league!
that is complicated, and way over my head, but if I have got the gist of it, that explanation seems to show our board in a positive light. circumstances dictate a certain stance to maintain a degree of control that other clubs have not saw fit to adhere too.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:53 amThat is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially, given the lack of matchday that is likely to be lenders rather than local businesses, though the more that do the more likely football creditors are going to be squeezed - for some clubs that could be the 2nd or 3rd time that administration has happened.
Our board are unlikely to want to take such a course of action - that appeared to be Barry Kilby's thinking post the ITV Digital collapse and the reason that Turf Moor and Gawthorpe were sold, he did not want administration because he knew that it would be local businesses who would suffer at our expense. It is worth remembering that many suppliers to all but the biggest clubs are also sponsors, I like to believe that Barry knew that and wanted to be able to look them in the eye knowing that he had done as much for them as they had done for the club.
There is another issue which is going to come to the fore if the current situation prolongs (and no one really knows when it will end) and that is clubs not being able to service their transfer debt - on Monday @SwissRamble did a long and detailed thread on debt - the scale of transfer debt is huge and has grown significantly this window with many small upfront payments and agreements in place for sizeable scheduled payments. It benefits a selling clubs accounts as they book the full transfer price but does little to help immediate cash flow. It will only take one or two significant clubs to fail to make their scheduled payments to create a sizable domino effect which would have a dramatic impact on cash flow across the game.
It is not a game our board have chosen to play this summer, preferring to strengthen the balance sheet and our future position in regard to both creditors and debtors (our own liabilities). It is also likely to have been why we were so adamant about cash up front in the sale of any of our star assets (I believe like many on here that the board were willing to make such a sale so they could then go out and strengthen the team/squad in the way in which we need, I am less convinced of Sean's willingness for such a plan, particularly when his apparent choice of replacement for Tarks got injured). According to the last published accounts (published after the January transfer window) we should now only have conditional transfer monies owed to us while we owe around £8m - £9m and have no more than £7m (probably less) of conditional payment liabilities. There is not another club in the league that has such low figures.
In less straightened, uncertain and unpredictable times it may be legitimate to say that is a sign of weakness, but at the moment it can be viewed as a position of strength. The trauma of the ITV digital years led to our club refusing to commit to significant debt unless it had the monies in place to cover them. I believe this was part of the reason for the growing cash pile (at least initially), of course that cash pile will have proven invaluable in these times and we appear to be the only club (or one of a very small number) that has not taken recourse to lenders or owners to help them deal with operational challenges even before we consider transfers.
Many clubs will be factoring incoming transfer payments if they can, passing the risks to the lenders and bringing the cash flow forward to the here and now. In turn the lenders will pricing the risk into their fees meaning that the cost of such a transaction is likely to be 10% - 15% (occasionally more as the number of such lenders is dwindling) of the transfer balance. Last summer such fees were around 7%. That is a high price, that comes straight off the bottom line.
Meanwhile our club, like all in the Premier League will be factoring the known reductions in central payment incomes to themselves (normally responsible for around 85% of our income and likely to be closer to 90% or more currently as season ticket money should be held in case of the need to refund) in the current and next season (currently around £40m and climbing) and calculating what else they may have to face in terms of rebates to broadcasters and sponsors together with lost matchday and commercial income. At the same time they will be addressing their fixed costs to align with revised income forecasts.
not necessarily positive - just my explanation as to how I see the way that they have gone about things. Experience has taught them that they cannot trust for others to do what they see as the right thing (many entrepreneurs have no compunction in doing the opposite, some may question the morality of such excessive risk taking and effectively passing it over to creditors but the law doesn't.Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:48 amthat is complicated, and way over my head, but if I have got the gist of it, that explanation seems to show our board in a positive light. circumstances dictate a certain stance to maintain a degree of control that other clubs have not saw fit to adhere too.
So, rather than be critical of our lack of spending at this time, they are to be applauded for being prudent.
A lot of over 30's on there so you never knowRattyClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:18 amFree player list
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/statist ... osespieler
Fantastic post. And whilst I wouldn’t expect the majority of our fans to understand our predicament to that degree, I hope the posters making baseless accusations about our chairman make it past the first sentence.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:53 amThat is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially, given the lack of matchday that is likely to be lenders rather than local businesses, though the more that do the more likely football creditors are going to be squeezed - for some clubs that could be the 2nd or 3rd time that administration has happened.
Our board are unlikely to want to take such a course of action - that appeared to be Barry Kilby's thinking post the ITV Digital collapse and the reason that Turf Moor and Gawthorpe were sold, he did not want administration because he knew that it would be local businesses who would suffer at our expense. It is worth remembering that many suppliers to all but the biggest clubs are also sponsors, I like to believe that Barry knew that and wanted to be able to look them in the eye knowing that he had done as much for them as they had done for the club.
There is another issue which is going to come to the fore if the current situation prolongs (and no one really knows when it will end) and that is clubs not being able to service their transfer debt - on Monday @SwissRamble did a long and detailed thread on debt - the scale of transfer debt is huge and has grown significantly this window with many small upfront payments and agreements in place for sizeable scheduled payments. It benefits a selling clubs accounts as they book the full transfer price but does little to help immediate cash flow. It will only take one or two significant clubs to fail to make their scheduled payments to create a sizable domino effect which would have a dramatic impact on cash flow across the game.
It is not a game our board have chosen to play this summer, preferring to strengthen the balance sheet and our future position in regard to both creditors and debtors (our own liabilities). It is also likely to have been why we were so adamant about cash up front in the sale of any of our star assets (I believe like many on here that the board were willing to make such a sale so they could then go out and strengthen the team/squad in the way in which we need, I am less convinced of Sean's willingness for such a plan, particularly when his apparent choice of replacement for Tarks got injured). According to the last published accounts (published after the January transfer window) we should now only have conditional transfer monies owed to us while we owe around £8m - £9m and have no more than £7m (probably less) of conditional payment liabilities. There is not another club in the league that has such low figures.
In less straightened, uncertain and unpredictable times it may be legitimate to say that is a sign of weakness, but at the moment it can be viewed as a position of strength. The trauma of the ITV digital years led to our club refusing to commit to significant debt unless it had the monies in place to cover them. I believe this was part of the reason for the growing cash pile (at least initially), of course that cash pile will have proven invaluable in these times and we appear to be the only club (or one of a very small number) that has not taken recourse to lenders or owners to help them deal with operational challenges even before we consider transfers.
Many clubs will be factoring incoming transfer payments if they can, passing the risks to the lenders and bringing the cash flow forward to the here and now. In turn the lenders will pricing the risk into their fees meaning that the cost of such a transaction is likely to be 10% - 15% (occasionally more as the number of such lenders is dwindling) of the transfer balance. Last summer such fees were around 7%. That is a high price, that comes straight off the bottom line.
Meanwhile our club, like all in the Premier League will be factoring the known reductions in central payment incomes to themselves (normally responsible for around 85% of our income and likely to be closer to 90% or more currently as season ticket money should be held in case of the need to refund) in the current and next season (currently around £40m and climbing) and calculating what else they may have to face in terms of rebates to broadcasters and sponsors together with lost matchday and commercial income. At the same time they will be addressing their fixed costs to align with revised income forecasts.
Agree but we may have tried. We have no idea really. Once you find those you want or are prices right you then have to see if they’re available, want to move to us and if Dyche think’s they’re the right fit. And that noone else gets them. Before you know it there may only be a few optionssummitclaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:42 pmChester Perry's post just now as usual makes a lot of sense. I just can't understand why we have not made the modest investment to get a decent 3rd choice cb and replacement for Lennon, given JBG and RB's injury records, at least on loan.
Probably because that modest investment in a couple of players would have costs a few million at least, and another 50k per week. Not a lot in Premier League terms, but would probably be the difference between the club retaining all current non-playing staff, or letting 50+ people go.summitclaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:42 pmChester Perry's post just now as usual makes a lot of sense. I just can't understand why we have not made the modest investment to get a decent 3rd choice cb and replacement for Lennon, given JBG and RB's injury records, at least on loan.
There is a certain Steven Defour on that listRattyClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:18 amFree player list
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/statist ... osespieler
Didn't realise Mario Götze had been released by Dortmundsuperdimitri wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:09 pmA few stunning names on the free transfer list. Crazy to see how there careers panned out given their potential!
Yes beautifully written, but while Chester Perry is highly qualified it seems, I'd like to hear it from Garlick.
all are real issues of that there is no doubt, similarly I could be accused of being somewhat fatalistic - as I posted above it comes down to the way individuals view things and particularly as to how deeply they are honest with themselves as to what is most important to them, whatever their frustrations are with the distractions around it.Wokingclaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:33 pmCP does miss out on the now higher risk of relegation we face and the reductions to all areas of the club as a consequence. There was talk of Parachute payments being stopped! Might even be reduced if TV money is withheld
Just logged in to "like" thisChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:53 amThat is a scenario that could well occur - what would be more likely to happen should this closed door scenario prolong (especially into further seasons) is that a fair few could end up in administration and reset, with all non football creditors losing out substantially, given the lack of matchday that is likely to be lenders rather than local businesses, though the more that do the more likely football creditors are going to be squeezed - for some clubs that could be the 2nd or 3rd time that administration has happened.
Our board are unlikely to want to take such a course of action - that appeared to be Barry Kilby's thinking post the ITV Digital collapse and the reason that Turf Moor and Gawthorpe were sold, he did not want administration because he knew that it would be local businesses who would suffer at our expense. It is worth remembering that many suppliers to all but the biggest clubs are also sponsors, I like to believe that Barry knew that and wanted to be able to look them in the eye knowing that he had done as much for them as they had done for the club.
There is another issue which is going to come to the fore if the current situation prolongs (and no one really knows when it will end) and that is clubs not being able to service their transfer debt - on Monday @SwissRamble did a long and detailed thread on debt - the scale of transfer debt is huge and has grown significantly this window with many small upfront payments and agreements in place for sizeable scheduled payments. It benefits a selling clubs accounts as they book the full transfer price but does little to help immediate cash flow. It will only take one or two significant clubs to fail to make their scheduled payments to create a sizable domino effect which would have a dramatic impact on cash flow across the game.
It is not a game our board have chosen to play this summer, preferring to strengthen the balance sheet and our future position in regard to both creditors and debtors (our own liabilities). It is also likely to have been why we were so adamant about cash up front in the sale of any of our star assets (I believe like many on here that the board were willing to make such a sale so they could then go out and strengthen the team/squad in the way in which we need, I am less convinced of Sean's willingness for such a plan, particularly when his apparent choice of replacement for Tarks got injured). According to the last published accounts (published after the January transfer window) we should now only have conditional transfer monies owed to us while we owe around £8m - £9m and have no more than £7m (probably less) of conditional payment liabilities. There is not another club in the league that has such low figures.
In less straightened, uncertain and unpredictable times it may be legitimate to say that is a sign of weakness, but at the moment it can be viewed as a position of strength. The trauma of the ITV digital years led to our club refusing to commit to significant debt unless it had the monies in place to cover them. I believe this was part of the reason for the growing cash pile (at least initially), of course that cash pile will have proven invaluable in these times and we appear to be the only club (or one of a very small number) that has not taken recourse to lenders or owners to help them deal with operational challenges even before we consider transfers.
Many clubs will be factoring incoming transfer payments if they can, passing the risks to the lenders and bringing the cash flow forward to the here and now. In turn the lenders will pricing the risk into their fees meaning that the cost of such a transaction is likely to be 10% - 15% (occasionally more as the number of such lenders is dwindling) of the transfer balance. Last summer such fees were around 7%. That is a high price, that comes straight off the bottom line.
Meanwhile our club, like all in the Premier League will be factoring the known reductions in central payment incomes to themselves (normally responsible for around 85% of our income and likely to be closer to 90% or more currently as season ticket money should be held in case of the need to refund) in the current and next season (currently around £40m and climbing) and calculating what else they may have to face in terms of rebates to broadcasters and sponsors together with lost matchday and commercial income. At the same time they will be addressing their fixed costs to align with revised income forecasts.
We have plenty ooc next June e.g. Brady and Long.Steddyman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:03 pmProbably because that modest investment in a couple of players would have costs a few million at least, and another 50k per week. Not a lot in Premier League terms, but would probably be the difference between the club retaining all current non-playing staff, or letting 50+ people go.
Dyche doesn't play loan players anyway so that would be a waste! But I agree these should have been addressed as a minimumsummitclaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:42 pmChester Perry's post just now as usual makes a lot of sense. I just can't understand why we have not made the modest investment to get a decent 3rd choice cb and replacement for Lennon, given JBG and RB's injury records, at least on loan.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Colburn but we may have had to sell a key player or 2 to balance the books, and from my observations that is something that Sean has been steadfastly opposed to in the last couple of yearsColburn_Claret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:01 pmDo you accept that if we'd spent 20 million in each if the last 4 windows, we would now be 80 million in debt.
So is Dean Marney!
I agree completely.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:06 pmI wouldn't necessarily say that Colburn but we may have had to sell a key player or 2 to balance the books, and from my observations that is something that Sean has been steadfastly opposed to in the last couple of years
I am sure there are plenty who see me in a similar light and there are plenty that have chosen to up sticks and go and post on the other threads to complain since my postColburn_Claret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:31 pmI agree completely.
Your post expressed my feelings perfect, but in a far more lucid way than I could. Even the nay sayers seem to accept your reasoning that it isn't all MGs fault.
I'm unfortunately seen as just a happy clapper