Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:17 pm

Borrowing £50m from the government to sign players that we can’t afford is a ridiculous idea. I haven’t looked into any of these schemes but I can guarantee that they have not been put in place for that reason.

Staggered low interest instalments repayable long term, what’s not to like?

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:21 pm

My understanding is All players at Burnley have a relegation clause in there contracts that significantly drops there wages. So I imagine the yearly wage would drop to manageable levels in the championship otherwise what is the point of the clause.

You would also think that our highest paid (best) players would likely move to other premier league clubs thus reducing it further.

which is why I slashed the reported figure due to relegation clauses but it still appears inflated and unmanageable without asset stripping our entire team

Many posters now seem content with not investing in the squad now and just accepting relegation to then strip our team for cash. Why not invest now and try to stay up? If all goes wrong at least we tried, then we can strip our team for cash to become sufficient as a dull mid table Championship side.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:17 pm

Borrowing £50m from the government to sign players that we can’t afford is a ridiculous idea. I haven’t looked into any of these schemes but I can guarantee that they have not been put in place for that reason.

I wasn’t suggesting that we should spunk it on players. Can you imagine that? “Right Sean, I’ve got you a bounce back loan - £50m, who do you want?”

I specifically said as a reserve and return it when not needed.

Some on here think we have/will eat up our £41m cash reserves and are now/shortly going to be skint. If the situation is so bad, and we can burn through cash that quickly, why would it be such a bad idea to have a similar sum that in our back pocket?

If it’s actually not so bad, we should be able to fund signings ourselves anyway.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:26 pm

Staggered low interest instalments repayable long term, what’s not to like?

Borrowing money from the UK purse to buy footballers that we can’t otherwise afford? What’s to like? Morally the idea stinks and pragmatically it wouldn’t be allowed to happen.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:21 pm

My understanding is All players at Burnley have a relegation clause in there contracts that significantly drops there wages. So I imagine the yearly wage would drop to manageable levels in the championship otherwise what is the point of the clause.

You would also think that our highest paid (best) players would likely move to other premier league clubs thus reducing it further.

Fair enough. I hope that’s true. The bigger risk is that we lose everyone anyway because they want to leave not because they have to (manager inclusive).

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:34 pm

I wasn’t suggesting that we should spunk it on players. Can you imagine that? “Right Sean, I’ve got you a bounce back loan - £50m, who do you want?”

I specifically said as a reserve and return it when not needed.

Some on here think we have/will eat up our £41m cash reserves and are now/shortly going to be skint. If the situation is so bad, and we can burn through cash that quickly, why would it be such a bad idea to have a similar sum that in our back pocket?

If it’s actually not so bad, we should be able to fund signings ourselves anyway.

Why do we need a reserve if we budget accordingly? You don’t borrow £50m just in case you might need it. The idea is ridiculous.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:37 pm

Borrowing money from the UK purse to buy footballers that we can’t otherwise afford? What’s to like? Morally the idea stinks and pragmatically it wouldn’t be allowed to happen.

See the post above your counter, the intentions ideally designed for reserve purposes.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:38 pm

See the post above your counter, the intentions ideally designed for reserve purposes.

I’m pretty sure these schemes, which are funded by you and I, are not intended to provide football clubs, who are paying staff obscene wages, with a ‘reserve’.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:38 pm

Why do we need a reserve if we budget accordingly? You don’t borrow £50m just in case you might need it. The idea is ridiculous.

In this situation you’d expect BFC to have modelled a variety of financial scenarios from mild impact, moderate through to severe. In this case, based on when all the various lost income streams return to normal from an optimistic to a pessimistic view. We might have hoped for mild/moderate scenario but be heading to the more severe end of the spectrum now.

So you plan for the severe, hope for the mild. The Gym Group did this, raised enough capital to see them through 12 months of full closure. As it happens, £41m off a £150m pre-covid revenue so not dissimilar to the numbers we’re talking. The closure lasted 3 months so you’d assume some left over that will either be invested in the business or returned via a share buy back at some point.

Again, appreciate the differences, just saying to plan for a worst case scenario very early, can pay dividends because when everyone cottons in that the more severe scenario is occurring, everyone’s left fishing in the same pond.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:44 pm

I’m pretty sure these schemes, which are funded by you and I, are not intended to provide football clubs, who are paying staff obscene wages, with a ‘reserve’.

Quite possibly. My original point was that if it were available to us (which Paul has explained why it wasn’t), such a buffer might not’ even been the worst idea in the world.

Most of us have overdraft facilities with personal banking agreed at a certain limit at a certain rate, the principle remains the same for business banking purposes, just because somethings there doesn’t mean you have to use it.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:02 pm

Most of us have overdraft facilities with personal banking agreed at a certain limit at a certain rate, the principle remains the same for business banking purposes, just because somethings there doesn’t mean you have to use it.

Most business bank accounts will have an overdraft facility. That’s totally different than taking out an emergency loan from the state without needing it.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:15 pm

Most business bank accounts will have an overdraft facility. That’s totally different than taking out an emergency loan from the state without needing it.

I wasn't endorsing borrowing from the government although I didn't think it was a bad idea bearing in mind the intended purpose, the overdraft facility is just another way of accessing cash beyond on what you normally have made allowances for.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:21 pm

I wasn't endorsing borrowing from the government although I didn't think it was a bad idea bearing in mind the intended purpose, the overdraft facility is just another way of accessing cash beyond on what you normally have made allowances for.

If you’re not endorsing borrowing from the government then I really don’t know why you’re disagreeing with me.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:15 pm

Most business bank accounts will have an overdraft facility. That’s totally different than taking out an emergency loan from the state without needing it.

Bit of a myth that one Riley. Most SMEs in the UK do not have an overdraft facility on their business accounts.

The regulation and compliance around personal and business lending is also very different. As are the costs (fees and interest) for the two.

Even the way overdraft and loan facilities are assessed for businesses and personal customers is very different with the latter being in the large assessed by automated credit scoring / credit reference agency data and the former still being a largely manual process based on appetite to risk, business sector etc etc

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:22 pm

If you’re not endorsing borrowing from the government then I really don’t know why you’re disagreeing with me.

I didn't realise I was disagreeing with you, I thought we was having a discussion nothing more nothing less

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:24 pm

Bit of a myth that one Riley. Most SMEs in the UK do not have an overdraft facility on their business accounts.

The regulation and compliance around personal and business lending is also very different. As are the costs (fees and interest) for the two.

Even the way overdraft and loan facilities are assessed for businesses and personal customers is very different with the latter being in the large assessed by automated credit scoring / credit reference agency data and the former still being a largely manual process based on appetite to risk, business sector etc etc

Fair enough. You obviously have a much better knowledge of that industry than me. I thought most business accounts would have a small overdraft facility to prevent payments bouncing etc.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:24 pm

I didn't realise I was disagreeing with you, I thought we was having a discussion nothing more nothing less

Fair enough. But you did say the following about taking a £50m gov loan;

’ Staggered low interest instalments repayable long term, what’s not to like?’

We disagree on enough things on here so no need to do so happy to not do on this occasion!!

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:27 pm

Fair enough. You obviously have a much better knowledge of that industry than me. I thought most business accounts would have a small overdraft facility to prevent payments bouncing etc.

No - partly because so few payments bounce these days. A tiny fraction of total payments are made by cheques.

BTW have we signed anyone from the Championship yet?

Firthy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:10 am

BTW have we signed anyone from the Championship yet?

Think we are just waiting for the 20m bank loan from TSB to arrive

Can I just point out that it’s a LOAN and so will have to be repaid with an element of interest. Tax payers aren’t funding it.

Riley seems to be suggesting that borrowing it for reserve is wrong. I suspect multiple businesses across all sectors have taken the benefit of the bounce back loans for that very purpose. If you don’t use, you give it back. What’s the issue?

Whatever it is used for is totally irrelevant.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:11 am

Think we are just waiting for the 20m bank loan from TSB to arrive

TSB Transfer Shy Burnley or more like Transfer Shy Board

Firthy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:18 am

TSB Transfer Shy Burnley??

Knew I should have said santander, that would have made ya task harder

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:20 am

Knew I should have said santander, that would have made ya task harder

Santander??

Speculation And Note The Absence No Deals Ever Realised

Firthy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:28 am

Santander??

Speculation And Note The Absence No Deals Ever Realised

Or Stephens and Norris Their Arrival Noted Doesn't Everyone Realise.

Firthy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:28 am

Santander??

Speculation And Note The Absence No Deals Ever Realised

Apologies I mixed up lenders, I meant National & Provincial Building Society

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:38 am

Apologies I mixed up lenders, I meant National & Provincial Building Society

Apologies but it might take me a while to get back on this one, I've got a hallway to decorate

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 pm

Can you explain this, if our wage bill is currently around £80m (after bonuses), for arguments sake let’s estimate it would be around £45m in the Championship, how do we pay that? What’s the income from the TV deal for Championship sides?

I was told on here we can’t spend in the transfer market now and bank on the fact we have 4 or 5 players we could sell after relegation for £10m+ but surely we’d desperately need to sell those.

Because of the relegation clauses, 3 years parachute payments and the inevitable sale of a couple of our best assets.
Simples

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:15 pm

Relegation with Covid still around is a disaster. It's worth a 3rd choice cb and right sided winger to avoid.

Thats only true if 3rd choice CB and right sided winger can GUARANTEE you don't get relegated.
There's no such thing as a guarantee in football, and only a fool gambles when they can't afford to lose.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:46 pm

I don’t think we would be living within our means if we got relegated. I think we’d fairly instantly need to sell all our best players to chop the wage bill (not sure what relegation clauses exist in individual players contracts). That’s before you consider that players would likely want to leave even if we didn’t have to sell, and the manager would also likely want out. That’s if he doesn’t go to Forest in the meantime

Why would it be fatal? Assuming you spent that money wisely, you’d still have an asset you could sell (potentially at a profit) to repay and debt very quickly.

We also have 3-5 very saleable players we could (and would need to) sell to clear any debts.

The laughable thing about this argument is that I hate debt I don’t take any personally and only buy what I can afford. I’m saying it’s not always bad and there’s a time for it occasionally (times like these).

We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I've looked at it from both sides, but the biggest insight to the dangers of gambling is the many teams that have done it before us and failed. We should all know the consequences if we get it wrong.
IF we were to go down, even losing a couple of first team, with the parachute payments we'd be in a strong position to bounce back, imo.
If that money has to go to repay loans we'd be on a slippery slope to God knows what.

Just a thought on gambling in this way. I can’t think of any team that has gambled and succeeded.

In any case even if it did keep us up we would need to keep spending so next year we would be financially less stable but needing to go into the market again. Surely that is just a slippery slope that none of us want to go down.

BFC TRANSFER NEWS SUMMER/AUTUMN 2020 (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

andyh wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:52 am

Just a thought on gambling in this way. I can’t think of any team that has gambled and succeeded.

In any case even if it did keep us up we would need to keep spending so next year we would be financially less stable but needing to go into the market again. Surely that is just a slippery slope that none of us want to go down.

I can, us, under Owen Coyle.

Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:12 am

Thats only true if 3rd choice CB and right sided winger can GUARANTEE you don't get relegated.
There's no such thing as a guarantee in football, and only a fool gambles when they can't afford to lose.

And only worth not doing if you can GUARANTEE stopping up by not investing in the playing squad.

It's a fine balance.

Spending ( guessing ) 15m now could potentially earn us another 130m by stopping up.
IF that 15m doesnt manage to do that, at least we have given ourselves a better chance, and should we go down, I'm sure we would manage to recoup some if not all of the 15m outlay in trying. ( or sale from another player )

An example, as Dawson has shown this summer, he is being let go for the 4m fee Watford paid last summer.
Sometimes there's slight profit, sometimes small loss, sometimes a break even.
1 thing is a certainty is players dont lose their full value in 12 months just because they get relegated.

Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:12 am

Thats only true if 3rd choice CB and right sided winger can GUARANTEE you don't get relegated.
There's no such thing as a guarantee in football, and only a fool gambles when they can't afford to lose.

Maybe only a fool tries to go through a PL season with 2 gaping gaps its squad and give the impression that it has perhaps accepted relegation after 3 games. There is a week left to prove me wrong and sign a 3rd choice cb and a right sided winger. I'd even accept Brady, Dunne and Benson then going out on loan to bring in some revenue.

There are enough ooc next Summer that we won't need then, such as Long, to enable us to reduce the revenue budget if necessary.

Jed Wallace - Millwall right winger - has been recommended by a couple of UTC championship followers. 10 goals and 13 assists last season. £5 million bid might create some interest from Millwall. I wonder if he is Sean's 'wanted' list?

Mala591 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:07 pm

Jed Wallace - Millwall right winger - has been recommended by a couple of UTC championship followers. 10 goals and 13 assists last season. £5 million bid might create some interest from Millwall. I wonder if he is Sean's 'wanted' list?

If he was £5 he might be

No signs then of Burnley swooping to sign Championship Ace?

MACCA wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:21 am

And only worth not doing if you can GUARANTEE stopping up by not investing in the playing squad.

It's a fine balance.

Spending ( guessing ) 15m now could potentially earn us another 130m by stopping up.
IF that 15m doesnt manage to do that, at least we have given ourselves a better chance, and should we go down, I'm sure we would manage to recoup some if not all of the 15m outlay in trying. ( or sale from another player )

An example, as Dawson has shown this summer, he is being let go for the 4m fee Watford paid last summer.
Sometimes there's slight profit, sometimes small loss, sometimes a break even.
1 thing is a certainty is players dont lose their full value in 12 months just because they get relegated.

This is the way I see it.

You’ve basically got a decision to take whether you invest and improve your chances of staying up, or not, and risking losing much larger sums. That’s not to say not investing guarantees relegation. But equally, if it does occur, you still have the assets you e invested in to sell. Invest well and there’s every chance prices increase, not decrease.

To improve the chances of players holding their value, it’s probably better to go for the more desirable, younger, creative/attacking players. Wilson likely a good example of that. As would be Buendia, Cantwell, Brooks, etc. King/Dawson less so.

I just don’t see investing as such a “major risk” if it is done sensibly with younger players.

I don’t think we’re particularly high risk of relegation just yet. Despite a poor start, we can turn it around, but also there is a big psychological factor in seeing the club strengthen and competition added to the squad. Without that it’s easy to get stuck in a rut, even with decent players.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:06 pm

I don’t think we’re particularly high risk of relegation just yet. Despite a poor start, we can turn it around, but also there is a big psychological factor in seeing the club strengthen and competition added to the squad. Without that it’s easy to get stuck in a rut, even with decent players.

3rd faves for the drop at the moment, according to the bookies. We need the first point/points on the board, that will lift everybody up a bit.

Without any freshening up of the squad SD has the difficult task of trying to motivate the same group of players that have heard it all before. Many of the players (including captain Ben Mee) had spoken out about the shortage of numbers and the squad lacking any real depth.

Let's hope and pray that Brady and JBG come through a round of International fixtures unscathed.

Before a ball was kicked this season Burnley were 3/1 to be relegated (Ladbrokes/WH) which made us 6th favourites.

kentonclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:33 pm

Without any freshening up of the squad SD has the difficult task of trying to motivate the same group of players that have heard it all before. Many of the players (including captain Ben Mee) had spoken out about the shortage of numbers and the squad lacking any real depth.

Let's hope and pray that Brady and JBG come through a round of International fixtures unscathed.

Before a ball was kicked this season Burnley were 3/1 to be relegated (Ladbrokes/WH) which made us 6th favourites.

That's a good point. As much as the players seem to clearly like and respect Dyche, when you've been hearing the same things for 5 or 6 years it must start to lose a bit of impact. That's why it's so important to freshen up the squad and keep people on their toes.

Realistically is their anyone in the Championship that will improve our first eleven and won't cost us a lot of money?

If no then why bother?
The way I see it we will likely be looking at a relatively unknown if they are to be cheap (therefore risky) or no better than what we have.
If they are a big improvement and a decent age then will likely be out of our price range?

Goobs wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:53 pm

Realistically is their anyone in the Championship that will improve our first eleven and won't cost us a lot of money?

If no then why bother?
The way I see it we will likely be looking at a relatively unknown if they are to be cheap (therefore risky) or no better than what we have.
If they are a big improvement and a decent age then will likely be out of our price range?

Difficult to disagree with that, the bargains to be had are mostly overseas & risk attached, cover to displace long etc & other backups will workout cheaper but definitely won’t be starting adhering to a budget.

arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:09 am

I can, us, under Owen Coyle.

And how did that work out... we won the lottery yet 2 years later we were back at square one.

Jed Wallace
Osayi-Samuel
Dawson

Loan out Dunne and or Benson ( possibly to Millwall as they’ve seen what they can do) .

Window done .

andyh wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:03 pm

And how did that work out... we won the lottery yet 2 years later we were back at square one.

Maybe the question to ask is where would we be if we hadnt taken that chance and hadnt gone up that year ?

Goobs wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:53 pm

Realistically is their anyone in the Championship that will improve our first eleven and won't cost us a lot of money?

If no then why bother?
The way I see it we will likely be looking at a relatively unknown if they are to be cheap (therefore risky) or no better than what we have.
If they are a big improvement and a decent age then will likely be out of our price range?

Well, I certainly don't want to see us go out and buy average Championship players. I'd rather we trusted our own than buy mediocrity.

Good buys do exist though. Brownhill is an example of one that was relatively cheap that has improved us (I think). Dawson is relatively cheap and would offer us more experience and a good goal threat/RB cover. BOS, whilst not my favoured choice, could offer cover on both wings and potentially turn out good under Dyche. Without harping on about Eliasson when the ships sailed, I think he would have improved us and went for £2m. So they do exist.

I agree that the ones I'd really like - Buendia, Cantwell, Brooks, King (maybe not), are going to be in a higher bracket, but I imagine you are only looking at 25% or so up front this year. If we bought and went down, you'd expect to be able to at least recover, if not profit from all of them, depending how they performed this year.

I think we often look at the very worst case scenario. I would rather we think more about what we might sell a player for when we buy them? Or how much further up the league table we may end up, baring in mind that 10 places = £20m. So, over two seasons a £20m player that helps us finish five places higher each season pays for themselves.

Interesting point about the promotion under Coyle and whether it was a gamble. I think what actually happened was the Brendan Flood came forward with significant financial support, which we accepted and used. Then subsequently the financial crash ruined some of Brendan's business interests leaving us to repay loans as demanded by the administrator. So at the time it wasn't so much of a gamble as no one could foresee the financial problems that caused us such problems.