“I’ve not had a budget”
-
- Posts: 3181
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 273 times
“I’ve not had a budget”
Dyche said in an interview this morning that he doesn’t have a budget and that he has to generate money to spend it.
Can anyone with a better understanding of the clubs’ finances that me explain why this might be?
I get that the club are being left behind by the willingness of even the smaller Prem clubs to run astronomical wage bills, but that doesn’t explain why, for example, we might need to sell Wells to spend a relatively modest sum on Brownhill.
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... on-1379889
Can anyone with a better understanding of the clubs’ finances that me explain why this might be?
I get that the club are being left behind by the willingness of even the smaller Prem clubs to run astronomical wage bills, but that doesn’t explain why, for example, we might need to sell Wells to spend a relatively modest sum on Brownhill.
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... on-1379889
-
- Posts: 3912
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1284 times
- Has Liked: 684 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Let's be absolutely clear, finance is available for player acquisitions IF the Board choose to take that option. Said a while ago that the BoD had become very uncomfortable with the level of our Wage bill, that was in July'18 when £86.1m was the figure revealed for the financial year ended June'18. No coincidence that was the start of the first of four transfer windows since when there has been little or no significant activity in the transfer market. People can draw their own conclusions.
These 2 users liked this post: FactualFrank elwaclaret
-
- Posts: 19492
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3177 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I would guess (I am not an accountant) that from an accounts position of
wages - renewed deals and signings since last accounts means basic wages probably around £65m for football staff then bonuses so £75m - £85m
Amortisation - following the signings of - Hart, Vydra, Gibson, Pieters, Peacock-Farrell and Jay is likely to be up over £35m and probably more given Defour, Heaton and Vokes are the only significant player outgoings with little accounts value (so good book profit on two of them)
Income of £125 - £130m doesn't leave much when you add other staff costs. upgrades and maintenance to facilities - I suspect we spend £1m+ on pitch maintenance alone between the Turf and Gawthorpe
wages - renewed deals and signings since last accounts means basic wages probably around £65m for football staff then bonuses so £75m - £85m
Amortisation - following the signings of - Hart, Vydra, Gibson, Pieters, Peacock-Farrell and Jay is likely to be up over £35m and probably more given Defour, Heaton and Vokes are the only significant player outgoings with little accounts value (so good book profit on two of them)
Income of £125 - £130m doesn't leave much when you add other staff costs. upgrades and maintenance to facilities - I suspect we spend £1m+ on pitch maintenance alone between the Turf and Gawthorpe
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I think is something many fans don't think about and take into account.Royboyclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:03 pmLet's be absolutely clear, finance is available for player acquisitions IF the Board choose to take that option. Said a while ago that the BoD had become very uncomfortable with the level of our Wage bill, that was in July'18 when £86.1m was the figure revealed for the financial year ended June'18. No coincidence that was the start of the first of four transfer windows since when there has been little or no significant activity in the transfer market. People can draw their own conclusions.
Any guesstimate as to what you feel the club's yearly wage target is, to get down to?
-
- Posts: 19492
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3177 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
As I have said before - they suddenly realised that even in an exceptional year they would make no extra money as it all went in bonuses - I suspect that they are slowly working on tweeking that as the new deals work their way through the squadRoyboyclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:03 pmLet's be absolutely clear, finance is available for player acquisitions IF the Board choose to take that option. Said a while ago that the BoD had become very uncomfortable with the level of our Wage bill, that was in July'18 when £86.1m was the figure revealed for the financial year ended June'18. No coincidence that was the start of the first of four transfer windows since when there has been little or no significant activity in the transfer market. People can draw their own conclusions.
Last edited by Chester Perry on Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
We do but dont waste it on players we dont need and dont playFactualFrank wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:11 pmI think is something many fans don't think about and take into account.
Any guesstimate as to what you feel the club's yearly wage target is, to get down to?
-
- Posts: 10173
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Do you think the board had no idea what the wage bill was ?Royboyclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:03 pmLet's be absolutely clear, finance is available for player acquisitions IF the Board choose to take that option. Said a while ago that the BoD had become very uncomfortable with the level of our Wage bill, that was in July'18 when £86.1m was the figure revealed for the financial year ended June'18. No coincidence that was the start of the first of four transfer windows since when there has been little or no significant activity in the transfer market. People can draw their own conclusions.
You keep doing this, you spent a full season hammering the board for having such a small wage bill ( while having no idea what the wage bill was ) then when it came out you expressed surprise. Now you have shifted the goalposts to say they are uncomfortable with the wage bill that they would have agreed to, or do you think there is a rogue member at the club secretly agreeing wages while not telling the main men ?
Never has someone been so bitter about the cancelling of the AGM which is what this all stems from really.
This user liked this post: ClaretTony
-
- Posts: 19492
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3177 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Slight typo Roy £81.6m in the 18 accounts but your point remains true
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
It's a business, it has books, they need to be balanced regardless of which league you play in, incomings and outgoings, assets that age decrease, assets that become worthless, assets that can increase in value; all these are variables. There are know assets written off, perhaps the Turf itself, yet new stands might still be written off, Gawthorpe in same category.
In reality BFC is set up like any other business, the recruitment team/group are essentially the Business Development Team, there job is to: 1. look historically at what has happened, what was not successful and try to remedy or offset, sales/loans. 2. Look to the future, what can we buy now that will improve numerous areas, team performance and ensure we stay a Tier 1 Company, buy for a low price with the aim to sell on in the future at a profit. This group in a nutshell are the heart of the Business and ensures success or failure, or standing still.
The Board, like any other Company set the vision for the next 5 years as a long term goal, and each year as to here are the objectives, here are the parameters you can work within, read budget, this is not a fixed in stone budget and can be changed if the right deal and business plan is put together. However these business plans are always subject to failure, therefore a risk analysis is required, these are the fundamentals that anyone has to work in, Man City and all, difference is they can absorb a risk and failure where other smaller Tier 1 Companies, (BFC) can not.
SD is the General Manager in many ways, ensure we stay a Tier 1 company is the main directive, work with BD to approve any BD plan for improvement, sale/loan either way/purchase, yet he does not really look at it from the Business side totally, he looks to the basic normal running of the business, do I agree or not this will improve day to day operation of the Company.
Of course he will be involved in other basic needs, how can we improve training to upgrade the normal day to day business, training facilities, management/supervisor staff, (back room)
What we don't know is what is the Yearly Operating Plan budget, and how much is spent on BD to improve the whole round business of BFC, what level of risk is to be taken, the risk can/will fluctuate dependent upon numerous factors which will be different every year, injuries/results being two major causes to change risk factors.
I personally don't believe the BD (Recruiting) side of BFC business is say in the top quartile, and I am not talking about money/budget but in how effective it's strategic plan and tactical implementation of the Yearly Plan is.
Brownhill/Wells is a small indication of the tactical implementation of that strategic plan, appears to be a good win for BFC, but in a normal business would be considered poor performance overall.
In reality BFC is set up like any other business, the recruitment team/group are essentially the Business Development Team, there job is to: 1. look historically at what has happened, what was not successful and try to remedy or offset, sales/loans. 2. Look to the future, what can we buy now that will improve numerous areas, team performance and ensure we stay a Tier 1 Company, buy for a low price with the aim to sell on in the future at a profit. This group in a nutshell are the heart of the Business and ensures success or failure, or standing still.
The Board, like any other Company set the vision for the next 5 years as a long term goal, and each year as to here are the objectives, here are the parameters you can work within, read budget, this is not a fixed in stone budget and can be changed if the right deal and business plan is put together. However these business plans are always subject to failure, therefore a risk analysis is required, these are the fundamentals that anyone has to work in, Man City and all, difference is they can absorb a risk and failure where other smaller Tier 1 Companies, (BFC) can not.
SD is the General Manager in many ways, ensure we stay a Tier 1 company is the main directive, work with BD to approve any BD plan for improvement, sale/loan either way/purchase, yet he does not really look at it from the Business side totally, he looks to the basic normal running of the business, do I agree or not this will improve day to day operation of the Company.
Of course he will be involved in other basic needs, how can we improve training to upgrade the normal day to day business, training facilities, management/supervisor staff, (back room)
What we don't know is what is the Yearly Operating Plan budget, and how much is spent on BD to improve the whole round business of BFC, what level of risk is to be taken, the risk can/will fluctuate dependent upon numerous factors which will be different every year, injuries/results being two major causes to change risk factors.
I personally don't believe the BD (Recruiting) side of BFC business is say in the top quartile, and I am not talking about money/budget but in how effective it's strategic plan and tactical implementation of the Yearly Plan is.
Brownhill/Wells is a small indication of the tactical implementation of that strategic plan, appears to be a good win for BFC, but in a normal business would be considered poor performance overall.
This user liked this post: Funkydrummer
-
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 250 times
- Has Liked: 684 times
- Location: Clitheroe
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Football is not “a normal business” by so many definitions. Not least the fact that most clubs are willing to, and indeed have to, run at a loss to carry on existing. What other business sector is like that. Therefore to compare football to other businesses is pointless. At the end of the day football survives because there are enough wealthy benefactors to keep clubs going and football authorities who don’t want to see the game collapse entirely.
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Generating finance is pretty vague.
It could be anything up to not getting relegated.
It could be anything up to not getting relegated.
-
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2242 times
- Has Liked: 1619 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I'd agree with this. It's only in fairly recent years that football clubs became 'businesses' and the normal business model does not apply even now. Most businesses are, or at least try to, run at a profit, that is the reason for their existence, football clubs are NOT businesses in that respect. They have never existed to make a profit, that has never been their raison d'être, they are sports clubs first and foremost and if they make a profit all well and good. Historically most clubs in this country ran at a loss. People so dearly want to, it seems, equate football clubs with businesses but that has never been the case until all the money started to roll in from Sky etc.Whitgord wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:52 pmFootball is not “a normal business” by so many definitions. Not least the fact that most clubs are willing to, and indeed have to, run at a loss to carry on existing. What other business sector is like that. Therefore to compare football to other businesses is pointless. At the end of the day football survives because there are enough wealthy benefactors to keep clubs going and football authorities who don’t want to see the game collapse entirely.
-
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:57 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 75 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I find threads like this interesting. It just seems a shame that people who criticise rarely seem to get involved and see that it’s nowhere near as easy as they make out. I’m sure Deloitte’s have recommended in past 60% for wages to turnover ratio and the UEFA guidelines are 70%. If our turnover is ~£120m and we spend £84m on wages, there’s your 70%. An average Premier League player will set you back around £50k a week in wages, so a new player is £2.5m on top of that wage bill straight away before bonuses, which we know we’re aggressive with. I think the one question for Burnley is where the profits go when we’re running at sustainable levels as we are? If Hendrick leaves on a free, is this where you spend the money saved for a rainy day on a fee and see wages as pretty much like for like? Is it saved for capital investments? There’s been a lot of great work done on the training ground and Turf Moor, but when people talk about ambition we can’t settle for what we’ve got if we want to keep moving forward, or even consolidate. I suppose this is the big problem the club have. They want to be transparent to fans, but they also can’t be naïve and reveal their plans to all and sundry.
This user liked this post: Siddo
-
- Posts: 8373
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2981 times
- Has Liked: 2079 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
All smoke and mirrors, take no notice.
-
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:57 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 75 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Whilst I agree that football clubs aren’t there to make a profit, I think there’s a big difference between talking about pre-sky and now. When a club like ours makes a profit, it’s not to give shareholders and directors a windfall, it’s to keep the club on a sustainable footing and the money sits there for the club. You can’t run a Premier League club to make a loss unless you’ve got a billionaire backer. Even in the days where most clubs have these, many at Premier League level have stopped running at a loss. If Burnley ran at a loss for one season and it coincided with a bad run of form which saw us relegated, we’d be almost doomed. At the very best we’d have a fire sale of our best players to cut the wage bill to something approaching achievable at Championship level, and at worst we’d be lumbered with players we couldn’t offload and a wage bill that would dwarf our income for 2 to 3 years. Forget how you run a business, you simply don’t run a sports club at that level of risk.houseboy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:07 pmI'd agree with this. It's only in fairly recent years that football clubs became 'businesses' and the normal business model does not apply even now. Most businesses are, or at least try to, run at a profit, that is the reason for their existence, football clubs are NOT businesses in that respect. They have never existed to make a profit, that has never been their raison d'être, they are sports clubs first and foremost and if they make a profit all well and good. Historically most clubs in this country ran at a loss. People so dearly want to, it seems, equate football clubs with businesses but that has never been the case until all the money started to roll in from Sky etc.
This user liked this post: BennyD
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Those profits are, I assume, there for when we get relegated.ChorltonCharlie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:09 pmI find threads like this interesting. It just seems a shame that people who criticise rarely seem to get involved and see that it’s nowhere near as easy as they make out. I’m sure Deloitte’s have recommended in past 60% for wages to turnover ratio and the UEFA guidelines are 70%. If our turnover is ~£120m and we spend £84m on wages, there’s your 70%. An average Premier League player will set you back around £50k a week in wages, so a new player is £2.5m on top of that wage bill straight away before bonuses, which we know we’re aggressive with. I think the one question for Burnley is where the profits go when we’re running at sustainable levels as we are? If Hendrick leaves on a free, is this where you spend the money saved for a rainy day on a fee and see wages as pretty much like for like? Is it saved for capital investments? There’s been a lot of great work done on the training ground and Turf Moor, but when people talk about ambition we can’t settle for what we’ve got if we want to keep moving forward, or even consolidate. I suppose this is the big problem the club have. They want to be transparent to fans, but they also can’t be naïve and reveal their plans to all and sundry.
It's inevitable that we'll get relegated at some point and that will see a huge drop in income. We don't have wealthy backers who will subsidise us through this period so we need to build up a surplus that we can use to fund another attempt at promotion after we go down.
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
- Been Liked: 225 times
- Has Liked: 248 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Sell the players you never play and buy some better ones maybe?
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Yeah, we'll just run with a 15 man squad. Great idea.Giftonsnoidea wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:32 pmSell the players you never play and buy some better ones maybe?
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Not many ‘businesses’ can rely on the ‘customers’ to keep ‘buying’ the ‘product’ come rain or shine, whether it be good, bad or indifferent either. Although the customer numbers might change of course. I suppose, actually, with Sky money etc., the customer is actually also part of the product. I’m getting lost with all this now.
-
- Posts: 19492
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3177 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
If you look at the old fashioned customer contribution (non-TV, non-sponsorship) you would find that we generate around 20% of the football staffs basic wages with nothing left over for transfersRMutt wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:51 pmNot many ‘businesses’ can rely on the ‘customers’ to keep ‘buying’ the ‘product’ come rain or shine, whether it be good, bad or indifferent either. Although the customer numbers might change of course. I suppose, actually, with Sky money etc., the customer is actually also part of the product. I’m getting lost with all this now.
-
- Posts: 6542
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
- Been Liked: 983 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
"You can't run a Premier League club to make a loss unless you've got a billionaire backer"
What the Burnley business model is showing us is that relying solely on the £120 million makes it almost impossible, without some wheeler dealing, to buy a player ready for first team action. We simply cannot compete with the other clubs who have outside investment when it comes to the transfer market. Hence, I suppose, why several windows have opened and closed without squad strengthening.
What the Burnley business model is showing us is that relying solely on the £120 million makes it almost impossible, without some wheeler dealing, to buy a player ready for first team action. We simply cannot compete with the other clubs who have outside investment when it comes to the transfer market. Hence, I suppose, why several windows have opened and closed without squad strengthening.
-
- Posts: 2681
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
- Been Liked: 782 times
- Has Liked: 1437 times
- Location: Mostly Europe
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
The bonuses are an interesting point to me- I understand these are for staying in the league.
At what stage and how can these be changed to say, finishing above 12th and a semi final of a cup (example). So how do we stretch the bonuses or make them more challenging?
At what stage and how can these be changed to say, finishing above 12th and a semi final of a cup (example). So how do we stretch the bonuses or make them more challenging?
-
- Posts: 19492
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3177 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
It is believed that we give all additional TV prize monies earned above 18th place to the football staff - there are almost certainly bonus clauses for the cups too - it is more or less impossible to be any more aggressive with the bonus for the League unless the sponsors throw in additional moniesBurnleyareback2 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:33 pmThe bonuses are an interesting point to me- I understand these are for staying in the league.
At what stage and how can these be changed to say, finishing above 12th and a semi final of a cup (example). So how do we stretch the bonuses or make them more challenging?
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Yes, I appreciate we are less important than we used to be in terms of our financial contribution. Hence my comment about us also being a part of the product. I suppose Sky et al could try broadcasting games from empty grounds but it wouldn’t be the same would it?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:59 pmIf you look at the old fashioned customer contribution (non-TV, non-sponsorship) you would find that we generate around 20% of the football staffs basic wages with nothing left over for transfers
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I've seen this stated a few times but I've no idea where it comes from. Is there a reason people think this?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:38 pmIt is believed that we give all additional TV prize monies earned above 18th place to the football staff - there are almost certainly bonus clauses for the cups too - it is more or less impossible to be any more aggressive with the bonus for the League unless the sponsors throw in additional monies
-
- Posts: 19492
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3177 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
as last accounts were published with total wages of £81.6m Dyche said we paid football staff £58m so if you look at the margin it is effectively filled by that prize money plus a bit extra for non footballing staff - that comes on the back of the Chairman saying we had the most aggressive bonus scheme in the League - and giving the footballing staff all that extra income is unthinkable to most clubs
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Thars right and why Burnley generally buy players they can develop to gain add on value. ie Ings, Kean, Tarkowski, Pope etc. As well as buying old steady eddie pros Bardsley and Pieters. So Sean Dyche and co have keep pulling rabbits out of the hat or developing a player McNeil. Not easy but its been very successful to date and long may it continue.kentonclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:01 pm"You can't run a Premier League club to make a loss unless you've got a billionaire backer"
What the Burnley business model is showing us is that relying solely on the £120 million makes it almost impossible, without some wheeler dealing, to buy a player ready for first team action. We simply cannot compete with the other clubs who have outside investment when it comes to the transfer market. Hence, I suppose, why several windows have opened and closed without squad strengthening.
This user liked this post: Funkydrummer
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I think I'm right in saying that the depreciation of each player as an asset is spread across the length of his contract.
So if we signed Wells for 5 million on a 3 year deal that's 1.7 million a year (roughly) so 2 years later over 3 million has already been offset in the books.
Hendrick has already renewed his contract so I presume his value as an asset is 0.
So if we signed Wells for 5 million on a 3 year deal that's 1.7 million a year (roughly) so 2 years later over 3 million has already been offset in the books.
Hendrick has already renewed his contract so I presume his value as an asset is 0.
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
- Been Liked: 70 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Is it possible we are stuffing the balance sheet to sell the club?
-
- Posts: 6663
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2007 times
- Has Liked: 3357 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I think we have to be to mindful of the fact that the current level of PL funding is by and large fixed. I.E. around the £125? million mark give or take due to league position, extra televised games etc. And whilst the current deal has been in force and until it runs out, that will remain the case. HOWEVER, since we entered the PL (and re entered) the amount we are having to stump up in wages has increased dramatically and is eating further and further into that annual golden egg. I suppose the trick is to stay solvent AND in the PL ready for when the next TV deal is negotiated and implemented, as on past performance there SHOULD be a significant rise in the money on offer.
-
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2242 times
- Has Liked: 1619 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Fair points. I understand that clubs need to sustain themselves and that is the right thing to do. But some people seem to judge the club by its bank balance and, for a football club, that is not what it should be about.ChorltonCharlie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:17 pmWhilst I agree that football clubs aren’t there to make a profit, I think there’s a big difference between talking about pre-sky and now. When a club like ours makes a profit, it’s not to give shareholders and directors a windfall, it’s to keep the club on a sustainable footing and the money sits there for the club. You can’t run a Premier League club to make a loss unless you’ve got a billionaire backer. Even in the days where most clubs have these, many at Premier League level have stopped running at a loss. If Burnley ran at a loss for one season and it coincided with a bad run of form which saw us relegated, we’d be almost doomed. At the very best we’d have a fire sale of our best players to cut the wage bill to something approaching achievable at Championship level, and at worst we’d be lumbered with players we couldn’t offload and a wage bill that would dwarf our income for 2 to 3 years. Forget how you run a business, you simply don’t run a sports club at that level of risk.
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
No. The most valuable asset is Premier League status, and that doesn't appear on the balance sheet.9thMay1987 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:23 pmIs it possible we are stuffing the balance sheet to sell the club?
At the sort of levels Premier League clubs are sold for, the odd £30m in the bank is neither here nor there.
-
- Posts: 3571
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2606 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
-
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2242 times
- Has Liked: 1619 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I'm thinking FOOTBALL mate. You know, that game played between two teams to see who can score most goals. The problem is, and it seems that many Clarets do this, too many fans equate 'success' with bank balance.
'What score - oh the game. Sorry I'm not too fussed about that but have you seen the size of our bank balance'.
Maybe a bit extreme an example but you get my drift.
-
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2242 times
- Has Liked: 1619 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Good points. It seems that many people don't realise that the more income you have doesn't necesarilly mean you are 'richer'. Football has an inflation rate that simply wouldn't be acceptable anywhere in the real world and all the income in the world is no use if costs are outstripping earnings. Burnley FC have more money now than at any time in their history, by a long long way, but it seems their ability to compete in terms of tranfers and wages is possibly worse than it has ever been (at the top level). That is not the club's fault at all, it's a result of the bigger clubs (and a lot of 'smaller' ones) thinking that more money means 'no limits'. Who knows where it will end but end it must because no company, organisation or even country can continue with an inflation rate like that in football currently. Something will have to give.Dark Cloud wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:27 pmI think we have to be to mindful of the fact that the current level of PL funding is by and large fixed. I.E. around the £125? million mark give or take due to league position, extra televised games etc. And whilst the current deal has been in force and until it runs out, that will remain the case. HOWEVER, since we entered the PL (and re entered) the amount we are having to stump up in wages has increased dramatically and is eating further and further into that annual golden egg. I suppose the trick is to stay solvent AND in the PL ready for when the next TV deal is negotiated and implemented, as on past performance there SHOULD be a significant rise in the money on offer.
I'm not certain that there will be a signiciant rise in the money on offer though with the increase in 'other options' for viewing games on the telly. I think we may, hopefully, be seeing the slow down in what the PL gets paid for games now. I could be wrong of course.
Last edited by houseboy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
- Been Liked: 428 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leicestershire
- Contact:
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
I assume he is using it in the sense that he hasn't been told "there is £15m for buying players in January". It doesn't mean there is no money available. He is being disingenuous to avoid having to talk about potential transfer targets.agreenwood wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:44 pmDyche said in an interview this morning that he doesn’t have a budget and that he has to generate money to spend it.
Can anyone with a better understanding of the clubs’ finances that me explain why this might be?
It is a tactic - the truth but not the whole truth.
-
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:09 pm
- Been Liked: 445 times
- Has Liked: 187 times
- Location: Manchester
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Good point.houseboy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:31 amI'm thinking FOOTBALL mate. You know, that game played between two teams to see who can score most goals. The problem is, and it seems that many Clarets do this, too many fans equate 'success' with bank balance.
'What score - oh the game. Sorry I'm not too fussed about that but have you seen the size of our bank balance'.
Maybe a bit extreme an example but you get my drift.
One of the reasons why manure are in the mess they are. Too much emphasis on returns to stayaway shareholders and not enough on results.
The more games a team wins the more valuable it is
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
What I cant get my head around is the bonus payments agreed on the PL Merit monies, why would they not put a ceiling on the payment to the staff..why on earth hand over all the 27 million which I understand they did in the season we finished 7th...absolute madness.
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Fortunately they didn't do that. About half the bonus was for stopping up; only half the merit money went on player bonuses.ewanrob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:21 amWhat I cant get my head around is the bonus payments agreed on the PL Merit monies, why would they not put a ceiling on the payment to the staff..why on earth hand over all the 27 million which I understand they did in the season we finished 7th...absolute madness.
-
- Posts: 3571
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2606 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Don't you think just saying football is a little bit over simplistic of the world that football now operates in?houseboy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:31 amI'm thinking FOOTBALL mate. You know, that game played between two teams to see who can score most goals. The problem is, and it seems that many Clarets do this, too many fans equate 'success' with bank balance.
'What score - oh the game. Sorry I'm not too fussed about that but have you seen the size of our bank balance'.
Maybe a bit extreme an example but you get my drift.
So results are important, and currently, Burnley are doing better than the vast majority of clubs on the planet. Definitely doing better than any clubs with similar available assets. They are accumulating a surplus, because whilst not impossible, it's difficult to continue to deliver at a level so far above your natural position. So, whilst they can, they squirrel a bit away and make sure you're running a tight ship, because unfortunately when it boils down to it, there's not enough people, just there for the "Football", to pay for "Football", if the club starts to normalise to where it should be in the league.
So really, whilst it's not "all about" the balance sheet, it's also not "all about" "The Football" - it's about the whole lot.
This user liked this post: Braindead
-
- Posts: 6663
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2007 times
- Has Liked: 3357 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Absolutely, and when Utd (for example) decide (stupidly imo) to shell out £80 million for Maguire, I know a lot of us simply laugh out loud into our beer and think "daft buggers!!", but actually my heart sinks because that then means the extremely average Robby Brady's of this world are suddenly £20 million pound players (with wages to match!) and they're definitely not!! The negative knock on effects to clubs like us of confetti money transfers transfers between the "massive" clubs is enormous.houseboy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:45 amGood points. It seems that many people don't realise that the more income you have doesn't necesarilly mean you are 'richer'. Football has an inflation rate that simply wouldn't be acceptable anywhere in the real world and all the income in the world is no use if costs are outstripping earnings. Burnley FC have more money now than at any time in their history, by a long long way, but it seems their ability to compete in terms of tranfers and wages is possibly worse than it has ever been (at the top level). That is not the club's fault at all, it's a result of the bigger clubs (and a lot of 'smaller' ones) thinking that more money means 'no limits'. Who knows where it will end but end it must because no company, organisation or even country can continue with an infdlation rate like that in football currently. Something will have to give.
I'm not certain that there will be a signiciant rise in the money on offer though with the increase in 'other options' for viewing games on the telly. I think we may, hopefully be seeing the slow down in what the PL gets paid for games now. I could be wrong of course.
This user liked this post: houseboy
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
The total bonus last season was about the same as the merit money; that's by coincidence. The system is for a bonus for stopping up and an extra bonus for finishing higher up the league. If we had finished 17th, the players' bonus would be significantly higher than the merit money.
This is all from reading between the lines and picking up hints. In 2016-17 they said that players' bonuses for stopping up were based on time on the pitch, and a player who played every games would get about £1m. Hence total bonuses about £12m, say. When we finished 7th, the total bonus (per Sean Dyche) was £25m or so - hence about half of that must have been for finishing as high as 7th. That's my reading, anyway.
-
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2242 times
- Has Liked: 1619 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Totally agree mate - no argument here. It's just that many (not you it seems) seem to think that if the club is in a healthy financial state that is all that matters. To many (including me) winning and making serious attempts to win trophies (as opposed to just surviving in a league that gives a good cash payout) is what it should be about. Yes you need money to pay wages and pay bills etc. but at the cost of what? Many complain on here about the quality of the football we serve up most of the time and that is because of the overwhelming desire to play in the PL, we cannot compete with the big clubs financially and that translates to on the field as well (most of the time). This is why, although I am proud we are in the PL, I would not shed any tears if we were relegated because the Championship would, hopefully, bring more actual entertainment. No, we wouldn't get anywhere near the money we get now but we wouldn't need as much in order to compete to a decent level.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:39 amDon't you think just saying football is a little bit over simplistic of the world that football now operates in?
So results are important, and currently, Burnley are doing better than the vast majority of clubs on the planet. Definitely doing better than any clubs with similar available assets. They are accumulating a surplus, because whilst not impossible, it's difficult to continue to deliver at a level so far above your natural position. So, whilst they can, they squirrel a bit away and make sure you're running a tight ship, because unfortunately when it boils down to it, there's not enough people, just there for the "Football", to pay for "Football", if the club starts to normalise to where it should be in the league.
So really, whilst it's not "all about" the balance sheet, it's also not "all about" "The Football" - it's about the whole lot.
In a nutshell we have to ask the question: do we want to watch our team play pretty dull stuff (most of the time, there are exceptions) and have 125 million in the bank or do we want the club to be ticking over financially and watch the team play attacking, fearless football and actually 'enjoy' what we are watching. I would prefer the latter but others may disagree.
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Would imagine this is part truth part mind games.
We probably do have enough money to do some deals but not enough for the fees and wages of players we'd like to sign. The money we'd need to make the kind of signings we want will be tied up in players like Vydra, Gibson and Hart. As with Brownhill a significant part of the finance in that deal will have come from the fee for Wells plus freeing up whatever wages we would have been contributing on his loan to QPR.
If we agree deals to sell/loan/release players like Gibson, Vydra and Hart then that money would hopefully be used to top up finance we have available to make longer term signings. Would hate us to waste it on loaning someone for 6 months that we either wouldn't be able to or wouldn't want to sign permanently. Would be a great opportunity to bring in younger players (Osayi-Samuel, Eliasson, Bogle, Fry for example) to gradually introduce this season so they're up to speed for next season when we may have lost players like Tarkowski and McNeil.
We probably do have enough money to do some deals but not enough for the fees and wages of players we'd like to sign. The money we'd need to make the kind of signings we want will be tied up in players like Vydra, Gibson and Hart. As with Brownhill a significant part of the finance in that deal will have come from the fee for Wells plus freeing up whatever wages we would have been contributing on his loan to QPR.
If we agree deals to sell/loan/release players like Gibson, Vydra and Hart then that money would hopefully be used to top up finance we have available to make longer term signings. Would hate us to waste it on loaning someone for 6 months that we either wouldn't be able to or wouldn't want to sign permanently. Would be a great opportunity to bring in younger players (Osayi-Samuel, Eliasson, Bogle, Fry for example) to gradually introduce this season so they're up to speed for next season when we may have lost players like Tarkowski and McNeil.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
- Been Liked: 225 times
- Has Liked: 248 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Nope I didn’t say that....
And also as he never plays them it wouldn’t make too much difference anyway
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 5734
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2835 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
We did some excellent business yesterday.
But - these comments from Dyche are not good from a PR perspective and they do detract a little bit from the good news story that should exist. He knows what the headline is - "I've not had a budget". It adds to a pattern of negative comments from Dyche, and the different but in their way similarly sombre comments of Garlick and Bentley, over an extended period. Bluntly, someone needs to put a knot in it.
Dyche is wrong, because he has had a budget. He chose to spend £25 million two summers ago on Gibson and Vydra during a summer when we didn't actually sell anyone of note. Garlick has also repeatedly said that there's money to spend. It's just that it is not enough to enable us to sign the players that Dyche wants to buy, which is a slightly different thing. He's not the first manager to make complaints over the size of his budget but it's not helpful, and the disconnect between him and Garlick lends the impression that the top of the club is not wholly aligned when it comes to transfer strategy.
Brownhill is an excellent signing and a ringing endorsement of what can be done. It'd be better for Dyche to package his message about the size of his budget in a more positive wrapper, reflecting the fact that we can compete, it just needs a bit more patience - and perhaps there is scope for some more creativity in certain positions.
But - these comments from Dyche are not good from a PR perspective and they do detract a little bit from the good news story that should exist. He knows what the headline is - "I've not had a budget". It adds to a pattern of negative comments from Dyche, and the different but in their way similarly sombre comments of Garlick and Bentley, over an extended period. Bluntly, someone needs to put a knot in it.
Dyche is wrong, because he has had a budget. He chose to spend £25 million two summers ago on Gibson and Vydra during a summer when we didn't actually sell anyone of note. Garlick has also repeatedly said that there's money to spend. It's just that it is not enough to enable us to sign the players that Dyche wants to buy, which is a slightly different thing. He's not the first manager to make complaints over the size of his budget but it's not helpful, and the disconnect between him and Garlick lends the impression that the top of the club is not wholly aligned when it comes to transfer strategy.
Brownhill is an excellent signing and a ringing endorsement of what can be done. It'd be better for Dyche to package his message about the size of his budget in a more positive wrapper, reflecting the fact that we can compete, it just needs a bit more patience - and perhaps there is scope for some more creativity in certain positions.
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
- Been Liked: 225 times
- Has Liked: 248 times
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
Sell two players that never play and buy one better one, seems pretty simple to me, dosent play loan players either
Re: “I’ve not had a budget”
You didn't, but that's the logical extension to your argument.Giftonsnoidea wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:28 pmNope I didn’t say that....
And also as he never plays them it wouldn’t make too much difference anyway
It wouldn't make a difference unless and until we suffer injuries in the areas that the players that never play are there to cover.