I think i make it quite clear i don't want to give him any. I don't think I am the only one. He got lucky with Dyche...we all did.
We are where we are despite Garlick...not because of him.
I think i make it quite clear i don't want to give him any. I don't think I am the only one. He got lucky with Dyche...we all did.
In my opinion that is utter nonsense.Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:34 pmI think i make it quite clear i don't want to give him any. I don't think I am the only one. He got lucky with Dyche...we all did.
We are where we are despite Garlick...not because of him.
That is fine and i understand that. He has got the balance wrong though..in my opinion.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:33 pmOne man's tied hands and frugality is another mans sunstainability and strong financial management.
He wasn't actually chairman when Dyche was appointed. He was co-chairman with John B and I know that Lee Hoos played a big part in the selection process. It then went to the full board with, I know, one board member not in favour.BurnleyFC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:32 pmI’ll forever thank Mr Garlick for his early tenure and for appointing Mr Dyche in the first instance, but I still think his leadership has been a shambles for the last 18 months or so. For that, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how the new chairman operates.
I mean the skills to take us further forward which yes this is capitalising on our current wave in the most publicised league in the world. The commercial gains we've made in the last 5 years can't be called a success really can it. We've still got small, relatively unknown, local businesses sponsoring stands and advertising boards around the ground. Unfortunately if you want the club to move forward in a global league you need to look globally. I think this is what a lot of our fans can't understand. A lot say we're "selling our soul" which I get but you can't have it both ways.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:22 pmI disagree with the current board "Not having the skill". I still think if you drew up a league table of the 92 clubs in the league, and gave points for right decisions taken, I still suspect Burnley would be in the top 6 in the whole country.
...
I suspect that their perceived lack of skill may be that they've not monetised the club's success enough. I think there's an expectation that monetising it means with bigger sponsors (Many of the Sponsors they have sought out have been criticised by a proportion of fans), but the reality for Burnley is I suspect monetising it from fans and from corporate hospitality. I'd ask you a question.... how would you feel if the new owners said, we're going to sign a £20m player, but we need £2m a year in wages, so we're adding £100 a year to season tickets / ticket prices? Realistically, that probably wouldn't be too far off a 5% per year increment for each season in the Premier League, rather than freezing prices. Would YOU be ok with that price increase next season?
There are sayings, there's also real life things like bankruptcy and liquidation, which is what happens when you spend beyond the income of the business. The club have invested. They are carrying the highest ever wage bill. That wage bill is unsustainable without external funding if the club were to be relegated. The likelihood of relegation at the start of the season was put at between 30% and 40% (based on 100% markets with the bookmakers). That's a significant enough business risk I would say to not stretch beyond the capabilities of the business. As I said above, their biggest mistake is probably that they've not charged fans enough to maximise income, in order to provide funds to stretch (and save for the somewhat inevitible relegation).Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:37 pmThat is fine and i understand that. He has got the balance wrong though..in my opinion.
There is a saying in business. If you stand still..you go backwards. That is where we are at..ever so slowly and painfully.
Completely agree, very few Clarets were impressed when SD was appointed. Even the most even handed Clarets (including myself) had reservations and awaited events with a degree of trepidation. The fact that the board filtered such a gem from a reasonable pack of options was some of the best upper management I’ve ever witnessed. They deserve to be remembered at our club every bit as much as Bob Lord for their influence on the club.
You've misunderstood my term "the skills". As I've said in reply to dande, I meant the skills commercially to capitalise on our current participation in a globally watched league were we're still heavily reliant on local businesses for sponsorship. I know we're not the only Premier League club like this but arguably they have benefactrices in other areas, i.e. wealthy owners.aggi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:27 pmI think they've demonstrated over the past few years that they certainly have the skills. What they don't have is the financial backing.
The current owners/directors don't have the pockets to bail the club out if things go wrong and football isn't an industry where it's particularly easy to get significant lines of credit.
Arguably the infrastructure improvements could have been debt funded to leave more funds for the squad but that carries its own risks.
There aren't that many options for a club like us.
Ask Sheff Wed if they think our board have got it wrong thus far.Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:37 pmThat is fine and i understand that. He has got the balance wrong though..in my opinion.
There is a saying in business. If you stand still..you go backwards. That is where we are at..ever so slowly and painfully.
Or Bolton, Blackburn, Portsmouth, Sunderland, Bury... I could go on.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:48 pmAsk Sheff Wed if they think our board have got it wrong thus far.
Not sure what Sheffield Wednesday have got to do with our board.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:48 pmAsk Sheff Wed if they think our board have got it wrong thus far.
Agreed-I would say other than Brian Laws we have made (at the time) good managerial signings going as far back as Stan and including Coyleelwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:46 pmCompletely agree, very few Clarets were impressed when SD was appointed. Even the most even handed Clarets (including myself) had reservations and awaited events with a degree of trepidation. The fact that the board filtered such a gem from a reasonable pack of options was some of the best upper management I’ve ever witnessed. They deserve to be remembered at our club every bit as much as Bob Lord for their influence on the club.
bf2k wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:43 pmI mean the skills to take us further forward which yes this is capitalising on our current wave in the most publicised league in the world. The commercial gains we've made in the last 5 years can't be called a success really can it. We've still got small, relatively unknown, local businesses sponsoring stands and advertising boards around the ground. Unfortunately if you want the club to move forward in a global league you need to look globally. I think this is what a lot of our fans can't understand. A lot say we're "selling our soul" which I get but you can't have it both ways.
I won't take away the work they have done up to this point. We've been a model club that many have followed since and that needs celebrating but not dwelling on.
On the season ticket prices, again much like the "selling our soul" debate. If we want to maintain eating at the top table, unfortunately, you have to pay a fair going rate for eating there. This includes the fans as well.
To answer your question, yes I'd pay extra if we were seeing football worthy the extra money and gave us a better chance of progressing forward. We're the cheapest team to watch but probably the worst to watch as well footballing wise. Those facts are no coincidence.
I don't get this - 'getting lucky with Sean Dyche' nonsense - The Chairmen didn't sack him after relegation - that shows loyalty, trust and good leadership. Besides, aren't all clubs lucky when they make a good managerial appointment?ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:54 pmNot sure what Sheffield Wednesday have got to do with our board.
The simple fact is that two of our board members own around 77% of the company between them and they want to sell their shares which is their right. It's not whether they've been good or bad directors, not whether they have or haven't fallen out with anyone, not whether they got lucky with Sean (which to an extent they obviously did because you never know with any managerial appointment), not anything other than they wish to sell their shareholding, or part of it, in the company.
Well I suspect what you are talking about in reality is patience for things to develop and grow, we have built (and continue to do so, at a steady pace) - prior to lockdown we had more than doubled our commercial income in the previous 3 seasons (which is impressive, even given our lowly starting point) - moving ourselves out of the relegation zone (table wise) in this respect - is there more to be done? absolutely - but the club have continued to make progress in this direction with the appointment in August of someone with that specific remit.bf2k wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:48 pmYou've misunderstood my term "the skills". As I've said in reply to dande, I meant the skills commercially to capitalise on our current participation in a globally watched league were we're still heavily reliant on local businesses for sponsorship. I know we're not the only Premier League club like this but arguably they have benefactrices in other areas, i.e. wealthy owners.
This pretty much sums up my feelings too. At the start of our Premier league journey we seemed to have a model of gradual improvements off the field, and importantly a succession plan on it. So - absolutely, credit where it is due for that model of operating. However, in the last couple of years, any on-field planning seems to have been discarded and we've switched to a make do and mend approach. Recruitment, succession, contracts and by all accounts communicating with the manager have all gone by the wayside. We're hanging on despite the chairman at the moment so the sooner he collects his windfall and moves on, the better for the club.Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:28 pmONE decision has enabled Mike Garlick to walk away from the club with a big fat cheque. The appointment of Sean Dyche as manager. He has generally done his best to hinder and tie Dyches hands but Dyche still gives him the reward of TV money every season.
The training ground improvements are largely down to Dyches prompting and the dire necessity with the condition it was in. If we hadn't been in the Prem (down to Dyche) would we have improved it? Would Garlick have invested or taken the step? I very much doubt it.
It is quite a sad indictement that he treats Dyche like he does..even though it is likely it isn't all one way.
If Garlick did any good work at the start of his reign he has rapidly dismantled it in the latter part with the frugality and his ability to alienate not only the manager but several other key people within the club.
Commercially selling Burnley football club is harder than any other team in the league. Through our population size, geographically hidden in the shadows of the pennines, with much bigger towns all around us. The problem with the spend, spend, spend brigade, is their lack of ability to grasp reality. Mike Garlick, John B, Barry Kilby are all very successful businessmen. They know how to run a business, and how not, and the dangers, especially to football clubs that live beyond their means.bf2k wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:48 pmYou've misunderstood my term "the skills". As I've said in reply to dande, I meant the skills commercially to capitalise on our current participation in a globally watched league were we're still heavily reliant on local businesses for sponsorship. I know we're not the only Premier League club like this but arguably they have benefactrices in other areas, i.e. wealthy owners.
I think you’re mistaking sycophantic fawning for giving due credit for a job well done.Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:05 pmSo predictable...Sheff Wed, Bolton etc all get trotted out. Just waiting for the Orient game to get thrown in for the full house (i was there by the way!)
Do you really think I am advocating p*ssing money away willy nilly? There is a middle ground. There has been little to no investment in the first team of any note (Brownhill aside) in the last 3 years. Our squad is ageing and thin. Is that what we have to accept? Dyche doesn't seem too happy to accept it if rumours about his unhappiness are true even if he gets on with it professionally in the meantime. You do all realise that he quite likely would be away if a decent job came up? Why is that do you think?
The slide is inevitable and once relegated (as alluded to) we would be forced to sell and do a complete rebuild even though we most likely have relegation clauses in the players contracts. Do you think these players will readily accept it or look for a transfer?
The status quo as it is has no long term future. Totally self defeating. Something had to give.
Fortunately (and i will give Garlick credit for this) i think he realises the same. Hence the requirement to sell. I certainly don't think he has done it to line his pockets. However all this sycophantic fawning over him is just blind nonsense.......in my opinion.
Was the £15m investment in Gibson not in the last 3 years?Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:05 pmSo predictable...Sheff Wed, Bolton etc all get trotted out. Just waiting for the Orient game to get thrown in for the full house (i was there by the way!)
Do you really think I am advocating p*ssing money away willy nilly? There is a middle ground. There has been little to no investment in the first team of any note (Brownhill aside) in the last 3 years. Our squad is ageing and thin. Is that what we have to accept? Dyche doesn't seem too happy to accept it if rumours about his unhappiness are true even if he gets on with it professionally in the meantime. You do all realise that he quite likely would be away if a decent job came up? Why is that do you think?
The slide is inevitable and once relegated (as alluded to) we would be forced to sell and do a complete rebuild even though we most likely have relegation clauses in the players contracts. Do you think these players will readily accept it or look for a transfer?
The status quo as it is has no long term future. Totally self defeating. Something had to give.
Fortunately (and i will give Garlick credit for this) i think he realises the same. Hence the requirement to sell. I certainly don't think he has done it to line his pockets. However all this sycophantic fawning over him is just blind nonsense.......in my opinion.
Brendan Flood?ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:37 pmHe wasn't actually chairman when Dyche was appointed. He was co-chairman with John B and I know that Lee Hoos played a big part in the selection process. It then went to the full board with, I know, one board member not in favour.
Not sure why this reply was to me, I was only saying there is luck with any managerial appointment. As for not sacking him after relegation, that didn't show loyalty or trust, it was down to the fact that he knew because the club were taking a lot of the money to spend on the training ground which severely limited us in the transfer market.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:02 pmI don't get this - 'getting lucky with Sean Dyche' nonsense - The Chairmen didn't sack him after relegation - that shows loyalty, trust and good leadership. Besides, aren't all clubs lucky when they make a good managerial appointment?
Kilby and the board were simply unlucky then, when they appointed Brian Laws
I think Laws was on a hiding to nothing, and was very brave taking the job he so wanted at the worst possible time. OC had ripped the soul from the club and the infighting within the squad meant that he never stood a chance. I remember half the squad was not talking to the other half... It needed more time than Laws would ever be given to turn around. He had been out of the game too long and never really found his feet.warksclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:57 pmAgreed-I would say other than Brian Laws we have made (at the time) good managerial signings going as far back as Stan and including Coyle
Dear me , people still defending Lawselwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:19 pmI think Laws was on a hiding to nothing, and was very brave taking the job he so wanted at the worst possible time. OC had ripped the soul from the club and the infighting within the squad meant that he never stood a chance. I remember half the squad was not talking to the other half... It needed more time than Laws would ever be given to turn around. He had been out of the game too long and never really found his feet.
What fans forget both SD and Brian Laws learnt from one of the best managers of all time Clough, and even cough needed Peter Taylor to back him.
Laws was bombed out by Sheff Wed a month before he joined us.elwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:19 pmIt needed more time than Laws would ever be given to turn around. He had been out of the game too long and never really found his feet.
Hadn't he been sacked a couple of weeks before he joined us. That was part of the bewilderment, that he'd just been sacked from a team in the championship relegation zone and then got a job in the premier league.elwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:19 pmI think Laws was on a hiding to nothing, and was very brave taking the job he so wanted at the worst possible time. OC had ripped the soul from the club and the infighting within the squad meant that he never stood a chance. I remember half the squad was not talking to the other half... It needed more time than Laws would ever be given to turn around. He had been out of the game too long and never really found his feet.
What fans forget both SD and Brian Laws learnt from one of the best managers of all time Clough, and even cough needed Peter Taylor to back him.
I read the article on the Magic money tree thread about Sheff Wed and their history of over spending, not getting value for money etc, hence the reference to them when someone is complaining about our board managing the money sensiblyClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:54 pmNot sure what Sheffield Wednesday have got to do with our board.
The simple fact is that two of our board members own around 77% of the company between them and they want to sell their shares which is their right. It's not whether they've been good or bad directors, not whether they have or haven't fallen out with anyone, not whether they got lucky with Sean (which to an extent they obviously did because you never know with any managerial appointment), not anything other than they wish to sell their shareholding, or part of it, in the company.
I think if there was a chasm between our commercial revenue and equivalent clubs then that would be a fair point. As it is our commercial revenue has grown steadily and isn't hugely out of line with others.bf2k wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:48 pmYou've misunderstood my term "the skills". As I've said in reply to dande, I meant the skills commercially to capitalise on our current participation in a globally watched league were we're still heavily reliant on local businesses for sponsorship. I know we're not the only Premier League club like this but arguably they have benefactrices in other areas, i.e. wealthy owners.
Once the deal has been confirmed then that surely should be our only concern. It looks as though we have played our final game under the current board so now it is a case of just waiting for the news. Will it be today as I had thought last week? Maybe not, but I'll be surprised if it's not done by the time we move into 2021. Then it's a case of waiting to see what Alan Pace has to say and going from there.clarethomer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:37 pmI much preferred reading about the new owners and trying to understand the future of the club rather than trying to lobotomise the tenure of our current directors and previous managers and how we compare to other clubs that have nothing to do with this takeover.
Possibly and I’m not saying I was thrilled with his arrival, but I know if I’d have been offered the job I’d have taken it. Laws had made it plain many times he always wanted the job... Flood it is a matter of record wanted him... so he came.
Great read, Steddyman. Thanks for posting.
ALK closes in on £120m deal for Premier League BurnleyClaretAL wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:53 pmThis lot reckon £120M
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2020 ... e-burnley/
How on earth has this thread got to Laws? As said, Flood wanted him when Cotterill left even though he'd already spoken to Coyle and he was always his number one target then. I'm not sure who we could have got to be honest, Sean O'Driscoll would definitely not have been a better appointment, but the Laws appointment was not good. Having said that, the way the players treated him was a disgrace and, for balance, they tried to treat Howe in the same way but he was strong enough to ship them out.elwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pmAbsolutely I’m happy to defend Laws. He was offered and took the job he had always wanted, for reasons mostly beyond his control he NEVER had more than one in a million chance here.
Not sure CT to be honest... just read something, and I hate scapegoating. Really looking forward to seeing what Pace has to say. Getting excited for what is next on our claret journey through life.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:11 pmHow on earth has this thread got to Laws? As said, Flood wanted him when Cotterill left even though he'd already spoken to Coyle and he was always his number one target then. I'm not sure who we could have got to be honest, Sean O'Driscoll would definitely not have been a better appointment, but the Laws appointment was not good. Having said that, the way the players treated him was a disgrace and, for balance, they tried to treat Howe in the same way but he was strong enough to ship them out.
Anyway, back to the takeover and The Athletic, as the post above, are reporting that Alan Pace will become our next chairman, only the seventh in all my years watching the Clarets.
Agreed , because he wasn’t up to it , still he was handsomely rewarded for all his trouble.elwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pmAbsolutely I’m happy to defend Laws. He was offered and took the job he had always wanted, for reasons mostly beyond his control he NEVER had more than one in a million chance here.
Last comment on this Joey as has been pointed out what is the point.... I’m not sure how many other managers would have come, it maybe needed a transitional manager to try and steady the ship after OC and Laws was available and willing to give his dream job a go, knowing the odds were stacked.
As you know Paul - a staged payment profile/share transfer for a takeover is not unusual even in football - it could easily be 60% of shares initially which would allow finance for squad development/new contracts - I am sure many would say tying Tarks to a new deal would be excellent business (though I worry about our salary ceiling being raised to high, given our underlying revenues)Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:06 pm
Interesting that the figure is quoted at £120 million. Until it's confirmed we won't know. If it is just purchase of MG's and JB's shares, maybe it will never be disclosed.
Interesting reports on Soton and the valuations of their proposed deal.
Exciting times.
UTC
Out of interest, what other clubs are you comparing us with?aggi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:41 pmI think if there was a chasm between our commercial revenue and equivalent clubs then that would be a fair point. As it is our commercial revenue has grown steadily and isn't hugely out of line with others.
The real area where we suffer is matchday revenue and that's obviously a fine balancing act.