Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:09 pm

no, he's implying that whatever you spend you have to be able to afford it otherwise you get yourself into a whole heap of trouble. That's not negativity, them's the facts

ok

Or do no business, get relegated and lose a high percentage of your income

Spijed wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:16 pm

If four quality players were to sign, everyone would expect them all to play, pretty much straight away.

And if four new players replace four existing ones from the start of next season we will only head in one direction and follow Fulham through the trap door.

It never works out well when too many good players sign all at once.

not sure about that. I'd doubt very much we would go out and sign 4 starters but I would hope we would get 2. I'm yet to see an interview with any player from any team that doesn't enjoy the competition of new faces coming into the team, not only does it improve the team it freshens the dynamic in the dressing room. Fulham's issue may well have been too many all at once though

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:40 pm

A 17th place finish doesnt suggest 'easily' good enough to stay up to me.The idea of not strengthening for several windows eventually biting us on the backside is exactly that...it will eventually reach a point where an already old squad, geting older, low on numbers, will not be able to compete.We got away with it, by one place, last season .As for the 'flow' of players from the academy and Under 23s , thete is no sign of that happening as yet.

17th by 11 points, suggests easily good enough to me. Dealt with a huge amount of issues, on the pitch games frequency wise, off the pitch with significant injuries and covid revenue uncertainty and takeover wise, and were never really in any danger despite this board being the usual panic stricken, nothing's ever good enough place that it always is (see Dyche contract thread for further proof if needed)

As for Academy and U23's - the flow doesn't happen immediately, but there's investment in the academy to go category one, and additions at Under 23 level from both home and abroad, with players being stretched to play U23 earlier to aid their development leading to many more successful loans at league clubs happening. Progress is very clearly there if you look objectively.

Does the first team squad need additions - yes..... do the club have the budget to add multiple new signings - who knows, is a drastic change (Almost half the first team if 4 players is the target as plenty are suggesting) needed in order to deliver at least the minumum requirement of staying up, whilst having a sustainable business model - No.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:42 pm

According to Fabrizio city have bid 100m for Kane.

THFC set to reject It

Its on the Sky yellow bar

I was hopeful but that sort of fee seems to rule us out.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:56 pm

17th by 11 points, suggests easily good enough to me. Dealt with a huge amount of issues, on the pitch games frequency wise, off the pitch with significant injuries and covid revenue uncertainty and takeover wise, and were never really in any danger despite this board being the usual panic stricken, nothing's ever good enough place that it always is (see Dyche contract thread for further proof if needed)

As for Academy and U23's - the flow doesn't happen immediately, but there's investment in the academy to go category one, and additions at Under 23 level from both home and abroad, with players being stretched to play U23 earlier to aid their development leading to many more successful loans at league clubs happening. Progress is very clearly there if you look objectively.

Does the first team squad need additions - yes..... do the club have the budget to add multiple new signings - who knows, is a drastic change (Almost half the first team if 4 players is the target as plenty are suggesting) needed in order to deliver at least the minumum requirement of staying up, whilst having a sustainable business model - No.

I would say two first team starters are required as an absolute minimum otherwise it will be an incredibly difficult season.

I don’t think that will cost the moon and could be very achievable.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:58 pm

Its on the Sky yellow bar

I was hopeful but that sort of fee seems to rule us out.

After Friday's performance I would have expected a bid closer to 10m

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:00 pm

I would say two first team starters are required as an absolute minimum otherwise it will be an incredibly difficult season.

I don’t think that will cost the moon and could be very achievable.

the moon is worth $180 billion, if we can't get two in for that money then we may as well give up
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/ ... worth.aspx

I mentioned Nico Williams earlier.

It would appear there are a few people highlighting our interest in him. Along with a few other clubs.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:00 pm

I would say two first team starters are required as an absolute minimum otherwise it will be an incredibly difficult season.

I don’t think that will cost the moon and could be very achievable.

Every season in the PL is an incredibly difficult season for a club like ours.

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:30 pm

Every season in the PL is an incredibly difficult season for a club like ours.

I don’t agree, I think we have had two or three fantastic seasons in the premier league. It has only become difficult due to poor recruitment over a number of seasons.

I think if we can get two genuine first team quality signings in this summer we will comfortably stay up.

That we've had two or three great seasons doesn't mean they weren't incredibly difficult. The challenges in recruitment is part of that difficulty.

We're always among the favourites for relegation for a reason.

jtv wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:02 pm

After Friday's performance I would have expected a bid closer to 10m

As much as that?

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:30 pm

Every season in the PL is an incredibly difficult season for a club like ours.

Which some don’t seem to realise

Our recruitment has been problematic for a few years that's why we need an overhaul and an increase in our network of scouting..Maybe via computer?

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:33 pm

I don’t agree, I think we have had two or three fantastic seasons in the premier league. It has only become difficult due to poor recruitment over a number of seasons.

I think if we can get two genuine first team quality signings in this summer we will comfortably stay up.

That alongside one or two who we hope / expect to be pushing for places in the coming year or two, would be my preference.

It very much depends on any outgoings as well, of course.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:33 pm

I don’t agree, I think we have had two or three fantastic seasons in the premier league. It has only become difficult due to poor recruitment over a number of seasons.

I think if we can get two genuine first team quality signings in this summer we will comfortably stay up.

There are only so many places for teams who are unlikely to go down. Not everyone can be comfortable in the prem.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:53 pm

That alongside one or two who we hope / expect to be pushing for places in the coming year or two, would be my preference.

It very much depends on any outgoings as well, of course.

It might be unrealistic but I would love it if we got the following in this summer:

1 x RM first team starter
1 x CM first team starter

At least 1 Young CB to take over from Tarks a year down the line.

At least 1 Young rb to take over in a year or two time.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm

It might be unrealistic but I would love it if we got the following in this summer:

1 x RM first team starter
1 x CM first team starter

At least 1 Young CB to take over from Tarks a year down the line.

At least 1 Young rb to take over in a year or two time.

I wouldn’t be disappointed with that - a scenario we’d likely need to repeat in other positions in future windows.

so much endless circling of posts as to the nature of the clubs finances and why it has/hasn't spent money in the Premier League years without actually any analysis of what has actually gone on in that period or understanding of the constraints under which the club has operated - there is no financial analysis, no consideration of the other spending that the club has had to do (it was so far behind acceptable levels in so many areas and still is in quite a few) and so many balls to juggle while doing enough to maintain it's Premier League status and making it attractive enough for someone else to come in ant take it on. The last part in particular was extremely difficult given the challenges any owners would face to develop the club further.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:08 pm

so much endless circling of posts as to the nature of the clubs finances and why it has/hasn't spent money in the Premier League years without actually any analysis of what has actually gone on in that period or understanding of the constraints under which the club has operated - there is no financial analysis, no consideration of the other spending that the club has had to do (it was so far behind acceptable levels in so many areas and still is in quite a few) and so many balls to juggle while doing enough to maintain it's Premier League status and making it attractive enough for someone else to come in ant take it on. The last part in particular was extremely difficult given the challenges any owners would face to develop the club further.

Obviously Dyche never fully understood or appreciated any of the above otherwise he would not have been so vocal in his criticism of the Board, and Mike Garlick in particular, for the lack of spending spanning several windows.

kentonclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:25 pm

Obviously Dyche never fully understood or appreciated any of the above otherwise he would not have been so vocal in his criticism of the Board, and Mike Garlick in particular, for the lack of spending spanning several windows.

and yet he was the one who insisted on so much of the spending that did nothing to assist the revenues but greatly improved the environment, facilities and support for the players - I must stress that he was right that the work was long overdue and desperately needed. The problem is when you look at it, that spend and the ongoing maintenance costs it has generated cannot be ignored in the general discussion of what has/has not been spent on players.

Looking at your latest, excellent piece for the London Clarets Chester Perry - what strikes me the most is that our player wage + amort is now over 90% of revenue. Once you are in that place with wages, you are in a bind unless you can radically grow revenue (don't think we will be going backwards with wages in the Prem unless we take out player numbers).

I know ALK are trying to grow it, but they must in the majority of cases spend first before they can realise this. That money will to a degree have to be diverted from player funds.

The only other way to do this is to sell one (or two) highly prized assets per year at a premium, something we have not done recently. It relies on Pope/Tarkowski/Taylor style recruitment (now at a higher level of cost) and I am not sure we have been good at that of late.

We really are a reliant robin chassis, trying to put a Ferrari body work on it.

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:50 pm

Looking at your latest, excellent piece for the London Clarets Chester Perry - what strikes me the most is that our player wage + amort is now over 90% of revenue. Once you are in that place with wages, you are in a bind unless you can radically grow revenue (don't think we will be going backwards with wages in the Prem unless we take out player numbers).

I believe the whole of that article and the charts that are in it (with some additional content) is going to be posted on twitter in the next few days from the London Clarets account https://twitter.com/londonclarets

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:35 pm

and yet he was the one who insisted on so much of the spending that did nothing to assist the revenues but greatly improved the environment, facilities and support for the players - I must stress that he was right that the work was long overdue and desperately needed. The problem is when you look at it, that spend and the ongoing maintenance costs it has generated cannot be ignored in the general discussion of what has/has not been spent on players.

so you don't think Dyche was just stating the obvious that investment was needed in the first team to progress and help us maintain PL status ? I never once heard him say "if they don't give me loads of money to spend I'm going to leave". Let's face it, the communication from the previous board was laughable so maybe he thought he'd just tell it like it is - some like that approach and some seem offended by it

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:50 pm

Looking at your latest, excellent piece for the London Clarets Chester Perry - what strikes me the most is that our player wage + amort is now over 90% of revenue. Once you are in that place with wages, you are in a bind unless you can radically grow revenue (don't think we will be going backwards with wages in the Prem unless we take out player numbers).

Is that now or in the 19/20 accounts when presumably we still had Hart, Lennon, Hendrick, Gibson & Brady on the books?

jtv wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:02 pm

After Friday's performance I would have expected a bid closer to 10m

Mexican Peso?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:40 pm

Is that now or in the 19/20 accounts when presumably we still had Hart, Lennon, Hendrick, Gibson & Brady on the books?

It looks at the last 5 seasons and includes an estimate for the 2020/21 season and a non pandemic figure too for 2019/20 perhaps more importantly it also looks at things from the budget forward position assuming a 17th place finish that the club repeatedly said it used in it's forecasting under the previous ownership - that really generates some clear sight on what the club were up against.

May be offering deals to some of the 28 players identified through the AiSCOUT system

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:52 pm

assuming a 17th place finish that the club repeatedly said it used in it's forecasting under the previous ownership - that really generates some clear sight on what the club were up against.

I think that’s a key variable that will change between the new and old ownership - the old planned for the worst and the new will hope for the best.

Deep down I think Alan and his team are traders. Speculators. Buy low, sell high.

I’m not knocking it, just predicting it’ll be a new approach that I suspect many on here will feel mightily uncomfortable with. Others, like me, will enjoy the ride.

It’s very possible in football. Brentford being the perpetual example of a team that make it work, then there are some teams like Norwich who do it well. Buendia being the most recent example: buy for £1.5m, sell for £33m. That’s likely quite appealing returns for a trader.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the additional levels of pressure and expectation created in doing so, changes any of the club dynamics to our cost.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:27 pm

I think that’s a key variable that will change between the new and old ownership - the old planned for the worst and the new will hope for the best.

Deep down I think Alan and his team are traders. Speculators. Buy low, sell high.

I’m not knocking it, just predicting it’ll be a new approach that I suspect many on here will feel mightily uncomfortable with. Others, like me, will enjoy the ride.

It’s very possible in football. Brentford being the perpetual example of a team that make it work, then there are some teams like Norwich who do it well. Buendia being the most recent example: buy for £1.5m, sell for £33m. That’s likely quite appealing returns for a trader.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the additional levels of pressure and expectation created in doing so, changes any of the club dynamics to our cost.

I don't see why it should - 17th is essentially about TV revenue - everything else is under the control of the club away from on the field performance to a much greater degree and can continue to have their own forecasts on non TV revenues, though over egging of incoming transfer revenues in a forecast is a particularly bad idea

We need goals. We can’t keep relying on Wood with 12-14 per year. Vydra played very well but, just as with Juke, he doesn’t score enough. Ash & JayRod need a few before Jan. window or bye bye. Midfield must bag more between them, even a couple each would be helpful.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:32 pm

I don't see why it should - 17th is essentially about TV revenue - everything else is under the control of the club away from on the field performance to a much greater degree and can continue to have their own forecasts on non TV revenues, though over egging of incoming transfer revenues in a forecast is a particularly bad idea

My point was more that when considering the risk/reward of player investment and the finances needed to support them, they’ll be more likely to err on the side of taking a calculated risk than their predecessors - because I think that’s what they’re here to do: make money from player sales, invest again, work up the league, sell us on. Model only really works if you’re prepared to speculate to accumulate in the first place.

minnieclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:40 pm

We need goals. We can’t keep relying on Wood with 12-14 per year. Vydra played very well but, just as with Juke, he doesn’t score enough. Ash & JayRod need a few before Jan. window or bye bye. Midfield must bag more between them, even a couple each would be helpful.

Agree on all points there.

Only point I would make about the strikers is it might benefit them if we strengthened our right side, plus Dwight should stay out wide because he creates a lot more for them there.

minnieclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:40 pm

We need goals. We can’t keep relying on Wood with 12-14 per year. Vydra played very well but, just as with Juke, he doesn’t score enough. Ash & JayRod need a few before Jan. window or bye bye. Midfield must bag more between them, even a couple each would be helpful.

We only scored three more goals when we qualified for Europe.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:44 pm

We only scored three more goals when we qualified for Europe.

We defended a damn site better.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:44 pm

We only scored three more goals when we qualified for Europe.

aye, if we had scored more it would have been Champions League

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:41 pm

My point was more that when considering the risk/reward of player investment and the finances needed to support them, they’ll be more likely to err on the side of taking a calculated risk than their predecessors - because I think that’s what they’re here to do: make money from player sales, invest again, work up the league, sell us on. Model only really works if you’re prepared to speculate to accumulate in the first place.

The club desperately needs to improve it's non tv revenues and player trading is only one part of that particular jigsaw - I see that as the way the new owners will increase the value of the club to get the return they are looking for. the problem for them is that like the previous owners they will have to juggle investments in players with investments in ways to increase revenues, they are lucky in the sense that most of the non revenue generating investment has been done (Sean still wants more for his staff and particularly the players). All this has to be done while maintaining Premier League status. Doing that and keeping the manager happy proved too difficult for the previous owners and was the reason so few took a serious interest in buying the club. We will have to see how well the current ownership fair with it in the next few years.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:27 pm

I think that’s a key variable that will change between the new and old ownership - the old planned for the worst and the new will hope for the best.

Deep down I think Alan and his team are traders. Speculators. Buy low, sell high.

I’m not knocking it, just predicting it’ll be a new approach that I suspect many on here will feel mightily uncomfortable with. Others, like me, will enjoy the ride.

It’s very possible in football. Brentford being the perpetual example of a team that make it work, then there are some teams like Norwich who do it well. Buendia being the most recent example: buy for £1.5m, sell for £33m. That’s likely quite appealing returns for a trader.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the additional levels of pressure and expectation created in doing so, changes any of the club dynamics to our cost.

It's prudent financial planning to plan for the worst..... you won't stay out of the bankruptcy courts for long hoping for the best.

How have Brentford made it work? Have you seen their financial numbers? The odd transfer hasn't helped their situation, and even with their investment, they've been less successful than Burnley and are a similar sized club. They would love to have the ride that so many on here are willing to dismiss from this club, delivered by the last board.

just out of interest, how many companies have those involved in ALK sent into bankruptcy ? (genuine question, I don't know the answer)

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:31 pm

just out of interest, how many companies have those involved in ALK sent into bankruptcy ? (genuine question, I don't know the answer)

Dunno...... but suspect they don't manage them on a "Hope for the best" basis.

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:31 pm

just out of interest, how many companies have those involved in ALK sent into bankruptcy ? (genuine question, I don't know the answer)

I’m sure newcastleclaret93 will have all the answers

gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:34 pm

I’m sure newcastleclaret93 will have all the answers

Haha I’m not allowed to comment on the owners. So i will leave it to others

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:19 pm

It's prudent financial planning to plan for the worst..... you won't stay out of the bankruptcy courts for long hoping for the best.

How have Brentford made it work? Have you seen their financial numbers? The odd transfer hasn't helped their situation, and even with their investment, they've been less successful than Burnley and are a similar sized club. They would love to have the ride that so many on here are willing to dismiss from this club, delivered by the last board.

I didn’t say it wasn’t prudent financial planning. Or that there is anything wrong with that approach. Just that I suspect the new owners will take a very different view on risk/reward and look more to the upside more than the downside.

There’s no doubting which team has been more successful in recent years. The Brentford comment wasn’t in relation to finances, it was in relation to their ability to identify talent and sell it at a profit, which they’re very good at. I’m expecting that will feature more in our approach going forward.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:58 pm

I didn’t say it wasn’t prudent financial planning. Or that there is anything wrong with that approach. Just that I suspect the new owners will take a very different view on risk/reward and look more to the upside more than the downside.

There’s no doubting which team has been more successful in recent years. The Brentford comment wasn’t in relation to finances, it was in relation to their ability to identify talent and sell it at a profit, which they’re very good at. I’m expecting that will feature more in our approach going forward.

It is much easier to bed in and develop young raw talent and be competitive in the Championship than it is in the Premier League, also much easier when it is initially financed by an owner not the clubs revenues and the owner also finances all the other infrastructure costs that are going on at the club, safe in the knowledge that the London property market will effectively ensure he gets that back, there is also the small distinction that proprietary analytical tools refined over years (including at his Danish club) for his betting forecasting business is the basis of much of the preparatory work they do - those tools are also used for opposition analysis - Brentford have spent nothing in the development of those tools. All in all a very different set of circumstances.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:52 pm

It looks at the last 5 seasons and includes an estimate for the 2020/21 season and a non pandemic figure too for 2019/20 perhaps more importantly it also looks at things from the budget forward position assuming a 17th place finish that the club repeatedly said it used in it's forecasting under the previous ownership - that really generates some clear sight on what the club were up against.

So, let's take a look at those five seasons and how dramatically the situation has changed during that period. Two important points to consider are that the financial accounts for '19/'20 was a 13 month period to July'20 and that '20/21 represents an estimate only (including severe TV broadcast rebates).

'16/'17...Turnover £121m...Wages £61m...Amortisation £22m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 69%.

'17/'18...Turnover £139m...Wages £82m...Amortisation £28m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 79%.

'18/'19...Turnover £138m...Wages £87m...Amortisation £38m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 91%.

'19/'20...Turnover £134m...Wages £100m..Amortisation £32m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 99%.

'20/'21...Turnover £120m...Wages £90m...Amortisation £26m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 97%.

Crikey!

Royboyclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:10 pm

So, let's take a look at those five seasons and how dramatically the situation has changed during that period. Two important points to consider are that the financial accounts for '19/'20 was a 13 month period to July'20 and that '20/21 represents an estimate only (including severe TV broadcast rebates).

'16/'17...Turnover £121m...Wages £61m...Amortisation £22m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 69%.

'17/'18...Turnover £139m...Wages £82m...Amortisation £28m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 79%.

'18/'19...Turnover £138m...Wages £87m...Amortisation £38m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 91%.

'19/'20...Turnover £134m...Wages £100m..Amortisation £32m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 99%.

'20/'21...Turnover £120m...Wages £90m...Amortisation £26m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 97%.

Wow that has really surprised me. When you add in the 7-8m interest on the debt a season it become slightly concerning.

Royboyclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:10 pm

So, let's take a look at those five seasons and how dramatically the situation has changed during that period. Two important points to consider are that the financial accounts for '19/'20 was a 13 month period to July'20 and that '20/21 represents an estimate only (including severe TV broadcast rebates).

'16/'17...Turnover £121m...Wages £61m...Amortisation £22m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 69%.

'17/'18...Turnover £139m...Wages £82m...Amortisation £28m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 79%.

'18/'19...Turnover £138m...Wages £87m...Amortisation £38m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 91%.

'19/'20...Turnover £134m...Wages £100m..Amortisation £32m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 99%.

'20/'21...Turnover £120m...Wages £90m...Amortisation £26m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 97%.

Yeah but we had £130m in the bank.......

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:18 pm

Yeah but we had £130m in the bank.......

When?