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%.

Roy I had

'20/'21...Turnover £115m...Wages £83m...Amortisation £25m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 93.9%.

taking 19/20 to 12 month
'19/'20...Turnover £133.8m...Wages £94m..Amortisation £29.8m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 92.5%

taking 19/20 no pandemic
'19/'20...Turnover £144.3m...Wages £94m..Amortisation £29.8m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 85.8%

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:50 pm

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

I was thinking more of that episode in Friends where Joey pretends he has a Porsche by wearing a cap and jacket and coverying cardboard boxes in a Porsche car cover - but essentially the same thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJrkTHG29gU

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:23 pm

Roy I had

'20/'21...Turnover £115m...Wages £83m...Amortisation £25m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 93.9%.

taking 19/20 to 12 month
'19/'20...Turnover £133.8m...Wages £94m..Amortisation £29.8m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 92.5%

taking 19/20 no pandemic
'19/'20...Turnover £144.3m...Wages £94m..Amortisation £29.8m...Wages and Amort. to Turnover 85.8%

Clearly the '20/21 figures are opinion based only, but Turnover at £133.8m for '19/'20 is definitely for a 13 month period.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:20 pm

When?

I dont recall anyone, at any time, suggesting we had £130m in the bank

Royboyclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:35 pm

Clearly the '20/21 figures are opinion based only, but Turnover at £133.8m for '19/'20 is definitely for a 13 month period.

I assumed no revenue in July 2020 that was how I came up with the 12th month figure - I should have made that clear

Really need something to light up this thread !

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:37 pm

I dont recall anyone, at any time, suggesting we had £130m in the bank

people seem to have missed the deliberate exaggeration in dande's post

I do seem to recall some exaggerated responses on here to those who suggested we had tens of £millions in the bank before the takeover. Just for the sake of clarity, what are best estimates of how much the club did have in the bank pre , and post takeover ?

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:11 pm

I do seem to recall some exaggerated responses on here to those who suggested we had tens of £millions in the bank before the takeover. Just for the sake of clarity, what are best estimates of how much the club did have in the bank pre , and post takeover ?

that depends on whether you are talking about cashflow monies or reserves

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:16 pm

that depends on whether you are talking about cashflow monies or reserves

I suspect randomclaret will be referring to Cash at Bank, in which case the pre-takeover figure was circa £75m and the post-takeover figure was zero.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:52 pm

Replacing so many players all at once means they've got to get used to our methods straight away.

Fulham has some good loans but they should have kept the same core of players that got them up, rather than making too many changes.

Well that’s where it all went wrong for Fulham, mr Khan should have hired you instead of Scott Parker to oversee Fulham’s PL campaign, regarding the players gelling decent capable footballers should only need a few training sessions to master things which takes days not weeks or months, we aren’t sending astronauts into space!

Royboyclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:21 pm

I suspect randomclaret will be referring to Cash at Bank, in which case the pre-takeover figure was circa £75m and the post-takeover figure was zero.

How do we know the full cash reserves were used by the takeover?

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:31 pm

Well that’s where it all went wrong for Fulham, mr Khan should have hired you instead of Scott Parker to oversee Fulham’s PL campaign, regarding the players gelling decent capable footballers should only need a few training sessions to master things which takes days not weeks or months, we aren’t sending astronauts into space!

4 out of 25 should be achievable. And 2 of ours have gone already so would have to be replaced in any case.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:07 pm

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.

Fair point about the Championship being an easier environment to develop players. That will get a lot harder for them now & it’ll be interesting to see how effective they can be with that in the Prem.

I still think we have every chance of being successful in the market (my definition of success being selling at a profit) with Sean’s eye for talent. If you look at who he’s allegedly been interested in signing over the years (Robertson, Phillips, etc) I think he knows a player. I’d have no qualms backing him as an owner in that regard. Not sure how that will fit in with all the ALK technology and data analytics mind.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:48 pm

Fair point about the Championship being an easier environment to develop players. That will get a lot harder for them now & it’ll be interesting to see how effective they can be with that in the Prem.

I still think we have every chance of being successful in the market (my definition of success being selling at a profit) with Sean’s eye for talent. If you look at who he’s allegedly been interested in signing over the years (Robertson, Phillips, etc) I think he knows a player. I’d have no qualms backing him as an owner in that regard. Not sure how that will fit in with all the ALK technology and data analytics mind.

Gibson has been sold for a profit - we will get more more cash than book profit. but still a profit, but I am sure that is not the kind of profit you are talking about, I think you are alluding more to Keane and Gray - these are important distinctions to be aware of. Also that Sean has been increasingly reluctant to part with his better players the longer we have stayed in the division, believing that it hampers the progress of the team. Many fans talk of similar when Bob Lord was in charge and built an economic model on the practice - it only gets you so far before it falls down.

Royboyclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:21 pm

I suspect randomclaret will be referring to Cash at Bank, in which case the pre-takeover figure was circa £75m and the post-takeover figure was zero.

I would go for £50m - £55m in December 2020 (which fits the monthly spend, cash position at the end of July and likely additional income inbetween) and a reduction of circa £30m as a result of the takeover - based on the reports in the media

I thought this was a Transfer Window Rumours thread? With the emphasis on Rumours.

Agreed. Might be worth certain posters wasting their considerable efforts to expose their naivety in analysing account returns (which generally amount to diddly squat) to a separate thread - say BFC accounts. Would save the vast majority of us scrolling through turgid rubbish that has got ABSOLUTELY no relevance

Have we signed anyone yet ?

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:01 pm

Gibson has been sold for a profit

How? surely it's a considerable financial hit?

mkmel wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:06 am

I thought this was a Transfer Window Rumours thread? With the emphasis on Rumours.

Think the problem is that there’s not even any rumours to discuss

Yesterday this thread disappeared for me and I assumed the mods had just called it early this summer and put us all out of our misery

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:59 am

How? surely it's a considerable financial hit?

I'd imagine that you are basing this on the fact we paid (paper talk) 15million and sold for (paper talk) 8million meaning you see that as a loss of 7 million.

I'm sure Chester is basing this on the fact that as Gibson has been at Burnley/on Burnley's books for a couple of years his initial cost to Burnley has been factored in over said years this meaning we have paid for him/almost covered the outlay of (paper talk) 15million so what ever we now receive is booked as profit.

The figures I've branded as paper talk as we don't actually know the correct figures some of the figures will include add ons and so forth, we may of ended up paying nowhere near (paper talk) 15million for Gibson.



I'm sure if I'm missing something or have the wrong end of the stick Chester will put me right.

jackmiggins wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:46 am

Agreed. Might be worth certain posters wasting their considerable efforts to expose their naivety in analysing account returns (which generally amount to diddly squat) to a separate thread - say BFC accounts. Would save the vast majority of us scrolling through turgid rubbish that has got ABSOLUTELY no relevance

Couldn’t agree more. It’s painfully dull and not needed in this thread.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:32 pm

How do we know the full cash reserves were used by the takeover?

He doesn't, sadly Roy hasn't learnt from his previous. Spent a full season hammering the board due to the perceived wage bill which was the lowest in the division and every club was paying double ours due to the lack of ambition by the board. Then the accounts came out and he was miles off and then went into no comment mode.

The problem with people discussing finances on here is that sometimes those who know the least sadly make the most noise.

jackmiggins wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:46 am

Agreed. Might be worth certain posters wasting their considerable efforts to expose their naivety in analysing account returns (which generally amount to diddly squat) to a separate thread - say BFC accounts. Would save the vast majority of us scrolling through turgid rubbish that has got ABSOLUTELY no relevance

I think Roy and Chester provide far more to this board than you do Jack. Their views, knowledge and forecasts are insightful and useful.

But not on this thread please …..

Possible targets anyone ?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... n-24363793

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:48 am

He doesn't, sadly Roy hasn't learnt from his previous. Spent a full season hammering the board due to the perceived wage bill which was the lowest in the division and every club was paying double ours due to the lack of ambition by the board. Then the accounts came out and he was miles off and then went into no comment mode.

The problem with people discussing finances on here is that sometimes those who know the least sadly make the most noise.

Royboy's input on the subject has been excellent for years. I'm sure many posters have appreciated it. I hope he chooses to ignore posts like the above because it's the sort of thing that's turning very good and longstanding posters away from the messageboard.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:01 am

Royboy's input on the subject has been excellent for years. I'm sure many posters have appreciated it. I hope he chooses to ignore posts like the above because it's the sort of thing that's turning very good and longstanding posters away from the messageboard.

I can see where you are coming from, if you believe everything you read his information / guesswork would provide valuable info.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:03 am

I can see where you are coming from, if you believe everything you read his information / guesswork would provide valuable info.

His work has been excellent. He's contributed significantly to this messageboard in a really meaningful way. Back off.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:05 am

His work has been excellent. He's contributed significantly to this messageboard in a really meaningful way. Back off.

Consider me backing off (whatever that means)

I just wish we could keep this thread to player rumors and not someone immediately bashing the rumor with “oh but didn’t you know we don’t have any money I pointed that out on the 7th Jan”. Comment on the MMT thread for that. Stop hijacking this one

It's clear we are waiting for our scouts at the Euros.
Not.

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:01 am

Possible targets anyone ?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... n-24363793

I’d be all over Ben Davies if they want to offload at something we think is reasonable.

Good old COC. It takes some doing to wake up so angry and aggressive every day, ready to fight the posters on this board. He must have two wrong sides of the bed.

Hopefully we’ll get some transfer stuff discussed on this thread soon, though. It’s getting way off track.

Raggus wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:19 am

I'd imagine that you are basing this on the fact we paid (paper talk) 15million and sold for (paper talk) 8million meaning you see that as a loss of 7 million.

I'm sure Chester is basing this on the fact that as Gibson has been at Burnley/on Burnley's books for a couple of years his initial cost to Burnley has been factored in over said years this meaning we have paid for him/almost covered the outlay of (paper talk) 15million so what ever we now receive is booked as profit.

The figures I've branded as paper talk as we don't actually know the correct figures some of the figures will include add ons and so forth, we may of ended up paying nowhere near (paper talk) 15million for Gibson.



I'm sure if I'm missing something or have the wrong end of the stick Chester will put me right.

But there are signing on fees for joining and we haven't even mentioned the £40,000 per week wages. There's absolutely no way we've financially made profit from Gibson.

Claret_tinted wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:56 am

I think Roy and Chester provide far more to this board than you do Jack. Their views, knowledge and forecasts are insightful and useful.

And there are enough finance related threads for them to input their knowledge, but this is a transfer thread.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:03 am

I can see where you are coming from, if you believe everything you read his information / guesswork would provide valuable info.

You whining and digging at other posters again?
Do you ever stop?

CharlieinNewMexico wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:23 am

I’d be all over Ben Davies if they want to offload at something we think is reasonable.

I agree. I think we should be looking at alternatives to Collins/Worrall if their clubs aren’t willing to sell at a reasonable price. I’d say at this stage if Nat Phillips (£10m) and Ben Davis (£unknown) are available they’d make for very good options if Stoke/Forest are holding out for massive fees.

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:27 am

Good old COC. It takes some doing to wake up so angry and aggressive every day, ready to right the posters on this board. He must have two wrong sides of the bed.

Hopefully we’ll get some transfer stuff discussed on this thread soon, though. It’s getting way off track.

Not angry in the slightest, just highlighting someone passing things off as fact when they have no idea. Hardly my fault people believe everything they read, who knows it may be due to them not understanding thing themselves and believing everything. Pease note though I don't get angry at anything on here. The internet wasn't invented in my eyes for people to make friends and I am sure I will get by knowing some faceless may not like what I post.

Agreed it would be good to get a signing then you could possibly like those posts instead of coming across a bit stalkerish. Have a lovely day ksr the sun is out and its England

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:01 am

Royboy's input on the subject has been excellent for years. I'm sure many posters have appreciated it. I hope he chooses to ignore posts like the above because it's the sort of thing that's turning very good and longstanding posters away from the messageboard.

In fairness when the new rules came into place I can name at least half a dozen posters as a mild estimate that almost disappeared overnight or post very rarely, that’s the reason why some people have drifted away.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:29 am

You whining and digging at other posters again?
Do you ever stop?

Morning kid, enjoyed the shandy last night again it seems

Agreed. Might be worth certain posters wasting their considerable efforts to expose their naivety in analysing account returns (which generally amount to diddly squat) to a separate thread - say BFC accounts. Would save the vast majority of us scrolling through turgid rubbish that has got ABSOLUTELY no relevance

Spot on... The pseudo wannabe intellectuals are cringe-worthy at times in my opinion and seem to hijack every thread these days!

Close to signing Collins!

https://the72.co.uk/240164/burnley-set- ... n-collins/

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/sourc ... agreement/

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:38 am

Not angry in the slightest, just highlighting someone passing things off as fact when they have no idea. Hardly my fault people believe everything they read, who knows it may be due to them not understanding thing themselves and believing everything. Pease note though I don't get angry at anything on here. The internet wasn't invented in my eyes for people to make friends and I am sure I will get by knowing some faceless may not like what I post.

Agreed it would be good to get a signing then you could possibly like those posts instead of coming across a bit stalkerish. Have a lovely day ksr the sun is out and its England

Just try and be a little more pleasant. As you say, the sun is out, don’t waste your time being so angry all the time at “faceless” people on the internet. You could always just choose not to read the board if it’s getting to you so much.

I hope we have a signing soon too. God knows we need a few.

BigChaCha wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:41 am

Close to signing Collins!

https://the72.co.uk/240164/burnley-set- ... n-collins/

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/sourc ... agreement/

Would that not be a great start to our transfer window. It for me shows, if it happens, that we have not lost the "art of signing players"

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:42 am

Just try and be a little more pleasant. As you say, the sun is out, don’t waste your time being so angry all the time at “faceless” people on the internet. You could always just choose not to read the board if it’s getting to you so much.

I hope we have a signing soon too. God knows we need a few.

He's an angry guy, this place sends him over the edge

BigChaCha wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:41 am

Close to signing Collins!

https://the72.co.uk/240164/burnley-set- ... n-collins/

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/sourc ... agreement/

I know nothing of this lad, but there’s plenty to suggest he’s got plenty of potential.

Hopefully these latest articles are on the mark - it’d be great to get a good signing in early doors - and in a key position, whether Tarkowski stays or not.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:52 am

I know nothing of this lad, but there’s plenty to suggest he’s got plenty of potential.

Hopefully these latest articles are on the mark - it’d be great to get a good signing in early doors - and in a key position, whether Tarkowski stays or not.

He'll be our new right back imo, I think Dyche would've played Dawson right back too, like Pulis. Added height on set pieces, could be really beneficial.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:52 am

I know nothing of this lad, but there’s plenty to suggest he’s got plenty of potential.

Hopefully these latest articles are on the mark - it’d be great to get a good signing in early doors - and in a key position, whether Tarkowski stays or not.

That is the main issue with these articles, the source writing the exclusive. Looks like he has around 500 followers on twitter