FAO Mr Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 12:03 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:09 pm
The difference was that there was the gap between costs and and revenues in the early years - That gap was removed as wages his increased and just as significantly the board sought to meet all the other demands of the manager in terms of the backroom set-up and facilities - we have probably matched the spend at Gawthorpe with the one at the the Turf on facilities for players, then there are the additional staff (60 on the football side in the season before last. Recently Dyche has been saying that there is still not enough to support the players he wants an awful lot more, that is before any new signings - you need to look at the big picture of what they were managing and i am still of the belief that the only reason the sale happened is because they wanted to keep Dyche at the club and that meant they had to relinquish fiscal control.
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:56 am
..... I just have never understood the mentality that he must be given whatever he asks for, and that includes a defined budget - I do not know of a manager/coach in the Premier League that has one of those.

If it is acceptable for Dyche to turn down alternatives to the players he has targeted but we have been unable to acquire it is just as acceptable (if not more so) for the club to set a fiscal limit on his targets (whether they tell him what it is or not) - I am unaware of the club refusing to try for his targets, just refusing to breach their fiscal boundaries to get them. For all the people in football that admire Dyche, there are many boardrooms and analysts that admire the fiscal discipline that the previous board exercised
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:04 am
..... some of Dyche's public pronouncements on the financial situation last summer were farcical, the club had to plan for the worst case, and now we should be grateful they did because no club in the league was better prepared for the financial hit that the season has given than us.
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:41 am
..... for Dyche, he always wants more, I accept that, the previous board accepted that, what he appeared to refuse to accept was that they were not able to move at the pace he wanted - this may be down to a communication issue, but the club needed to invest in revenue generation just as much as it needed to invest in players and the football support infrastructure - it had reached a ceiling of cost base for the football side of things and the only way that could rise was by increasing revenues, which requires the appropriate infrastructure development.

You get the impression at times that Dyche believed that it was all down to his activities that drove revenues, and given that over 80% of our income comes from the Premier League that is partly understandable - but that is not what makes a sustainable club. We need to find a way for Premier League income to be less than 70% of revenues. There is also the issue that the combination of wages and fixed costs are too high a percentage of income to facilitate squad development. Over 12 months last season that was around 82% of income - how do you fund transfers and infrastructure out of that, when you have outstanding transfer payments, taxes etc to pay from that. To do what Dyche wants that combination has to be down around 65% at the most and ideally under 60%, that is what sustainable clubs who spend regularly do
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 2:47 am
I have gone through that point [The cash Holding and why it is difficult to use it for transfers] a fair number of times now over the last year and touched on it again up the thread, at no point has anyone ever given me a reasoned argument that successfully contradicts what I have posted. In fact I do not recall anyone ever arguing against what I posted on that subject, it appears people prefer to act like it has never existed.

On the subject of the cash holding
- what do you think it was at the end of last season, before this seasons first Premier League cash payment, that was also in the last accounts due to the change of year end?
- what do you think is a reasonable cash holding and why?
I am still waiting for someone to give a reasoned explanation of how the club (with it's budget policy and adversity to debt, both much admired) could have been more effective in the more recent transfer windows.

This time last year I was posting that the financial performance of the 2019/20 season was on target to put the club back into a window of having a more space in the operating budget for new signings - then Covid happened and we went from looking to increasing budgets to having to cut them where possible, along with reducing liabilities - which we did to a level that stretched the football side probably much less than it stretched the rest of the club, yet will still likely see the wage bill come in at over £80m. It has to be remembered that while we did not sign anyone of note this season, that was in part down to the manager not being to make the necessary trades to allow that to happen - there were clubs who spent less than us, yet were more active with West Ham and Brighton making trading profits last summer (West Ham have since spent more converting loans to transfers inwards).

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 1:01 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 8:01 am
Diabolical and inciteful :D

I didn't have you down as one of the drama queens chester
Elizabeth wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:18 am
It’s the timing of your comment about the threat to the existence of our club that prompted me to respond earlier.
For me it’s ironic in the sense that if there was ever another threat it comes with this takeover going wrong.
This will remain a worry for me unless the new owners prove their worth.
I know others are looking at it more positively and I respect that, I was delighted myself until I heard the details of the takeover. This is not anti American and I’m not surprised at all the good talk from Pace. How else is he to try and win over the fans at this early stage?
There will come a time soon when Pace’s talk has to become action and then we’ll see the true effect of his plans. Player sales like we have not seen for a long time and a big rise in costs for the fans going to Turf Moor are 2 things that would unsettle me.
I believe Dyche is all I’ve got at the moment and that he has proven since arriving that he gets the fans and they are a big motivator for him. He’s truly earned his financial rewards.
no drama in what I said, just look at the reactions on here ever since he started with it. Dyche deliberately set out to get the fans involved to attack the board, spouting misleading information, and when challenged on it seeking to dig himself out with the classic politician's approach of look I am being reasonable here "I just want them to stretch it a bit" without at any time being able to define what that is. Naturally many fell for it, we live in populist times, never it seems have the masses be so educated and so unquestioning.

At the same time he appears to have a very determined set of targets, with little consideration for alternatives, if the board have been prepared to accept his approach, then he should be more prepared to accept there's he was given an exceptional amount of leeway and he knows it, I cannot think of any boardroom other than Man United with Ferguson that would put up with that, and remember Ferguson was not always given what he wanted under Edwards, he drove the ownership changes that led to the Glazer takeover, he always supported the Glazers while managing the club and it was/is the fans and community that have/are leading the protests about that ownership.

I wasn't saying the existence of the club was under threat, I was saying that it is more important that the club exists than the division in the football league in which it operates - there is no doubt that being in the Premier League is a major boost for the town, but psychologically having the club itself is more important - a lesson I learned in May 1987 and one recently learned in Bury. Much of the drama on this board in the last few years has been about the angst of retaining the manager and Premier League status, the two being intertwined, when those of us who experienced that game know that deep down it is the club not Premier League that is the most important thing.
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 11, 2021 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

gandhisflipflop
Posts: 5487
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
Been Liked: 2314 times
Has Liked: 1399 times
Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by gandhisflipflop » Tue May 11, 2021 1:02 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:38 am
The end of the season will most likely prove that we were safe with 10 games to spare. So other than a lot of twitching from our more nervous fans we weren't even close to being relegated this season. Garlick obviously thought that Dyche was a good enough manager to work with what is still a very decent, if not thin squad. He was right. So to then use your position of hindsight where Garlick was proven to have shown good judgement makes you look silly, in my opinion. Had we been relegated you might have had a point.

As things stand we now have new owners in place and an extended summer to identify and recruit some players to strengthen the squad. I just think the childish and uninformed bitching about our previous, and very successful chairman should be put to bed.

How would you have felt if, as had been suggested in previous months, another job had become available last summer and we lost our manager and was relegated? Because the only reason we have stayed up this season is because of SD. It would have set us back years and for what? So the previous chairman could have sold the golden egg? No, sorry, i'm not doubting all the good work in the early years but i can't support a chairman who didn't have the clubs best interests at heart and my parting swipe at him fully justified in my opinion.

duncandisorderly
Posts: 2443
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:58 pm
Been Liked: 970 times
Has Liked: 232 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by duncandisorderly » Tue May 11, 2021 1:07 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:25 am
Going against the pack mentality on here can be a risky business at times..
Oooo, is 'pack mentality' going to be 'clique 2.0'?

dandeclaret
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2551 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by dandeclaret » Tue May 11, 2021 1:17 pm

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:02 pm
How would you have felt if, as had been suggested in previous months, another job had become available last summer and we lost our manager and was relegated? Because the only reason we have stayed up this season is because of SD. It would have set us back years and for what? So the previous chairman could have sold the golden egg? No, sorry, i'm not doubting all the good work in the early years but i can't support a chairman who didn't have the clubs best interests at heart and my parting swipe at him fully justified in my opinion.
You do know that it’s a fact of life that Dyche will leave this club at some point.
This user liked this post: Leisure

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 1:17 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:25 am
Going against the pack mentality on here can be a risky business at times..
indeed, but usually make for good discussion when allowed

JTClaret
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:51 am
Been Liked: 181 times
Has Liked: 119 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by JTClaret » Tue May 11, 2021 1:18 pm

Is this a weird 'why weren't you richer?' post?

Garlick didn't sack Dyche during tough times when many other clubs would.
Dyche, although frustrated, never seemed to have been duped into believing the financial situation was any different - And if he was, either way, be it told there was money but wasn't, or knowing there was money but never given it, he would have walked.

Does the OP actually think Garlick was refusing to put money in that he or we didn't have?
He sold to a firm that have a better understanding of financing manageable debt (I hope, and I'm sure he believes) so that the club could progress further than he could take us. And don't forget, Garlick is still 'us', just as you and me are Burnley supporters too.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 1:20 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:17 pm
You do know that it’s a fact of life that Dyche will leave this club at some point.
as is relegation for a club of our size, though historically that has applied to all clubs at some point, it is just more difficult to envisage it for some now, no matter how poorly they go about their business.
This user liked this post: dandeclaret

Rileybobs
Posts: 16624
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6858 times
Has Liked: 1470 times
Location: Leeds

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Tue May 11, 2021 1:51 pm

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:02 pm
How would you have felt if, as had been suggested in previous months, another job had become available last summer and we lost our manager and was relegated? Because the only reason we have stayed up this season is because of SD. It would have set us back years and for what? So the previous chairman could have sold the golden egg? No, sorry, i'm not doubting all the good work in the early years but i can't support a chairman who didn't have the clubs best interests at heart and my parting swipe at him fully justified in my opinion.
We didn’t lose our manager or get relegated so why are you even asking that question? More eloquent and knowledgeable people than me have gone into detail about the financial position of the club, and how covid and the the process of selling the club has impacted on this. It’s clear that you’d rather ignore this and create a simplistic scenario in which Garlick is the baddy who didn’t have the clubs best interests at heart. This, despite him putting vast amounts of time and money into the club, without being rewarded during his tenure as chairman.

I’m not sure if you were one of the people who were calling for Garlick to vacate and sell up. But plenty were, and now that he has you’re whinging that he didn’t give his stake in the club away. It’s laughable to be honest.
These 3 users liked this post: Grumps dandeclaret JohnMac

huw.Y.WattfromWare
Posts: 3393
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
Been Liked: 1004 times
Has Liked: 905 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by huw.Y.WattfromWare » Tue May 11, 2021 2:09 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:46 pm
Has it really been reported as that? I've never seen that and I don't believe he was in charge of any interviews. I think he's a businessman way ahead of being a supporter of the club. Once established in the Premier League and knowing the money he could get for his shares, he was quick off the mark trying to sell it.
Here is the article from the Sun, I read. It’s the top of the final paragraph.
I have no doubt the final decision was taken by all the board.
https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football/56 ... de-health/

Conroy92
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:06 pm
Been Liked: 494 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Conroy92 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:24 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:48 am
When you say who wants to aim for the minimum ? The bare minimum would be finishing 17th as you say, when did we last achieve this ?
I was merely pointing out that part of another posters argument was that the board went with a strategy of "achieve minimum". My point was surely it's a better strategy to aim for maximum. In my opinion anyway!

Is your point that we haven't finished 17th recently? If so take it up with the poster who suggested "achieve minimum" was the strategy. I suggested we have gone backwards this season which I think is correct. I even made a tounge in cheek comment about aiming for 17th to avoid bonuses so I'm well aware we haven't aimed for 17th.
Let's have it right though, this season has stunk of let's scrape through.

Conroy92
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:06 pm
Been Liked: 494 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Conroy92 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:34 pm

An honest question.

Are we in a better position now as a club under the new ownership with no money at bank (as it's been used as part of the deal, apparently) , or would we be in a better position as a club had we kept around 40-50m at bank (having used 20-30m to reinvest on the playing side) and still be under Garlicks ownership??

I think we'd be in a better position in scenario two. That's why I think the OP deserves a break.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 3:38 pm

Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 3:34 pm
An honest question.

Are we in a better position now as a club under the new ownership with no money at bank (as it's been used as part of the deal, apparently) , or would we be in a better position as a club had we kept around 40-50m at bank (having used 20-30m to reinvest on the playing side) and still be under Garlicks ownership??

I think we'd be in a better position in scenario two. That's why I think the OP deserves a break.
and many will say that we are in a better position with a happier manager whose relationship with the Chairman appears affable rather than completely broken and from the hints CT has given may even be ready to commit to us for a few more years. I suspect the issue became more personal than financial and for the moment at least struggle to see how the club can spend and keep Sean happy with the retained players, at least in the next 2 or 3 windows

Conroy92
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:06 pm
Been Liked: 494 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Conroy92 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:54 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 3:38 pm
and many will say that we are in a better position with a happier manager whose relationship with the Chairman appears affable rather than completely broken and from the hints CT has given may even be ready to commit to us for a few more years. I suspect the issue became more personal than financial and for the moment at least struggle to see how the club can spend and keep Sean happy with the retained players, at least in the next 2 or 3 windows
Agreed. However the happiness of the manager under the new board is surely only another negative point against the old board. Which again goes to show why the OP deserves a break!

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 4:01 pm

Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 3:54 pm
Agreed. However the happiness of the manager under the new board is surely only another negative point against the old board. Which again goes to show why the OP deserves a break!
That is just circling the discussion yet again, I have outlined in detail my thinking on this and yet to see anyone do that to counter it, and that includes the collective group (of which their appear to be many) who do not want to accept that view.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:06 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:03 pm
I am still waiting for someone to give a reasoned explanation of how the club (with it's budget policy and adversity to debt, both much admired) could have been more effective in the more recent transfer windows.

This time last year I was posting that the financial performance of the 2019/20 season was on target to put the club back into a window of having a more space in the operating budget for new signings - then Covid happened and we went from looking to increasing budgets to having to cut them where possible, along with reducing liabilities - which we did to a level that stretched the football side probably much less than it stretched the rest of the club, yet will still likely see the wage bill come in at over £80m. It has to be remembered that while we did not sign anyone of note this season, that was in part down to the manager not being to make the necessary trades to allow that to happen - there were clubs who spent less than us, yet were more active with West Ham and Brighton making trading profits last summer (West Ham have since spent more converting loans to transfers inwards).
Covid happened last year, what about the previous seasons of giving Dyche negligible money at PL level to compete with ? ESPECIALLY after qualifying for the Europa League to which the response from the board was the most frail white flag waiving event I've EVER seen from Burnley Football Club

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 4:11 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:06 pm
Covid happened last year, what about the previous seasons of giving Dyche negligible money at PL level to compete with ? ESPECIALLY after qualifying for the Europa League to which the response from the board was the most frail white flag waiving event I've EVER seen from Burnley Football Club
your getting emotional Vegas, I get you and many others were frustrated (me too if I am being honest, and I have said that before too) but I refer you back to the top of the page and to this from the "Give me the money" thread
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 3:23 pm
Every season at our club is a calculated risk, the club have just taken different ones to what many would appear to want them too. Understanding that and interpreting why those choices have been made, while acknowledging that we will never have the detail that feeds that decision making process should only lead us to ask have they done so with what they believe are the club's best interests at heart (that would be the only sensible and mature approach, given our level of ownership). - if the answer to that is no then we can be justified in criticising them, I haven't seen anything that suggests the decisions have been taken without the clubs best interests at heart. That is not to say I would do the same thing just that it is not my decision to make

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:18 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:11 pm
your getting emotional Vegas, I get you and many others were frustrated (me too if I am being honest, and I have said that before too) but I refer you back to the top of the page and to this from the "Give me the money" thread
not emotional at all CP, it's only just after 8 am and I've not finished my coffee yet !!

I've read all your points, you know I always do and whilst I understand what you are saying I would also refer you back - not spending 300K on signing Tarks from Oldham was bad but what is even more unforgivable was they didn't learn from it.

The lack of investment when we qualified for the Europa League was disgusting and lacked any sort of bravery.

Again, I understand fully the situation of covid and how that has decimated funds - but that was in the last 12 months, that doesn't forgive the last 8 seasons of underfunding. 300K for Tarks would NEVER have broken the bank, just gutless.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 11, 2021 4:21 pm

8 seasons of underfunding?

Conroy92
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:06 pm
Been Liked: 494 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Conroy92 » Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:01 pm
That is just circling the discussion yet again, I have outlined in detail my thinking on this and yet to see anyone do that to counter it, and that includes the collective group (of which their appear to be many) who do not want to accept that view.
In many ways Chester I challenged what you said in different ways. Your view (hopefully I have this right as I have not looked at every comment and only skimmed most) is that your not really sure how much more we could have invested while remaining on track.
Yet when I ask about being in a better position under each board your argument goes to Dyche is happier under new board. Not that we didn't have the money to spend under the old board.

You seem to have the opinion that we couldn't really do much with wages, yet further on acknowledge there was a clearing of the wages that was then impacted by COVID. There were rumours of the club being sold before COVID and it's quite apparent that we were fattening the goose, for quite some time.
We haven't even touched on money at bank. How much is required for a rainy day fund I do not know.

To me and others it would seem that finances were in place to do something. That's maybe why some can't accept what your saying although I accept and respect your opinion.

For the last time I will say this, had Garlick spent 20-30m of the money at bank and stayed in charge, we would now be in a position with 50-60m at bank (enough to weather the covid scare), a better playing side and maybe a higher finish in the league. We would be celebrating Garlick on here.

The realistic side of things is, New owners, Ageing side in need of investment, No money at bank.

Still can't help but feel after it all we're in a worse position but I'll wait and see.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:24 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:21 pm
8 seasons of underfunding?
roughly when Dyche came in, we can go further back but the conversation was mostly around Dyche's time

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 4:25 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:18 pm
not emotional at all CP, it's only just after 8 am and I've not finished my coffee yet !!

I've read all your points, you know I always do and whilst I understand what you are saying I would also refer you back - not spending 300K on signing Tarks from Oldham was bad but what is even more unforgivable was they didn't learn from it.

The lack of investment when we qualified for the Europa League was disgusting and lacked any sort of bravery.

Again, I understand fully the situation of covid and how that has decimated funds - but that was in the last 12 months, that doesn't forgive the last 8 seasons of underfunding. 300K for Tarks would NEVER have broken the bank, just gutless.
are you considering the financial environment of that particular time? - it looks obvious on reflection as do a number of other transfers, but context is everything and there is so very much of that which we will never know about these decisions, even after the accounts are published - it really has to come to the grown-up decision of do you believe the board acted in what they thought was best for the club at the time or not irrespective of whether you would have made the same decision - and I am on record for saying I would not have taken a number of those same decisions, but I believe the board acted in what they thought were the best decisions for the club at the time.

Hipper
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1170 times
Has Liked: 916 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Hipper » Tue May 11, 2021 4:25 pm

I think our season amongst the relegation candidates is purely about player injuries and no more.

We have a small squad and started without Mee and Tarkowski. Only when Mee came back in game seven at Brighton did we start to look like our old selves. Mee is such a key player, not only being a good defender and captain but also our out ball from defence. This would have been the time for Gibson but of course by then he'd decided this wasn't his home. During the season we have suffered more then we usually do with injuries and it appears that three important players, Gudmunsson, Brady, and maybe Barnes, are crocks (yes I know other sides have suffered injuries too but most were better able to cope with that).

If it wasn't for all this surely we would have comfortably remained in the Premier League.

So that's the footballing side. On club finance I'm not sure what to think. It did seem reasonable to keep a chunk of money aside to deal with the unknowns of Covid - loss of expected income from broadcasting etc., as well as attendances. Was that just a ruse to allow some shareholders to cash in? To make the club more attractive to investors? I don't know but it's a disturbing view.

And then there's Dyche. I'm not sure I like him as an individual. I know he does a magnificent job in difficult circumstances but like Chester and others, I didn't like the things he said at the beginning of the season. Even if he did fall out with Garlic there's no need to tell the world about it unless Dyche himself has some sort of agenda. In the end it is not Dyche that runs the club, just the team affairs. If he starts to think he's bigger then the club that's the end of him for me. Burnley and managers bigger then the club don't mix.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 11, 2021 4:26 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:24 pm
roughly when Dyche came in, we can go further back but the conversation was mostly around Dyche's time
Didn't we break our transfer record 2-3 times in one window a few years ago?

Defour, Brady, Wood?

We haven't been underfunded for 8yrs anyway.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:27 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:25 pm
are you considering the financial environment of that particular time? - it looks obvious on reflection as do a number of other transfers, but context is everything and there is so very much of that which we will never know about these decisions, even after the accounts are published - it really has to come to the grown-up decision of do you believe the board acted in what they thought was best for the club at the time or not irrespective of whether you would have made the same decision - and I am on record for saying I would not have taken a number of those same decisions, but I believe the board acted in what they thought were the best decisions for the club at the time.
So you are allowed your opinion which you have decided is the grown up one ?

Do I think Garlick acted entirely in the interests of Burnley Footbal Club - not a chance, not even close
These 2 users liked this post: dsr Buxtonclaret

fidelcastro
Posts: 7209
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2178 times
Has Liked: 2165 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by fidelcastro » Tue May 11, 2021 4:30 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:26 pm
Didn't we break our transfer record 2-3 times in one window a few years ago?

Defour, Brady, Wood?

We haven't been underfunded for 8yrs anyway.
Don't forget 15 million for Gibson!

:o

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:41 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:26 pm
Didn't we break our transfer record 2-3 times in one window a few years ago?

Defour, Brady, Wood?

We haven't been underfunded for 8yrs anyway.
our first team has been massively underfunded at PL level. Well done on mentioning 3 signings in 8 seasons, you illustrated my point perfectly

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:41 pm

fidelcastro wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:30 pm
Don't forget 15 million for Gibson!

:o
we didn't pay that for Gibson

fidelcastro
Posts: 7209
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2178 times
Has Liked: 2165 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by fidelcastro » Tue May 11, 2021 4:51 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:41 pm
we didn't pay that for Gibson
Oh, didn't we?

I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

:roll:

Rileybobs
Posts: 16624
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6858 times
Has Liked: 1470 times
Location: Leeds

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Tue May 11, 2021 4:52 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:41 pm
our first team has been massively underfunded at PL level. Well done on mentioning 3 signings in 8 seasons, you illustrated my point perfectly
We've been massively underfunded at PL level because we're competing against clubs who can afford to be massively overfunded - and in many cases we're outperforming them. That outperformance isn't just by the players and the manager, it comes right from the top.

And when discussing investment into the squad everyone seems to ignore the contract extensions given to our key players. We've not had a load of Fancy Dan signings over the past few years, but we've managed to retain the services of our best players, at a significant outlay. Not to mention the hefty bonuses that will have been paid out to playing and coaching staff.

In crude terms, signing a player for £20m will cost £40m over the duration of their contract. How many players like that do you think we could have bought before we found ourselves in deep trouble? The new owners may have access to more funds, but I expect the transfer kitty will be built from player sales, which is something that we've been in a lucky enough position to not have to do for the past few seasons.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 4:52 pm

fidelcastro wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:51 pm
Oh, didn't we?

I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

:roll:
about time :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

fidelcastro
Posts: 7209
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2178 times
Has Liked: 2165 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by fidelcastro » Tue May 11, 2021 4:54 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:52 pm
about time :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That was the fee reported at the time, but obviously you know different. :roll:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gibson#Club_career

JohnMac
Posts: 7171
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:11 pm
Been Liked: 2365 times
Has Liked: 3770 times
Location: Padiham

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by JohnMac » Tue May 11, 2021 4:58 pm

I think some fans see our club as attractive when maybe, despite recent pr statements it isn't really.

Perhaps a club with a healthy balance sheet is more attractive than one saddled with debt and an unsustainable model and thus becomes attractive.

Can all those clubs in the football pyramid be wrong for admiring the previous Board and their sustainable model?

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10804
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5489 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by TheFamilyCat » Tue May 11, 2021 4:59 pm

How do you define "underfunded"?

We have stayed in the PL for 6 seasons. We've been sufficiently funded to achieve that.

We have finished 7th & 10th. We have been sufficiently funded to achieve that.

We haven't been sufficiently funded to qualify for the Champions League.
This user liked this post: fidelcastro

fidelcastro
Posts: 7209
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2178 times
Has Liked: 2165 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by fidelcastro » Tue May 11, 2021 5:09 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:59 pm
How do you define "underfunded"?

We have stayed in the PL for 6 seasons. We've been sufficiently funded to achieve that.

We have finished 7th & 10th. We have been sufficiently funded to achieve that.

We haven't been sufficiently funded to qualify for the Champions League.
If we did qualify for the champions league, there would be those moaning that we should have won the title if we'd just spend more money!

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 5:18 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:52 pm
We've been massively underfunded at PL level because we're competing against clubs who can afford to be massively overfunded - and in many cases we're outperforming them. That outperformance isn't just by the players and the manager, it comes right from the top.

And when discussing investment into the squad everyone seems to ignore the contract extensions given to our key players. We've not had a load of Fancy Dan signings over the past few years, but we've managed to retain the services of our best players, at a significant outlay. Not to mention the hefty bonuses that will have been paid out to playing and coaching staff.

In crude terms, signing a player for £20m will cost £40m over the duration of their contract. How many players like that do you think we could have bought before we found ourselves in deep trouble? The new owners may have access to more funds, but I expect the transfer kitty will be built from player sales, which is something that we've been in a lucky enough position to not have to do for the past few seasons.
well aware and acknowledge all those things - none of them are to be sniffed at and nor do I do so but I also acknowledge that a 20 million transfer fee is paid over multiple seasons not in a lump sum. I'm also not talking about competing with the top end or even the mid end of the PL, I'm talking about signing players like Brownhill at 5-7 million instead of players like Stephens at 1 million, both of whom I believe were the best we could do given the lack of budget and neither of which I believe we would have signed had that budget been slightly bigger.

Anyway, is what it is, I hope (and believe) that Pace and Co will do a far better job commercially at the football club which will enable them to back further investment. It's pretty clear from the get go given recent immediate departures that Garlic employed the cheap options in certain positions within the club rather than the best person for a job - bringing in the right people isn't just on the pitch and hopefully the new folks will be far more capable.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 11, 2021 5:20 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:41 pm
our first team has been massively underfunded at PL level. Well done on mentioning 3 signings in 8 seasons, you illustrated my point perfectly
I can list all of our signings if it will help, but I'm thinking it won't.

We're about to end our 5th consecutive season in the PL with the 6th guaranteed.
Dyche has been backed for the majority of those 5 PL seasons.
What seems to be missed is the overall quality of those signings has meant we haven't needed a massive overhaul every summer.
Chris Wood who cost us £15 million is about to overtake Ashley Barnes who cost us £400k in PL goals scored.

Ben Mee cost us less than £1 million and has been a better signing then Gibson.

Pope, current England goalie, cost us £1 million and has been so good he's seen off 2 other former England goalkeepers in Hart and Heaton, finished 2nd in the golden glove last season.

Our £5 million signing from Aston Villa, Westwood, has become one of our key players, better value for money than the £24 million Everton paid for Schneiderlin who reportedly laughed in the face of Duncan Ferguson during a training session when he was pulled up on his attitude and was sent home as a result :shock:

Wood cost us £15 million... For comparison Mitrovic cost Fulham £22 million, rising to £27 million and he's **** in the PL, yet I'm aware there were a few people on here who held him in high regard, bit like Dwight Gayle.

Lowton, Taylor, Bardsley and Pieters - can't see any numbers but they weren't a fortune, guessing £10 million combined, but look at how important they've all been at various stages during their time here filling in for each other and how good value for money they've been.

Is your issue that we haven't spent a larger amount of money?
Would you feel like the team has been better funded if we had more players costing £15 million + each?

We should be impressed that we are generally making financially astute signings that are putting in the effort and, Gibson aside, aren't causing any problems in the team.
I've never seen a media report that Dyche has lost the dressing room, just the usual gang on here making the claim when we have a poor run.

The first 18 months Dyche was here, there wasn't much money available, hence selling Austin to keep us ticking over and then we surprisingly got promoted :lol:, since then though we've generally done well with transfers.

There's been the odd unfortunate window where we've literally had a player at the club ready to sign, but his parent club weren't able to complete their own end of the chain, so the deal fell through (Marney did his knee in not long after that Jan window) , but the funds were there.
Apparently even in the recent January window we had offers in, but we just couldn't get them over the line, but it wasn't an issue it turns out and we were prepared to spend.

This summer is probably the first window where we really need to make some serious additions to the squad since his first summer window when he picked up x3 freebies in Heaton, Jones and Arfield who helped change the club forever.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 11, 2021 5:22 pm

fidelcastro wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:54 pm
That was the fee reported at the time, but obviously you know different. :roll:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gibson#Club_career
£15 million included addons its been reported on here.
With Norwich coughing up £8 million then we haven't really lost much on Gibson.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 5:25 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:59 pm
How do you define "underfunded"?

We have stayed in the PL for 6 seasons. We've been sufficiently funded to achieve that.

We have finished 7th & 10th. We have been sufficiently funded to achieve that.

We haven't been sufficiently funded to qualify for the Champions League.
We've achieved those things because we have a phenomenal manager and players that give every last ounce of sweat.

Do I think the managers of Arsenal, Villa, Wolves, Palace, Newcastle, Brighton, Southampton would do a similar job, no I don't.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 5:29 pm

I have broken down Conroy92's post to provide a detailed response
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
In many ways Chester I challenged what you said in different ways. Your view (hopefully I have this right as I have not looked at every comment and only skimmed most) is that your not really sure how much more we could have invested while remaining on track.
My view is that we could not have invested more while keeping to budget - performing above budget is what built the cash reserve, the cash reserve should not be used to supplement the following budgets unless it used to cover the life of the additional cost being placed on the budget - which for a player is fee (including all stage payments and conditional payments) wages (including bonuses) agent fees and support/regulatory (including taxes)
costs
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
Yet when I ask about being in a better position under each board your argument goes to Dyche is happier under new board. Not that we didn't have the money to spend under the old board.
I argued that many believe he is happier under the new board - I think he is for now, because he is hearing want he wants to hear, whether that will manifest itself in actions he is happy with we are yet to see - they may be more open with him on the finances and communicate better. But Alan Pace has been clear from day one that his group were attracted to the club because it was able to compete in the Premier League under tight fiscal management. I have found it telling that other American Private Equity groups have said publicly that they would not invest in the club because they could not add enough improvements that would generate the returns they would need to justify the investment, they thought the club was exceptionally well run.
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
You seem to have the opinion that we couldn't really do much with wages, yet further on acknowledge there was a clearing of the wages that was then impacted by COVID. There were rumours of the club being sold before COVID and it's quite apparent that we were fattening the goose, for quite some time.
you will find that the clearing of wages will roughly match the additional reduction in come this season in matchday and catering - it is a book balancing exercise - which incidentally has been destroyed by interest payments and Director pay

I also said that on pre-covid scenarios that we were in-line (as a result in increased revenues from the new Premier League cycle and a clearing of several out of contract players) to have space for new incomings in the budget - since then we have seen £330m of rebates and the collapse of a circa £500m Chinese TV deal with around £45m - £50m of that recouped so far and only 1 year to recoup the rest. - Consequently annual revenues in the cycle are likely to be roughly equal to the previous cycle at the very best.

While the cash pile was undoubtedly attractive to investors, there were also spending commitments attached to it, both on the infrastructure side and the medium term commitment to the Academy in the event of our eventual relegation - roughly £5m a year at the moment and it is probably 5 - 8 years from being fully productive in the way we all wish, though that could be accelerated if we were to start paying fees for talent (which I suspect we have begun to do) that will drive up the annual costs.
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
We haven't even touched on money at bank. How much is required for a rainy day fund I do not know.


I have actually spoken about this a number of times, just not on this particular thread - The £80m in the last accounts is likely to be at least 50% based on the first payment for the 2020/21 season, which means the truer figure at the end of last season was no more than £50m and probably a bit less - with no pandemic it would have been over £60m and as I have already said some of that would likely have been used on fees as we had operational budget room for wages ceteris paribus - unfortunately that is not the situation that the world finds itself in.

We also know that there is an ongoing plan of infrastructure works that are funded from cash not debt - the current works at the club were planned for last summer but did not go ahead because of reduced close season, there will also have been plans and money put aside for future projects - we have had them every year in the Premier League and Dave Baldwin told the London Clarets at their AGM that he had various projects in mind that could swallow several hundred millions if he had the budget. We shouldn't make the mistake that just because we don't know about such plans it does not mean that they are not in the clubs overarching plan.
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
To me and others it would seem that finances were in place to do something. That's maybe why some can't accept what your saying although I accept and respect your opinion.
I hope i have provided you with enough material to understand my contrary perspective - I don't ask for anyone to agree with me/ or the club, just to understand.
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
For the last time I will say this, had Garlick spent 20-30m of the money at bank and stayed in charge, we would now be in a position with 50-60m at bank (enough to weather the covid scare), a better playing side and maybe a higher finish in the league. We would be celebrating Garlick on here.
we would not have still had that much money in the bank under this scenario, even without the pandemic/takeover, it would be roughly half or less of that with the spending you suggest.

even when we finished 7th we budgeted the following season cost wise to finish 17th as we always have since Dyche's 2nd promotion - that is just hard-nosed realism and recognition that at some point we are going to be relegated (the same as at least 10 other clubs, possibly 12) in the league, it is a fact of life - it has never meant that all aspects of the club have not sought to do better than that at any time.
Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:23 pm
The realistic side of things is, New owners, Ageing side in need of investment, No money at bank.

Still can't help but feel after it all we're in a worse position but I'll wait and see.
I actually agree with most of this, but that should not surprise people who regularly read my posts, though I will say that we have some money at the bank, what do you think is paying for the infrastructure investment at the moment, let alone operational costs and wages.


I hope this helps and you appreciate the effort and time I have given in my response
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 11, 2021 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 5:30 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:20 pm
I can list all of our signings if it will help, but I'm thinking it won't.

We're about to end our 5th consecutive season in the PL with the 6th guaranteed.
Dyche has been backed for the majority of those 5 PL seasons.
What seems to be missed is the overall quality of those signings has meant we haven't needed a massive overhaul every summer.
Chris Wood who cost us £15 million is about to overtake Ashley Barnes who cost us £400k in PL goals scored.

Ben Mee cost us less than £1 million and has been a better signing then Gibson.

Pope, current England goalie, cost us £1 million and has been so good he's seen off 2 other former England goalkeepers in Hart and Heaton, finished 2nd in the golden glove last season.

Our £5 million signing from Aston Villa, Westwood, has become one of our key players, better value for money than the £24 million Everton paid for Schneiderlin who reportedly laughed in the face of Duncan Ferguson during a training session when he was pulled up on his attitude and was sent home as a result :shock:

Wood cost us £15 million... For comparison Mitrovic cost Fulham £22 million, rising to £27 million and he's **** in the PL, yet I'm aware there were a few people on here who held him in high regard, bit like Dwight Gayle.

Lowton, Taylor, Bardsley and Pieters - can't see any numbers but they weren't a fortune, guessing £10 million combined, but look at how important they've all been at various stages during their time here filling in for each other and how good value for money they've been.

Is your issue that we haven't spent a larger amount of money?
Would you feel like the team has been better funded if we had more players costing £15 million + each?

We should be impressed that we are generally making financially astute signings that are putting in the effort and, Gibson aside, aren't causing any problems in the team.
I've never seen a media report that Dyche has lost the dressing room, just the usual gang on here making the claim when we have a poor run.

The first 18 months Dyche was here, there wasn't much money available, hence selling Austin to keep us ticking over and then we surprisingly got promoted :lol:, since then though we've generally done well with transfers.

There's been the odd unfortunate window where we've literally had a player at the club ready to sign, but his parent club weren't able to complete their own end of the chain, so the deal fell through (Marney did his knee in not long after that Jan window) , but the funds were there.
Apparently even in the recent January window we had offers in, but we just couldn't get them over the line, but it wasn't an issue it turns out and we were prepared to spend.

This summer is probably the first window where we really need to make some serious additions to the squad since his first summer window when he picked up x3 freebies in Heaton, Jones and Arfield who helped change the club forever.
read the post above your reply, I'm not typing it out again. Basically you've just outlined that Dyche is a miracle worker - he has the say on players not the board, he's done way above the expected given the resources he had available, we are in this position because of the players and the manager and not the board - I will however give the previous board MASSIVE credit for the investment in Barnfield and the youth set-ups.

Nobody will convince me not signing Tarks for 300K or spending 1 million on Stephens was in the best interests of the club

Rileybobs
Posts: 16624
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6858 times
Has Liked: 1470 times
Location: Leeds

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Tue May 11, 2021 5:33 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:25 pm
We've achieved those things because we have a phenomenal manager and players that give every last ounce of sweat.

Do I think the managers of Arsenal, Villa, Wolves, Palace, Newcastle, Brighton, Southampton would do a similar job, no I don't.
I’m sorry but that’s a total cop out. The board of directors employ the manager and those players and know they are capable of surviving in the Premier League comfortably with occasional top half finishes. If we had a less talented manager or inferior players then we would need to spend more money to achieve the same results. But we don’t.

Stayingup
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:02 pm
Been Liked: 913 times
Has Liked: 2724 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Stayingup » Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm

Question for me was what caused the Garlick.Dyche fallout?

Rileybobs
Posts: 16624
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6858 times
Has Liked: 1470 times
Location: Leeds

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Tue May 11, 2021 5:38 pm

Stayingup wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm
Question for me was what caused the Garlick.Dyche fallout?
Wasn’t it rumoured that Dyche wanted to offer new contracts to the likes of Lennon when the season was extended last season due to covid? It lead to us fielding some pretty weak teams after project restart but we already looked like we would comfortably avoid relegation.

Conroy92
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:06 pm
Been Liked: 494 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Conroy92 » Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:29 pm
I have broken down Conroy92's post to provide a detailed response



My view is that we could not have invested more while keeping to budget - performing above budget is what built the cash reserve, the cash reserve should not be used to supplement the following budgets unless it used to cover the life of the additional cost being placed on the budget - which for a player is fee (including all stage payments and conditional payments) wages (including bonuses) agent fees and support/regulatory (including taxes)
costs



I argued that many believe he is happier under the new board - I think he is for now, because he is hearing want he wants to hear, whether that will manifest itself in actions he is happy with we are yet to see - they may be more open with him on the finances and communicate better. But Alan Pace has been clear from day one that his group were attracted to the club because it was able to compete in the Premier League under tight fiscal management. I have found it telling that other American Private Equity groups have said publicly that they would not invest in the club because they could not add enough improvements that would generate the returns they would need to justify the investment, they thought the club was exceptionally well run.



you will find that the clearing of wages will roughly match the additional reduction in come this season in matchday and catering - it is a book balancing exercise - which incidentally has been destroyed by interest payments and Director pay

I also said that on pre-covid scenarios that we were in-line (as a result in increased revenues from the new Premier League cycle and a clearing of several out of contract players) to have space for new incomings in the budget - since then we have seen £330m of rebates and the collapse of a circa £500m Chinese TV deal with around £45m - £50m of that recouped so far and only 1 year to recoup the rest. - Consequently annual revenues in the cycle are likely to be roughly equal to the previous cycle at the very best.

While the cash pile was undoubtedly attractive to investors, there were also spending commitments attached to it, both on the infrastructure side and the medium term commitment to the Academy in the event of our eventual relegation - roughly £5m a year at the moment and it is probably 5 - 8 years from being fully productive in the way we all wish, though that could be accelerated if we were to start paying fees for talent (which I suspect we have begun to do) that will drive up the annual costs.



I have actually spoken about this a number of times, just not on this particular thread - The £80m in the last accounts is likely to be at least 50% based on the first payment for the 2020/21 season, which means the truer figure at the end of last season was no more than £50m and probably a bit less - with no pandemic it would have been over £60m and as I have already said some of that would likely have been used on fees as we had operational budget room for wages ceteris paribus - unfortunately that is not the situation that the world finds itself in.

We also know that there is an ongoing plan of infrastructure works that are funded from cash not debt - the current works at the club were planned for last summer but did not go ahead because of reduced close season, there will also have been plans and money put aside for future projects - we have had them every year in the Premier League and Dave Baldwin told the London Clarets at their AGM that he had various projects in mind that could swallow several hundred millions if he had the budget. We shouldn't make the mistake that just because we don't know about such plans it does not mean that they are not in the clubs overarching plan.



I hope i have provided you with enough material to understand my contrary perspective - I don't ask for anyone to agree with me/ or the club, just to understand.



we would not have still had that much money in the bank under this scenario, even without the pandemic/takeover, it would be roughly half or less of that with the spending you suggest.

even when we finished 7th we budgeted the following season cost wise to finish 17th as we always have since Dyche's 2nd promotion - that is just hard-nosed realism and recognition that at some point we are going to be relegated (the same as at least 10 other clubs, possibly 12) in the league, it is a fact of life - it has never meant that all aspects of the club have not sought to do better than that at any time.



I actually agree with most of this, but that should not surprise people who regularly read my posts, though I will say that we have some money at the bank, what do you think is paying for the infrastructure investment at the moment, let alone operational costs and wages.


I hope this helps and you appreciate the effort and time I have given in my response
A good debate and I thank you for it. I agree with a lot of what you say but would question the money reduction in wages covering covid, surely that is what some of the money at bank should be used for. I'm not sure why we would have a rainy day fund to then say, it's raining but let's not use the money set aside for that, let's let some of the squad walk away and not replace them to lower wages.
It seems we only really differ on the opinion of being able to sign one or two players (I'm not an advocate of signing loads of costly players).

I understand your argument and hope you understand mine.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:33 pm
I’m sorry but that’s a total cop out. The board of directors employ the manager and those players and know they are capable of surviving in the Premier League comfortably with occasional top half finishes. If we had a less talented manager or inferior players then we would need to spend more money to achieve the same results. But we don’t.
ah the height of ambition

I enjoy people who strive to be better, on the one hand people acknowledge that Tarkowski wants to play at a higher level and admire his ambition but don't apply the same outlook to the club - I'm with Tarkowski

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12326
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5196 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pm

Stayingup wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm
Question for me was what caused the Garlick.Dyche fallout?
There's usually a third person involved with these kind of fallouts. I've been watching this thread closely for clues and I have my suspicions :!:

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3094 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:27 pm
So you are allowed your opinion which you have decided is the grown up one ?

Do I think Garlick acted entirely in the interests of Burnley Footbal Club - not a chance, not even close
No I said my approach was a grown up one, because I analysed the situation and have described in detail my thought processes and reasoning, thereby laying them open to critique and challenge - no one has yet taken the opportunity to do that.

I also said it is entirely plausible to come up with an opposite view (perhaps even welcome, my challenge was for them to do so by describing their thought processes and reasoning in detail - no as yet has done that either.

What we have seen is emotive/frustrated/gut type reactions without any real analysis which stands up to scrutiny and sincerely I think that is a shame

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:30 pm
read the post above your reply, I'm not typing it out again. Basically you've just outlined that Dyche is a miracle worker - he has the say on players not the board, he's done way above the expected given the resources he had available, we are in this position because of the players and the manager and not the board - I will however give the previous board MASSIVE credit for the investment in Barnfield and the youth set-ups.

Nobody will convince me not signing Tarks for 300K or spending 1 million on Stephens was in the best interests of the club
No, I'm saying Dyche and the club took the time to find players that suited Dyche's ethos / needs and were signed for a price that suited the club.
We were never held to ransom as far as I'm aware, they fitted our budget or we walked away.

You're belittling the time and effort its taken the club to find and sign said players, inc spotting potential and then improving them whilst they're here.

Let's take Pope - more than a few of us were apprehensive when Heaton got injured.
Turns out we had nothing to worry about.

That isn't working a miracle, that's talent spotting, then having one of the best goalkeeping coaches in the PL work hard with Pope everyday in training, or Pope watching video clips of the best goalies in the game, both current and retired, so he can learn how to improve.

Dyche uses the same dressing room mantra as the All-Blacks - No D/heads allowed.

Every one of our players works hard to be better than they were when we signed them, hence the mantra.
It isn't miracles that have kept us in the PL, its having a sound transfer strategy that has been well funded.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 pm

Stayingup wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm
Question for me was what caused the Garlick.Dyche fallout?
Drinkwater.

Post Reply