FAO Mr Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
dsr
Posts: 15083
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4529 times
Has Liked: 2232 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 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.
The club, in the past year, has had over £100m available funds. These funds could have been committed to paying transfer fees and player wages. Instead they have been committed to paying the owners.
These 3 users liked this post: Elizabeth IanMcL tarkys_ears

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 5:43 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:38 pm
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.
genuine question - do you think Dyche wanted to offer the likes of Lennon an extension because he knew there would be laughable investment levels in the summer ?

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 5:44 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pm
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
I would say that top half premier league finishes are very much the height of any realistic ambition. How much do you think we would need to spend to achieve beyond that, ie regular European qualification? And where do you suggest we get this money from?

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 5:45 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 pm
genuine question - do you think Dyche wanted to offer the likes of Lennon an extension because he knew there would be laughable investment levels in the summer ?
Possibly.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 5:46 pm

Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pm
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.
I think it comes down to what you think the cash holding was for - I think much of it was to continue the club's off field developments (which includes the Academy) whether we were relegated or not - many seem to assume that it was purely for rainy days or to ensure Garlick got his payday when the club was sold
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

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 5:46 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 pm
genuine question - do you think Dyche wanted to offer the likes of Lennon an extension because he knew there would be laughable investment levels in the summer ?
If Dyche wants a player to have a contract extension its nothing to do with what funds are available for transfers, it's because HE believes the player has something to offer.
I'm not aware of Brady being offered a new deal for example, which if that's the case would suggest Dyche thinks his time here is up.

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 5:48 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pm
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.
No, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them

I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler

boatshed bill
Posts: 15067
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3128 times
Has Liked: 6666 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Tue May 11, 2021 5:49 pm

I've no intention of reading through this lot, but just explain what hook MG has got off?
Was he about to receive some form of retribution had we been relegated?

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 5:49 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:46 pm
If Dyche wants a player to have a contract extension its nothing to do with what funds are available for transfers, it's because HE believes the player has something to offer.
I'm not aware of Brady being offered a new deal for example, which if that's the case would suggest Dyche thinks his time here is up.
maybe because he knows funds will be available and we can do better with Brady's wage (just conjecture)

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 5:51 pm

Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pm
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.
Our true rainy day is the inevitible relegation isn't it? And leaving enough cash to keep the squad together, in order to give the best chance of coming back. Parachute payments would only be around 40% of our wage bill from memory, whilst matchday income would be about 10%..... if wage cuts averaged at 25%, then they're still £20 - £25m a year short on an £80 - £100m wage bill. They're rounded figures, but I suspect they won't be a mile off. £45m gives you 2 seasons to get back to the big league, before you have to have a fire sale and cost cut dramatically.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 5:52 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 pm
The club, in the past year, has had over £100m available funds. These funds could have been committed to paying transfer fees and player wages. Instead they have been committed to paying the owners.
None of those externally sourced funds would have been realised by the previous board, those have been utilised by the new owners for their own benefit. Were the old board in some way complicit to that process - yes - but I have already been though my thinking on that on this thread
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 2:46 am
Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors sell with the knowledge that those monies were going to be used to help pay for the shares?
- quite probably

Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors sell with the knowledge that the new owners were going to leverage the the club's assets to raise the required funds?
- quite probably

Would Garlick and the outgoing directors have preferred to sell the club for cash and have new owners with appropriate funds and good intentions to drive the club forwards rather than just great plans, knowledge, connections and expertise?
- quite probably

Did Garlick sell/relinquish control with the knowledge that it was the only way to keep Sean Dyche at the club?
- quite probably

Did the sale of Garlick's shares force the sale of the shares of the other Directors, even if they were uncomfortable about the idea?
- quite probably

Did those same Directors share with Garlick the belief that if he did not relinquish control they would not keep Dyche at the club?
- quite probably

Did Garlick and the outgoing directors believe that there was finite time in which to sell the club in order for it to retain Dyche?
- quite probably

Did Garlick and the outgoing directors believe that Dyche being at the club enhanced the saleability of the club?
- quite probably

Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors believe the bid they finally took for the club was the best on the table for the club?
- quite probably

Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors believe the bid they finally took for the club was the best for themselves?
- possibly, though we cannot be so certain as we have been in the previous answers, it is not something I would think Barry Kilby in particular would consider, and I suspect it is the same for many if not all the other Directors.

This is why for me the sale was all about keeping Dyche at the club and it is the circumstantial constraints around that that drove the nature of the transaction, and whatever many feel about the the financial details it appears that the vast majority believe retaining Dyche is essential, and it is in that sense that I talk about the club being subject to his whim - something I warned about several years ago. and again when the new owners spoke of him being central to their plans when they took-over, Pace waited too long to say they could find replacements if need be, the power had already been given to Dyche and he wasted little time in exercising it with those contract renewals in January.

None of this absolves the relationship breakdown between Garlick and Dyche which appears to be a result of failures in both communication, understanding and empathy.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15067
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3128 times
Has Liked: 6666 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Tue May 11, 2021 5:53 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:48 pm
No, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them

I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
£im for an experienced bench filler, cheap option.
or £7m for a bench filler, because that's about all we would have got for £7m
This user liked this post: Leisure

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 5:54 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 agree with both your points. Still doesn't define "underfunded". If anything it strengthens the case that we are sufficiently funded to buy those players to work for that manager. If we had a poorer manager then yes, we'd likely be underfunded for that manager's capability.

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 5:55 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:44 pm
I would say that top half premier league finishes are very much the height of any realistic ambition. How much do you think we would need to spend to achieve beyond that, ie regular European qualification? And where do you suggest we get this money from?
I would agree with that completely, mid table and a cup run. I don't think anyone is asking for us to be chasing a place in Europe. Investing 5-10 million quid on a player in a transfer window shouldn't be beyond our means especially given Dyche tends to get the best out of and improve every single player he works with for any decent amount of time

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 5:55 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:48 pm
No, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them

I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
Covid leading to a disrupted season, a shortened end of and pre season.
Players catching it.
Games moved around.
Playing a large number of games in a short period of time.
Injuries.

Yes, carry on blaming just the transfer window by all means, its definitely the root of all evil.

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 5:56 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:53 pm
£im for an experienced bench filler, cheap option.
or £7m for a bench filler, because that's about all we would have got for £7m
Brownhill has played how many games this season ? Hardly a bench filler

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 5:58 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:55 pm
Covid leading to a disrupted season, a shortened end of and pre season.
Players catching it.
Games moved around.
Playing a large number of games in a short period of time.
Injuries.

Yes, carry on blaming just the transfer window by all means, its definitely the root of all evil.
as mentioned at least 3 times on this thread alone, covid explains 1 transfer window not the vast majority of the last 8 seasons. With that I'm done for the time being, game to watch

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 5:58 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:55 pm
I would agree with that completely, mid table and a cup run. I don't think anyone is asking for us to be chasing a place in Europe. Investing 5-10 million quid on a player in a transfer window shouldn't be beyond our means especially given Dyche tends to get the best out of and improve every single player he works with for any decent amount of time
So you want us to spend more money to get the same result?

boatshed bill
Posts: 15067
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3128 times
Has Liked: 6666 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:56 pm
Brownhill has played how many games this season ? Hardly a bench filler
Brownhill was signed a long time before Stephens.
Stephens, I imagine, was signed because Cork wasn't ready to start the season.

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 6:00 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:49 pm
maybe because he knows funds will be available and we can do better with Brady's wage (just conjecture)
Brady was given an extra season last summer and that was to see if he'd gotten over his injury issues and could reclaim his form, because we know he's got the ability.
Brady has failed this season to justify another contract extension and no one could argue in favour of giving him another.

We can and will look at this from opposite positions.

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 6:01 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pm
as mentioned at least 3 times on this thread alone, covid explains 1 transfer window not the vast majority of the last 8 seasons. With that I'm done for the time being, game to watch
I've gone over the other windows, the issue is your perception of what constitutes underfunding and what I see as astute spending.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 6:01 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pm
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 :!:
I can confirm it wasn't me as I have never met the two principal protagonists

dsr
Posts: 15083
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4529 times
Has Liked: 2232 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 11, 2021 6:03 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:52 pm
None of those externally sourced funds would have been realised by the previous board, those have been utilised by the new owners for their own benefit. Were the old board in some way complicit to that process - yes - but I have already been though my thinking on that on this thread
When you are selling an asset for £150m, you don't "quite probably" know where the purchaser is getting his funds from. You know for certain. Would you sell a house to anyone who hasn't shown you where the money is coming from? Of course not. Nor would you sell £150m of shares.

Besides, he is still a director. Do you think he would be still a director if the club's funds had been so thoroughly denuded without his knowledge or consent?

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 6:04 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:01 pm
I've gone over the other windows, the issue is your perception of what constitutes underfunding and what I see as astute spending.
so it's not an issue it's an opinion

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 6:05 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pm
Brownhill was signed a long time before Stephens.
Stephens, I imagine, was signed because Cork wasn't ready to start the season.
and I will repeat, had Dyche been given 7 million to spend we wouldn't have signed Stephens

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 6:06 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:05 pm
and I will repeat, had Dyche been given 7 million to spend we wouldn't have signed Stephens
If Cork had been fit, we may not have signed anyone...
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

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 6:08 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:00 pm
Brady was given an extra season last summer and that was to see if he'd gotten over his injury issues and could reclaim his form, because we know he's got the ability.
Brady has failed this season to justify another contract extension and no one could argue in favour of giving him another.

We can and will look at this from opposite positions.
possibly, or was he given an extension because it was the cheaper option instead of singing another player ? Or was he given an extension in the hope we could sell him rather than releasing him ? I'm not saying that is the case btw but they are both completely plausible reasons for his extension

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 6:09 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:06 pm
If Cork had been fit, we may not have signed anyone...
doubt it

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 6:09 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:48 pm
No, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them

I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
you are assuming that Dyche had found a player he wanted in that role we could have acquired for that price bracket and that the club also believed the total cost made sense to the club over the period of the deal - my understanding is that we can let Stephens go in the summer with n additional costs so that is another spot available in the squad, alternatively we have to cough up another million if he stays - he was a stop gap measure not unlike we saw other clubs take, though for them it was usually a loan - the fees and wages for which would likely be higher for a player with less experience and we know how Dyche treats loan players
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 boatshed bill

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 6:13 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:08 pm
possibly, or was he given an extension because it was the cheaper option instead of singing another player ? Or was he given an extension in the hope we could sell him rather than releasing him ? I'm not saying that is the case btw but they are both completely plausible reasons for his extension
Whatever suits the agenda.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15067
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3128 times
Has Liked: 6666 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Tue May 11, 2021 6:14 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:05 pm
and I will repeat, had Dyche been given 7 million to spend we wouldn't have signed Stephens
And I will repeat "bench-filler", what sort of player should we have bought for that kind of 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 6:20 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:13 pm
Whatever suits the agenda.
it happens at every club, guess you think ours is different

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 6:25 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:03 pm
When you are selling an asset for £150m, you don't "quite probably" know where the purchaser is getting his funds from. You know for certain. Would you sell a house to anyone who hasn't shown you where the money is coming from? Of course not. Nor would you sell £150m of shares.

Besides, he is still a director. Do you think he would be still a director if the club's funds had been so thoroughly denuded without his knowledge or consent?
Quite probably - to the greatest extent that we can ascertain (not having been party to the discussions or the contract) this happened


as for your second point
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 2:46 am

..... Would Garlick and the outgoing directors have preferred to sell the club for cash and have new owners with appropriate funds and good intentions to drive the club forwards rather than just great plans, knowledge, connections and expertise?
- quite probably


..... Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors believe the bid they finally took for the club was the best on the table for the club?
- quite probably
and I will add

would Garlick and the outgoing Directors have preferred a complete sale for cash and absolute faith that the club was in good hands so they could stand aside completely?
- quite probably

Did Garlick (and John B) believe that given the structure of the sale and the method of financing it that it was in his interests to remain abreast of boardroom decisions and thought processes, in case the club fell back into their hands as a result of default, even though they have no effective boardroom power?
- quite probably
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 11, 2021 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 6:28 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:20 pm
it happens at every club, guess you think ours is different
Nope, but then again I'm not the one making bizarre claims about underfunding.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12327
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 6:39 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:01 pm
I can confirm it wasn't me as I have never met the two principal protagonists
You are not on my suspect list

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 6:45 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:39 pm
You are not on my suspect list
how very kind of you to say

Mattster
Posts: 1274
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:02 am
Been Liked: 346 times
Has Liked: 117 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Mattster » Tue May 11, 2021 10:14 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:09 pm
you are assuming that Dyche had found a player he wanted in that role we could have acquired for that price bracket and that the club also believed the total cost made sense to the club over the period of the deal - my understanding is that we can let Stephens go in the summer with n additional costs so that is another spot available in the squad, alternatively we have to cough up another million if he stays - he was a stop gap measure not unlike we saw other clubs take, though for them it was usually a loan - the fees and wages for which would likely be higher for a player with less experience and we know how Dyche treats loan players
Where have you come to that understanding from? It was reported at the time that it was 2 year deal for Stephens with a £1m upfront fee and a further £1m if we stayed up.

dsr
Posts: 15083
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4529 times
Has Liked: 2232 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 11, 2021 10:16 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:25 pm
Quite probably - to the greatest extent that we can ascertain (not having been party to the discussions or the contract) this happened


as for your second point



and I will add

would Garlick and the outgoing Directors have preferred a complete sale for cash and absolute faith that the club was in good hands so they could stand aside completely?
- quite probably

Did Garlick (and John B) believe that given the structure of the sale and the method of financing it that it was in his interests to remain abreast of boardroom decisions and thought processes, in case the club fell back into their hands as a result of default, even though they have no effective boardroom power?
- quite probably
Assuming Garlick wanted out, which we can presume he did, he had two realistic choices.

1. Sell his shares to ALK as per what happened, and receive the pot of cash from club funds.
2. Not sell to ALK, wait for a true cash buyer, and step back from the Board of Directors appointing a replacement temporary chairman (eg. perhaps Barry Kilby might have done it short term). He may have had to take less money.

"Quite probably" he would have preferred an option that wasn't there, ie. sell to a true cash buyer straight away, but that option apparently wasn't available. So he chose to take the money.

Of course he would like the club back if ALK get out. It's no skin off his nose - he won't have to give his share sale proceeds back.
This user liked this post: levraiclaret

Elizabeth
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1248 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Elizabeth » Tue May 11, 2021 10:37 pm

Let’s not get relegated then, parachute payments used by Pace to repay the loans and Garlick gets the club back

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1090 times
Has Liked: 300 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by RammyClaret61 » Tue May 11, 2021 10:44 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pm
as mentioned at least 3 times on this thread alone, covid explains 1 transfer window not the vast majority of the last 8 seasons. With that I'm done for the time being, game to watch
That’ll be the last 8 seasons of what have been our best period in our lifetime. 6 premier league seasons, a 7th place finish resulting in European football. Yeah pretty shabby really.

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 10:57 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:04 am
we see different things differently and there is nothing wrong with that, but 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.
Are you serious there?

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1866 times
Has Liked: 834 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Tue May 11, 2021 11:00 pm

Mattster wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:14 pm
Where have you come to that understanding from? It was reported at the time that it was 2 year deal for Stephens with a £1m upfront fee and a further £1m if we stayed up.
Probably the same understanding as every other fan complete guesswork which he posts on a football forum.

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 11:19 pm

RammyClaret61 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:44 pm
That’ll be the last 8 seasons of what have been our best period in our lifetime. 6 premier league seasons, a 7th place finish resulting in European football. Yeah pretty shabby really.
read the thread

cblantfanclub
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:11 pm
Been Liked: 116 times
Has Liked: 305 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by cblantfanclub » Wed May 12, 2021 6:14 pm

Dyche says: “At the very first board meeting I attended, I asked where the Premier League money had gone from that season [2009/10]. They said: ‘What do you mean?’ I told them that I had played at Turf Moor loads of times and the changing rooms were still the same. They didn’t have a training ground, really. Yet the money had been spent. I told them: ‘You can’t do that again.’ There had to be a bigger picture, a bigger future than that.”

Doesn't quite fit the Chester narrative.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3096 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 14, 2021 3:11 am

cblantfanclub wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:14 pm
Dyche says: “At the very first board meeting I attended, I asked where the Premier League money had gone from that season [2009/10]. They said: ‘What do you mean?’ I told them that I had played at Turf Moor loads of times and the changing rooms were still the same. They didn’t have a training ground, really. Yet the money had been spent. I told them: ‘You can’t do that again.’ There had to be a bigger picture, a bigger future than that.”

Doesn't quite fit the Chester narrative.
someone has not been paying attention to what I have been saying on the subject - This quote serves only to support my reasoning - thank you

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9381
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1173 times
Has Liked: 774 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri May 14, 2021 11:44 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:00 pm
Probably the same understanding as every other fan complete guesswork which he posts on a football forum.
An alternative slant could be that the “complete guesswork” is reinforced by some posters studiously researching information before posting, regarding DS acquisition I think every media outlet were singing the same tune with the size of the transfer fee & contract length so it’s guesswork from the media sources, which is simply believed & repeated as fact.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

IanMcL
Posts: 30081
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6335 times
Has Liked: 8645 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Sat May 15, 2021 1:31 pm

Mr Garlick was allegedly saving for a new Cricket field stand, whenever windows came and went. Really just ensuring his own funds were safe.
Pity.

Spijed
Posts: 17109
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2891 times
Has Liked: 1293 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Spijed » Sat May 15, 2021 2:28 pm

But as has been said, he was a business man first and foremost, fan a distant second. He wasn't what you'd call a die hard supporter in any way.
This user liked this post: Rumpelstiltskin

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 » Sun May 16, 2021 3:20 pm

Too many fans are of the impression owners are there to tip unlimited amounts of cash into a business out of their own pocket.

Why?

The recent Boards of the Football Club have stated on many occasions they were guardians of the club and wanted to ensure it didn't disappear into obscurity. They did that very well and maintained stability in an environment that only rewards the super rich who use their playthings to move their money (often dubious at best) around the global board.

I shudder to think were we would be now if someone with a more cavalier approach to finance had been in charge.

Woodleyclaret
Posts: 6873
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
Been Liked: 1466 times
Has Liked: 1838 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Woodleyclaret » Sun May 16, 2021 4:20 pm

We have made £500m in our 5 yrs in the Premier league
We have invested wisely in the training facility and had to raise our players wages still despite our running costs I personally feel Sean had a raw deal re funds for players
from the previous board

Post Reply