FAO Mr Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
mill hill claret
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 205 times
Has Liked: 726 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by mill hill claret » Tue May 11, 2021 12:03 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:55 pm
It was awful all through the summer and at the start of the season - though I was commentating on tonight's post match interview, which was definitely a warning shot across the bows to the new owners. It is a diabolical, inciteful approach to a club that has given him and continues to give him so much. I appreciate his talents with the team but I will never believe he has the interests of the club at heart anymore - this is a very different form of human being to the one that arrived at the club or that got promoted a second time.
Maybe because he cares ..

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 12:04 am

Vegas Claret wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:53 pm
I posted it in the post match interviews, the one on the club site. It's subtle but obvious as you will hear
Cheers, just given it a listen. To be honest I don’t read into too much about the ‘writing a book’ comment. Good to hear that he’s having constant progressive talks with the new owners though.

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 12:10 am

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:48 pm
And why not

If we'd gone down this thread would be so different
It comes down to what you think a football club is or should be - to my mind a club is something that brings together a community, and represents it - my impression is Dyche used to believe this and particularly that it be sustainable, now it feels it is about what he wants and nothing really more, he has worked his way into a level of influence and reliance upon himself that he is more than the club, without him (is the commonly accepted belief) the club fails, falls even - which is probably a realistic view given his pervasive influence. He has seen off one ownership because he didn't like their desire to have a sustainable fiscal management and gradual approach to the development of the club as a whole, a position that can be read that dyche values his reputation more than the club's stability

I do not expect many to accept my view but we are essentially in a no win deal now - keep Dyche happy or see the whole thing come crashing down, Dyche likes what the new owners have to say and doesn't care about the new fiscal situation at the club (not unlike Fergusson and the Glazer's). For some that is fine, personally it is an existential crisis, though ultimately I would chose the club (whatever the league it played in over anyone
This user liked this post: bfcmik

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 12:10 am

mill hill claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:03 am
Maybe because he cares ..
about what? is the question, I stopped thinking it was the club a few years ago

Wokingclaret
Posts: 2059
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 292 times
Has Liked: 759 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Wokingclaret » Tue May 11, 2021 12:14 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:10 am
It comes down to what you think a football club is or should be - to my mind a club is something that brings together a community, and represents it - my impression is Dyche used to believe this and particularly that it be sustainable, now it feels it is about what he wants and nothing really more, he has worked his way into a level of influence and reliance upon himself that he is more than the club, without him (is the commonly accepted belief) the club fails, falls even - which is probably a realistic view given his pervasive influence. He has seen off one ownership because he didn't like their desire to have a sustainable fiscal management and gradual approach to the development of the club as a whole, a position that can be read that dyche values his reputation more than the club's stability

I do not expect many to accept my view but we are essentially in a no win deal now - keep Dyche happy or see the whole thing come crashing down, Dyche likes what the new owners have to say and doesn't care about the new fiscal situation at the club (not unlike Fergusson and the Glazer's). For some that is fine, personally it is an existential crisis, though ultimately I would chose the club (whatever the league it played in over anyone
Yep Dyche is like a stick of rock through the club, "Hearts legs minds" Barnfield is built like it.

mill hill claret
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 205 times
Has Liked: 726 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by mill hill claret » Tue May 11, 2021 12:16 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:10 am
about what? is the question, I stopped thinking it was the club a few years ago
Maybe he cares about the club ..and how we weren't moving forward despite being in the top league for 4 ,5 years ..if he was fed up he is a very wealthy man ...he could quit if he wanted to

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 12:24 am

Back to the OP I think Mike Garlick's single biggest mistake was appointing Neil Hart and becoming Executive Chairman, the loss of Dave Baldwin was seismic for us, the internal atmosphere at the club broke down at that point, though I believe Dyche's relationship with Garlick was more or less gone when that news broke. Clearing the decks with the new owners has led to what seems an improvement on that front from an external observation, but it remains to be seen what things will develop into over the coming years. My guess is the discontent will be from the fanbase and community, not within the 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 12:25 am

mill hill claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:16 am
Maybe he cares about the club ..and how we weren't moving forward despite being in the top league for 4 ,5 years ..if he was fed up he is a very wealthy man ...he could quit if he wanted to
anyone who thinks the club has not been moving forward in the last few years has not been paying attention - do not confuse the club with the team

mill hill claret
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 205 times
Has Liked: 726 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by mill hill claret » Tue May 11, 2021 12:29 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:25 am
anyone who thinks the club has not been moving forward in the last few years has not been paying attention - do not confuse the club with the team
Bloody hell ...they can't even sort season ticket renewals out right ...if that's progress

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 12:39 am

mill hill claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:29 am
Bloody hell ...they can't even sort season ticket renewals out right ...if that's progress
A different (though utterly shambolic) issue - just who decided to delete that account data on GDPR issues last year?

The club has moved forward behind the scenes (particularly on the football side), and many of the physical changes at Turf Moor were part of that ongoing plan of works prior to the new ownership. There has also been a lot of work in other areas and employee numbers at the club, it is now a very significant employer in the area.

Goodclaret
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:44 pm
Been Liked: 543 times
Has Liked: 1505 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Goodclaret » Tue May 11, 2021 12:42 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:10 am
It comes down to what you think a football club is or should be - to my mind a club is something that brings together a community, and represents it - my impression is Dyche used to believe this and particularly that it be sustainable, now it feels it is about what he wants and nothing really more, he has worked his way into a level of influence and reliance upon himself that he is more than the club, without him (is the commonly accepted belief) the club fails, falls even - which is probably a realistic view given his pervasive influence. He has seen off one ownership because he didn't like their desire to have a sustainable fiscal management and gradual approach to the development of the club as a whole, a position that can be read that dyche values his reputation more than the club's stability

I do not expect many to accept my view but we are essentially in a no win deal now - keep Dyche happy or see the whole thing come crashing down, Dyche likes what the new owners have to say and doesn't care about the new fiscal situation at the club (not unlike Fergusson and the Glazer's). For some that is fine, personally it is an existential crisis, though ultimately I would chose the club (whatever the league it played in over anyone
I have to say, Chester, I'm quite surprised at your view of Dyche. Did he really see off one ownership? I think it was clear MG saw his opportunity of selling for £millions and, understandably, took it. I feel Dyche has every right to try and ask for additional support for all he has given us, whoever he asks that from. He's been with us for almost 9 years and has moved us from Championship relegation candidates to 6 consecutive PL seasons; I feel that does give him some form of leverage without being overly arrogant or demanding. I'd be more concerned if he just quietly accepted his rubbish hand dealt and plodded on without a murmur as I'd question his ambitions with us. As you say, it's all about opinions and I respect yours, but I do feel Dyche has a right to push for more.
These 3 users liked this post: Wokingclaret mill hill claret Buxtonclaret

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 12:56 am

Goodclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:42 am
I have to say, Chester, I'm quite surprised at your view of Dyche. Did he really see off one ownership? I think it was clear MG saw his opportunity of selling for £millions and, understandably, took it. I feel Dyche has every right to try and ask for additional support for all he has given us, whoever he asks that from. He's been with us for almost 9 years and has moved us from Championship relegation candidates to 6 consecutive PL seasons; I feel that does give him some form of leverage without being overly arrogant or demanding. I'd be more concerned if he just quietly accepted his rubbish hand dealt and plodded on without a murmur as I'd question his ambitions with us. As you say, it's all about opinions and I respect yours, but I do feel Dyche has a right to push for more.
I am not sure why you are surprised - I have been saying it for the last 9 months or so

I am not seeking to undermine what Dyche has done with the squad and the league performances - he has been phenomenal for us.

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
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 11, 2021 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: AfloatinClaret

Elizabeth
Posts: 4376
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 12:58 am

I feel when Dyche was outspoken , and it was widely reported his relationship with Garlick was over, it was because Dyche knew what Garlick was up to in his lengthy negotiations with the new owners.
I think it’s unfair to be critical of Dyche , calling him selfish. I think it’s the opposite .
This user liked this post: Goodclaret

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 1:03 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:04 am
Cheers, just given it a listen. To be honest I don’t read into too much about the ‘writing a book’ comment. Good to hear that he’s having constant progressive talks with the new owners though.
it was another good interview, nice he mentions that and also the supporters and it being his biggest achievement. Hopefully Mr Pace can show him enough progress to make him want to continue with us

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 1:04 am

Elizabeth wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:58 am
I feel when Dyche was outspoken , and it was widely reported his relationship with Garlick was over, it was because Dyche knew what Garlick was up to in his lengthy negotiations with the new owners.
I think it’s unfair to be critical of Dyche , calling him selfish. I think it’s the opposite .
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.

Elizabeth
Posts: 4376
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 1:11 am

I asked the question earlier as to where is the money that was put aside to cover the future because of Covid. Granted I don’t have the in depth knowledge of some, including you Chester, but with reports that the tens of millions we had in the bank was used to partly finance the takeover why should I be grateful to Garlick?

Goodclaret
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:44 pm
Been Liked: 543 times
Has Liked: 1505 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Goodclaret » Tue May 11, 2021 1:12 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:56 am
I am not sure why you are surprised - I have been saying it for the last 9 months or so

I am not seeking to undermine what Dyche has done with the squad and the league performances - he has been phenomenal for us.

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 us to set a fiscal limit on his targets - 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
I'm sorry Chester, I don't post overly regular on the board so wouldn't know what you have been saying for so many months. I'm not disputing the fact we have strict budgets at Burnley and know, and agree, we stick within our means. I think the last few transfer windows have left Dyche with a mountain to climb. I don't think he would ever think he could sign 5 players at £20m a piece but probably would have thought he would have been given more than a reserve 'keeper and Dale Stephens in an attempt to stay up this last season.

I totally understand the financial restraints and I'm proud we have achieved what we have under them but I just feel Dyche has a right to, in whatever way he may feel could make his job easier, push for that little bit more. I don't believe he has particularly undermined MG in his requests for more support but he probably knew that the takeover was going to deny him of cash to spend so MG could ensure he got his golden payout. This has clearly meant Dyche was even more restricted and, as a manager wanting to produce the best, he would be rattled by it.

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 1:41 am

Goodclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:12 am
I'm sorry Chester, I don't post overly regular on the board so wouldn't know what you have been saying for so many months. I'm not disputing the fact we have strict budgets at Burnley and know, and agree, we stick within our means. I think the last few transfer windows have left Dyche with a mountain to climb. I don't think he would ever think he could sign 5 players at £20m a piece but probably would have thought he would have been given more than a reserve 'keeper and Dale Stephens in an attempt to stay up this last season.

I totally understand the financial restraints and I'm proud we have achieved what we have under them but I just feel Dyche has a right to, in whatever way he may feel could make his job easier, push for that little bit more. I don't believe he has particularly undermined MG in his requests for more support but he probably knew that the takeover was going to deny him of cash to spend so MG could ensure he got his golden payout. This has clearly meant Dyche was even more restricted and, as a manager wanting to produce the best, he would be rattled by it.
I think we are reading the accounts differently, and possibly have a different interpretation of what the priorities of the board are. - I have said a number of times in the last year that I do not believe Garlick was always right - there are a number of large expenditure items that I think the previous board have got very badly wrong in the medium to long term (particularly the corner stands) but rather than lambasting them I have sought to find reasons that led to the decisions they have made, I have sought to understand.

You may say I have not done the same 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

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 1:52 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:41 am
I think we are reading the accounts differently, and possibly have a different interpretation of what the priorities of the board are. - I have said a number of times in the last year that I do not believe Garlick was always right - there are a number of large expenditure items that I think the previous board have got very badly wrong in the medium to long term (particularly the corner stands) but rather than lambasting them I have sought to find reasons that led to the decisions they have made, I have sought to understand.

You may say I have not done the same 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
(Whilst fully understanding what you are saying)
Thank the lord Dyche is ambitious - let's have it right, his ambition and drive have been at the forefront of it all. Without him we would be languishing in the Championship at best (I would think)

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 1:59 am

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:52 am
(Whilst fully understanding what you are saying)
Thank the lord Dyche is ambitious - let's have it right, his ambition and drive have been at the forefront of it all. Without him we would be languishing in the Championship at best (I would think)
like I said, football wise he has been phenomenal for us - it is the club being sustainable that I always think about first, the town would be devastated without it

Elizabeth
Posts: 4376
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 2:05 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am
like I said, football wise he has been phenomenal for us - it is the club being sustainable that I always think about first, the town would be devastated without it
I hope that statement doesn’t come back to haunt you

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 2:07 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am
like I said, football wise he has been phenomenal for us - it is the club being sustainable that I always think about first, the town would be devastated without it
I don't disagree but the level to which Garlick protected the club (given how much money was in the bank) was way too cautious and it's only because Dyche is a bonafide miracle worker that there is a PL club. Either way, I'm hopeful Pace can back Dyche to the extent he wants to stay

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 2:46 am

Elizabeth wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:11 am
I asked the question earlier as to where is the money that was put aside to cover the future because of Covid. Granted I don’t have the in depth knowledge of some, including you Chester, but with reports that the tens of millions we had in the bank was used to partly finance the takeover why should I be grateful to Garlick?
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.
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 11, 2021 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 2:47 am

Vegas Claret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 2:07 am
I don't disagree but the level to which Garlick protected the club (given how much money was in the bank) was way too cautious and it's only because Dyche is a bonafide miracle worker that there is a PL club. Either way, I'm hopeful Pace can back Dyche to the extent he wants to stay
I have gone through that point 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?

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 3:22 am

Elizabeth wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 2:05 am
I hope that statement doesn’t come back to haunt you
in what way? I am genuinely intrigued by this.

I have never denied that on the football side Dyche's achievements have been special, and have argued with others on here about that when there have been calls for his sacking in lean spells that we have every season. Also I have consistently talked about the need the town has for the club and how important it is that it survives, whatever league it is in. Equally I am well known on here for my views on fiscal management in football - which I know are overly cautious too some (or is that many?). I am not alone in holding this combination of views, just perhaps more vocal.

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 3:30 am

Bcrollerz wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:50 pm
Ban the OP
I have been thinking about this, if you are going with this approach then you might as well ban CP too, because there is no doubt that some on here thinks he speaks nonsense at times too (who knows they may be right) he has sounded like he has been sitting on a high horse sometimes of late and that is entirely the wrong approach and he must endeavour to do better.

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 4:19 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 2:47 am
I have gone through that point 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?
50 quid and we sign a midfielder would be my option :D

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 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:24 am
Back to the OP I think Mike Garlick's single biggest mistake was appointing Neil Hart and becoming Executive Chairman, the loss of Dave Baldwin was seismic for us, the internal atmosphere at the club broke down at that point, though I believe Dyche's relationship with Garlick was more or less gone when that news broke. Clearing the decks with the new owners has led to what seems an improvement on that front from an external observation, but it remains to be seen what things will develop into over the coming years. My guess is the discontent will be from the fanbase and community, not within the club.
if the club is sustaining PL football and there is better investment in the first team squad then what are you suggesting would be our issue as a fanbase ?

jojomk1
Posts: 4734
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by jojomk1 » Tue May 11, 2021 6:53 am

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.
As Chairman of the club, and given his business acumen, I would have thought Garlick certainly led any interviews, alongside a panel of others
BFC have now been in the Prem for 6 out of the last 7 years so I'm not sure how you can say he was "quick off the mark" to sell to anybody. The fact that he sold to ALK (when there had been interest from others) shows some diligence on his part. You clearly have an angst against MG but don't let that cloud reasoned debate from others
This user liked this post: Grumps

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 7:26 am

martin_p wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:26 pm
It’s more well thought out than your original post though.
It’s not though, is it? Posts like Chester Perry’s are constructive responses. If you don’t agree with me then fine, but personal insults and attacks for a differing opinion is out of order and in a week where we have mental health threads on this board urging people to be kind, people seriously need to think about their responses because not only does it discourage debate and new posters potentially signing up and adding to the debate, these are long time posters too who ought to know better.
This user liked this post: randomclaret2

Tall Paul
Posts: 7168
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by Tall Paul » Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 am

Proudjohn wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:58 pm
My question is why when we were supposedly 80 million in the black we are now 90 million in the red.
We weren't and we aren't.
I cannot grasp the new financial situation.
Obviously.

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 7:58 am

As Dyche said in his interview we’ll have to wait until his book to hear his side of what really happened last summer. I wonder if some would be so defensive of Garlick if he wasn’t a Burnley fan.
Dyche has every right to be disgruntled after what he’s done for this club and town. Giving him a backing of 750k on an injured player was an embarrassment.
Fingers crossed he signs a new deal and we can move onwards under the new owners.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4130 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Tue May 11, 2021 8:01 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:55 pm
It was awful all through the summer and at the start of the season - though I was commentating on tonight's post match interview, which was definitely a warning shot across the bows to the new owners. It is a diabolical, inciteful approach to a club that has given him and continues to give him so much. I appreciate his talents with the team but I will never believe he has the interests of the club at heart anymore - this is a very different form of human being to the one that arrived at the club or that got promoted a second time.

Diabolical and inciteful :D

I didn't have you down as one of the drama queens chester

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 8:22 am

Dyche has been an absolute enigma for the Club, I doubt if there is anyone out there at the top level as unique as him.

I liken Mike Garlick's tenure and subsequent sale to those normal working class folk who worked hard and committed themselves to take on a mortgage when their old fashioned council house became available to buy.

Later their hard work and commitment paid off when due to location, that little old former council house that nobody really previously valued turned into the proverbial Golden Egg!

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 » Tue May 11, 2021 8:26 am

I think Mr G has done well for us, over several years and also left us on a right mess, from the end of last season.

We are very fortunate to still have Mr Dyche in post.

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 10:17 am

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:05 pm
Very constructive
Constructive has been done to death on this subject. To come on the board and have a pop at a chairman who has overseen massive, continual growth and progression in the club doesn't deserve a constructive answer.

Elizabeth
Posts: 4376
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 10:18 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am
like I said, football wise he has been phenomenal for us - it is the club being sustainable that I always think about first, the town would be devastated without it
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.

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 10:22 am

dandeclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:17 am
Constructive has been done to death on this subject. To come on the board and have a pop at a chairman who has overseen massive, continual growth and progression in the club doesn't deserve a constructive answer.
The chairman also potentially set us back by risking relegation through the lack of support in recent windows. Now that safety has been secured, I am using this forum as a BFC supporter to thank Sean for his efforts but also vent my frustrations at the previous chairman because it could have gone all so differently and had it done so it wouldn't have been just me venting those frustrations either. Just because we have gained safety, shouldn't mean that point is lost. If you feel that it doesn't deserve a constructive answer then fine, as a free and open board you have that right to believe that, just don't comment and move on. It doesn't warrant personal insults and even call for me to be banned as a result. We are all fans of the club and we all want what is best for the club.

randomclaret2
Posts: 6872
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4310 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by randomclaret2 » Tue May 11, 2021 10:25 am

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:22 am
The chairman also potentially set us back by risking relegation through the lack of support in recent windows. Now that safety has been secured, I am using this forum as a BFC supporter to thank Sean for his efforts but also vent my frustrations at the previous chairman because it could have gone all so differently and had it done so it wouldn't have been just me venting those frustrations either. Just because we have gained safety, shouldn't mean that point is lost. If you feel that it doesn't deserve a constructive answer then fine, as a free and open board you have that right to believe that, just don't comment and move on. It doesn't warrant personal insults and even call for me to be banned as a result. We are all fans of the club and we all want what is best for the club.
Going against the pack mentality on here can be a risky business at times..
This user liked this post: gandhisflipflop

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 10:28 am

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:22 am
The chairman also potentially set us back by risking relegation through the lack of support in recent windows. Now that safety has been secured, I am using this forum as a BFC supporter to thank Sean for his efforts but also vent my frustrations at the previous chairman because it could have gone all so differently and had it done so it wouldn't have been just me venting those frustrations either. Just because we have gained safety, shouldn't mean that point is lost. If you feel that it doesn't deserve a constructive answer then fine, as a free and open board you have that right to believe that, just don't comment and move on. It doesn't warrant personal insults and even call for me to be banned as a result. We are all fans of the club and we all want what is best for the club.
I didn't call for you to be banned, I just told you to p*** off. Relegation didn't happen, so the chairman judged it right. Some people want whats best for them rather than the club. People call for massive over investment all the time, in the squad, in the ground, in other areas, but the chairman, and board are the people who make the decisions. And they've got more right than pretty much any other club in the country. They've improved the training ground, the academy, the facilities in the ground where essential, and the squad is balanced to achieve the target of staying up that they deemed essential. And then you come on and have a go at them, deeming all of that being overshadowed by a decision to not put the club in debt, but providing enough for the manager to achieve the minimum expectations, it was just a knee jerk pop. If it had been a constructive initial post, you might have got a constructive reply. Instead, it was a pretty targeted personal slight on the former chairman, and as the old saying goes, you reap what you sow.
This user liked this post: Falcon

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 10:38 am

dandeclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:28 am
I didn't call for you to be banned, I just told you to p*** off. Relegation didn't happen, so the chairman judged it right. Some people want whats best for them rather than the club. People call for massive over investment all the time, in the squad, in the ground, in other areas, but the chairman, and board are the people who make the decisions. And they've got more right than pretty much any other club in the country. They've improved the training ground, the academy, the facilities in the ground where essential, and the squad is balanced to achieve the target of staying up that they deemed essential. And then you come on and have a go at them, deeming all of that being overshadowed by a decision to not put the club in debt, but providing enough for the manager to achieve the minimum expectations, it was just a knee jerk pop. If it had been a constructive initial post, you might have got a constructive reply. Instead, it was a pretty targeted personal slight on the former chairman, and as the old saying goes, you reap what you sow.
I never said it was you who called for me to be banned. I said there was a call for me to be banned. Telling me to P*** off because it isn't something you agree with is just poor form. Like it or not, the last few windows have overshadowed a large part of good work that was done because it potentially put a lot of it at risk. Nobody was asking for the bank to be broken, or the club to be 'put into debt' but it was obvious that the board was doing the bare minimum and it seems the manager agreed also. Also to say that the chairman judged it right because relegation didn't happen is just oblivious to the decision making at the time of what could have happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but all it has succeeded in doing is making a difficult task this summer even more difficult because we are yet another transfer window behind and more surgery to the squad is needed.
These 2 users liked this post: fatboy47 Buxtonclaret

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 10:39 am

Can't disagree with the OP too much. Of course you have to take the smooth with the rough and for a period Garlick was instrumental to where we are. The lack of investment over the past few years have actually seen us stand still (which is moving backwards in this league) and it's no surprise that this year has been a battle. Ultimately we have survived but after 5-6years in this division how we only started this season with one right midfielder (with a poor injury record) is crazy.

I still feel had Garlick used a portion of the money that was at bank and we'd signed two 10-15m pound players over the past 2 windows we'd be looking at him in a different light.

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 10:58 am

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:38 am
I never said it was you who called for me to be banned. I said there was a call for me to be banned. Telling me to P*** off because it isn't something you agree with is just poor form. Like it or not, the last few windows have overshadowed a large part of good work that was done because it potentially put a lot of it at risk. Nobody was asking for the bank to be broken, or the club to be 'put into debt' but it was obvious that the board was doing the bare minimum and it seems the manager agreed also. Also to say that the chairman judged it right because relegation didn't happen is just oblivious to the decision making at the time of what could have happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but all it has succeeded in doing is making a difficult task this summer even more difficult because we are yet another transfer window behind and more surgery to the squad is needed.
It's not hindsight, I backed us to stay up at the start of the season, and haven't panicked throughout the season. Dismissing decision making as being off because of what could have happened, having weighted up the risks and opportunities is a strange reason for having a go at somebody. I an't believe you got out of bed this morning, you could have tripped, banged your head and killed yourself. This overshadows for me anything good you've done today. It's an extreme example, granted, but has a broader sense of hindsight. The club have made more good decisions over the last 10 years than any other club. The board were prudent and fairly risk averse, but provided great focus on improving key areas of the club properly, within their financial limits. During covid uncertainty, they strengthed their prudence and became even more risk averse. They felt that was the right thing for the club, given uncertainty of future revenue, and backed themselves to get it right. They did get it right, as results have shown. That was their choice, that was their logic, that's why they made the decisions they did, and once again, they put the well being of the club as they saw it first, and got it right.

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 11:04 am

dandeclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:28 am
And then you come on and have a go at them, deeming all of that being overshadowed by a decision to not put the club in debt, but providing enough for the manager to achieve the minimum expectations
Two things. First one, the money in the last set of figures shows we would not have gone into debt with one or two additions.
Second thing, you have summed up a problem for many including Dyche with your quote "achieve minimum expectations".

Who wants us to aim for the minimum - cant invisage the manager being happy with "we'd spend more Sean but that would take you up to the top half of the table and we are quite happy with being just outside the bottom 3"
While we're at it why not aim for 17th each year so there's less bonuses to pay out.

Suppose it comes down to, do you want the club to improve and move forward from this position or do you think this is the best we can get and are happy to accept it.

I'm not stupid enough to believe we can challenge for champions League spots or win the title but I still think we can be one of the best of the rest clubs with the odd cup run or even another forray into Europe. In fact you could argue we were close to this when we finished in Europe and then when we just missed out however the lack of investment has sadly seen us move backwards since then.

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 11:11 am

dandeclaret wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:58 am
It's not hindsight, I backed us to stay up at the start of the season, and haven't panicked throughout the season. Dismissing decision making as being off because of what could have happened, having weighted up the risks and opportunities is a strange reason for having a go at somebody. I an't believe you got out of bed this morning, you could have tripped, banged your head and killed yourself. This overshadows for me anything good you've done today. It's an extreme example, granted, but has a broader sense of hindsight. The club have made more good decisions over the last 10 years than any other club. The board were prudent and fairly risk averse, but provided great focus on improving key areas of the club properly, within their financial limits. During covid uncertainty, they strengthed their prudence and became even more risk averse. They felt that was the right thing for the club, given uncertainty of future revenue, and backed themselves to get it right. They did get it right, as results have shown. That was their choice, that was their logic, that's why they made the decisions they did, and once again, they put the well being of the club as they saw it first, and got it right.
This hasn't just stemmed from COVID though has it? It has stemmed from the summer of 2018 when up until that point the club got a lot right but it was evident that priorities had changed for the board since then. We want this club to be the best it can be and the board since then have done the bare minimum and taken advantage and risked losing our best manager in my lifetime. Even Claret Tony says that had an opportunity became available last summer he would have been off. Dyche is the jewel in the crown, and it was risked unnecessarily. We got away with it this season, it can't be repeated.
This user liked this post: fatboy47

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 11:12 am

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:11 am
This hasn't just stemmed from COVID though has it? It has stemmed from the summer of 2018 when up until that point the club got a lot right but it was evident that priorities had changed for the board since then. We want this club to be the best it can be and the board since then have done the bare minimum and taken advantage and risked losing our best manager in my lifetime. Even Claret Tony says that had an opportunity became available last summer he would have been off. Dyche is the jewel in the crown, and it was risked unnecessarily. We got away with it this season, it can't be repeated.
Think your bang on especially with the last bit about Dyche.
This user liked this post: gandhisflipflop

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 11:21 am

Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:04 am
Two things. First one, the money in the last set of figures shows we would not have gone into debt with one or two additions.
Second thing, you have summed up a problem for many including Dyche with your quote "achieve minimum expectations".

Who wants us to aim for the minimum - cant invisage the manager being happy with "we'd spend more Sean but that would take you up to the top half of the table and we are quite happy with being just outside the bottom 3"
While we're at it why not aim for 17th each year so there's less bonuses to pay out.

Suppose it comes down to, do you want the club to improve and move forward from this position or do you think this is the best we can get and are happy to accept it.

I'm not stupid enough to believe we can challenge for champions League spots or win the title but I still think we can be one of the best of the rest clubs with the odd cup run or even another forray into Europe. In fact you could argue we were close to this when we finished in Europe and then when we just missed out however the lack of investment has sadly seen us move backwards since then.
I didn't at any point say aim for minumum expectations, I said achieve the minimum expectations. Ie don't fall below that level, but continue to aim upwards of it. There's no point shooting for the moon, and failing to get off the ground as a first step.

It's not about the club going into debt with 2 signings, it's about how sustainable they are financially in the long term, should you fail to achieve minimal expectations, and be able to sell those players. That's their prudent running of the club approach. You can disagree with it, but you can't criticise them for it in my opinion, given the results it has yielded.

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 11:38 am

gandhisflipflop wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:38 am
Also to say that the chairman judged it right because relegation didn't happen is just oblivious to the decision making at the time of what could have happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but all it has succeeded in doing is making a difficult task this summer even more difficult because we are yet another transfer window behind and more surgery to the squad is needed.
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.

ClaretTony
Posts: 67236
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32058 times
Has Liked: 5241 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Tue May 11, 2021 11:45 am

jojomk1 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:53 am
As Chairman of the club, and given his business acumen, I would have thought Garlick certainly led any interviews
He wasn't actually chairman at the time but joint chairman

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4130 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: FAO Mr Garlick

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Tue May 11, 2021 11:48 am

Conroy92 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:04 am
Two things. First one, the money in the last set of figures shows we would not have gone into debt with one or two additions.
Second thing, you have summed up a problem for many including Dyche with your quote "achieve minimum expectations".

Who wants us to aim for the minimum - cant invisage the manager being happy with "we'd spend more Sean but that would take you up to the top half of the table and we are quite happy with being just outside the bottom 3"
While we're at it why not aim for 17th each year so there's less bonuses to pay out.

Suppose it comes down to, do you want the club to improve and move forward from this position or do you think this is the best we can get and are happy to accept it.

I'm not stupid enough to believe we can challenge for champions League spots or win the title but I still think we can be one of the best of the rest clubs with the odd cup run or even another forray into Europe. In fact you could argue we were close to this when we finished in Europe and then when we just missed out however the lack of investment has sadly seen us move backwards since then.
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 ?

Post Reply