Looking like Rigg could be on his way to West Ham according to Twitter rumours.

Very much the scapegoat for Garlick, smart decision by Garlick, bring someone else in, give them nothing to work with and watch the fans give Rigg stick instead of Garlick himself.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:15 pm

Very much the scapegoat for Garlick, smart decision by Garlick, bring someone else in, give them nothing to work with and watch the fans give Rigg stick instead of Garlick himself.

Interesting, I read CT's comments about Dyche's issues over who was targeted for a signings little differently to that, especially with Rigg being side lined under the new regime

Dyche has continuously said if the money is available, he will spend it.
It's quite clear the previous recruitment struggle has been down to the lack of funds made available from Garlick.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:21 pm

Dyche has continuously said if the money is available, he will spend it.
It's quite clear the previous recruitment struggle has been down to the lack of funds made available from Garlick.

and CT is insistent it was about signings not money per se - I had that to and fro with him last week

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:25 pm

and CT is insistent it was about signings not money per se - I had that to and fro with him last week

Then maybe I'm wrong and money was made available and Dyche chose not to spend it, I just don't think Dyche would've left himself so short heading into the previous season.

Harry Wilson - I’m pretty sure CT replied to me when I asked who wanted this lad and it was Garlick who wanted him not Dyche.

So was it Garlick via Rigg? Or was it solely Garlick?

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:27 pm

Then maybe I'm wrong and money was made available and Dyche chose not to spend it, I just don't think Dyche would've left himself so short heading into the previous season.

My take has long been Dyche wants X and Garlick tries but has a ceiling value, sometime he got the man and some times he didn't - this may go through a number of iterations with alternatives - but if there is a need in the squad and Dyche does not come up with alternatives then Garlick may have gone to Rigg and said is there someone we can get that fulfils the criteria but not Dyche approved - that is when you get a Drinkwater situation - it is also possible that Garlick did that deal without positive input from anyone at the club (plenty of owners have and continue to do that kind of thing).

Hedontplayforyou wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:28 pm

Harry Wilson - I’m pretty sure CT replied to me when I asked who wanted this lad and it was Garlick who wanted him not Dyche.

So was it Garlick via Rigg? Or was it solely Garlick?

It was the typical Garlick smoke and mirrors move, Garlick was very good at convincing the fans we were actively trying to spend money without spending money. The first promotion season we were bidding for Troy Deeney and ended up with Marvin Sordell. Ziyech? So we were bidding £20M for Ziyech and Phillips? notice that money wasn't spent elsewhere. Che Adams £12M+ bids? was it not the same window we ended up with Crouch?

All these big money bids, without any big money moves. (apart from Gibson/Wood from the Keane/Gray money).

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:41 pm

It was the typical Garlick smoke and mirrors move, Garlick was very good at convincing the fans we were actively trying to spend money without spending money. The first promotion season we were bidding for Troy Deeney and ended up with Marvin Sordell. Ziyech? So we were bidding £20M for Ziyech and Phillips? notice that money wasn't spent elsewhere. Che Adams £12M+ bids? was it not the same window we ended up with Crouch?

All these big money bids, without any big money moves. (apart from Gibson/Wood from the Keane/Gray money).

In all those cases there were big differences between our reported bid valuations and the valuations many of those eventually moved for - Phillips was raw and untested -even Villa reportedly backed away from Leeds valuation and they had played against him - two seasons on he looks like the complete modern midfielder it has to be said. However the circa £10m per year cost of signing him was probably beyond our means at that time when you look at the budget numbers

"the club bid on players just to make it look like they were doing something but they didn't really want to sign them, it was all a ruse to hoodwink the fans"


This sort of stuff just makes me laugh, a lot.
If our offers had been accepted, do you think Garlick would suddenly withdraw the offer?

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:41 pm

It was the typical Garlick smoke and mirrors move, Garlick was very good at convincing the fans we were actively trying to spend money without spending money. The first promotion season we were bidding for Troy Deeney and ended up with Marvin Sordell. Ziyech? So we were bidding £20M for Ziyech and Phillips? notice that money wasn't spent elsewhere. Che Adams £12M+ bids? was it not the same window we ended up with Crouch?

All these big money bids, without any big money moves. (apart from Gibson/Wood from the Keane/Gray money).

There's a reason crafty Mike is sat in his own personal dry powder store, counting his wedge and ordering his Cuban cigars and crates of Bolly, whilst the club try to figure a strategy for servicing £80m (?) or so of debt.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:52 pm

In all those cases there were big differences between our reported bid valuations and the valuations many of those eventually moved for - Phillips was raw and untested -even Villa reportedly backed away from Leeds valuation and they had played against him - two seasons on he looks like the complete modern midfielder it has to be said. However the circa £10m per year cost of signing him was probably beyond our means at that time when you look at the budget numbers

I'm not for a second suggesting we should've bought those players, just highlighting the crafty smoke and mirrors strategy of Garlick. We were bidding £25M for Phillips, notice that money wasn't spent elsewhere.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:10 pm

"the club bid on players just to make it look like they were doing something but they didn't really want to sign them, it was all a ruse to hoodwink the fans"


This sort of stuff just makes me laugh, a lot.
If our offers had been accepted, do you think Garlick would suddenly withdraw the offer?

Our offer wasn't going to be accepted, that's the whole point, hoodwinked fans into believing we were actively looking to spend.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:36 pm

I'm not for a second suggesting we should've bought those players, just highlighting the crafty smoke and mirrors strategy of Garlick. We were bidding £25M for Phillips, notice that money wasn't spent elsewhere.

All pure conjecture figures wise - our club rarely reveals what is has offered or indeed actually paid for any player. If you are inclined to do so and have the requisite knowledge you can possibly work it out from subsequent balance sheets but at the time we bid or sign anyone you can almost guarantee that the figures are pure guesswork .

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:36 pm

I'm not for a second suggesting we should've bought those players, just highlighting the crafty smoke and mirrors strategy of Garlick. We were bidding £25M for Phillips, notice that money wasn't spent elsewhere.

Hardly crafty or earth shattering though is it ? It is a charge that has been laid against 99% of boardrooms since the year dot.

I heard that Dyche was not a fan of Rigg. Rigg and an expensive team would present Dyche with a load of options... and basically Dyche would never be impressed.

He’d identify his own targets, and in the last year or two, he was getting nowhere bringing in players he wanted to.

Apparently unilateral decisions were made by Garlick (such as bringing in Rigg), which upset Dyche and played a part in souring that relationship. Reading between the lines, it seems Dyche felt that he had earnt, and deserved, the respect, and to be kept updated.

Maybe Garlick felt it was dangerous to give so much power and influence to a man who could potentially move on at any stage?

The idea Garlick was bidding for players he had no intention of signing to impress fans (who appear to universally loathe him anyway) has to be nonsense doesn't it. What on earth would he actually stand to gain from it? Sounds like the bit in the office where David Brent announces there won't be any redundancies.

Just on Ziyech. We were after him when he moved from Twente to Ajax for about £10m (not £20m). The issue wasn’t we didn’t bid enough, it was that we aren’t Ajax. Even the most myopic Burnley fan must concede that.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:40 pm

Our offer wasn't going to be accepted, that's the whole point, hoodwinked fans into believing we were actively looking to spend.

I've got a house to sell you, I already know it's going to be an easy sale because you're not going to try and negotiate/knock down the price....

I can believe that we were putting in low bids for players we didn't want to convince selling clubs that we had alternatives. That's part of a strategy to save money which strikes me as the sort of thing Garlick would do as part of his negotiating strategy. I can't believe that Garlick actually cared enough to put low bids in just to impress fans.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:03 pm

I've got a house to sell you, I already know it's going to be an easy sale because you're not going to try and negotiate/knock down the price....

Give it me for 30% of it's value or I'm not taking it.

We bid more for Troy Deeney than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.
We bid more for Phillips than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.
We bid more for Che Adams than we spent in the entire january transfer window.
We bid more for Harry Wilson than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.

A clear theme, so the money was only available for Harry Wilson? Nobody else just Wilson? So when we got rejected by Watford for Deeney, why didn't we spend that money elsewhere? Why was the actual player we brought in Juke for £1m? What happened to the extra £6m+ from the Deeney bid, why wasn't that spent? It's like going to sleep with Megan Fox and waking up next to Susan Boyle.

maybe DiBradio is correct, we were bidding low on Deeney to lower the price on Juke and Sordell etc. It has happened often, where the money isn't then spent elsewhere. Very much feels like a smoke and mirrors trick from MG.

dibraidio wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:06 pm

I can believe that we were putting in low bids for players we didn't want to convince selling clubs that we had alternatives. That's part of a strategy to save money which strikes me as the sort of thing Garlick would do as part of his negotiating strategy. I can't believe that Garlick actually cared enough to put low bids in just to impress fans.

He cared enough to tell the fans repeatedly we’d exit a transfer window with a stronger squad than when we entered it, which turned out to be ******** many a time.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:55 pm

We bid more for Troy Deeney than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.
We bid more for Phillips than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.
We bid more for Che Adams than we spent in the entire january transfer window.
We bid more for Harry Wilson than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.

A clear theme, so the money was only available for Harry Wilson? Nobody else just Wilson? So when we got rejected by Watford for Deeney, why didn't we spend that money elsewhere? Why was the actual player we brought in Juke for £1m? What happened to the extra £6m+ from the Deeney bid, why wasn't that spent? It's like going to sleep with Megan Fox and waking up next to Susan Boyle.

maybe DiBradio is correct, we were bidding low on Deeney to lower the price on Juke and Sordell etc. It has happened often, where the money isn't then spent elsewhere. Very much feels like a smoke and mirrors trick from MG.

How do you know

a) If the bids were ever placed ?
b) If such a bid was made how much was offered ?

Don’t bother answering because guess what … you don’t

The club tell the media nothing it is all based on half stories and guesswork

You have no basis at all for any of your argument

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:55 pm

We bid more for Troy Deeney than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.

The rumour is we bid 9 million for Deeney in 2018, we then signed Vydra, Gibson, and Joe Hart. Vydra and Gibson both probably cost more than 9 million. In 2014 when we signed Juke and Sordell our manager outright came out and said we can't afford Deeney so that doesn't seem like a particularly successful "smoke and mirrors" strategy

We bid more for Phillips than we spent in the entire summer transfer window.

Rumoured to have bid a "record amount" maybe up to 20 million, bought Josh Brownhill, Rodriguez, Peacock-Pharrell, Pieters and whatever we spent on a loan fee for Drinkwater which probably tots up to similar.

We bid more for Che Adams than we spent in the entire january transfer window.

But then spent 9 million on Rodriguez instead in the summer

Football clubs don't actually sit on "transfer warchests" set aside for transfer fees. We're clearly prepared to move money around to get players we think are good value to us and in these cases it would appear we felt the ultimate asking price didn't represent value (in the cases of Deeney and Harry Wilson I think that was the right decision). Since Garlick took over as sole chairman to when he left the club spent in the region of 150 million in transfer fees and broke our transfer record on several occasion so he was clearly happy to sign players if a deal could be agreed. As I said above I can't understand the logic of putting in fake bids, especially as the rumored amounts offered for Deeney, Wilson and Adams all seem reasonable to me anyway. Are you saying if Liverpool had said yes to the rumoured 12million for Wilson we'd have backed out?

It all feels like fans being (understandably) disappointed we haven't signed certain players and trying to make something nefarious out of it rather than anything like how a premier league football club would approach it's transfer business.

the story with Philips as I understood it wasn't about our bid being rejected, it was Bielsa asking Philips to stay for one more year that stopped it from happening.

It's from a good source and someone in the know*


*I made all the last bit about source and in the know up but it seems to be the thing we have to say

milkcrate_mosh wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:35 pm

The rumour is we bid 9 million for Deeney in 2018, we then signed Vydra, Gibson, and Joe Hart. Vydra and Gibson both probably cost more than 9 million. In 2014 when we signed Juke and Sordell

It wasn't 2018 when we bid for Deeney, I'm talking about after the first promotion, the window we brought in Sordell and Juke.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:11 pm

It wasn't 2018 when we bid for Deeney, I'm talking about after the first promotion, the window we brought in Sordell and Juke.

Apparently it was 2018 according to everyone else.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:19 pm

Screenshot_20210705-211812.png

Apparently it was 2018 according to everyone else.

I'm talking about the first promotion season, not 2018.

Hedontplayforyou wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:28 pm

Harry Wilson - I’m pretty sure CT replied to me when I asked who wanted this lad and it was Garlick who wanted him not Dyche.

So was it Garlick via Rigg? Or was it solely Garlick?

From what I’ve heard, Dyche wanted Buendia, got offered Wilson and decided to just leave both if not possible.

It was 2014 when we seriously pursued Deeney. Deal was all but done but then Watford upped the figure based on the McCormack to Fulham deal.

bfccrazy wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:08 pm

From what I’ve heard, Dyche wanted Buendia, got offered Wilson and decided to just leave both if not possible.

Wow, would be oddly quite pleased if that were the case - would at least demonstrate we were looking in the right places!

I think Dyche has been just as stubborn as Garlick on the transfer issues and has always stuck to his guns about players he wants.

He has seen off Garlick and Rigg etc.. in these battles. Will he win the battles with the new owners is the next question?

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:05 pm

I'm talking about the first promotion season, not 2018.

Just seen that, we bid £6 million, they upped their demands to £8 million and we walked away

milkcrate_mosh wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:52 pm

The idea Garlick was bidding for players he had no intention of signing to impress fans (who appear to universally loathe him anyway) has to be nonsense doesn't it. What on earth would he actually stand to gain from it? Sounds like the bit in the office where David Brent announces there won't be any redundancies.

What he could, and did, gain from it is that the money not spent on players was instead available to be transferred via the new owners to Garlick personally. If the club had spent say £50m on players, that would have been £50m that couldn't have been used to buy Garlick's shares.

I don't know if that was Garlick's idea all along, but that was the end result.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:21 am

What he could, and did, gain from it is that the money not spent on players was instead available to be transferred via the new owners to Garlick personally. If the club had spent say £50m on players, that would have been £50m that couldn't have been used to buy Garlick's shares.

I don't know if that was Garlick's idea all along, but that was the end result.

I am not sure I am grasping what you are saying here - how would an extra £50m transfer spend reduce the amount the club was sold for by £50m? particularly as it is reported over £70m has still yet to be paid

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:50 am

I am not sure I am grasping what you are saying here - how would an extra £50m transfer spend reduce the amount the club was sold for by £50m? particularly as it is reported over £70m has still yet to be paid

If the club had spent say £50m extra on transfers, that £50m would not have been available for ALK to pay to Garlick. It would not necessarily have reduced the sale price of the club (though ALK might not have been willing to buy the club if they had had to use their own money, of course) but it would certainly have reduced the amount the new owners could take out of the club in cash.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:57 am

If the club had spent say £50m extra on transfers, that £50m would not have been available for ALK to pay to Garlick. It would not necessarily have reduced the sale price of the club (though ALK might not have been willing to buy the club if they had had to use their own money, of course) but it would certainly have reduced the amount the new owners could take out of the club in cash.

I have never seen a report that says that ALK have taken £50m out of the club to pay for shares, and most would agree I have watched for such information pretty closely

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:00 am

I have never seen a report that says that ALK have taken £50m out of the club to pay for shares, and most would agree I have watched for such information pretty closely

It's all hearsay until the accounts are released next year, any sane person knows that, problem is the loonies are running with a rumour and stating it as fact.

Pretty normal for this place though.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:21 am

What he could, and did, gain from it is that the money not spent on players was instead available to be transferred via the new owners to Garlick personally. If the club had spent say £50m on players, that would have been £50m that couldn't have been used to buy Garlick's shares.

I don't know if that was Garlick's idea all along, but that was the end result.

With how football is, if we had spent 50m on players then agent fees and wages would have cost another 50m. The club would might not have survived the pandemic as the new owners might not have fancied a small club in debt. Especially in these uncertain times.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:00 am

I have never seen a report that says that ALK have taken £50m out of the club to pay for shares, and most would agree I have watched for such information pretty closely

The nearest confirmation we have had is that Mr. Pace has told us that BFC has taken a loan that is a wonderful loan and we would all be thrilled with if we knew the terms. Or words to that effect.

Why would the club have taken a loan, if all the cash hadn't been taken out for other purposes? Is there really any doubt that this was a leveraged buy-out? I thought it was accepted as fact by now, if only because it has never been denied.

Is Mike Rigg still at Burnley?

If his LinkedIn page is up to date he still is.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:16 am

Is Mike Rigg still at Burnley?

LinkedIn says he's still technical director, any idea what that is??

Barlickclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:31 am

LinkedIn says he's still technical director, any idea what that is??

That's the title he was given when he first came to the club

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:16 am

Is Mike Rigg still at Burnley?

There was a fairly lengthy article in the Athletic a week or so ago where he was described as Burnley's Technical Director.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:52 am

There was a fairly lengthy article in the Athletic a week or so ago where he was described as Burnley's Technical Director.

That has always been his job title at Burnley. The question really is whether he’s still with the club.

How do we still no know wether this bloke is still working for the club or not?

Hedontplayforyou wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:22 pm

How do we still no know wether this bloke is still working for the club or not?

Which is why I asked. Officially he is still listed by the club but I’m not sure about that.