What makes you think it was Garlik that refused to spend rather than Dyche not wanting to take a risk on the players that were available?
Mike Garlick
-
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 651 times
- Has Liked: 2879 times
-
- Posts: 15108
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3138 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Perhaps the new owners will sell the club?
Exciting times
Exciting times
-
- Posts: 2068
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 292 times
- Has Liked: 766 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Garlick didn't want to build a new CFS as lessons learn't from going down in the seventies, but sold us out with a massive big debt
-
- Posts: 8928
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 1986 times
- Has Liked: 2875 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Suspect that is a typo CT ie. Club=clue?ClaretTony wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:58 pmThere are some club owners with not much of a club but no deep pockets
-
- Posts: 15108
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3138 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick
i thought the club had money when he sold it.Wokingclaret wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:36 pmGarlick didn't want to build a new CFS as lessons learn't from going down in the seventies, but sold us out with a massive big debt
It's the new owners who have created the debt, surely?
-
- Posts: 2068
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 292 times
- Has Liked: 766 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Yes the Debt with the now owners, but Garlick would have known this
-
- Posts: 8928
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 1986 times
- Has Liked: 2875 times
Re: Mike Garlick
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 15108
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3138 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick
of course, we will never know what happened between buyer and seller.Wokingclaret wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:41 pmYes the Debt with the now owners, but Garlick would have known this
But my understanding is that ALK borrowed the club's money to make the deal.
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
- Been Liked: 48 times
- Has Liked: 18 times
Re: Mike Garlick
I think if you were able to view Garlicks bank balance or projected income you may fund that an easy puzzle to solveBurnley Ace wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:10 pmWhat makes you think it was Garlik that refused to spend rather than Dyche not wanting to take a risk on the players that were available?
-
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1250 times
- Has Liked: 1367 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Hate him with a passion
-
- Posts: 13225
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Absolutely. At the time many lauded the sensible way he was running the club.Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:18 pmI think if you were able to view Garlicks bank balance or projected income you may fund that an easy puzzle to solve
Never did they know that so much would be taken to the benefit of so few.
When you see the fans assemble like they did yesterday, praying for survival because they were scared to death of the ramifications (that simply wouldn’t have existed otherwise), it’s nothing short of criminal to treat a community asset like that.
These 3 users liked this post: randomclaret2 tiger76 Top Claret
Re: Mike Garlick
ALK borrowed the money, but Garlick knew exactly what they were going to do before he agreed the deal.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:47 pmof course, we will never know what happened between buyer and seller.
But my understanding is that ALK borrowed the club's money to make the deal.
You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from. It's the same with £180m companies - you don't hand over the deeds until the source of funds is clear and certain. Garlick and Pace cooked up the deal between them.
-
- Posts: 15108
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3138 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick
You suggested that I read your mind yesterday, now you are reading mine.dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 11:12 pmALK borrowed the money, but Garlick knew exactly what they were going to do before he agreed the deal.
You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from. It's the same with £180m companies - you don't hand over the deeds until the source of funds is clear and certain. Garlick and Pace cooked up the deal between them.
Re: Mike Garlick
Sorry. It was a generic you, not you personally. I meant that no-one but a fool would sell their car or their house without finding out where the money was coming from.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 11:14 pmYou suggested that I read your mind yesterday, now you are reading mine.
These 2 users liked this post: boatshed bill tiger76
-
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 317 times
- Has Liked: 83 times
- Location: Dallas, TX & Jefferson, MD
- Contact:
Re: Mike Garlick
Here's the debate as I see it.
In pure business terms, Garlick has played an absolute blinder. He's made a huge profit out of a football club, something that has eluded and humbled so many (otherwise successful) businessmen. I doff my cap with respect.
In tribal terms, he's an absolute c*nt. Supposed to be "one of us" and sold us down the Swannee River.
In pure business terms, Garlick has played an absolute blinder. He's made a huge profit out of a football club, something that has eluded and humbled so many (otherwise successful) businessmen. I doff my cap with respect.
In tribal terms, he's an absolute c*nt. Supposed to be "one of us" and sold us down the Swannee River.
-
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 651 times
- Has Liked: 2879 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Nope, sorry that’s a rather blinkered view.Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:18 pmI think if you were able to view Garlicks bank balance or projected income you may fund that an easy puzzle to solve
-
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 651 times
- Has Liked: 2879 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Really? If you were selling your house, you wouldn't expect to see the money before you hand over the keys?
I absolutely promise you - if anyone had gone to Mike Garlick and said they wanted to buy the club and would pay £180m, he would ask where the money was coming from, and if you said "I'm not willing to say but I'll find it from somewhere", he would not have sold. You only sell major assets if the money is already in your hand or if you have an exact knowledge of how you are going to get it. Garlick 100% knew where Pace was getting his money from.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
Are we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?
He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs
No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us
Its that simple
He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs
No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us
Its that simple
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace
-
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1129 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Re: Mike Garlick
I don't think the other offer was ever even viable to be honest. It was sell to ALK or not sell at all and sack Dyche.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 amAre we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?
He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs
No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us
Its that simple
Re: Mike Garlick
Rather than get depressed and read through multiple threads looking at different angles of the financial situation, I seem to remember at the point of takeover it was muted that a clause had been added to the contract stating if we went down MG had the option to take the club back, or was that conjecture?
Re: Mike Garlick
And you know this how ?Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 amAre we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?
He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs
No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us
Its that simple
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
Again, missing the crucial fact that Garlick was no longer interested in running the clubdaveisaclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:27 amI don't think the other offer was ever even viable to be honest. It was sell to ALK or not sell at all and sack Dyche.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
Just for clarity, I'm not defending ALKs record or purchasing plan at all, as its clearly raised lots of questions
Its just dealing with reality rather than the half truths and utter crap that this board absolutely specialises in whenever things go south
Its just dealing with reality rather than the half truths and utter crap that this board absolutely specialises in whenever things go south
-
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1129 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Re: Mike Garlick
Not missing it at all. Just those were the two options he had and I don't think the alternative would have been any more popular than selling it to the chancers.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:32 amAgain, missing the crucial fact that Garlick was no longer interested in running the club
Re: Mike Garlick
You seem to know about all the parties that were interested in buying the club , no ?Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:31 amCare to elaborate in all the information that I've missed out?
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
So what is your argument here then?daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:34 amNot missing it at all. Just those were the two options he had and I don't think the alternative would have been any more popular than selling it to the chancers.
Garlick wanted to sell, and clearly wasn't interested in signing players that we needed, so we had to sell
The two options, one was unknown (ALK) and one was fronted by a very dodgy bloke with previous bad experience with a small football club punching above its weight
I'm not sure what else we could have done tbh
-
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1129 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Re: Mike Garlick
My argument is there's nothing else he could have done - not sure where you are finding any dissent to what you've said.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:39 amSo what is your argument here then?
Garlick wanted to sell, and clearly wasn't interested in signing players that we needed, so we had to sell
The two options, one was unknown (ALK) and one was fronted by a very dodgy bloke with previous bad experience with a small football club punching above its weight
I'm not sure what else we could have done tbh
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
Sorry!daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:40 amMy argument is there's nothing else he could have done - not sure where you are finding any dissent to what you've said.
Must have misread your post, so we completely agree that there is nothing else we could have done and there is no point pretending that there was a valid alternative when they clearly wasn't?
-
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1129 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Re: Mike Garlick
Yep.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:42 amSorry!
Must have misread your post, so we completely agree that there is nothing else we could have done and there is no point pretending that there was a valid alternative when they clearly wasn't?
I do think it's fair for people to think what he did was bad regardless, but it really was the only thing that could happen.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
I know that two were interested
If you know of more that could have bought us and run us the same way Garlick did, but by spending money on players, and making sure we'd have enough money to be competitive if we went down then I'm all ears
I'd have thought if they existed, then they might have made themselves known by now tbh
Re: Mike Garlick
Did he explore that Barry Kilby might have re-purchased his shares at the cost (plus a percentage) that he paid? Or that some other local businessman and/or club supporter could have done similar, with some sort of trust document or golden share rule in place to ensure there could not be a takeover like we've just had?Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 amAre we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?
He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs
No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us
Its that simple
I don't doubt that if Garlick wanted to sell and pocket £100m, there were no other viable offers. But I'm sure there would have been viable offers if he wanted to settle for less. I'm not saying he should have settled for less necessarily, but rest assured that the reason he sold the club and took (with his associates) over £100m from the club, is not purely because he had no choice.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Hi dsr, so, you are selling your house and you get an offer from someone who says they need to get a mortgage to be able to buy it. Are you going to turn them away? Or say that's great, let's get our solicitors to do the deal?dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 11:12 pmALK borrowed the money, but Garlick knew exactly what they were going to do before he agreed the deal.
You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from. It's the same with £180m companies - you don't hand over the deeds until the source of funds is clear and certain. Garlick and Pace cooked up the deal between them.
The only person who needs to check where your buyer is getting the money from is their solicitor for anti-money laundering regulations. Your solicitor just makes sure that the money is received before the keys are passed to the buyer.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
Is there any evidence that this was possible?dsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 amDid he explore that Barry Kilby might have re-purchased his shares at the cost (plus a percentage) that he paid? Or that some other local businessman and/or club supporter could have done similar, with some sort of trust document or golden share rule in place to ensure there could not be a takeover like we've just had?
I don't doubt that if Garlick wanted to sell and pocket £100m, there were no other viable offers. But I'm sure there would have been viable offers if he wanted to settle for less. I'm not saying he should have settled for less necessarily, but rest assured that the reason he sold the club and took (with his associates) over £100m from the club, is not purely because he had no choice.
If there isn't, then its just wishful thinking, and its something that isn't going to help
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace
Re: Mike Garlick
Is there any evidence that it wasn't?Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:06 amIs there any evidence that this was possible?
If there isn't, then its just wishful thinking, and its something that isn't going to help
Here's another option for Garlick. Buy it back. Dyche is no longer an issue, so if Garlick really didn't want to sell for £100m and was forced to reluctantly accept the money, he can buy the club back and we're back as we were before. (He may have to wait until ALK have chanced their arm for another year.)
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
So there isn't any evidencedsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:33 amIs there any evidence that it wasn't?
Here's another option for Garlick. Buy it back. Dyche is no longer an issue, so if Garlick really didn't want to sell for £100m and was forced to reluctantly accept the money, he can buy the club back and we're back as we were before. (He may have to wait until ALK have chanced their arm for another year.)
How is this helping anyone mate?
Re: Mike Garlick
For god sake, its like a school yard in here some times....
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret
-
- Posts: 2068
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 292 times
- Has Liked: 766 times
Re: Mike Garlick
I wouldn't want Garlick back as Chairman
Re: Mike Garlick
I'm not talking about checking where your buyer is getting the money from. I'm talking about checking where you are getting the money from.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:00 amHi dsr, so, you are selling your house and you get an offer from someone who says they need to get a mortgage to be able to buy it. Are you going to turn them away? Or say that's great, let's get our solicitors to do the deal?
The only person who needs to check where your buyer is getting the money from is their solicitor for anti-money laundering regulations. Your solicitor just makes sure that the money is received before the keys are passed to the buyer.
If you are selling your house, you do not hand over the keys until you know where you are getting the money from. It will be your solicitor, who is getting or who has already got the money from the other party's solicitor, usually. But you have seen the money, you know it is there. That's the point.
Garlick did not sell his shares and then ask where the money was coming from. He knew where the money was coming from.
Re: Mike Garlick
There is no evidence that he had other options, and there is no evidence that he didn't. There is no evidence that he looked for other options, there is no evidence that he didn't. All suggestions that he had no choice are unsupported by evidence.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:34 amSo there isn't any evidence
How is this helping anyone mate?
He took £100m from the club. (Or more precisely, he paid £100m out of the club and took a large proportion of it for himself.) Whether he did it from choice or from force majeure, we can discuss forever.
Re: Mike Garlick
I've a car for sale.. Someone wants to pay cash... Is that OK, or do I need to know where that cash has come from?dsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:38 amI'm not talking about checking where your buyer is getting the money from. I'm talking about checking where you are getting the money from.
If you are selling your house, you do not hand over the keys until you know where you are getting the money from. It will be your solicitor, who is getting or who has already got the money from the other party's solicitor, usually. But you have seen the money, you know it is there. That's the point.
Garlick did not sell his shares and then ask where the money was coming from. He knew where the money was coming from.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Mike Garlick
Well no, of course there is evidence that he didn't have any other optionsdsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:42 amThere is no evidence that he had other options, and there is no evidence that he didn't. There is no evidence that he looked for other options, there is no evidence that he didn't. All suggestions that he had no choice are unsupported by evidence.
He took £100m from the club. (Or more precisely, he paid £100m out of the club and took a large proportion of it for himself.) Whether he did it from choice or from force majeure, we can discuss forever.
I refer you to the previous replies on the two people who wanted to buy it
-
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
- Been Liked: 288 times
- Has Liked: 310 times
Re: Mike Garlick
It seems the apparent alternative to selling to either of the only two parties known to be interested was to not sell. Any other serious alternative would have been known at that point.dsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:42 amThere is no evidence that he had other options, and there is no evidence that he didn't. There is no evidence that he looked for other options, there is no evidence that he didn't. All suggestions that he had no choice are unsupported by evidence.
He took £100m from the club. (Or more precisely, he paid £100m out of the club and took a large proportion of it for himself.) Whether he did it from choice or from force majeure, we can discuss forever.
The received wisdom on that is that Dyche would have gone. We can only hypothesise what the response from the fan base would be in that event.
Re: Mike Garlick
No, you just need to know the cash is there. If the buyer says that he would like to pay you £5,000 cash, do you say "that's good enough for me, here are the keys"? Or do you say "show me the money"?
When Pace wanted to buy BFC, Garlick would certainly have told him to "show me the money". Pace couldn't have taken the money out of BFC in advance because Garlick was still MD, so "show me the money" would have meant that the legal agreement for selling the shares would have indicated how Garlick was getting his cash.
-
- Posts: 13225
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Mike Garlick
To be honest lads, I’m not sure comparing a house sale to a multi-million £ football club is really a fair comparison.
As others have said, Garlick has proven himself to be a very shrewd businessman as part of this transaction. I admire that in some ways. The issue is it has been at the huge detriment of what should be a community asset. Profiteering like this at the detriment of a historic football club adored by a community really shouldn’t be allowed.
The PL have proven themselves to be completely inept at controlling such things, so I really believe it should be the Government and laws that prevent this type of behaviour.
I’ll add that when this happened, both he and Pace said all was fine. That there were safeguards in the deal or whatever. So I really hope he comes good now and sees the club right. I’m guessing he still has the money from the transaction so has the means. It’s now that we’ll see his true colours - just hope they’re claret & blue.
As others have said, Garlick has proven himself to be a very shrewd businessman as part of this transaction. I admire that in some ways. The issue is it has been at the huge detriment of what should be a community asset. Profiteering like this at the detriment of a historic football club adored by a community really shouldn’t be allowed.
The PL have proven themselves to be completely inept at controlling such things, so I really believe it should be the Government and laws that prevent this type of behaviour.
I’ll add that when this happened, both he and Pace said all was fine. That there were safeguards in the deal or whatever. So I really hope he comes good now and sees the club right. I’m guessing he still has the money from the transaction so has the means. It’s now that we’ll see his true colours - just hope they’re claret & blue.
Re: Mike Garlick
Yes talked of safety net in case of relegation, one eye on new stand etc.Wokingclaret wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:36 pmGarlick didn't want to build a new CFS as lessons learn't from going down in the seventies, but sold us out with a massive big debt
We now know the other eye was staring at a bank account
Re: Mike Garlick
The starting point of the current situation is the former chairman imo. The payments from tv are to help make the league competitive. If you play the cautious route and keep reserves to protect the club fair enough but to sell those cash reserves to a leveraged buyout and to line your own pockets ( whilst damaging necessary team strengthening) means you are not acting in the long term interests of the club and cannot be a true fan of the club.
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret
-
- Posts: 1481
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:20 am
- Been Liked: 234 times
- Has Liked: 58 times
- Location: on the gravy train in strasbourg
Re: Mike Garlick
Actually Mike Garlick loves the club and hopefully will be back in charge.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:32 amAgain, missing the crucial fact that Garlick was no longer interested in running the club
It was intimated that he was backed into a corner by Dyche who had a list of players he wanted to bring in. Mike looked at the list saw they were expensive and had no long term resale value plus Dyche wanted to renew contracts for players who again were passed their prime. He allegedly refused to sanction the deals.
Allegedly he had a choice sell the club or sack Dyche . Theoretically he chose to sell the club because he believed Dyche was more important to the club than himself and he was also a shrewd business man.
In hindsight the fact that we had awful transfer windows under Garlick actually benefits us - we are not saddled with expensive players with no resale value. The current signings bear this out Lennon,Stephens - too old Cornet - defour like fitness, wout - a cheaper but less productive chris wood. Time will tell for collins and roberts - I think they will shine in the championship. Brownhill in my opinion has been the only signing that has increased in value. But again the potential decent signings, Vydra and Gibson Dyche had issues with.
I am hoping the big announcement on friday will be ALK gone and Garlick back in charge