Brighton's evolution

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
JohnDearyMe
Posts: 2723
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:31 pm
Been Liked: 666 times
Has Liked: 2041 times

Brighton's evolution

Post by JohnDearyMe » Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:11 pm

Just watched a very good Brighton secure a 3-3 draw at Anfield on MOTD. For a number of years in the Dyche era, particularly under Houghton, we seemed to finish above them and there were a few similarities in our style of play.

When they brought in Potter and started to play more attractive football, did they spend a lot of money above and beyond what they received in transfer fees?

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Hibsclaret » Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:25 pm

Their net spend for the 5 years from 2015 to 2019 was 229m, the tenth highest in Europe, above Chelsea, Spurs and Liverpool. According to an article if you just Google it.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:41 pm

Debts of £360 million according to the last accounts, majority of it to Bloom.
I'd expect it to be closer to £400 million when the next ones are released.

It's just financial doping, but the PL aren't arsed about it happening, so there's little point in getting upset about it anymore, just accept that it happens and will continue to do so for the foreseeable.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... PNgMw&s=19

claretburns
Posts: 4878
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:27 pm
Been Liked: 848 times
Has Liked: 334 times
Location: Halifax

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by claretburns » Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:56 am

According to Transfermarkt since promotion Brighton have had the following transfer spend:

17/18: -£59.5 million
18/19: -£66.1 million
19/20: -£47.9 million
20/21: -£7.1 million
21/22: +£3.1 million
22/23: +£61.3 million

Overall -£116,200,000

In the same period we have a net spend of +£18,600,000

Belgianclaret
Posts: 2515
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:41 am
Been Liked: 932 times
Has Liked: 165 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Belgianclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:42 am

Trossard is beginning to show his potential.

Tipped him for us three years ago by the way.

Should always start for Belgium now instead of the pedestrian & always injured Eden Hazard. But hey, our extremely successful manager Martinez (and that's a joke) will always play Hazard... 😩

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Spijed » Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:43 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:41 pm
Debts of £360 million according to the last accounts, majority of it to Bloom.
And yet they are the club we are supposed to emulate.

How can we do that without a rich backer like they have with Bloom?
This user liked this post: evensteadiereddie

Stayingup
Posts: 5551
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:02 pm
Been Liked: 914 times
Has Liked: 2726 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Stayingup » Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:59 am

Spijed wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:43 am
And yet they are the club we are supposed to emulate.

How can we do that without a rich backer like they have with Bloom?
You can't unless you want the receivers in.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by tiger76 » Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:04 am

They might have spent fairly heavily in recent years, but in general their recruitment has been good especially since Potter's arrival, and they've also sold some on for large profits notably Bissouma, Cucuerlla and White.

What I admire about Brighton is they always try to play on the front foot, and even when they fell behind yesterday at Anfield they kept pushing for the equaliser which duly came their way.

Terrier
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 227 times
Has Liked: 124 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Terrier » Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:14 am

Not putting anything in the bucket for them this time if their fans arrive outside the turf!

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17913
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Quickenthetempo » Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:38 am

claretburns wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:56 am
According to Transfermarkt since promotion Brighton have had the following transfer spend:

17/18: -£59.5 million
18/19: -£66.1 million
19/20: -£47.9 million
20/21: -£7.1 million
21/22: +£3.1 million
22/23: +£61.3 million

Overall -£116,200,000

In the same period we have a net spend of +£18,600,000
Is 116m that bad, to become an established Premier league team?
A championship side generally all needs replacing.

It's the only way small clubs can stay in the big league longterm.

Funkydrummer
Posts: 8310
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2949 times
Has Liked: 2063 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Funkydrummer » Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:51 am

Terrier wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:14 am
Not putting anything in the bucket for them this time if their fans arrive outside the turf!
Yeah, how things have changed over time. Good luck to them but I wouldn't our club to be
forever in debt to a benefactor. You only need to look at Notlob to see the most likely eventual
outcome.

Instant gratification is not for me I'm afraid, but each to their own.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sun Oct 02, 2022 10:17 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:38 am
Is 116m that bad, to become an established Premier league team?
A championship side generally all needs replacing.

It's the only way small clubs can stay in the big league longterm.
To become a PL team, they're not established as yet.
There's only a very small number who are.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 10:18 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:38 am
Is 116m that bad, to become an established Premier league team?
A championship side generally all needs replacing.

It's the only way small clubs can stay in the big league longterm.
Not bad at all. That’s basically an average £20m spend per season they’ve been there. Although what that doesn’t tell us about is the wage bill, not sure where they rank.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sun Oct 02, 2022 10:19 am

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 10:18 am
Not bad at all. That’s basically an average £20m spend per season they’ve been there. Although what that doesn’t tell us about is the wage bill, not sure where they rank.
As per my link their wage bill is about 75% of revenue.

dougcollins
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
Been Liked: 1778 times
Has Liked: 1773 times
Location: Yarkshire

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by dougcollins » Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:20 pm

Terrier wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:14 am
Not putting anything in the bucket for them this time if their fans arrive outside the turf!
Them and Bournemouth - anyone remember the' Cherryaid' buckets?

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Duffer_ » Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:48 pm

I'd rather spend £120m on players than use it to fund a leveraged buyout.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:53 pm

Duffer_ wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:48 pm
I'd rather spend £120m on players than use it to fund a leveraged buyout.
Unfortunately our previous owners thought differently…

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:28 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:53 pm
Unfortunately our previous owners thought differently…
As did our current owners, quite clearly…

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:30 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:53 pm
Unfortunately our previous owners thought differently…
Tony Bloom's personal contribution to Brighton is £427m at the last accounts - there are few in the history of English football who have contributed more (they can be counted on one hand)

All of Barry Kilby, Mike Garlick, John Banaszkiewicz and Brendan Flood, have in the past put more money into the club (new share issues and loans) than we can reasonably believe that ALK/VSL contributed to the takeover (none of that money went into the club, it went straight to the sellers). Every director of the 20 years prior to the takeover put thousands of pounds into the club in new share sales and/or loans (some of which were later converted into shares. In fact, we can pretty reliably say that over 1100 people have put more money into the club than the new ownership - they all bought new shares (even if it was just one). Add in those who took the option of a share rather than a season ticket as part of the Chairman's pledge in our first Premier League season and you can grow that number to just over 1,700.

Here is another interesting one for you, ALK/VSL have currently extracted (in the form of loans, and various payments to MSD) from the club more than the whole Glazer family have earned in dividends from Manchester United during their entire ownership.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:34 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:30 pm
Tony Bloom's personal contribution to Brighton is £427m at the last accounts - there are few in the history of English football who have contributed more (they can be counted on one hand)

All of Barry Kilby, Mike Garlick, John Banaszkiewicz and Brendan Flood, have in the past put more money into the club (new share issues and loans) than we can reasonably believe that ALK/VSL contributed to the takeover (none of that money went into the club, it went straight to the sellers). Every director of the 20 years prior to the takeover put thousands of pounds into the club in new share sales and/or loans (some of which were later converted into shares. In fact, we can pretty reliably say that over 1100 people have put more money into the club than the new ownership - they all bought new shares (even if it was just one). Add in those who took the option of a share rather than a season ticket as part of the Chairman's pledge in our first Premier League season and you can grow that number to just over 1,700.

Here is another interesting one for you, ALK/VSL have currently extracted (in the form of loans, and various payments to MSD) from the club more than the whole Glazer family have earned in dividends from Manchester United during their entire ownership.
Not sure how any of that has relevance to the previous owners preferring to sell the club via a LBO than spend money on transfers. That’s pretty obvious.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by taio » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:37 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:53 pm
Unfortunately our previous owners thought differently…
How can one think that the previous owners were at fault but the current one isn't?

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:39 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:34 pm
Not sure how any of that has relevance to the previous owners preferring to sell the club via a LBO than spend money on transfers. That’s pretty obvious.
It’s just as obvious that the current owners preferred to buy the club using the same method facilitated by selling all of our best players, rather than spending money on transfers.

Hard to take what you post seriously when you take such a ridiculously entrenched view.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:40 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:37 pm
How can one think that the previous owners were at fault but the current one isn't?
My point is more so that the previous owners held back significant funds to boost their chances of getting a sale. After years of no progress on the sale it seems clear to me they knew cash in the bank is more attractive for an LBO style purchase. I was replying to a point about 120m being better spent on transfers than on an LBO, which I agree with. But as far as I can see, ALK and co were allowed to make this offer and then purchase by regulators / authorities and more importantly, the previous owners.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:42 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:39 pm
It’s just as obvious that the current owners preferred to buy the club using the same method facilitated by selling all of our best players, rather than spending money on transfers.

Hard to take what you post seriously when you take such a ridiculously entrenched view.
Players almost have to be sold at clubs like ours without a rich backer. As long as it’s reinvested smartly I don’t mind. So far so good in that sense. Not sure what I’m saying that’s causing so much confusion.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by taio » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:43 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:40 pm
My point is more so that the previous owners held back significant funds to boost their chances of getting a sale. After years of no progress on the sale it seems clear to me they knew cash in the bank is more attractive for an LBO style purchase. I was replying to a point about 120m being better spent on transfers than on an LBO, which I agree with. But as far as I can see, ALK and co were allowed to make this offer and then purchase by regulators / authorities and more importantly, the previous owners.
Pace's deal was totally reliant on having that cash in the bank. It wouldn't have happened without it and he will have made that clear to Garlick.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:47 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:43 pm
Pace's deal was totally reliant on having that cash in the bank. It wouldn't have happened without it and he will have made that clear to Garlick.
Oh I agree but I doubt Pace had a gun to Garlick’s head to force the sale?

And anyway, that wasn’t really my point, to reiterate, it’s Garlick and co who purposefully held back money from Dyche (he said so himself in these podcasts if you’ve been tuning in).

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:48 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:42 pm
Players almost have to be sold at clubs like ours without a rich backer. As long as it’s reinvested smartly I don’t mind. So far so good in that sense. Not sure what I’m saying that’s causing so much confusion.
It’s not causing confusion - I just find it really odd that you take any opportunity to undermine the former owners whilst not having a bad word said about the current owners. I’ve noticed you take a similar stance with Dyche v Kompany.

For someone who seems to have a decent understanding of the game and often makes good points, this makes it hard to take your comments seriously.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by taio » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:51 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:47 pm
Oh I agree but I doubt Pace had a gun to Garlick’s head to force the sale?

And anyway, that wasn’t really my point, to reiterate, it’s Garlick and co who purposefully held back money from Dyche (he said so himself in these podcasts if you’ve been tuning in).
I'm certain he didn't have a gun to his head but that changes nothing. Garlick held money back to enable Pace to buy the club which he wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. It's truly bizarre to criticise Garlick for the deal but not Pace which you have consistently done from the outset.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:54 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:48 pm
It’s not causing confusion - I just find it really odd that you take any opportunity to undermine the former owners whilst not having a bad word said about the current owners. I’ve noticed you take a similar stance with Dyche v Kompany.

For someone who seems to have a decent understanding of the game and often makes good points, this makes it hard to take your comments seriously.
But my point here is simply that funds were held back from transfer spending (50m+ in the bank) and that was done by the previous owners, not current ones. I felt they lacked the ambition to take us further (Dyche himself commented on their unwillingness to invest in overseas markets for example). Not sure on the Dyche v Kompany stuff you are referring to.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:55 pm

Worth also just adding that the previous owners could quite easily have cashed in on our biggest assets and enabled Dyche to bring in players (ironically something that the current owners have done). It rarely gets mentioned that Dyche was obviously backed to the point where he was almost always allowed to retain his best players.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:58 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:40 pm
My point is more so that the previous owners held back significant funds to boost their chances of getting a sale. After years of no progress on the sale it seems clear to me they knew cash in the bank is more attractive for an LBO style purchase. I was replying to a point about 120m being better spent on transfers than on an LBO, which I agree with. But as far as I can see, ALK and co were allowed to make this offer and then purchase by regulators / authorities and more importantly, the previous owners.
That is one of the options that was pretty obviously considered by the previous ownership, but and it is a significant but, there is also no doubt that the previous owners had a very set method of operation, in terms of never operating at a loss within a financial year, in the Premier League. Just a quick look at the level of football cost to revenue (wages + amortisation/Revenue) in their final years clearly shows that.

Yes, the LBO model was fully understood by Garlick and co, though it also entirely reasonable to believe that they accepted what they were told about new investors coming on board so that stage payments would not have come from the club's coffers and probably the upfront loan of circa £23m would have been repaid. It is also reasonable to believe that it was always anticipated that the MSD loan financing and repayment was always going to be met by the club and that was known. Even then you have to consider that repayment was 5 years away and that the supposed new revenue streams would have easily accommodated that.

It is worth noting that the financial rigour of the Garlick years was what was most admired across the game and by investment houses, it was also what put many investors, looking for a way into the game, off - they could not see a way of doing it any better, that was reported more than once.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:58 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:54 pm
But my point here is simply that funds were held back from transfer spending (50m+ in the bank) and that was done by the previous owners, not current ones. I felt they lacked the ambition to take us further (Dyche himself commented on their unwillingness to invest in overseas markets for example). Not sure on the Dyche v Kompany stuff you are referring to.
But without holding back that money Garlick would still own this club and you wouldn’t have this Kompany revolution which you’re obviously such a fan of. So which way do you want it?

I’m not going to look for specific comments/likes re Dyche but you’re a very regular poster on this board so suffice to say I’ve noticed it on a number of occasions.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:04 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:55 pm
Worth also just adding that the previous owners could quite easily have cashed in on our biggest assets and enabled Dyche to bring in players (ironically something that the current owners have done). It rarely gets mentioned that Dyche was obviously backed to the point where he was almost always allowed to retain his best players.
It has been suggested that Dyche exercised his power of veto on player sales a number of times
This user liked this post: Rileybobs

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:10 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:58 pm
But without holding back that money Garlick would still own this club and you wouldn’t have this Kompany revolution which you’re obviously such a fan of. So which way do you want it?

I’m not going to look for specific comments/likes re Dyche but you’re a very regular poster on this board so suffice to say I’ve noticed it on a number of occasions.
Well I actually accept the deal for what it is, so don’t really have complaints. In this thread, I was merely pointing out there was significant money held back by the previous owners for a sale of the club. I mean, they spent 750k the window after we finished 10th, disgraceful imo. So at the time I was keen for new owners to try and take us further.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by taio » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:10 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:54 pm
But my point here is simply that funds were held back from transfer spending (50m+ in the bank) and that was done by the previous owners, not current ones. I felt they lacked the ambition to take us further (Dyche himself commented on their unwillingness to invest in overseas markets for example). Not sure on the Dyche v Kompany stuff you are referring to.
How can you possibly put all the blame on Garlick and not also on Pace? It makes no logical sense because Pace's offer was contigent on the cash in the bank. Blaming Garlick while drooling over Pace is odd to say the least.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:14 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:55 pm
Worth also just adding that the previous owners could quite easily have cashed in on our biggest assets and enabled Dyche to bring in players (ironically something that the current owners have done). It rarely gets mentioned that Dyche was obviously backed to the point where he was almost always allowed to retain his best players.
That’s a fair point too and I’ve said it’s a shame Dyche vetoed several sales, but there was still more than enough cash in the bank (remember most transfer fees are done over 4/5 years too so only a smaller initial instalment) to bring some needed quality in.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:17 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:10 pm
How can you possibly put all the blame on Garlick and not also on Pace? It makes no logical sense because Pace's offer was contigent on the cash in the bank. Blaming Garlick while drooling over Pace is odd to say the least.
No drooling over Pace. Not sure what gives you this impression other than being pleased with the rebuild so far. I could easily say why do you (and others) blame Pace for everything but never mention the previous owners? I find that completely illogical.

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Duffer_ » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:19 pm

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more from supposed fans and custodians than opportunistic investors without any self-declared sentiment for the club, and therefore find them more culpable in proceedings.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by taio » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:21 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:17 pm
No drooling over Pace. Not sure what gives you this impression other than being pleased with the rebuild so far. I could easily say why do you (and others) blame Pace for everything but never mention the previous owners? I find that completely illogical.
I've got the impression based on what you've consistently posted about Pace and the buy out since the start. Me and others are suggesting on this thread that there is fault on both sides so I'm not sure why you have said we haven't mentioned the previous owners. That said I'm quite proud of how the club was previously financially managed (the last few months of their tenure excepted).

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:22 pm

Duffer_ wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:19 pm
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more from supposed fans and custodians than opportunistic investors without any self-declared sentiment for the club, and therefore find them more culpable in proceedings.
Yep this is a good summary of what I’ve been trying to say.

Anyway, back to Brighton… they’ve actually only ‘got it right’ in the past few seasons. Before that they spent a load on mostly rubbish. I think it was when Dan Ashworth joined as ‘Head of Football’ they started nailing recruitment. If you look at their starting 11 yesterday there’s some absolute bargains (free / around 5m) mixed with the odd 10-15m signing. Think it shows how important it is to have someone in that kind of role… though in a weird way I feel our manager is that person.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by taio » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:25 pm

Duffer_ wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:19 pm
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more from supposed fans and custodians than opportunistic investors without any self-declared sentiment for the club, and therefore find them more culpable in proceedings.
To be fair there's a big difference between that and zero culpability which is the line RV has regularly taken with Pace. You raise a good point but what you've said above is not what RV has said.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:30 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:10 pm
Well I actually accept the deal for what it is, so don’t really have complaints. In this thread, I was merely pointing out there was significant money held back by the previous owners for a sale of the club. I mean, they spent 750k the window after we finished 10th, disgraceful imo. So at the time I was keen for new owners to try and take us further.
and look at the situational context you are carefully ignoring

The accounts of that 10th placed year saw us break-even courtesy of a tax rebate, having lost £10.5m in revenue to Covid related issues) and fully cognisant that more was owed in rebates for that season and no knowledge of what rebates and other revenue losses were to come in the following one. It transpired that an additional £17m or so of cost could be attributed to Covid in a combination of lost revenues and rebates. Only because of the Premier League showing every behind closed doors game on tv live were further rebates avoided.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by RVclaret » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:34 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:30 pm
and look at the situational context you are carefully ignoring

The accounts of that 10th placed year saw us break-even courtesy of a tax rebate, having lost £10.5m in revenue to Covid related issues) and fully cognisant that more was owed in rebates for that season and no knowledge of what rebates and other revenue losses were to come in the following one. It transpired that an additional £17m or so of cost could be attributed to Covid in a combination of lost revenues and rebates. Only because of the Premier League showing every behind closed doors game on tv live were further rebates avoided.
More the point that 2x top 10 placed finishes in 3 seasons should have made us a more attractive club to join and something to build on. Sheffield United signed the highly sought after Sander Berge during their top 10 finish for example. Dyche himself said the pending takeover meant funds were held back.

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Duffer_ » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:38 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:25 pm
To be fair there's a big difference between that and zero culpability which is the line RV has regularly taken with Pace. You raise a good point but what you've said above is not what RV has said.
To be clear, I am not looking to act as a spokesperson for RV. I couldn't handle the volume of output letalone everything else. My feelings are akin to that of being in an adulterous marriage. If I find my spouse in bed with another, it is the conduct of my spouse that has disappointed me the most because of the commitment they have made to me. The other party is largely incidental.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:44 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:34 pm
More the point that 2x top 10 placed finishes in 3 seasons should have made us a more attractive club to join and something to build on. Sheffield United signed the highly sought after Sander Berge during their top 10 finish for example. Dyche himself said the pending takeover meant funds were held back.
Dyche has been very selective in what he was saying, and for the most part has never been challenged about his take on the finances, or why the transfer splurge of 2018 fared so badly in terms of facilitating the necessary churn of players, or increased player value - that cannot be blamed on Mike Rigg, he arrived afterwards.

Sheffield United had and have a very different ownership model, they incurred quite a bit of debt.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:47 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:44 pm
Dyche has been very selective in what he was saying, and for the most part has never been challenged about his take on the finances, or why the transfer splurge of 2018 fared so badly in terms of facilitating the necessary churn of players, or increased player value - that cannot be blamed on Mike Rigg, he arrived afterwards.

Sheffield United had and have a very different ownership model, they incurred quite a bit of debt.
As I keep saying the cost of football ratio to revenue was very stretch over those las years - they appeared to really try hard to support him within the financial model, it could be argued that he was Dyche that broke that model in both recruitment and retention of players due to go out of contract rather free up the space in the wage bill.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:58 pm

Duffer_ wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:38 pm
To be clear, I am not looking to act as a spokesperson for RV. I couldn't handle the volume of output letalone everything else. My feelings are akin to that of being in an adulterous marriage. If I find my spouse in bed with another, it is the conduct of my spouse that has disappointed me the most because of the commitment they have made to me. The other party is largely incidental.
But whilst you would probably divorce your adulterous spouse, I’m guessing you wouldn’t happily start a relationship with the person they were getting jiggy with?

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by Duffer_ » Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:01 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:58 pm
But whilst you would probably divorce your adulterous spouse, I’m guessing you wouldn’t happily start a relationship with the person they were getting jiggy with?
Haha, but if I did, I would be clear that they wanted an open relationship. The rules of engagement, pardon the pun, would be re-defined.

JR1882
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 160 times

Re: Brighton's evolution

Post by JR1882 » Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:49 am

One is a local supporter and alleged custodian the other is a Wall St financier/investment banker, I know where I lay the blame for the sale structure.

Post Reply