Brighton's evolution
-
- Posts: 2740
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:31 pm
- Been Liked: 667 times
- Has Liked: 2048 times
Brighton's evolution
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1239 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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
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
-
- Posts: 4906
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:27 pm
- Been Liked: 857 times
- Has Liked: 334 times
- Location: Halifax
Re: Brighton's evolution
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
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
-
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:41 am
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 167 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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...
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...
Re: Brighton's evolution
And yet they are the club we are supposed to emulate.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:41 pmDebts of £360 million according to the last accounts, majority of it to Bloom.
How can we do that without a rich backer like they have with Bloom?
This user liked this post: evensteadiereddie
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
Not putting anything in the bucket for them this time if their fans arrive outside the turf!
-
- Posts: 18058
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3862 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
Is 116m that bad, to become an established Premier league team?claretburns wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:56 amAccording 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
A championship side generally all needs replacing.
It's the only way small clubs can stay in the big league longterm.
-
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2973 times
- Has Liked: 2072 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
To become a PL team, they're not established as yet.Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:38 amIs 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.
There's only a very small number who are.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:38 amIs 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.
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
-
- Posts: 6698
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1816 times
- Has Liked: 1796 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Brighton's evolution
I'd rather spend £120m on players than use it to fund a leveraged buyout.
-
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:30 pmTony 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.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:39 pmIt’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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:40 pmMy 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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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).
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:47 pmOh 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).
Re: Brighton's evolution
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 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:48 pmIt’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.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
-
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.RVclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:40 pmMy 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Brighton's evolution
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?RVclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:54 pmBut 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
It has been suggested that Dyche exercised his power of veto on player sales a number of timesRileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:55 pmWorth 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.
This user liked this post: Rileybobs
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:58 pmBut 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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:54 pmBut 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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:55 pmWorth 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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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).
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
-
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
and look at the situational context you are carefully ignoringRVclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:10 pmWell 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.
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:30 pmand 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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
-
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.RVclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:34 pmMore 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.
Sheffield United had and have a very different ownership model, they incurred quite a bit of debt.
-
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:44 pmDyche 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.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Brighton's evolution
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_ wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:38 pmTo 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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.
Re: Brighton's evolution
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.