Where does the Chairman stand in this situation

[TVC15]

But there are wages that we are no longer paying. We can’t have it both ways.

Yep but surely you understand that the wages are not incoming monies ?
The wages increase for our manager and the wages we are paying for Lennon more than swallowed up the Keane and Gray wages we lost.
Our total wage bill has been going up significantly year on year. I’d expect them to be around £70m to £80m right now.
Take a look at the last few years accounts to see how much of a rise that is.

[BOYSIE31]

Was he?

YES

[BabylonClaret]

I don't think not signing Jay is responsible for wrecking our season, because it ignores a lot of other factors. Like the impact of our European adventure and leaking goals like a sieve. The combination of those two things has played a greater part than a lack of goals scored. We aren't that far off what we were scoring last season.

The truth is that we walked away from paying £20m for a striker who is struggling to distance himself from Nahki who cost us £5.5m. Removing Jays 4 penalty goals, because they are soft goals and we don't get penalties, he has scored 1 goal every 252 minutes from open play.

Nahki has scored 1 goal every 255 minutes from open play, despite not being match sharp when he joined QPR and the fact that he has had to adjust to a new environment and a new team. It could also be argued that Jay has an easier time of it because he is surrounded by better players than Nahki.

Signing Jay would have made no difference to the position we are currently in. Had we signed him we would have simply paid an astronomical price for him that is far in excess of what he is realistically worth. If Garlick made the decision to walk away then he did well.

If the argument is that we should have walked away much earlier and chasing after Jay for so long, instead of switching to other targets, is the reason we had a bad transfer window you might be right. Hopefully we have learned our lesson from that mistake and we won't be repeating it in the next window.

A well made point but we have form for chasing yransfers for a full window and eventually falling. Its cost us before - and witj West Brom a couple of times.

Would Jay have made a difference? You have to believe he would have becasue our manager really really wanted him. Given he can play effectively up front, deeper and wide its almost like having more tha n one player. He wpuld have helped in Europe and for example could easily havr slotted into a wide position on Boxing Day given all our other wide men were too injured.

And we threw that flexibility away for 2m but then brought in Vydra for half that (at least) to sit on the bench. In hindsight we would have been better not signing Vyrda as ee would have space now tp bring in a fresh face but as the summer was such a clusterfuck we grabbed at what we could.

I know there is the argument about having a point when you walk away but frankly West Brom were really clear from the start... we dont need ti sell - it will cost you a lot. If West Brom agreed a figure and then went back on it Garlick should have called them out. Just like we did witj Mawson. No. I firmly believe we thought we could get him for around 12 plus a bit more and simply thought 20 was too much. But when the seller holds the cards and doesnt have to sell then the goods are worth whatever they decide.

[TVC15]

I love how people make up their own version of events to help align to their own views about the club.
None of us supporters know why the JayRod deal fell through but I am pretty sure we offered a lot more than £12m.

[BabylonClaret]

I d9dnt say we offered 12. We offered 18 and they wanted 20. We refused. So its a fair assu.ptio that 18 was already past what we had set as our likely fee (Im guessing we hoped for something between 12 and 15 but were prepared to go a bit more)

In fact didnt we make about 3 offers and 15 was the one before 18 (which was in response to west broms "we want 20)

[CombatClaret]

I love how people make up their own version of events to help align to their own views about the club.
None of us supporters know why the JayRod deal fell through but I am pretty sure we offered a lot more than £12m.

This, people getting angry about event they have no first hand knowledge of just hearsay and paper gossip. Tossing other people's cash around like monopoly money like they are entitled to something more than a seat.

[TVC15]

I d9dnt say we offered 12. We offered 18 and they wanted 20. We refused. So its a fair assu.ptio that 18 was already past what we had set as our likely fee (Im guessing we hoped for something between 12 and 15 but were prepared to go a bit more)

In fact didnt we make about 3 offers and 15 was the one before 18 (which was in response to west broms "we want 20)

Why do you “firmly” believe you think Burnley could have got him for £12m ?
Do you actually believe that or are you just saying that to have a dig at the club ?
Either way it does not make much sense.
The rest of your post is pure rumour and conjecture but again i’m sure it fits in with what you want to believe.

Just have a read back at what you posted and tell me out of everything you quoted how much of that do you know to be factual ? So far I have counted 0%.

[boatshed bill]

At the head of the long table in the boardroom?

[TsarBomba]

This, people getting angry about event they have no first hand knowledge of just hearsay and paper gossip. Tossing other people's cash around like monopoly money like they are entitled to something more than a seat.

Tossing other people’s money around?

We’re paid handsomely by the Premier League. It’s not the board’s money.

We’re posting record profits, and we demand and get top rate for the players we sell (Keane & Gray), yet seemingly refuse to pay the going rate ourselves.

If we did miss out on Rodriguez and possibly Dawson because of a million or so, then it’s absolutely ridiculous, and it’s quite possibly eroded the relationship between Dyche and Garlick.

I’m no fan of Dyche’s football, but after finishing 7th last season, Dyche should’ve been backed to the hilt, and the perception rightly or wrongly is he wasn’t. If Dyche wanted Rodriguez, we should have got him. No excuses.

[TVC15]

Tossing other people’s money around?

We’re paid handsomely by the Premier League. It’s not the board’s money.

Whose money do you think it is then ?
If you think it’s the fans why don’t you get the bus down to the Turf and walk in and ask to withdraw yours. Let us all know how you get on eh.

[BabylonClaret]

Why do you “firmly” believe you think Burnley could have got him for £12m ?
Do you actually believe that or are you just saying that to have a dig at the club ?
Either way it does not make much sense.
The rest of your post is pure rumour and conjecture but again i’m sure it fits in with what you want to believe.

Just have a read back at what you posted and tell me out of everything you quoted how much of that do you know to be factual ? So far I have counted 0%.

Re read my post. i didn't say that I believed we would get Jay for 12m.

And yes it's a critical opinion based on assumptions drawn from what happened - which IS fact.

FACT - we spent all summer chasing a signing that the manager really wanted.
FACT - we made 3 (or was it 4?) offers.
FACT - West Brom didn't want to or have to sell.
FACT - West Brom wanted 40m for both Dawson and Rodriguez.
FACT - our first 2 or 3 offers were turned down as being nowhere near the selling club's valuation but we were going o 25-30m in the end.
FACT - we stopped chasing both and focused on Jay
FACT - we offered 15 or 16 m to be told that West brom wanted 20.
FACT - we then offered 18m and it was turned down.
FACT - we walked away.

I think it is a fair inference that :
a) Jay and dawson were priority targets
b) we wanted jay more than Dawson (presumably becasue we had more options as backup targets for Dawson)
c) we hoped we could get him for not a lot more than his fee to West Brom in the hope they'd want to reduce their wage bill
d) our expected top budget for the signing was probably less than the 2nd last offer because it would be bloody stupid to pass up a priority target (who had presumably already found a way to sit within our wage structure and wanted to come) with 7 days of the window to go and no real alternatives for the sake of going 2-3m overbudget when we have just secured 100m and not spent anything yet that window.

Certainly the facts as we have them support my theory a lot closer than the theory we agreed a deal and West Brom went back on it by being greedy.

You might think that is critical. It is. A number of us said so at the time. I'm mostly critical that we ****** about all summer over this and failed to land him without any credible alternatives.

I think my analysis above where we rate Jay at at say 12 to 15m is being kind to the board. We offered 25-30m for a striker and a defender - we don;t know what the split was but surely we'd expect a striker to be valued higher than a defender. Our offer of 15 to 18 for Jay therefore could be argued to be exactly the same offer as the 25m for both. No wonder it got turned down.

[Paul Waine]

Tossing other people’s money around?

We’re paid handsomely by the Premier League. It’s not the board’s money.

Hi Bomba, I'm not sure if you meant it as a joke, but it made me laugh.

Are you suggesting that the tv money paid to Burnley FC for being in the Premier League isn't the club's money? Are you suggesting that the guys who are the owners of Burnley FC, who are represented by the Board of Directors, aren't also the owners of the club's money?

[TVC15]

Babylon - you were probably better just looking up the definition of the word “fact”.
It would have saved you a lot of time.

[BabylonClaret]

TVC - you saying that those things aren't facts? We didn't chase Jay and Dawson (the former all summer)? We didn't offer 18m? West Brom didn't turn it down? They didn't want 20m? We didn't walk away for the sake of an extra 2m despite having made now sigining?

I think you've lost the plot

[TVC15]

Yes we did go for Dawson and JayRod - that was not in your post which I originally commented on as having zero facts.

The other things you said are just paper and internet talk - unless you are now defining that as factual ?
Show me the fact that we lost out on the deal for the sake of £2m and I will happily apologise.

The only fact is that you do not know why the deal fell through - and neither do I (but I don’t pretend to)

[CombatClaret]

FACT - we spent all summer chasing a signing that the manager really wanted.
FACT - we made 3 (or was it 4?) offers.
FACT - West Brom didn't want to or have to sell.
FACT - West Brom wanted 40m for both Dawson and Rodriguez.
FACT - our first 2 or 3 offers were turned down as being nowhere near the selling club's valuation but we were going o 25-30m in the end.
FACT - we stopped chasing both and focused on Jay
FACT - we offered 15 or 16 m to be told that West brom wanted 20.
FACT - we then offered 18m and it was turned down.
FACT - we walked away.
.

Since when does something being reported in the media automatically become a FACT and therefor TRUTH?
The only FACT is that no one here was in on the negotiation so anything posted is pure speculation.

[BabylonClaret]

*sigh* ok since we're being pedantic.

I never said i knew why the deal fell through but that i firmly believed why - which was that we hoped to get Jay for somewhere between 12-15 m and 18m was likely the extent we were prepared to push the envelope (otherwise we'd have bid again surely?) and West Brom weren't tempted enough to sell him when they didn't need to.

you somehow interpreted this as I said I thought we could get him for 12m trying a "I'm sure we offered more than 12m for him" put down. When i pointed out that wasn't what i said you then switched your focus onto facts. Again I pointed out I never said this was fact but that I analysed what happened and came to some conclusions based on that (as a thinking sort of person who uses critical logic to try to understand stuff).

Yes these are "paper talk" and "rumour" but it was a pretty public affair and at the time no-one was heavily disputing the reports. It's reasonable to assume the numbers weren't far away (otherwise why would you be so sure that we offered a lot more than 12m when none of it is fact?), so they'ere factual enough to give enough evidence to form a viewpoint.

Unless of course you're being pedantic to try to save face.

[scouseclaret]

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... -1-9509637

This all sounds depressingly familiar.

[BabylonClaret]

Since when does something being reported in the media automatically become a FACT and therefor TRUTH?
The only FACT is that no one here was in on the negotiation so anything posted is pure speculation.

See above. Being pedantic only makes you look silly. Take out the actual numbers and it is fact. And in any case this is a message board - we're speculating and making views etc. I've given a point of view and said why i think that. Blindly saying "nobody knows so you can;t be right" isn't really a counter argument at all.

I get that people want to support the club and the chairman but I really don;t get why people are prepared to ignore evidence that suggests we didn't do a very good job in this circumstance.

In summer the main argument in favour of the club was "you stop when you stop and is 18 is our limit that's good. You don't keep going upwards. Not even for 2m. There's a principle at stake" It's a fair argument (although I'd counter argue that West Brom never moved in valuing their players at top whack here - and since then they have continued to do so with others - so we should have pushed the envelope a lot sooner).

No-one was talking about the numbers being speculation back in summer. Now it's changed to "we don't know that 2m was the difference here - nobody knows why it fell through". Presumably because hindsight is showing that if it was 2m difference in valuation then it was a pretty stupid principle to stick to.

[TVC15]

You never said they were facts ?
Ok... you mean other than the essay you posted where you listed “fact” next to all those things you believe to be true.
Not sure why you are getting so wound up by all of this. My original point was that some fans who choose to be critical about the club base their opinions on a version of events that they piece together themselves (or the media do) and all of a sudden numbers and figures suddenly become “facts” in their minds.
Just like this £2m difference figure that we apparently would not pay to West Brom...or in some fans heads this is only £1m....because that makes the Garlick being tight fisted argument even stronger in their minds !

I am not for one minute saying I was happy with the transfer window - I don’t know any Burnley fans who were. But what I do know is that West Brom have been a nightmare to deal with in the past so it is no surprise to me that the deal did not happen so unless the facts actually ever do emerge personally I choose not to believe the Sun gossip column or a few posters on a message board who think they have an inside track to the details of the deal.

Edit - and just to prove my point there you go again talking about this £2m difference as if this was a fact. Where have you got that from ? Post the links and we can comment on the credibility !

[BabylonClaret]

You never said they were facts ?
Ok... you mean other than the essay you posted where you listed “fact” next to all those things you believe to be true.

You mean these?

FACT - we spent all summer chasing a signing that the manager really wanted. we did - we made several offers - that's definite
FACT - we made 3 (or was it 4?) offers. see above
FACT - West Brom didn't want to or have to sell. do you think this isn't true?
FACT - West Brom wanted 40m for both Dawson and Rodriguez. May be that this is press reporting but do you think this isn't true?
FACT - our first 2 or 3 offers were turned down as being nowhere near the selling club's valuation but we were going o 25-30m in the end. this happened - otherwise he'd be here right?
FACT - we stopped chasing both and focused on Jay see above
FACT - we offered 15 or 16 m to be told that West brom wanted 20. based on widely reported figures that may or may not be true granted
FACT - we then offered 18m and it was turned down. see above
FACT - we walked away do you think this isn't true?

That's 9 things - ok maybe it's a bit hyperbole to grandly start each one with FACT but I was making a point to say I looked at all these and made some conclusions as to why the deal fell through. I'm not making any "facts" up just using what happened and played out to try and make sense of it. What do you think happened?

ps. I was going to reply to pretty much all your points but half way through I lost the will. I'm not saying I know for a fact what happened and you know full well I'm not (or you;'re too dense to see it)

[TVC15]

I have already said I do not know what happened - just like you. The only difference is I haven’t created my own version of events to help justify an opinion I have about how the club undertakes it’s transfer dealings. You have - that’s fine....at least you are admitting that it’s your opinion rather than facts.

As I said I don’t know what happened. If you want to know what I think happened then I think that West Brom either changed the goal posts late in the deal or that we were never actually that near to the amount they wanted and the difference was a lot more than the £1m or £2m that is banded about by those fans that think that Garlick was being overly prudent.
And the reason I think that is because why would our chairman who wants the club to do as well as any fan allow the no 1 target of Dyche to fall through for the sake of £1m or £2m when the club is in such a healthy financial position and can easily afford it ?
None of my opinion is based on any facts or evidence but to me it makes much more common sense than yours