ARTICLE: We know the bigger picture

[claretspice]

He's picking the team though Royboy.

3 centre backs on the pitch, Taylor at right back, Defour and Hendrick as a midfield 2, Vydra up front on his own.

It was only going to end one way (yes I know that it was Man City).

Not his fault he's got two senior right backs on the book and both have injuries that ruled them out yesterday, though. These things happen. Of course, he could have deployed Tarks at right back again as he did against Barnsley - I assumed that was the plan when I saw the team - but he might have felt that Tarks would likely be more exposed in wide areas by City than he was against Barnsley, and that Taylor might be better able to cope in those areas - or that at least it was an experiment worth trying, just in case Bardsley and Lowton are out for any period of time. If it didn't work, no problem, we move on. Better than experimenting in a league game. That's sort of his prerogative as a manager (and of course the back 3 set up worked fine in the two big away games before Christmas).

[Bin Ont Turf]

Not his fault he's got two senior right backs on the book and both have injuries that ruled them out yesterday, though. These things happen.

Tarky was on the pitch.

[Royboyclaret]

He's picking the team though Royboy.

3 centre backs on the pitch, Taylor at right back, Defour and Hendrick as a midfield 2, Vydra up front on his own.

It was only going to end one way (yes I know that it was Man City).

The only thing that matters to the BoD, and I mean ONLY, is the £119million that we receive for staying in the Premier League.

Dyche will doubtless have been reminded of that when he signed his lucrative contract not long ago.

[claretspice]

The only thing that matters to the BoD, and I mean ONLY, is the £119million that we receive for staying in the Premier League.

Dyche will doubtless have been reminded of that when he signed his lucrative contract not long ago.

Unless you can confirm you've spoken to Mike Garlick and have first hand testimony that that is correct, you cannot possibly say this. Of course, it's a huge priority, but given that Garlick got involved in Burnley because of his roots to the club, presumably the idea of winning something (as well as staying in the Premier League) has some romantic attraction to him - as it does to all of us as supporters. I know damned well that Kilby, for example, would love to see us win something.

Being realistic about our priorities doesn't mean the lower priorities and more far fetched ambitions (like winning a cup compared to Premier League survival) aren't still ambitions we harbour.

[Turftalkers mentor]

The bigger picture is that fans will only put up with playing for 17th at the expense of all else for so long.

Burnley playing and competing in the Premier League , perhaps if you had to fight Anthony Joshua it may give you some idea of the struggle it is to stay never mind compete in the Premier League , the system works entirely for the big six ,decisions on the pitch ,finance , fixture changes ,disciplinary verdicts etc. Give me a prolonged stay in this Division any time

[Royboyclaret]

Unless you can confirm you've spoken to Mike Garlick and have first hand testimony that that is correct, you cannot possibly say this. Of course, it's a huge priority, but given that Garlick got involved in Burnley because of his roots to the club, presumably the idea of winning something (as well as staying in the Premier League) has some romantic attraction to him - as it does to all of us as supporters. I know damned well that Kilby, for example, would love to see us win something.

Being realistic about our priorities doesn't mean the lower priorities and more far fetched ambitions (like winning a cup compared to Premier League survival) aren't still ambitions we harbour.

The subtle difference being that, "us as supporters" are not responsible for ensuring the long-term financial security of the Club.

That said, there's always a balance to be struck and, when last years accounts are finally revealed, perhaps people will see that balance has become somewhat skewed.

[claretspice]

The subtle difference being that, "us as supporters" are not responsible for ensuring the long-term financial security of the Club.

That said, there's always a balance to be struck and, when last years accounts are finally revealed, perhaps people will see that balance has become somewhat skewed.

That's not a subtle difference at all, it's a pretty fundamental difference and it's exactly my point. I suspect that, as Burnley supporters, the board of directors want to win something, or have a tilt at winning something, but as custodians they're obliged to balance that ambition against the practical importance of trying to stay in this division. For all the authority with which you alleged the board and Chairman want us to effectively "throw" cup ties, you've not provided the first shred of credible evidence to support what is quite a big claim.

What the accounts will show is an entirely different point to that at hand now.

[cricketfieldclarets]

It doesn't, you're right, but what I said was ultimately correct. That you'd rather win a cup and we be relegated. Which I find very surprising. Staying up makes the club a hell of a lot of money. Getting to a final is brilliant for the fans, of course, but staying up makes us a much more dominant force. We go down? Could be down for 50 years.

Good point. I mean because we have spent plenty of that money in this window. And we have improved the team in august with all those first teamers that would have maintained the standards of last season...

[dougcollins]

I suppose we can forgive Pep for thinking we were another of the 'lower league sides'.

We certainly looked like it.