I agree. Will be a year or so in the planning, then paid for over 2-3 years so taken from 4 years of Premier League income. Bob Lord extended back slightly with a stanchionless roof, luxury plastic seats being the main stand, ala Arsenal/Brighton. Will sort us for a couple of decades.TsarBomba wrote:It’s really now or never, regarding the CFS and to a lesser extent the Bob Lord.
We’ve absolutely done the right thing in prioritising the playing squad and training ground, but long term, we’re squandering money by titivating.
We need to bite the bullet and get on with it. It doesn’t have to be fancy. A new stand to replace the CFS, of similar proportion, and with safe standing, will do fine. And perhaps an extension on the back of the Bob Lord to add more ‘premium’ seating.
Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
-
- Posts: 2928
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 1035 times
- Has Liked: 507 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
-
- Posts: 15107
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3137 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
What are you inferring?CrosspoolClarets wrote:Perhaps, but some of us know roughly how much it costs to run a PL football club, because we are experienced accountants skilled at interpretating a set of accounts as well as “reading between the lines” what does not need to be shown in the accounts.
I would tend to agree with Royboy that my instinct would have been that last summer we would have had north of £50m in the bank, and I would have expected that now (cash flow permitting regarding timing of Premier League payments) we would have had north of £75m. The Chairman’s fairly precise figure of £24m thus comes as a big surprise, unless something has happened that we are unaware of.
-
- Posts: 17913
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3841 times
- Has Liked: 2065 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Can’t remember his name but he went to Forest instead but wasn't that good if I remember rightly.Imploding Turtle wrote:Was it Ole?
-
- Posts: 10272
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3327 times
- Has Liked: 1939 times
-
- Posts: 15107
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3137 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I thought it was Neil Wood, who we'd had on loan and was crap anyhow. Could be wrong though.Quickenthetempo wrote:Can’t remember his name but he went to Forest instead but wasn't that good if I remember rightly.
Oops, just seen it..Stewart WTF is he?
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I understand Dyche has suggested to the board in the past that he’d like another tier added to the Bob Lord stand.
-
- Posts: 7120
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2159 times
- Has Liked: 2046 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
But the revenue we get from TV money is incrementing at the same rate....Lancasterclaret wrote:Vast majority will be wages and bonuses.
If wages keep going up at the rate they are in the PL, then our ability to compete will be seriously eroded.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Just need comment about the £250k the club paid to Scudamore for a full house.
Dividends paid to directors is 0 if I'm correct unlike some.......ken Anderson Bolton got plenty.
Dividends paid to directors is 0 if I'm correct unlike some.......ken Anderson Bolton got plenty.
-
- Posts: 5229
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1623 times
- Has Liked: 397 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I think I have explained in my 2 posts what I am inferring.boatshed bill wrote:What are you inferring?
I have inferred as much as I can. The rest is unknown because we have 18 months of accounts unpublished. I would simply love to know what would be in them. None of us know, and it would be wrong to speculate, but those of us who want substantial ground redevelopment in the coming decade would be hoping for more than £24m in the bank in our 5th season up.
I guess that the big gap in what comes from the club is a shared ownership with fans of a long term strategic plan. So if we knew, say, that there was a plan to upgrade the ground significantly, but that it would wait for now so as not to damage the atmosphere and thus survival chances, that would be great. Whereas if there is an assumption that Burnley folk are happy sitting in substandard stands for the next 50 years while they crumble around us, that would not be great. Genuinely, none of us know what the board mindset is on this.
-
- 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 says we have £24m in bank
Not sure it is! Thats kinda the point.But the revenue we get from TV money is incrementing at the same rate....
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
We will make changes to the ground when we have to, I would think. As we did with the disabled facilities.
-
- Posts: 15107
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3137 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Fair enough. Good explanation.CrosspoolClarets wrote:I think I have explained in my 2 posts what I am inferring.
I have inferred as much as I can. The rest is unknown because we have 18 months of accounts unpublished. I would simply love to know what would be in them. None of us know, and it would be wrong to speculate, but those of us who want substantial ground redevelopment in the coming decade would be hoping for more than £24m in the bank in our 5th season up.
I guess that the big gap in what comes from the club is a shared ownership with fans of a long term strategic plan. So if we knew, say, that there was a plan to upgrade the ground significantly, but that it would wait for now so as not to damage the atmosphere and thus survival chances, that would be great. Whereas if there is an assumption that Burnley folk are happy sitting in substandard stands for the next 50 years while they crumble around us, that would not be great. Genuinely, none of us know what the board mindset is on this.
But the grammar police will not be happy with your use on "none of us know"
-
- Posts: 30273
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 10916 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
if anyone wants to watch it
https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... -chairman/
https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... -chairman/
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I imagine it was an off the cuff comment that he didn't really expect to be analysed so closely.
We don't know what the payment terms were for our outgoing players and our signings. We may have negotiated higher fees with a payment plan for Keane and Gray for instance.
I suspect our wages will be higher than many think and hence a lower profit.
We won't have received all of our TV money for the season, it doesn't all get paid upfront.
We haven't got the cash in for next year's season tickets yet which is a fair chunk of year-end cash at bank.
I assume that we've invested a fair bit of cash in something low risk but better than bank interest. A chunk of it is a relegation slush fund so it could be put away for a year.
Plenty of things to consider.
On Adams, we probably low balled our offer knowing that Birmingham were in financial trouble and may have to sell (although that didn't happen).
We don't know what the payment terms were for our outgoing players and our signings. We may have negotiated higher fees with a payment plan for Keane and Gray for instance.
I suspect our wages will be higher than many think and hence a lower profit.
We won't have received all of our TV money for the season, it doesn't all get paid upfront.
We haven't got the cash in for next year's season tickets yet which is a fair chunk of year-end cash at bank.
I assume that we've invested a fair bit of cash in something low risk but better than bank interest. A chunk of it is a relegation slush fund so it could be put away for a year.
Plenty of things to consider.
On Adams, we probably low balled our offer knowing that Birmingham were in financial trouble and may have to sell (although that didn't happen).
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 672 times
- Has Liked: 244 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
By 'cover' do you mean players that aren't better than what we already have?Lancasterclaret wrote:We are going to need a substanial amount to continue to rebuild the side.
New LB cover, new RB cover, 2 x new CM covers, 1 x CF cover.
Course, we might raise a lot by sales as well but as always it will be the wages and the contract details that will be the issue.
The only way to move the team forward is to buy players who improve the starting XI.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
It's probably going up faster than wages at the moment.Lancasterclaret wrote:Not sure it is! Thats kinda the point.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
£24m is probably the 'active' money to run the club.
There is much more 'surplus', as highlighted by BFCcrazy.
The board need to build funds for ground modernisation and, at the same time, build a fund to sustain us in the Championship, should the worst happen. Without that, we would swiftly fall by the wayside and be unable to bounce back, or even maintain Championship football.
There is much more 'surplus', as highlighted by BFCcrazy.
The board need to build funds for ground modernisation and, at the same time, build a fund to sustain us in the Championship, should the worst happen. Without that, we would swiftly fall by the wayside and be unable to bounce back, or even maintain Championship football.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Grammar policeboatshed bill wrote:Fair enough. Good explanation.
But the grammar police will not be happy with your use on "none of us know"
OMG
-
- Posts: 4948
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2307 times
- Has Liked: 1033 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
He could also have looked the day before the latest tranche of " Sky TV " monies, which may have been due on the same day as a portion of Michael Keane's transfer fee ... we'll never know ..IanMcL wrote:£24m is probably the 'active' money to run the club. There is much more 'surplus', as highlighted by BFCcrazy.
The board need to build funds for ground modernisation and, at the same time, build a fund to sustain us in the Championship, should the worst happen. Without that, we would swiftly fall by the wayside and be unable to bounce back, or even maintain Championship football.
This user liked this post: dsr
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I’ve got to say it when I see it: on my initial viewing I believe Garlick came off quite well in that interview. Obviously a few statistics have to be questioned, but made some good points regarding the alignment of windows with Europe, and wasn’t afraid to admit our interest in Adams, for example.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I have no reason to doubt the Chairman's honesty. £24m cash is at the lower end of what we need to have in anticipation of relegation,
or when the time being right, to spend on ground modernisation. Also, income receipts and payments do not happen in 12 equal monthly events.
This amount represents 2-3 months income. Any Chief Executive who runs a business on less is in trouble.
or when the time being right, to spend on ground modernisation. Also, income receipts and payments do not happen in 12 equal monthly events.
This amount represents 2-3 months income. Any Chief Executive who runs a business on less is in trouble.
-
- Posts: 7120
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2159 times
- Has Liked: 2046 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
The wage increments can be directly correlated with the increase in viewership due to the PL's continued growth around the world...Lancasterclaret wrote:Not sure it is! Thats kinda the point.
If the viewership numbers dwindled the pay would decrease.
We having more buying power than some teams that get 1.5-2x our attendance due to the TV money.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Who’s been snorting the dry powder??
-
- Posts: 3865
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1273 times
- Has Liked: 680 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
His statement is just so vague, but maybe deliberately so.Clarets4me wrote:He could also have looked the day before the latest tranche of " Sky TV " monies, which may have been due on the same day as a portion of Michael Keane's transfer fee ... we'll never know ..
However, with the best will in the world, at no recent monthly financial period end should the figure be even close to £24m.
Unless, of course, a significant portion has been allocated to low risk investments, which would certainly be a first for the Club.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I'm pretty sure we won't be holding it all as cash. At the least I'd expect a treasury reserve account or similar.Royboyclaret wrote:His statement is just so vague, but maybe deliberately so.
However, with the best will in the world, at no recent monthly financial period end should the figure be even close to £24m.
Unless, of course, a significant portion has been allocated to low risk investments, which would certainly be a first for the Club.
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 308 times
- Has Liked: 350 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
There’s no way we hold a cash balance for an active Premiership Club.
We’re apprachinf the event horizon, the team that got us up and sustained us is slowly becoming older and less effective. Therefore we need to invest in new younger players that can sustain the club in the Premier League. This is where clubs go wrong and drop out like Stoke, Aston Villa etc. They buy journey men at a reduced cost, which for whatever reason don’t sustain the club as hoped, the original players age and leave or become ineffective and so the club is relegated and is then stuck with these ineffective players who don’t know how to get out of the championship.
We’ve reached that point now, we have offset this by purchasing good effective replacements Taylor at LB and Gibson at CB for example but we now need to focus on CM and see what magic we can muddle through. 24m isn’t enough!
We’re apprachinf the event horizon, the team that got us up and sustained us is slowly becoming older and less effective. Therefore we need to invest in new younger players that can sustain the club in the Premier League. This is where clubs go wrong and drop out like Stoke, Aston Villa etc. They buy journey men at a reduced cost, which for whatever reason don’t sustain the club as hoped, the original players age and leave or become ineffective and so the club is relegated and is then stuck with these ineffective players who don’t know how to get out of the championship.
We’ve reached that point now, we have offset this by purchasing good effective replacements Taylor at LB and Gibson at CB for example but we now need to focus on CM and see what magic we can muddle through. 24m isn’t enough!
-
- Posts: 10085
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4161 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
It is amusing to read how we low balled the bids on Adams, despite some of our know alls telling the club at the time to "just bid the 12m they are asking for and get it done"
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
- Been Liked: 70 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I thought what the Chairman said on our natural transfer hunting ground the championship was interesting.
Up to half are under embargo, they cannot replace sales, place an unacceptable large transfer fee and keep the player - makes more sense than selling and cannot replace.
Up to half are under embargo, they cannot replace sales, place an unacceptable large transfer fee and keep the player - makes more sense than selling and cannot replace.
-
- Posts: 7104
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3580 times
- Has Liked: 1023 times
- Location: Chesterfield
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
The most interesting thing of this interview was Garlick saying that there are plans in the pipeline for other sections of the ground.
With the shop and cladding etc on the Bob Lord having been done, the training ground done, and the disabled facilities done (or about to be finished), that only realistically leaves bigger scale plans for the Bob Lord and Cricket Field Stands (with the CFS I would assume being more likely to get work done to it first).
That is exciting to hear as it's well overdue and is realistically what this money should be spent on. Without sounding defeatist, we will not sustain a position in this league forever, or even medium term, just on account of finance. As a result, we need to be spending our money from these days in the sun on long term projects which are there for the club whatever league we are in. We haven't had a new stand built at Burnley for 23 years, which is ludicrous when you look around the divisions. The time has come.
With the shop and cladding etc on the Bob Lord having been done, the training ground done, and the disabled facilities done (or about to be finished), that only realistically leaves bigger scale plans for the Bob Lord and Cricket Field Stands (with the CFS I would assume being more likely to get work done to it first).
That is exciting to hear as it's well overdue and is realistically what this money should be spent on. Without sounding defeatist, we will not sustain a position in this league forever, or even medium term, just on account of finance. As a result, we need to be spending our money from these days in the sun on long term projects which are there for the club whatever league we are in. We haven't had a new stand built at Burnley for 23 years, which is ludicrous when you look around the divisions. The time has come.
-
- Posts: 2050
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
- Been Liked: 422 times
- Has Liked: 4481 times
- Location: COTTON TREE
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Slightly more than in 2010.....
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
That 24m, might be excluding the 12m bid on the table to the cricket club...
It would have been only 10m last season.
And how many of you scoffed at my suggestion?
It would have been only 10m last season.
And how many of you scoffed at my suggestion?
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Is it, I mean is it really?basil6345789 wrote:It's a reasonable level of working capital for this business.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Why?boatshed bill wrote:...the grammar police will not be happy with your use on "none of us know"
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
How? Do you often give people £12m cash for something they haven't agreed to sell to you yet?MACCA wrote:That 24m, might be excluding the 12m bid on the table to the cricket club...
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Not really comparable, is it though?COBBLE wrote: This amount represents 2-3 months income. Any Chief Executive who runs a business on less is in trouble.
Your revenue stream is largely confirmed four years out. Your major costs too. You can realise asset value and reduce running costs at two points in the year. Much of your non-playing cost is income-related (zero hours catering staff etc). You own the premises (no rent).
-
- Posts: 2928
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 1035 times
- Has Liked: 507 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
It’s the exact thing that I was interested in too. Hopefully the club will share some of their possible plans, with options, over the summer for the fans to get excited over.jedi_master wrote:The most interesting thing of this interview was Garlick saying that there are plans in the pipeline for other sections of the ground.
With the shop and cladding etc on the Bob Lord having been done, the training ground done, and the disabled facilities done (or about to be finished), that only realistically leaves bigger scale plans for the Bob Lord and Cricket Field Stands (with the CFS I would assume being more likely to get work done to it first).
That is exciting to hear as it's well overdue and is realistically what this money should be spent on. Without sounding defeatist, we will not sustain a position in this league forever, or even medium term, just on account of finance. As a result, we need to be spending our money from these days in the sun on long term projects which are there for the club whatever league we are in. We haven't had a new stand built at Burnley for 23 years, which is ludicrous when you look around the divisions. The time has come.
Regarding the cladding, I truly hope we look to improve the entire ground with better quality cassette cladding than the cheap corrugated stuff.
Cheap corrugated cladding on the 1990’s stands
High quality cassette cladding on the main entrance, offices and Clarets Store
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Not much to see hear and not really sure why some people seem upset that this cash balance should be higher - probably some of the same people who were complaining the club do not spend enough money.
I've said previously that I think our wage bill will be somewhere near £80m in the next set of accounts. Even then these accounts are presenting a historical position.
There could be a whole range of explanations for the cash position in terms of stage payments for transfers, receipt of premier league money etc. If Garlick has just checked this on one particular day it could be several million higher the day after !
The club may also be putting some money in other short term investment instruments like Treasury accounts etc - these will show separately on the accounts.
Whatever the explanation it does not necessarily reflect the cash position or the profitability of the club - both of which will be very healthy. It is a bit of a strange comment for Garlick to make in isolation of anything else as the bank balance on any given day is pretty irrelevant.
Sounds exciting news on the possible ground development.
I've said previously that I think our wage bill will be somewhere near £80m in the next set of accounts. Even then these accounts are presenting a historical position.
There could be a whole range of explanations for the cash position in terms of stage payments for transfers, receipt of premier league money etc. If Garlick has just checked this on one particular day it could be several million higher the day after !
The club may also be putting some money in other short term investment instruments like Treasury accounts etc - these will show separately on the accounts.
Whatever the explanation it does not necessarily reflect the cash position or the profitability of the club - both of which will be very healthy. It is a bit of a strange comment for Garlick to make in isolation of anything else as the bank balance on any given day is pretty irrelevant.
Sounds exciting news on the possible ground development.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
The first requirement surely is to finish the other end of the Bob Lord Stand to make everything covered inside the ground and match the other end.
- Attachments
-
- turf moor p2 27 6.JPG (218.44 KiB) Viewed 2009 times
-
- Posts: 3891
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 826 times
- Has Liked: 1307 times
- Location: burnley
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I would not spend a penny on the stands that was not essential when we are so under strength in centre midfield.jedi_master wrote:The most interesting thing of this interview was Garlick saying that there are plans in the pipeline for other sections of the ground.
With the shop and cladding etc on the Bob Lord having been done, the training ground done, and the disabled facilities done (or about to be finished), that only realistically leaves bigger scale plans for the Bob Lord and Cricket Field Stands (with the CFS I would assume being more likely to get work done to it first).
That is exciting to hear as it's well overdue and is realistically what this money should be spent on. Without sounding defeatist, we will not sustain a position in this league forever, or even medium term, just on account of finance. As a result, we need to be spending our money from these days in the sun on long term projects which are there for the club whatever league we are in. We haven't had a new stand built at Burnley for 23 years, which is ludicrous when you look around the divisions. The time has come.
-
- Posts: 2928
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 1035 times
- Has Liked: 507 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Yeah, and clad it properly all the way down so it looks impressive. I’d have preferred some coated glass like some of the bigger clubs have on their main entrances/stands, but decent cladding would do right down the offices. It would finish the main stand off on the outside.Spijed wrote:The first requirement surely is to finish the other end of the Bob Lord Stand to make everything covered inside the ground and match the other end.
-
- Posts: 2928
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 1035 times
- Has Liked: 507 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
We’re always going to want extra players here and there, and a few million isn’t going to affect the transfer budget much. We spent £30m last summer and will still make a sizeable profit this year.summitclaret wrote:I would not spend a penny on the stands that was not essential when we are so under strength in centre midfield.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
There are bigger priorities around the ground, than the need for more corporate/office space in the BL.Spijed wrote:The first requirement surely is to finish the other end of the Bob Lord Stand to make everything covered inside the ground and match the other end.
-
- 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 says we have £24m in bank
And of course, we do need to revamp the squad this summer.
This season (if we stay up) will represent a drop in about 15/16/17 points on last season.
Thats a warning sign that we would do well to heed.
This season (if we stay up) will represent a drop in about 15/16/17 points on last season.
Thats a warning sign that we would do well to heed.
-
- Posts: 4948
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2307 times
- Has Liked: 1033 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
I don't know, but Theresa May seems to think it's a good idea !!thatdberight wrote:How? Do you often give people £12m cash for something they haven't agreed to sell to you yet?
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 am
- Been Liked: 26 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Not that simple when it’s difficult to get players in. We can’t simply “revamp then squad”, nor would we want to.Lancasterclaret wrote:And of course, we do need to revamp the squad this summer.
This season (if we stay up) will represent a drop in about 15/16/17 points on last season.
Thats a warning sign that we would do well to heed.
Adding players like Taylor, Gibson and before that in Westwood, Tarkowski, early mid 20s, for the squad to one day hopefully come in, at the rate we do, is about right.
Then, where salary permits (£40/£50k plus bonus’), and when the opportunity arises, get the odd first instant teamer..... Wood, Hendrick, Cork and Rodriguez (would have been).
You’d expect maybe 3/4 signings this Summer.
-
- Posts: 7120
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2159 times
- Has Liked: 2046 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
The best thing about the Bob Lord is it being open in some of the concourse!Spijed wrote:The first requirement surely is to finish the other end of the Bob Lord Stand to make everything covered inside the ground and match the other end.
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
One thing we certainly don't need that gets mentioned is an increase in capacity.TsarBomba wrote:There are bigger priorities around the ground, than the need for more corporate/office space in the BL.
This user liked this post: summitclaret
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
Why, because we don't sell out regularly? The one thing you do by increasing capacity is also increase the availability of better quality seating, which might encourage people who don't want to sit in a corner with a **** view to buy a ticket.Spijed wrote:One thing we certainly don't need that gets mentioned is an increase in capacity.
-
- Posts: 5660
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2801 times
- Has Liked: 138 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
There's other ways of dealing with that, though. For example, requesting that fans in certain areas shuffle up to address situations where there are individual seats in between groups of season ticket holders, and so on.dushanbe wrote:
Why, because we don't sell out regularly? The one thing you do by increasing capacity is also increase the availability of better quality seating, which might encourage people who don't want to sit in a corner with a **** view to buy a ticket.
The capacity is pretty much bang on for what we need. The worst thing of all is ending with too big a ground, which is full of tourists for the big games whilst you're in the premier league, and is simply too big for the average crowds in the leagues below. The ground should feel reasonably full when there's a crowd of 14-15k on, because that's consistent with our long term crowds.
There's definitely scope for ground improvements, particularly to revamp the Bob Lord so that there's at the very least some additional corporate capacity, but a significant increase in capacity just isn't required.
-
- Posts: 2928
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 1035 times
- Has Liked: 507 times
Re: Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank
What about marketing the club better? We are the only Premier League side in Lancashire now, arguments about Manchester and Liverpool aside. We can’t aggressively market other areas because we don’t have the capacity. You need a decent amount of spare seats to do it well in advance of games, and to be consistent, whilst also ensure that when new fans do attend they get decent seats.claretspice wrote:There's other ways of dealing with that, though. For example, requesting that fans in certain areas shuffle up to address situations where there are individual seats in between groups of season ticket holders, and so on.
The capacity is pretty much bang on for what we need. The worst thing of all is ending with too big a ground, which is full of tourists for the big games whilst you're in the premier league, and is simply too big for the average crowds in the leagues below. The ground should feel reasonably full when there's a crowd of 14-15k on, because that's consistent with our long term crowds.
There's definitely scope for ground improvements, particularly to revamp the Bob Lord so that there's at the very least some additional corporate capacity, but a significant increase in capacity just isn't required.
New fans are then the guaranteed income of the future, in good times and in bad.
If we are happy sticking to what we know and do then the capacity is fine. If we have a longer term view then we need a couple of thousand more. Not 30,000 or anywhere near that, but another couple of thousand seats with better views than the corners of stands, restricted views behind stanchions, or pitch level for kids who then can’t see the action.