Billionaire investor wanted...

[Vegas Claret]

Jesus man, this was your post;

'we don't even come close to a sell out in a huge game against Leicester, why the **** would anyone want to invest in us ?'

Nothing about 95% of home games etc. The post above was the one that I questioned and you have gone off on a wild tangent, muddied the waters and still not clarified your original point.

post 29

[Rileybobs]

**** me Riley, I could have mentioned 95% of our attendances and you are stuck on Leicester - I mentioned that because it was yesterday and our most recent game

OK, lets simplify this and then call it a day... would nobody want to invest in us because of our attendances? Simple answer.

[Rileybobs]

post 29

I wasn't quoting post 29, I was clearly quoting an earlier post, which I've re-quoted several times for clarity.

[Vegas Claret]

OK, lets simplify this and then call it a day... would nobody want to invest in us because of our attendances? Simple answer.

it's one of the reasons yes but I don't think any of us are talking of it in isolation just as you aren't with the TV revenue.
I could ask you "would people only invest in us because of the tv money" and I would hope your answer would be the same as mine - it's part of a whole

[Vegas Claret]

I wasn't quoting post 29, I was clearly quoting an earlier post, which I've re-quoted several times for clarity.

yeah you keep quoting the same thing that you asked me to clarify and I did in post 29, ffs.

[Rileybobs]

it's one of the reasons yes but I don't think any of us are talking of it in isolation just as you aren't with the TV revenue.
I could ask you "would people only invest in us because of the tv money" and I would hope your answer would be the same as mine - it's part of a whole

Yes it would be the same, but I didn't claim that people would only invest in us because of tv money, whereas in the post that I quoted you claimed that no one would want to invest in us because of our attendances.

Anyway, we're not really getting anywhere so may as well call it a day rather than going round in circles

[Vegas Claret]

Yes it would be the same, but I didn't claim that people would only invest in us because of tv money, whereas in the post that I quoted you claimed that no one would want to invest in us because of our attendances.

Anyway, we're not really getting anywhere so may as well call it a day rather than going round in circles

really ? here's what I said

"we don't even come close to a sell out in a huge game against Leicester, why the **** would anyone want to invest in us ?"

see the words WHY and the ? at the end of the sentence ? it's a question not a statement.

Had I said "we don't even come close to a sell out in a huge game against Leicester, nobody will invest in us" then your point would be correct

[Paul Waine]

Hi PW. If you read over my posts you will see that I haven't said that our attendances or potential for growth are not a factor for investors. I have stated on numerous times that currently, the biggest draw for an investor is the lucrative deals on offer from television. I've said in a previous post that a club with a larger attendance or fan base is likely to be a bigger draw so I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the claim that no one would want to invest in us because of our attendance, notably the fact that we didn't sell out against Leicester. That does not make us an unattractive investment opportunity.

Hi Riley, maybe I should take another look at my post. I'm suggesting that the tv deals aren't "lucrative" - all that money means is that the player costs are equally high. Yes, if player costs were frozen at 2015 levels, or any other period in time before 2015 - which of course they aren't - then the extra tv revenue would make Burnley and all the other PL clubs more investable. But, tv money goes in higher player costs - both wages and new transfer costs. And, then the investor has to deal with the time when the club isn't in the PL. It's a tough gig.

and, if we can understand that, we can all enjoy supporting the Clarets whatever our results.

[Rileybobs]

Hi Riley, maybe I should take another look at my post. I'm suggesting that the tv deals aren't "lucrative" - all that money means is that the player costs are equally high. Yes, if player costs were frozen at 2015 levels, or any other period in time before 2015 - which of course they aren't - then the extra tv revenue would make Burnley and all the other PL clubs more investable. But, tv money goes in higher player costs - both wages and new transfer costs. And, then the investor has to deal with the time when the club isn't in the PL. It's a tough gig.

and, if we can understand that, we can all enjoy supporting the Clarets whatever our results.

That's true, but it's perfectly possible to invest a decent portion of the TV money in playing staff and still post substantial profits, as we've shown.

The risk of relegation is of course the big risk as you've pointed out. It didn't stop Venkys from investing in Blackburn though did it, so claiming that no one would want to invest in us is clearly bonkers.

[Paul Waine]

That's true, but it's perfectly possible to invest a decent portion of the TV money in playing staff and still post substantial profits, as we've shown.

The risk of relegation is of course the big risk as you've pointed out. It didn't stop Venkys from investing in Blackburn though did it, so claiming that no one would want to invest in us is clearly bonkers.

Hmm, don't you think someone who is thinking of investing might ask themselves how did it work out for other investors?

Now, if there was no relegation.....

UTC

[IanMcL]

The last thing Burnley needs is non Burnley ownership. We would be out of Turf Moor and on some tip site, before you can say Clarets.

We are real. That's why we are where we are.

[Chester Perry]

From what I have read here - those that want to replace the board for the most part do not want an investor - after all that would mean they would run the club along the same lines, then take the profits out of the club (our board do not do that). What I am reading is that (in the words of @KieronMaguire of "the price of football") most want a sugardaddy to pour money into the club while forgetting that sugardaddies usually become bored quite quickly and always want to f**k their plaything over.

[Vegas Claret]

From what I have read here - those that want to replace the board for the most part do not want an investor - after all that would mean they would run the club along the same lines, then take the profits out of the club (our board do not do that). What I am reading is that (in the words of @KieronMaguire of "the price of football") most want a sugardaddy to pour money into the club while forgetting that sugardaddies usually become bored quite quickly and always want to f**k their plaything over.

I don't think people want that, I think people realise our current board don't have the cash for us to compete even in the mid term at this level. That's not a criticism it's just how the PL is unfortunately. So if we want to stay in the PL we will need more money, if not we go down and stay down

[LoveCurryPies]

I like the owners. They’ve made huge investments in training facilities and Turf Moor. The new corner stands will soon be finished and I’m confident they will look at improving the Bob Lord stand.

[snapcrackleandpop]

What! And give them access to Garlicks nest egg, never gonna happen.

[aggi]

only you've taken it in isolation, I could have listed 95% of our home games.

We only sell out one game a season?

[Chester Perry]

Anybody who puts their own money into the club while expecting little opportunity for a financial return is a sugar daddy - when they leave/die the non-sustainable approach leaves the club in a mess - locally just look at Rovers and Bolton as classic examples of fan's who wanted the best for their clubs spent hundreds of millions doing so but ultimately left them unsustainable. You can to varying extents add Andy Holt at Accrington and Trevor Hemmings at PNE to that list

Anybody who puts their own money into the club and expecting a financial return is an investor. Oyston 's hit the jackpot and then made a mess of it at Blackpool though one always suspects the original motive was a property development one.

Anybody who runs the club within it's means on a sustainable footing is a custodian - this has been the Burnley model since the current board came in - Kilby was a sugar daddy - intriguingly are greatest successes have come under the custodianship/investor approach

which do you want

[aggi]

Finances have obviously been done to death on the other money thread. The vast majority of clubs in the Premier League are self-financing in terms of the premier league, i.e. even without investment from their owners they could survive at current levels of expenditure using TV/crowd money (mainly TV).

The difference is that a lot of other clubs have owners with deep pockets who can subsidise them if they go down and subsidise that push for promotion (Mike Ashley being a good example of this type of benefactor).

Burnley don't appear to have that so have held back on their spending to create a rainy day fund in case we go down (obviously some may be of the view that we'd have been better spending more to try and make that rainy day less likely, personally I'd view that as a risky tactic). At some point, and my guesses would put this at next season, the rainy day fund will be at a high enough level that we can get away with starting to spend more and save less.

The impact of an investor might not be that high given the FFP rules that must be complied with if we survive for another season.

[TVC15]

I like the owners. They’ve made huge investments in training facilities and Turf Moor. The new corner stands will soon be finished and I’m confident they will look at improving the Bob Lord stand.

Tbf Barnfield paid for a considerable chunk of the training facilities through their sponsorship. I also think that this was the one demand which Dyche made for him to remain at the club.
As for the corner stands I thought that was grant funded and also a requirement of being in the Premier League.
Other than the club shop and the pitch there is little other evidence of the board investing in the ground.

I think the way the club have ran our finances has been prudent. There is a lot to be said for that but I also agree they have been over cautious in recent transfer windows and it’s difficult to understand the rationale for this. Making £20m to £30m profit for say 2 or 3 consecutive years without investing enough in the team is only going to lead to relegation at some point. And once relegated those reserves are automatically earmarked to cover the impact of relegation. This does not make any sense to me.

[cricketfieldclarets]

The last thing Burnley needs is non Burnley ownership. We would be out of Turf Moor and on some tip site, before you can say Clarets.

We are real. That's why we are where we are.

See post 41

[IanMcL]

Clarets are local people!

[LoveCurryPies]

See post 41

The more I see of your negative threads and now this photo, makes me think you are an idiot.

[Vegas Claret]

the chairmen is quality and a proper Burnley fan, but he just doesn't have enough money to sustain a PL club sadly. No need to poke fun at him though as he gives us what he can