I have seen Bournemouth compared to ourselves on a number of threads and in the national media in terms of wages and transfers fees.

Some posters on here imply that we choose not to compete with them financially as if Bournemouth are doing it correctly and we somehow are deliberately keeping money in the bank.

Bournemouths accounts make interesting reading.

In 2017/18 they;

lost £209,000 a week
have debt of £59 million
borrowed £30.7 million but repaid other loans of £14 million
Wage bill rose by 55% to £101 million
paid £56 million in transfer fees, got £9 million back
they owe other clubs £38 million while other clubs owe them £11 million
They have liabilities on add ons etc of a potential £29 million
Owe a British Virgin Isles company £45.6 million and a USA based minority owner £26.5 million.

Seems to me that these figures are straight out of the Leeds, Sunderland, Blackburn, Bolton etc etc playlist.

They also offer an explanation why we choose not to follow their example.

Well said.

Wage bill rose 55% to £101 million......... it's a sign of what happens when you sign ageing players wanting a last payday, step forward Jermain Defoe with what I believe to be a big signing on fee, and £100k per week to sit in the stands.

You aren't allowed to point out that the signing of Defoe was a bad one, some on here don't like that suggestion.

As for their debts, you can't mock the fairytale that the media have tried to claim the rise of Bournemouth is, because having their debts bankrolled is part of that fairytale.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You aren't allowed to point out that the signing of Defoe was a bad one, some on here don't like that suggestion.

As for their debts, you can't mock the fairytale that the media have tried to claim the rise of Bournemouth is, because having their debts bankrolled is part of that fairytale.

I recall people at the time were questioning your low opinion of Defoe as a player generally, not Bournemouth signing him.

royboy will be along soon enough to explain this is the correct approach and we just simply choose not to do this.

Bournemouth fans should enjoy this while it lasts.

Cos when it ends, its going to end spectacularly.

I've no gripe with anyone pumping millions into football clubs, it's the loans owners saddle them with that cripple clubs.
It needs banning ASAP.

taio wrote:I recall people at the time were questioning your low opinion of Defoe as a player generally, not Bournemouth signing him.

Yeah and I said he'd be a poor signing, wasn't worth the wages and wouldn't do a great deal there.

4 goals in 28 appearances would suggest I was right, which is why they shipped him out to Rangers on loan.

I get the same sort of aggro over the fans favourite Wilshere, so I'm used to it now

Oh and Lennon.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You aren't allowed to point out that the signing of Defoe was a bad one, some on here don't like that suggestion.

As for their debts, you can't mock the fairytale that the media have tried to claim the rise of Bournemouth is, because having their debts bankrolled is part of that fairytale.

How do you know it was a bad signing, he might of been great around the dressing room?

Quickenthetempo wrote:How do you know it was a bad signing, he might of been great around the dressing room?

Touche

At £100k a week, with a £6 million signing on fee I'd bloody well hope he was top man in the dressing room

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Yeah and I said he'd be a poor signing, wasn't worth the wages and wouldn't do a great deal there.

4 goals in 28 appearances would suggest I was right, which is why they shipped him out to Rangers on loan.

I get the same sort of aggro over the fans favourite Wilshere, so I'm used to it now

A better ratio than Crouch in his last 28 games , he’s worth it though because he’s great around the dressing room and has a podcast

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Touche

At £100k a week, with a £6 million signing on fee I'd bloody well hope he was top man in the dressing room

I wonder what our resident clown in the dressing room/ Bench is on money wise?

Bet Crouch is earning more than Vokes was,which is pretty insane really.

steve1264b wrote:I have seen Bournemouth compared to ourselves on a number of threads and in the national media in terms of wages and transfers fees.

Some posters on here imply that we choose not to compete with them financially as if Bournemouth are doing it correctly and we somehow are deliberately keeping money in the bank.

Bournemouths accounts make interesting reading.

In 2017/18 they;

lost £209,000 a week
have debt of £59 million
borrowed £30.7 million but repaid other loans of £14 million
Wage bill rose by 55% to £101 million
paid £56 million in transfer fees, got £9 million back
they owe other clubs £38 million while other clubs owe them £11 million
They have liabilities on add ons etc of a potential £29 million
Owe a British Virgin Isles company £45.6 million and a USA based minority owner £26.5 million.

Seems to me that these figures are straight out of the Leeds, Sunderland, Blackburn, Bolton etc etc playlist.

They also offer an explanation why we choose not to follow their example.

Who on here wants us to do that? Like many I just wanted 2 midfielders.

Steve1956 wrote:I wonder what our resident clown in the dressing room/ Bench is on money wise?

Definitely not £100k a week, nor a £6 million signing on fee.

joey13 wrote:A better ratio than Crouch in his last 28 games , he’s worth it though because he’s great around the dressing room and has a podcast

I've never listened to his podcast, it is meant to be really good though.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Touche

At £100k a week, with a £6 million signing on fee I'd bloody well hope he was top man in the dressing room

I think the debate you got on the matter was that a cost of £20m over a 3 year period wasn't quite as ridiculously high as you made out. When you think our deals for Wells and Walters combined would have cost around £16m over 3 years it just adds a bit of perspective

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and Defoe turned out to be a poor signing just like Wells and Walters did but again as we've seen with Vydra this year when you are in the Premier League it is easy to p*ss £10m plus down the drain on not a lot so the actual deal for Defoe at the time was speculative but not outrageous.

From memory I think what you went on and on arguing about was how Defoe was not that top class and even when lots of posters schooled you on all his stats over his career you still true to form persisted to not accept you were wrong and painfully argued on

I’ve been listening to his podcast this past week or two whilst driving, and it’s decent. Offers a little bit of light hearted banter and insight.

Regarding his form this season it’s tough to rate him as he’s mainly been a substitute. He has played only 7 full games when you tally his minutes up, but managed 2 goals and an assist. He has played 73 minutes for Burnley so far, but even then you’ve to factor in trying to get into a game when coming on in the last 10 minutes when Burnley are sat in our own box.

His record in his career is good, and he has a good touch. The reason people are panning him is that we sold Vokes and spent no money. Take that out of it and it makes sense to have an option to cause panic for the opposition defence when chasing a game.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I've never listened to his podcast, it is meant to be really good though.

I thought we had signed him as a centre forward, not a media manager. And in terms of goals scored to pounds spent ratio, how does Defoe rate v Jonathan Walter's? Or Matej Vydra? Or Rouwen Hennings? Or Jelle Vossen? Or Lucas Jutkiewicz?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I've never listened to his podcast, it is meant to be really good though.

Worth every penny

Herts Clarets wrote:I thought we had signed him as a centre forward, not a media manager. And in terms of goals scored to pounds spent ratio, how does Defoe rate v Jonathan Walter's? Or Matej Vydra? Or Rouwen Hennings? Or Jelle Vossen? Or Lucas Jutkiewicz?

Nakki Wells

Claretforever wrote:I’ve been listening to his podcast this past week or two whilst driving, and it’s decent. Offers a little bit of light hearted banter and insight.

Regarding his form this season it’s tough to rate him as he’s mainly been a substitute. He has played only 7 full games when you tally his minutes up, but managed 2 goals and an assist. He has played 73 minutes for Burnley so far, but even then you’ve to factor in trying to get into a game when coming on in the last 10 minutes when Burnley are sat in our own box.

His record in his career is good, and he has a good touch. The reason people are panning him is that we sold Vokes and spent no money. Take that out of it and it makes sense to have an option to cause panic for the opposition defence when chasing a game.

He’s 38

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Definitely not £100k a week, nor a £6 million signing on fee.

What ever he's on mate...its just to much.

joey13 wrote:He’s 38

And? He’s been brought in to help get us safe this season. He’s not a long term signing. He’s a player who hardly ever gets injured, is probably great for team morale I imagine as he’s a funny guy, has great experience and can actually help the team. Ideally we’d have liked Ibrahimovic (some would surely have said no because of his age). It was him or nothing, and anyone choosing nothing over him wants their head read.

If we wanted someone tall and funny we could have got Russ Abbot for a lot less money - and just think of the great “atmosphere” in the changing room !

Very interesting and gives a good like for like with ourselves and how hamstrung ( for want if a better word ) we are as a club and SD in particular where transfers are involved .

Bournemouth have done pretty standard “ medium risk” strategy based off a good basic squad and general prem league stability . Thus far it’s paid off as they’re a steady mid table team .Though unless they build ( maybe they are?) a proper stadium they’re struggle on incomes. If they got relegated and didn’t bounce back it would be a shitty mess for them for sure

TVC15 wrote:If we wanted someone tall and funny we could have got Russ Abbot for a lot less money - and just think of the great “atmosphere” in the changing room !

What a ludicrous suggestion.

Russ Abbot isn't funny.

When you factor in that we actually paid money for Wells and Walters the 2 of them have probably cost us about what Defoe cost Bournemouth, looks like you can add Vydra to that as well. Ridiculous to be having a pop at Bournemouth for wasting money when we've wasted plenty ourselves.

Herts Clarets wrote:I thought we had signed him as a centre forward, not a media manager. And in terms of goals scored to pounds spent ratio, how does Defoe rate v Jonathan Walter's? Or Matej Vydra? Or Rouwen Hennings? Or Jelle Vossen? Or Lucas Jutkiewicz?

Ha ha

jrgbfc wrote:When you factor in that we actually paid money for Wells and Walters the 2 of them have probably cost us about what Defoe cost Bournemouth, looks like you can add Vydra to that as well. Ridiculous to be having a pop at Bournemouth for wasting money when we've wasted plenty ourselves.

I bet they haven't cost anything like what Defoe has cost Bournemouth - and if you look at the facts at the top, it is nothing like us.

Defoe signed a 3 year contract for Bournemouth on a reported £130k a week with a £6m signing on fee.
Don’t you just love these “free” transfers ?!

AlargeClaret wrote:Bournemouth have done pretty standard “ medium risk” strategy based off a good basic squad and general prem league stability . Thus far it’s paid off as they’re a steady mid table team .Though unless they build ( maybe they are?) a proper stadium they’re struggle on incomes. If they got relegated and didn’t bounce back it would be a shitty mess for them for sure

And no club that overstretch themselves deserves any sympathy at all.

TVC15 wrote:Defoe signed a 3 year contract for Bournemouth on a reported £130k a week with a £6m signing on fee.
Don’t you just love these “free” transfers ?!

I wonder how long he thought about that one?

That guy has earned some cash.
He signed a 4 year deal with Toronto on £90k a week and then left them to sign for Sunderland on another 4 year deal on the same money. For Bournemouth to increase his wage by nearly 50% when he was 33 was a bit crazy

TVC15 wrote:Defoe signed a 3 year contract for Bournemouth on a reported £130k a week with a £6m signing on fee.
Don’t you just love these “free” transfers ?!

Defoe deal was reported to be worth £20m over 3 years with £6m of it I believe as a signing on fee. At the end of this season Bournemouth would have spent around £15m on Defoe

Wells and Walters cost about £8m and I would guess cost around £3m per year in wages so at the end of this season would have cost us around £14m.

There really isn't that much difference except Bournemouth risked the money on a Striker who had scored 30 premier league goals in his previous two season whilst we risked it on one player who hadn't scored 10 Premier League goals the previous 2 seasons and one play who had never even played at this level and wasn't wanted by his club who had just got promoted to the Premier league.

Easy in hindsight to scoff at money wasted on poor signings but with the ridiculous amount of money floating around the Premier league any flop is gonna look like a massive waste of money even for careful and prudent clubs like us

Looking at the accounts here https://www.afcb.co.uk/media/21698/afc- ... ebsite.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; a few things leapt out at me.

The hefty increase in wages was obviously one. More than I expected and it may fall afoul of FFP.

The other thing was the minimal profit on player sales (about £1m). Most middling clubs tend to be selling clubs and make good profits on player sales (Watford, Leicester, us, etc) but that wasn't the case with Bournemouth.

Bournemouth do have a lot of saleable assets they could make hefty profits on, they've got a lot of young, expensive players. The high wages are probably helping to keep them at Bournemouth.

The issue will be whether Bournemouth continue to bump up that wage bill. If it's sustained at the current level then player sales would probably be enough to show them turning a profit most years. If it gets out of control then they'll end up in trouble.

The debts are mainly from the seasons before the Premier League. They're not an issue at the moment but could be at some point in the future.

For those who want to look in more detail at the club whose parent company is registered in the British Virgin Islands and has a highest paid director at £1.35m

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 6148683778" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TVC15 wrote:Defoe signed a 3 year contract for Bournemouth on a reported £130k a week with a £6m signing on fee.
Don’t you just love these “free” transfers ?!

It was also reported at £65k a week basic though and I suspect that he hasn't been earning the other £65k in bonuses very often.

Every club has had transfers that have not worked out. I’ve asked a number of times on this board to name a club that has “wasted” less than Burnley on expensive transfer mistakes in the last 5 years.
In terms of Bournemouth themselves you can add Tyrone Mings, Jordan Ibe, Solanke (bit early yet I know) and a few others to their list of poor transfers. And i’d say they are one of the clubs with a better transfer record when you look at the likes of West Ham, Everton, Southampton, Leicester and a few others.

Upshot is it’s impossible for all transfers to work out and in this league it’s just magnified because of the amount of money clubs have. Important thing in terms of balancing the books is your net transfer record over a period of time - and ours is excellent.

jrgbfc wrote:When you factor in that we actually paid money for Wells and Walters the 2 of them have probably cost us about what Defoe cost Bournemouth, looks like you can add Vydra to that as well. Ridiculous to be having a pop at Bournemouth for wasting money when we've wasted plenty ourselves.

Walters was absolutely idolised at Stoke and delivered consistent premier league performances over a good number of years averaging almost 33 league games a season during 7 years with the club. But yeah Burnley should definitely be castigated for him getting a serious injury after joining us, because we definitely could have predicted that would happen based on seven almost ever present seasons with Stoke.
Wells was a gamble, turns out he was ****, but we needed an alternative to the big lumps up top and Wells clearly aint good enough, maybe we could have got someone better but £5 million is not too bad in the grand scheme of things.
The Crouch one is easy to fathom. Vokes wanted out, we needed cover, we got cover from a former England international . A no-risk short term deal replacing a player who wanted to leave.

Braindead wrote:Walters was absolutely idolised at Stoke and delivered consistent premier league performances over a good number of years averaging almost 33 league games a season during 7 years with the club. But yeah Burnley should definitely be castigated for him getting a serious injury after joining us, because we definitely could have predicted that would happen based on seven almost ever present seasons with Stoke.
Wells was a gamble, turns out he was ****, but we needed an alternative to the big lumps up top and Wells clearly aint good enough, maybe we could have got someone better but £5 million is not too bad in the grand scheme of things.
The Crouch one is easy to fathom. Vokes wanted out, we needed cover, we got cover from a former England international . A no-risk short term deal replacing a player who wanted to leave.

A fully fit Walters would get into many Premier league sides, because of his versatility.

Braindead wrote:Walters was absolutely idolised at Stoke and delivered consistent premier league performances over a good number of years averaging almost 33 league games a season during 7 years with the club. But yeah Burnley should definitely be castigated for him getting a serious injury after joining us, because we definitely could have predicted that would happen based on seven almost ever present seasons with Stoke.
Wells was a gamble, turns out he was ****, but we needed an alternative to the big lumps up top and Wells clearly aint good enough, maybe we could have got someone better but £5 million is not too bad in the grand scheme of things.
The Crouch one is easy to fathom. Vokes wanted out, we needed cover, we got cover from a former England international . A no-risk short term deal replacing a player who wanted to leave.

Agree with most of this but not the Crouch signing. I don’think it is easy to fathom.
Vydra is clearly 4th choice striker in Dyche’s eyes. Chris Wood has had a very mixed season - he has played poorly more than he has played well. Barnes has done well but even he (like most of our team) has not been as good as last season. Having Sam Vokes available to start or come on as first sub was therefore arguably more vital this year than any other year in recent times. Whilst Crouch can cause havoc he does not seem to have more than 15 minutes in him and looks a long long way from starting a game.
We had no financial need to sell Vokes in January and whilst he may have wanted to go given our predicament in the league we needed to put the team before Sam’s wishes and we could have promised to let him go in the summer.
Even if we manage to stay up in my eyes I will never agree with the rationale for selling Vokes in January and bringing in Crouch. It made zero sense.

Chester Perry wrote:For those who want to look in more detail at the club whose parent company is registered in the British Virgin Islands and has a highest paid director at £1.35m

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 6148683778" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They no longer have a US based minority owner - the Russian bought it back recently.

TVC15 wrote:Having Sam Vokes available to start or come on as first sub was therefore arguably more vital this year than any other year in recent times.

Arguable, but not really backed up by stats. Vokes coming on as sub this season has scored as many goals as Crouch has - none. And Crouch at least got us the penalty against Southampton.

[quote="Quickenthetempo"]I've no gripe with anyone pumping millions into football clubs, it's the loans owners saddle them with that cripple clubs.
It needs banning ASAP.[/quot

Newt wrong with "pumping money in".

The FA, Premier League officials or any other clown in a suit shouldn't allow this type of debt to be run up it is immoral

dsr wrote:Arguable, but not really backed up by stats. Vokes coming on as sub this season has scored as many goals as Crouch has - none. And Crouch at least got us the penalty against Southampton.

Do you think Crouch could start a game ?
How many games did Vokes start this season ? How many has he scored ? Has Sam not assisted with any goals when he came on as sub ?
Crouch couldn’t get a game for a side struggling in the Championship.
Main point here is that selling Vokes reduced our options significantly. If Wood or Barnes got sent off or injured (never mind their loss of form) Dyche is forced into starting a player he was reluctant to bring on against 10 men until the last 2 mins.
Why put yourself in that position as a club when we were already bang in trouble ?

Braindead wrote:Walters was absolutely idolised at Stoke and delivered consistent premier league performances over a good number of years averaging almost 33 league games a season during 7 years with the club. But yeah Burnley should definitely be castigated for him getting a serious injury after joining us, because we definitely could have predicted that would happen based on seven almost ever present seasons with Stoke.
Wells was a gamble, turns out he was ****, but we needed an alternative to the big lumps up top and Wells clearly aint good enough, maybe we could have got someone better but £5 million is not too bad in the grand scheme of things.
The Crouch one is easy to fathom. Vokes wanted out, we needed cover, we got cover from a former England international . A no-risk short term deal replacing a player who wanted to leave.

Yeah how could we have possibly known a 34 year old whose game had been all about hard work and putting a shift in would start to pick up injuries? As for Wells not being good enough, he probably isn't but the poor bloke hasn't been given a chance as he, and it looks like Vydra is going to be the same.

jrgbfc wrote:Yeah how could we have possibly known a 34 year old whose game had been all about hard work and putting a shift in would start to pick up injuries? As for Wells not being good enough, he probably isn't but the poor bloke hasn't been given a chance as he, and it looks like Vydra is going to be the same.

Good point it was exactly the same with Alexander & Barton

Claretforever wrote:And? He’s been brought in to help get us safe this season. He’s not a long term signing. He’s a player who hardly ever gets injured, is probably great for team morale I imagine as he’s a funny guy, has great experience and can actually help the team. Ideally we’d have liked Ibrahimovic (some would surely have said no because of his age). It was him or nothing, and anyone choosing nothing over him wants their head read.

You may have missed the fact we’ve lost the last 4 , a bit like missing the point he’s 38