Oh the highest possible I would say, no doubt about that.

Lancasterclaret wrote:No doubt we are in a fantastic position, and the envy of loads of clubs and I'm very grateful for that, but we need to be 100% spot on in everything each season to maintain our PL status.

Thats going to be a real struggle.

Will always be like that though Lancaster for a club our size with no benefactor. That's what so many just don't seem to understand.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Pope, Taylor, Gibson and I'm assuming all the youth players.

Next!

How would we make money on Ben Gibson? A player that has 1 prem appearance for us this season at the cost of 15 million plus wages

All makes for good reading when you see the other basket case clubs in the top 2 flights.
All done without major investment from some rich benefactor, just a bit of a foot up initially back when promotion first happened.

Plenty to be proud of though.

Lancasterclaret wrote:No doubt we are in a fantastic position, and the envy of loads of clubs and I'm very grateful for that, but we need to be 100% spot on in everything each season to maintain our PL status.

Thats going to be a real struggle.

Standing still this year, i.e not improving the first 11 was a big mistake that could cost us big time if we go down.

Cleveleys_claret wrote:How would we make money on Ben Gibson? A player that has 1 prem appearance for us this season at the cost of 15 million plus wages

Same as we will make money on Tarks when he had to wait for Keane to leave, when it's Gibson's time to step in he will and prove how good he is.

Plus he's already got previous PL experience etc.

Or would you rather we didn't keep signing the next players to replace current ones?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:All makes for good reading when you see the other basket case clubs in the top 2 flights.
All done without major investment from some rich benefactor, just a bit of a foot up initially back when promotion first happened.

Plenty to be proud of though.

as @KieranMaguire puts it - Burnley once again didn’t need owners to dip their hands into their pockets for either loans or new shares. Shows how a professionally run outfit can live within its means and qualify for Europe.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Pope, Taylor, Gibson and I'm assuming all the youth players.

Next!

I will give you Pope and Taylor, but we wouldn't get our money back on Gibson. (due to lack of game time)

ClaretTony wrote:Will always be like that though Lancaster for a club our size with no benefactor. That's what so many just don't seem to understand.

I do understand Tony. I just understand the constant signings of players who are good for the dressing room. We talk a good game but we are still too risk averse.

Cleveleys_claret wrote:I do understand Tony. I just understand the constant signings of players who are good for the dressing room. We talk a good game but we are still too risk averse.

Then you clearly don't understand

AndyClaret wrote:I will give you Pope and Taylor, but we wouldn't get our money back on Gibson. (due to lack of game time)

Pope, Taylor, Tarky would all bring massive profits on what they've cost us. I think we'd get our money back on Gibson in terms of what we paid for him. But remember where the other three were in those terms when they were one year in at Burnley.

Cleveleys_claret wrote:I do understand Tony. I just understand the constant signings of players who are good for the dressing room. We talk a good game but we are still too risk averse.

It is not like we didn't try - the two that come to my mind are Ward-Prowse (not used by Hughes but will effectively keep saints up) and Che Adams - we went to our limits and didn't get - but the first in particularly would have been a blinder of a signing (though not sure he wanted to come)

Chester Perry wrote:as @KieranMaguire puts it - Burnley once again didn’t need owners to dip their hands into their pockets for either loans or new shares. Shows how a professionally run outfit can live within its means and qualify for Europe.

All good. If we stay up. If we go down it will be because we are weak in midfield and we knew it before the seadon starts.

Chester Perry wrote:It is not like we didn't try - the two that come to my mind are Ward-Prowse (not used by Hughes but will effectively keep saints up) and Che Adams - we went to our limits and didn't get - but the first in particularly would have been a blinder of a signing (though not sure he wanted to come)

Too little too late smacks of token effort.

summitclaret wrote:Too little too late smacks of token effort.

ralphc wrote:I presume cash in bank/in hand won't include the amount clubs still owe us for transfers (£27.8 million) or the amount we owe other clubs (£13.3 million)?

Correct. Cash in hand/ bank is exactly that.

The monies owed (owed to) will show on the balance sheet as an asset or liability.

Current if due within 1 year.
Long term if payments spread out over 2 or more years with this years amount showing as a current A or L

eg 10m over 2 years will show 5m as current and 5m as long term.

What people dont seem to understand is that PROFIT does NOT = CASH

Let's just enjoy the ride while it lasts! Utc

Cleveleys_claret wrote:How would we make money on Ben Gibson? A player that has 1 prem appearance for us this season at the cost of 15 million plus wages

Nice goalpost shift there. You asked for players that would have respectable sell on fees, not that we'd make profits on

AndyClaret wrote:I will give you Pope and Taylor, but we wouldn't get our money back on Gibson. (due to lack of game time)

Good job with aren't in a rush to sell Gibson then.

If Tarks was to leave in the summer though we'd only have to go looking for another 3rd choice CB cos Gibson would step in.

ClaretTony wrote:wages up £20 million from 2016/17 figure and will have gone up again this season

Includes bonuses does this which will be all the increase so let's have it right we haven't all of a sudden started paying top dollar

summitclaret wrote:Too little too late smacks of token effort.

You are assuming that we only went in when the story broke - we do not know that
- the only thing we have that gives any indication was that Rigg tweeted he was scouting a young player shortly after he started and followed it up with one saying that player had scored again that day which would put the price up - then in January we make a reported 4 bids (including outbidding Southampton) for a player the same age as that tweeted by Rigg. The fact hat we didn't get him was not our fault - we reached our limit/believed Birmingham kept raising the price and said enough

BOYSIE31 wrote:Includes bonuses does this which will be all the increase so let's have it right we haven't all of a sudden started paying top dollar

No where in the accounts does it say that the increase was down to bonuses only

Chester Perry wrote:No where in the accounts does it say that the increase was down to bonuses only

Don't do it, leave him alone in his confused bubble

£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that

I might start supporting Padiham instead.

ClaretTony wrote:The two big sales allowed us to post the profit. That's clearly how the club will operate in the future, player sales to boost things. That was the road we went down in the 1960s of course but we then relied (and I mean relied) on players coming through the youth system so eventually it all fell apart.

Shows just how sensible we need to be in transfer windows.

I agree stop wasting fees and wages on old players and squad players which we are still doing.
And by squad players I mean players that are not good enough and never will be.

Chester Perry wrote:You are assuming that we only went in when the story broke - we do not know that
- the only thing we have that gives any indication was that Rigg tweeted he was scouting a young player shortly after he started and followed it up with one saying that player had scored again that day which would put the price up - then in January we make a reported 4 bids (including outbidding Southampton) for a player the same age as that tweeted by Rigg. The fact hat we didn't get him was not our fault - we reached our limit/believed Birmingham kept raising the price and said enough

The fact that we did not get A cm was entirely our fault. What sane person would think defour would be fit for more than a few games?

I would imagine all of Tarks, Heaton, Pope, Taylor, Mee, Long, Westwood, JBG and Barnes would sell for a profit, not loads each, but that lot only cost about 15m combined.

Can’t wait for the open top bus parade with the Board of Directors waving a large cheque

Lancasterclaret wrote:We are pretty close to the stage where we can't actually afford to pay our squad premier league wages, even with TV money.

Relegation is just a matter of time if that continues, and there is nothing we can do about without putting the club at an unacceptable level of risk.

Agreed although the alternative is to pro actively find a benefactor. Garlick will not be able to sustain this. The wages figure and level of increase is frightening.

Blackrod wrote:Agreed although the alternative is to pro actively find a benefactor. Garlick will not be able to sustain this. The wages figure and level of increase is frightening.

People are not grasping that the wage increase was due to performance. The wage bill will be back down next year due to this seasons poor performance. Majority of the increase was made up of performance bonuses for finishing 7th.

We are a well run club and most fans dont want to "bet the ranch" but not signing an extra midfielder or forward in any of the last two windows is sheer negligence and a bigger gamble than the actual outgoing fee.

BOYSIE31 wrote:I agree stop wasting fees and wages on old players and squad players which we are still doing.
And by squad players I mean players that are not good enough and never will be.

You're in charge of scouting moving forwards.

claretcarrot93 wrote: Majority of the increase was made up of performance bonuses for finishing 7th.

No doubt a sizeable chunk CC, but a majority? No chance.

Lancasterclaret wrote:No doubt a sizeable chunk CC, but a majority? No chance.

It's how the club is run in terms of wages Lancaster. Very heavily performance orientated and last year was superb.

Can we move on with just TV Revenue only, has the time come for the club to look for other ways of funding our position In this league.....the thorny subject of new investors ?

claretcarrot93 wrote:It's how the club is run in terms of wages Lancaster. Very heavily performance orientated and last year was superb.

Yes, but I also know that wages are a lot higher than they were with the new contracts.

Its a sizeable chunk no doubt but more than half? V Unlikely

Guess we will see this time next year as we've been **** poor this season.

I have a conference call about to start so will only be able to post detailed thoughts this evening, but on a quick glance my first observation is:

Net cash flow from operating activities - £98m over last two years accounts.

That’s the powder store, of which a good chunk has been invested in players. The next year though should have another big net cash flow (e.g. minimum £30m) but much less invested.

BurnleyFC wrote:£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that

I might start supporting Padiham instead.

Yeah, last season was shite wasn't it.

Half of the increase is around £10 million. I would have thought performance bonuses would certainly account for that.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yes, but I also know that wages are a lot higher than they were with the new contracts.

Its a sizeable chunk no doubt but more than half? V Unlikely

Guess we will see this time next year as we've been **** poor this season.

Hah yep minimum wage this season

BurnleyFC wrote:£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that

I might start supporting Padiham instead.

Hopefully!

Cleveleys_claret wrote:I do understand Tony. I just understand the constant signings of players who are good for the dressing room. We talk a good game but we are still too risk averse.

However it looks, we are still far more successful than the majority of clubs in the league so we must be doing something right.

BurnleyFC wrote:£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that

I might start supporting Padiham instead.

It would be interesting to see how much of that has been squandered on players who haven't been deemed suitable for a consistent berth in the starting 11 because there is no improvement on what we already have and those that have been subsequently moved out of the club

joey13 wrote:Can’t wait for the open top bus parade with the Board of Directors waving a large cheque

Guess you'd be happier then if we'd made a loss!

Leisure wrote:Guess you'd be happier then if we'd made a loss!

He is always happier when ever there is a loss, especially on a Saturday. Can't wait to log in and bitch

joey13 wrote:Can’t wait for the open top bus parade with the Board of Directors waving a large cheque

Whilst spraying champagne over the amassed crowds

and we are all getting a free flag under our seat tomorrow in celebration!

randomclaret2 wrote:Half of the increase is around £10 million. I would have thought performance bonuses would certainly account for that.

you are forgetting that part of the previous years wage bill also included bonuses so yes bonuses in the reported year are likely to be over £10m

Leisure wrote:Guess you'd be happier then if we'd made a loss!

Ever heard of the happy medium.

A couple of points that strike me here.

Firstly, without more context - which realistically isn't going to be forthcoming - it's incredibly difficult to draw too many firm conclusions from these accounts, and there is definitely a danger in over-interpreting. The wage bill, for example, looks strikingly high compared to most estimates - and indeed looks higher than expected when compared with some of our rivals - but what we cannot tell is the extent to which that is distorted by our success last season.

Secondly, though, it does seem that we're at a bit of a crossroads. I note there's broad agreement that we should be prioritising younger talent upon which we can turn a trading profit. However, I'm not sure the assertion that has underpinned our recent strategy is backed up by evidence - the focus of our signings in the last two years have been much older, more experienced players who may well have been low risk, but will also have a wage premium: Hart, Lennon, Cork, Crouch and (to a lesser extent given their slightly lesser pedigree) Walters and Bardsley (Rodriguez would have been a similar sort of signing). It isn't the whole story but it's the prevailing trend, and it's notable that when players list the players we've signed as senior players who are likely to turn us a profit, we're focusing on players who we signed 2-3 years ago like Pope and Tarkowski.

There will always be a balance to be struck, and there's nothing wrong with signing "bankers" given that staying in the Premier League and getting the TV money will always be better for our finances than player trading. But we've seen this season that actually, the players we've signed aren't quite good enough to secure that on their own, and we've not balanced those steady-eddie signings with enough players who we can nurture and (over time) make into players who can take this league by the scruff of the neck (but who, at least in theory, arrive initially on smaller wages reflecting the fact that they're less proven). Of course, the size of the profit we've generated suggests we've had more scope to be braver in that regard than perhaps we have been.

So whilst we can't draw too many conclusions from the accounts themselves, perhaps the rough outline does give rise to useful opportunity to reevalulate exactly what we're trying to achieve in our recruitment. But admittedly, the other thing those accounts do show is how difficult the balance is that we're trying to strike, and the size of the challenge in remaining competitive at this level whilst remaining on a long-term stable footing.

duncandisorderly wrote:I would imagine all of Tarks, Heaton, Pope, Taylor, Mee, Long, Westwood, JBG and Barnes would sell for a profit, not loads each, but that lot only cost about 15m combined.

More like 20m but I am being a bit picky there.

How much would Walters, Wells, Hart, Defour, Crouch, Lennon, Brady bring in considering a 30m plus outlay and large wages for very little playing time

Dont get me wrong I do think that Tarks will go in the summer and we may get in the region of 35m+ for him which offsets the cost of some of these signings like Crouch and Walters which I see as short term fixes while we try to implement a plan for the future and to allow younger players to bed in. McNeil has been a revelation and because of injuries we have a now 20m plus player on our hands with his value only increasing.

But and its a big but we need to stop signing players in their late 20s early 30s to be squad players. We did right with Charlie Taylor and just shocked we havent made more prudent signings like that over the last couple of seasons