Re: Accounts: £36.6m Profit
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:52 am
Oh the highest possible I would say, no doubt about that.
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37871
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: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.
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 wagesLancasterclaret wrote:Pope, Taylor, Gibson and I'm assuming all the youth players.
Next!
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
I will give you Pope and Taylor, but we wouldn't get our money back on Gibson. (due to lack of game time)Lancasterclaret wrote:Pope, Taylor, Gibson and I'm assuming all the youth players.
Next!
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.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.
Then you clearly don't understandCleveleys_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.
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.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)
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)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.
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: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.
Too little too late smacks of token effort.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)
summitclaret wrote:Too little too late smacks of token effort.
Correct. Cash in hand/ bank is exactly that.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)?
Nice goalpost shift there. You asked for players that would have respectable sell on fees, not that we'd make profits onCleveleys_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
Good job with aren't in a rush to sell Gibson then.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)
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 dollarClaretTony wrote:wages up £20 million from 2016/17 figure and will have gone up again this season
You are assuming that we only went in when the story broke - we do not know thatsummitclaret wrote:Too little too late smacks of token effort.
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
Chester Perry wrote:No where in the accounts does it say that the increase was down to bonuses only
I agree stop wasting fees and wages on old players and squad players which we are still doing.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.
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?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
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.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.
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.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.
You're in charge of scouting moving forwards.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.
No doubt a sizeable chunk CC, but a majority? No chance.claretcarrot93 wrote: Majority of the increase was made up of performance bonuses for finishing 7th.
It's how the club is run in terms of wages Lancaster. Very heavily performance orientated and last year was superb.Lancasterclaret wrote:No doubt a sizeable chunk CC, but a majority? No chance.
Yes, but I also know that wages are a lot higher than they were with the new contracts.claretcarrot93 wrote:It's how the club is run in terms of wages Lancaster. Very heavily performance orientated and last year was superb.
Yeah, last season was shite wasn't it.BurnleyFC wrote:£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that
I might start supporting Padiham instead.
Hah yep minimum wage this seasonLancasterclaret 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.
Hopefully!BurnleyFC wrote:£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that
I might start supporting Padiham instead.
However it looks, we are still far more successful than the majority of clubs in the league so we must be doing something right.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 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 clubBurnleyFC wrote:£81m in wages? Terrific value for money, that
I might start supporting Padiham instead.
Guess you'd be happier then if we'd made a loss!joey13 wrote:Can’t wait for the open top bus parade with the Board of Directors waving a large cheque
He is always happier when ever there is a loss, especially on a Saturday. Can't wait to log in and bitchLeisure wrote:Guess you'd be happier then if we'd made a loss!
joey13 wrote:Can’t wait for the open top bus parade with the Board of Directors waving a large cheque
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 £10mrandomclaret2 wrote:Half of the increase is around £10 million. I would have thought performance bonuses would certainly account for that.
Ever heard of the happy medium.Leisure wrote:Guess you'd be happier then if we'd made a loss!
More like 20m but I am being a bit picky there.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.