BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
HunterST_BFC
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:13 pm
Been Liked: 948 times
Has Liked: 1846 times
Location: varied

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by HunterST_BFC » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:29 am

Rileybobs wrote::lol: you mean the Daily Mail called it?
Mine is the most accurate post on this thread :lol:

ClaretTony
Posts: 39366
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 17610 times
Has Liked: 3289 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:35 am

Rileybobs wrote::lol: you mean the Daily Mail called it?
Matt Law from the Daily Telegraph was the first I think

tim_noone
Posts: 14764
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 3801 times
Has Liked: 13087 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by tim_noone » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:39 am

ClaretTony wrote:Matt Law from the Daily Telegraph was the first I think
Nah ....cricketfield

AlargeClaret
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
Been Liked: 660 times
Has Liked: 61 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by AlargeClaret » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:19 am

arise_sir_charge wrote:What a load of ********.

Why do people revel in thinking we are some form of third world esque football club. They love to think we are slit and fighting against all odds.

We are among the highest income clubs in world football but we choose a model that the board feel best suits us. Whilst we can’t compete with the absolute elite, we are a club that has prospects and a pull for the right players.
Perhaps the message hasn’t got through to you why we struggle desperately in the market .
WE CANT AFFORD THE WAGES so the vast majority of players look elsewhere . Personally I think our policy is excellent but the endless lip quivering over transfers is infinite

Sproggy
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 269 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Sproggy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:25 am

We can afford to pay higher wages - we bank 30 million quid a year - we just choose not to.

I'm sure our wage ceiling compares favourably with average salaries in other leagues worldwide.

Down_Rover
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:09 pm
Been Liked: 336 times
Has Liked: 135 times
Location: Manchester

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Down_Rover » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:27 am

Sproggy wrote:We can afford to pay higher wages - we bank 30 million quid a year - we just choose not to.

I'm sure our wage ceiling compares favourably with average salaries in other leagues worldwide.
Would you like to set out a calculation of how you calculate that

Midmoorclaret
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:56 am
Been Liked: 198 times
Has Liked: 695 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Midmoorclaret » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:28 am

DD Seeing his initials, how many remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TGCrBE3JvY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1398 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by aggi » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:57 am

Down_Rover wrote:Would you like to set out a calculation of how you calculate that
We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.

TVC15
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3057 times
Has Liked: 559 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by TVC15 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:08 am

aggi wrote:We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.
We made £36m profit
Plus a big chunk of that was from one off player sales profit. You don’t increase operational / running costs based on “one-off” financial gains that you can’t guarantee every year....our wage bill and player contracts will no doubt factor in the impact of relegation / parachute payments and the build up of profit reserves will support this together with funds to back a manager to help us get back up (as we supported Dyche last time)

Hibsclaret
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 704 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Hibsclaret » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:11 am

TVC15 wrote:We made £36m profit
Plus a big chunk of that was from one off player sales profit. You don’t increase operational / running costs based on “one-off” financial gains that you can’t guarantee every year....our wage bill and player contracts will no doubt factor in the impact of relegation / parachute payments and the build up of profit reserves will support this together with funds to back a manager to help us get back up (as we supported Dyche last time)
Spot on.

Some of the brains on here adhere to the Peter Ridsdale school of accountancy.....there’s a reason why the biggest club in the world have been playing in the lower divisions for nearly 2 decades
This user liked this post: bobinho

Down_Rover
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:09 pm
Been Liked: 336 times
Has Liked: 135 times
Location: Manchester

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Down_Rover » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:15 am

aggi wrote:We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.
Ok. Ignoring the facts again.

In 2018 we made £37m, but that included profit on player sales of £31m. Our operating profit was just under £15m compared to £26m the previous year, which is the accurate comparison. The bonuses paid for achieving 7th actually outweighed the extra income..fair enough because 7th place was probably not anticipated.

As we all know profit is not cash. At June 2018 we had £34m cash. Shortly after we bought Gibson Hart and Vydra, we had little or no income until the season started and there were wage increases to keep Ben Mee and consequently to keep the rest of the squad happy...one always has most cash in the Bank immediately after payday.

Moving onto 2019 my guess is that turnover fell to 2017 levels and wages had increased. Ignoring player sales I guess our profits will be around £10m
( not cash)

We have been prudent in this window because I doubt we would have generated substantial cash in 2019 and I would not be surprised to hear that selling Vokes was entirely necessary

This is likely to be the case while we remain in the bottom third of the table, which must be assumed, and future cash can only come from sales of improving players aka McNeil

Sproggy
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 269 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Sproggy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:18 am

Down_Rover wrote:Would you like to set out a calculation of how you calculate that
Sure. Revenue - Costs = Profit. Three levers for you to work with.

aggi
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1398 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by aggi » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:20 am

TVC15 wrote:We made £36m profit
Plus a big chunk of that was from one off player sales profit. You don’t increase operational / running costs based on “one-off” financial gains that you can’t guarantee every year....our wage bill and player contracts will no doubt factor in the impact of relegation / parachute payments and the build up of profit reserves will support this together with funds to back a manager to help us get back up (as we supported Dyche last time)
Definitely £45m. If we're talking about increasing spending then it's the profit before tax that is relevant. We wouldn't be paying £8.5m of tax on zero profit.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I fully agree that we should be building up reserves for when we are relegated, etc. Just that we probably can afford it.

Down_Rover
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:09 pm
Been Liked: 336 times
Has Liked: 135 times
Location: Manchester

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Down_Rover » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:21 am

aggi wrote:Definitely £45m. If we're talking about increasing spending then it's the profit before tax that is relevant. We wouldn't be paying £8.5m of tax on zero profit.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I fully agree that we should be building up reserves for when we are relegated, etc. Just that we probably can afford it.
Interesting. Please inform us how you get away without paying tax

dpinsussex
Posts: 3257
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 915 times
Has Liked: 1040 times
Location: Reading

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by dpinsussex » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:22 am

Sproggy wrote:Sure. Revenue - Costs = Profit. Three levers for you to work with.
Which does not equal cash banked

Sproggy
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 269 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Sproggy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:23 am

Down_Rover wrote:Interesting. Please inform us how you get away without paying tax
Simple - Don't make any taxable profit.
This user liked this post: Down_Rover

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 3800
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 1003 times
Has Liked: 989 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Tricky Trevor » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:25 am

Alan Smiths review of our transfer window. a C.

“I thought they would have done more this summer, while Jay Rodriguez returns to his old haunt. If he can link up with Ashley Barnes and Chris Wood in attack, it will give them a launching pad. But it does not seem to me that they will be a significantly better outfit after the window, although they will be pleased to get the Danny Drinkwater loan done.l

Sproggy
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 269 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Sproggy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:26 am

dpinsussex wrote:Which does not equal cash banked
Indeed not. But we could increase revenue (on wages) and make less money if we wanted to. I'm not arguing that we should, I'm arguing that we could if we wanted to.

aggi
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1398 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by aggi » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:28 am

Down_Rover wrote:Interesting. Please inform us how you get away without paying tax
If you don't make any taxable profit you don't pay corporation tax on it.

Are you saying that we would still have had an £8.5m tax bill if we'd bumped up our salaries and made a zero profit?

dpinsussex
Posts: 3257
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 915 times
Has Liked: 1040 times
Location: Reading

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by dpinsussex » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:29 am

Sproggy wrote:Indeed not. But we could increase revenue (on wages) and make less money if we wanted to. I'm not arguing that we should, I'm arguing that we could if we wanted to.
Not sure we would want to though. We have a business model that is prudent (sensible) and protects the longevity of our club.

jtv
Posts: 542
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:59 pm
Been Liked: 193 times
Has Liked: 265 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by jtv » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:32 am

Sproggy wrote:Simple - Don't make any taxable profit.

So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?

aggi
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1398 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by aggi » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:44 am

ClaretTony wrote:Spice has referred to the lack of interest in Mooy and it was the same with Billing, no one other than Bournemouth.
There were quite a few rumours going around but who knows how many of them were actually serious interest. I imagine his second half of the season and the falling out with the manager put a few clubs off. He suits Bournemouth's transfer strategy of buying young, promising players who may develop but it's probably a riskier signing than many.

I would have liked us to sign him but understand why we didn't.

Sproggy
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 269 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Sproggy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:50 am

jtv wrote:So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?
Depends what we spend the money on.

tim_noone
Posts: 14764
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 3801 times
Has Liked: 13087 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by tim_noone » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:51 am

jtv wrote:So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?
To qualify for dhss I'd say the second has it's benefits...

ClaretTony
Posts: 39366
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 17610 times
Has Liked: 3289 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:53 am

aggi wrote:There were quite a few rumours going around but who knows how many of them were actually serious interest. I imagine his second half of the season and the falling out with the manager put a few clubs off. He suits Bournemouth's transfer strategy of buying young, promising players who may develop but it's probably a riskier signing than many.

I would have liked us to sign him but understand why we didn't.
Billing was clearly at the centre of a lot of the problems at Huddersfield. Not necessarily his doing though.

Down_Rover
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:09 pm
Been Liked: 336 times
Has Liked: 135 times
Location: Manchester

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Down_Rover » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:36 am

aggi wrote:If you don't make any taxable profit you don't pay corporation tax on it.

Are you saying that we would still have had an £8.5m tax bill if we'd bumped up our salaries and made a zero profit?
Do you spend all the money you get straight away?

jtv
Posts: 542
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:59 pm
Been Liked: 193 times
Has Liked: 265 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by jtv » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:22 pm

Sproggy wrote:Depends what we spend the money on.
Not spending the money means that it is there for a rainy day. So what do you suggest spending the money on - umbrellas?

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 2750 times
Has Liked: 523 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:34 pm

If you managed to spend the money on players like Tarks, David Brookes, Harry Maguire, Callum Wilson, then you'd potentially have a lot better team and assets worth far more than the cash in the bank.

Like others not suggesting this should be done or that it is easy just to spot players who are gonna excel and grow in value but spending money on players and their wages doesn't automatically equate to being skint and in debt.

TVC15
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3057 times
Has Liked: 559 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by TVC15 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:56 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:If you managed to spend the money on players like Tarks, David Brookes, Harry Maguire, Callum Wilson, then you'd potentially have a lot better team and assets worth far more than the cash in the bank.

Like others not suggesting this should be done or that it is easy just to spot players who are gonna excel and grow in value but spending money on players and their wages doesn't automatically equate to being skint and in debt.
So just buy the good players where their value will increase and you can sell them for several millions more than you bought them ?
Right got it...easy peasy.
Nice one Captain Obvious
This user liked this post: jtv

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 2750 times
Has Liked: 523 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:14 pm

TVC15 wrote:So just buy the good players where their value will increase and you can sell them for several millions more than you bought them ?
Right got it...easy peasy.
Nice one Captain Obvious
Kinda feels you really didn't understand the gist of my post captain dimwit but dont you worry

Paul Waine
Posts: 6351
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 1824 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:16 pm

aggi wrote:We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.
We'd end up like Bury if we pay wages based on one or two (net) transfer windfalls. I'm with other posters, budget for wages needs to reflect "steady state" repeatable revenues and not gamble on repeating any one off gains.

Report in The Times suggests we negotiated brilliantly to get Danny Drinkwater on loan: £110k per week wages, Chelsea pay half, no mention of a loan fee.

That's maybe why we've only got DD for half a season. Something like: "you are paying this guy £110k and not using him." "We will pay half his wage and put him in the window... if he does well, maybe someone will buy him in Jan... now, isn't that a great deal for you, Frank/Chelsea?"

Maybe if we'd paid full wages, we'd have got DD for full season - and also had to pay Chelsea a fee...

UTC - especially if this proves half true!

Paul Waine
Posts: 6351
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 1824 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:23 pm

jtv wrote:So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?
I've got another thought on this, vote Boris and we may end up with profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 45m.... - plans to reduce the rate of CT (corporation tax, not one of our fellow posters) to 17% is a step in that direction....

Apologies for bringing politics into this transfer thread. ;)

TVC15
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3057 times
Has Liked: 559 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by TVC15 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:19 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Kinda feels you really didn't understand the gist of my post captain dimwit but dont you worry
Kinda feel you were trying to be clever about a balance sheet when the issue is around operating costs.
Kinda a feel you ain’t got a clue what the difference would be anyway.

But yep you still did basically say buy good players cheap and their increase in value will mean you have got saleable assets and a strong balance sheet when their value goes up - eh go figure
....that’s the same level of wisdom as score more goals than the opposition and you should be fine.

Carry on Captain Pr-ick.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 2750 times
Has Liked: 523 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:41 pm

TVC15 wrote:Kinda feel you were trying to be clever about a balance sheet when the issue is around operating costs.
Kinda a feel you ain’t got a clue what the difference would be anyway.

But yep you still did basically say buy good players cheap and their increase in value will mean you have got saleable assets and a strong balance sheet when their value goes up - eh go figure
....that’s the same level of wisdom as score more goals than the opposition and you should be fine.

Carry on Captain Pr-ick.
I was right you didn't understand the gist of my post at all.

Also im sorry if my little jibe about your silly post earlier today got under your skin a bit.

You shouldn't take things quite so personally but I really didn't mean any harm so no hard feelings Captain Snowflake

TVC15
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3057 times
Has Liked: 559 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by TVC15 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:53 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I was right you didn't understand the gist of my post at all.

Also im sorry if my little jibe about your silly post earlier today got under your skin a bit.

You shouldn't take things quite so personally but I really didn't mean any harm so no hard feelings Captain Snowflake
Aye because saying Michael Keane wasn’t a bad loan signing on a thread set up to discuss the success of our loan signings constitutes a “silly post” and your pathetic comment about it being obvious.
Eh but if you feel the need to be an obnoxious pr-ick on every thread and live up to your ridiculous username you fill your boots.

Getting back to the point were you being “devils advocate” in your lack of understanding of how finances work ? Or was that you just being a dumb f-uck ?

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 2750 times
Has Liked: 523 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:06 pm

TVC15 wrote:Aye because saying Michael Keane wasn’t a bad loan signing on a thread set up to discuss the success of our loan signings constitutes a “silly post” and your pathetic comment about it being obvious.
Eh but if you feel the need to be an obnoxious pr-ick on every thread and live up to your ridiculous username you fill your boots.

Getting back to the point were you being “devils advocate” in your lack of understanding of how finances work ? Or was that you just being a dumb f-uck ?
There's only one person being obnoxious and thats the angry man who bickers with everyone on here.

I'll give you a simple summary of what my post was about and then I'll leave you to carry on with your name calling until your next squabble comes along

Page105

Post 21 JVT posed a question
Post 23 Sproggy responded
Post 27 JVT didn't seem to understand Post 23 and made some ludicrous point about umbrellas

My post was just in support of Post 23 that which is preferable out of spending money or keeping it in the bank depends on how you spend the money - simple as that.

My post gave no opinion on what I thought was best and made no suggestion on how easy or difficult something was to do which I purposely included to hopefully stop people misinterpreting my post like you have done

Well done you've got several posts out of me but you can go argue with yourself now till the next sucker comes along

LaLigaClaret
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 9:30 pm
Been Liked: 121 times
Has Liked: 20 times
Location: Norfolk

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by LaLigaClaret » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:20 pm

So JayRod was a great signing for us. Pieters very solid so no concerns there. Heaton going a massive blow but in the circumstances he had to go but the amount was a little too low. Bailey PF however makes me nervous as he made a number of significant howlers last year but hey Sean Dyche is happy enough. DD might be really great for us but then again he might struggle to play regularly and he is only hear for 6 months. I didn't understand why we loaned out Wells when he will leave next year on a free when Swansea allegedly made a cash bid for him. Vydra being unhappy and requesting a transfer means we will need to get shot and replace him but will likely make a loss on him. Defour is another issue. Hendrick may not get or sign another contract.

We did get the Heaton money, the Ings sell on bonus and didn't spend the Vokes money. Given we were allegedly making bids on Kalvin Phillips we must have had money we didn't spend that we could have. All in all the club probably did enough in this window but there is another issue no-one else seems to have considered. Tarks remains with us but what if there is a selling clause in his contract and a foreign teams meets it as their windows aren't closed yet ? We will have a lot of cash but a possible problem at CB if he goes. is this why we didn't sell Kevin Long as he is also clearly wanting a move. January will be very interesting for the club.

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 446 times
Has Liked: 916 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:21 pm

Can this thread just be deleted now?

TVC15
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3057 times
Has Liked: 559 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by TVC15 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:46 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:There's only one person being obnoxious and thats the angry man who bickers with everyone on here.

I'll give you a simple summary of what my post was about and then I'll leave you to carry on with your name calling until your next squabble comes along

Page105

Post 21 JVT posed a question
Post 23 Sproggy responded
Post 27 JVT didn't seem to understand Post 23 and made some ludicrous point about umbrellas

My post was just in support of Post 23 that which is preferable out of spending money or keeping it in the bank depends on how you spend the money - simple as that.

My post gave no opinion on what I thought was best and made no suggestion on how easy or difficult something was to do which I purposely included to hopefully stop people misinterpreting my post like you have done

Well done you've got several posts out of me but you can go argue with yourself now till the next sucker comes along
Hilarious - you sound like Wrongo...well done

So just to check - spend your cash on players who are going to soar in value ? - that really is a super alternative to keeping it in the bank...genius in fact.
I’m gonna adopt a similar strategy and spend my cash on winning the lottery.
And you called me Captain Obvious !

Just to explain it to you so you understand.
We are not keeping money in the bank to improve the assets on our balance sheet per se. It’s a risk mitigation strategy against what might happen in the future. It’s not an alternative strategy to mitigate that risk to spend money on players in the hope that they increase in value - because you don’t know that they will - so no it doesn’t depend on how you spend that money. Burnley are choosing to build up their reserves ana maintain cash in the bank because they know the outcome.
They won’t know the outcome if they spend it on players - you listing players who have increased in value and saying it depends on what you spend the money on is irrelevant - but actually quite funny.
You trying to defend it and saying I don’t understand your point is even funnier
Last edited by TVC15 on Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Blyclaret
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:51 pm
Been Liked: 107 times
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by Blyclaret » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:28 am

Window closed
And still the childish bickering goes on
What does that tell you.

bobinho
Posts: 5082
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 2082 times
Has Liked: 3264 times
Location: Burnley

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by bobinho » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:54 am

I’m quite interested in hearing how and why Kevin Long wants to leave. Seems like I missed summat here. Entirely possible, I miss loads these days.

Anyway, Tarks off to foreign lands means the very capable Ben Gibson plays. Hey! That must be what all this “strength in depth” means....

So. We go again. Buzzin.

jdrobbo
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:01 pm
Been Liked: 2448 times
Has Liked: 591 times
Location: Leeds

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by jdrobbo » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:24 am

Why is it often the default setting of humans to always try and have the last say, and with it, more often than not purposely use insults to make them feel better (because someone didn’t agree with them)?

This is a thread merely about transfers in and out of the club, where people are asked to provide evidence for the news they report.

Reading grown adults resort to childish bickering and quite literally, over countless pages, just go round in circles, is not a good sight. Please just stop it: it’s not healthy discussion and it genuinely puts many good posters off from contributing to what are good and well-established threads.

Thank you.

UTC

MACCA
Posts: 12636
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:10 am
Been Liked: 3277 times

Re: BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

Post by MACCA » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:34 am

jdrobbo wrote:Why is it often the default setting of humans to always try and have the last say
Not sure but it isn't half annoying, often making a nothing point, just so they've had the last word...

Post Reply