Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:04 pm

There aren't teams similar to us. Bournemouth may be 'smaller', but they have their sugar daddies footing the bill. Only Sheff U and Norwich appear to do it the 'Burnley' way. Even teams in the championship have these Billionaire sugar daddies and are run at a constant loss. Try and imagine what we have achieved over the last 10 years, then consider what the likes of Derby, Boro, Sheff Wed, Notts Forrest etc have spent to be nowhere near us. Try and imagine what would happen to us if we spent like them and were relegated anyway. We aren't talking about a season or two in the Championship, we are talking extinction.
The question isn't wether MG is doing the right thing or the wrong thing, it's is there an alternative option out there, and there isn't. At least not one that can guarantee success, and in order for us to commit the kind of money some fans want us to, it would have to be guaranteed success. There's no such thing in football as a guarantee.

I take your point about guaranteed success, but there’s very few guarantees in business. There are also lots of different ways to progress the football club:

1. Attract outside investment
2. Sell the club to investors
3. Run to a zero bottom line and invest
4. Diversify the income revenues and slow grow

I’d advocate a mix of 1 3 and 4

There are quite a few players abroad who are better than what we have and for half the price - go find them and bring them in.

Shame no mention of all the money wasted by the current manager or chairman

We also need to look at selling those players who are getting on in age (deprecating assets) whilst they have value.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:36 pm

I tried to highlight this previously but the post was deleated, I hinted it to Leisure too.

The only real reason a business would keep posting big profiles, whilst neglecting the first 11 on the field, spending as little as possible to get by, and that is to show any potential buyer a well run profitable business.

It all looks very good looking at the books.

Who benefits the most If/when the clubs sold?

Yes thats right the multi millionaire major share holder, who will no doubt make as much as he has done in the last 2 decades over night with a sale.

Whilst may I add will have put very little if not no money of his own in.
What he invested initially has been paid back and more imo.

The average fan puts more money into the club than Mike Garlick, he doesn't so happen to buy as much as a packet of crisps from the club.

But surely for us to be worth anything we have to stay in the Prem? Unless Garlick thinks Dyche is capable of scrapping out enough horrible points to finish 17th every year without any real backing.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:36 pm

The average fan puts more money into the club than Mike Garlick, he doesn't so happen to buy as much as a packet of crisps from the club.

Do you honestly believe this absolute nonsense?

Fans aren't spending 10's of hours a week working at the club, making decisions that keep the club performing way above a level that it should be at. They put money in when it was needed - but now it's not needed - BECAUSE THE CLUB ARE PERFORMING VERY VERY WELL - no ifs, no buts, not maybes. FACT.

jrgbfc wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:42 pm

But surely for us to be worth anything we have to stay in the Prem? Unless Garlick thinks Dyche is capable of scrapping out enough horrible points to finish 17th every year without any real backing.

We will have to disagree on these points. I have been on record in many occasions praising Garlick and the board for the manner they have run the club. They deserve a pay day, they invested, they made sound decisions and have provided is with a sound financial spring board. I have no doubt that if Garlick had the billions of other owners he would be happy to invest this into a club he obviously cares deeply about.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:36 pm

Whilst may I add will have put very little if not no money of his own in.
What he invested initially has been paid back and more imo.

The average fan puts more money into the club than Mike Garlick, he doesn't so happen to buy as much as a packet of crisps from the club.

I think your opinion is incorrect Macca, I seem to remember Mr Garlick converting his loans into shares when he became the major shareholder.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:36 pm

I tried to highlight this previously but the post was deleated, I hinted it to Leisure too.

The only real reason a business would keep posting big profiles, whilst neglecting the first 11 on the field, spending as little as possible to get by, and that is to show any potential buyer a well run profitable business.

It all looks very good looking at the books.

Who benefits the most If/when the clubs sold?

Yes thats right the multi millionaire major share holder, who will no doubt make as much as he has done in the last 2 decades over night with a sale.

Whilst may I add will have put very little if not no money of his own in.
What he invested initially has been paid back and more imo.

The average fan puts more money into the club than Mike Garlick, he doesn't so happen to buy as much as a packet of crisps from the club.

This place has become so moderator heavy it’s a shame to see, this isn’t a place for fans to have an opinion as much anymore, endless topics deleted without any explanation and mods who care more about the niggly UTC politics and digging others out than actually the football itself.

I think fans just want to see an improvement. Messages like that only show a lack of ambition. Scouting is the major issue and costs next to nothing compared to player wages.

Danieljwaterhouse wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:41 am

Liverpool have just done it, the Japanese lad is 23 and opens up Japan to the Liverpool brand for the next few years, his fee of 7million will be paid for almost instantly through shirt sales etc. It helps that he’s a good player too.

How many shirt sales do you reckon it will take to generate 7 million quid?

Let's say £50 a pop. That's 140,000. Thing is though, clubs make nowhere near £50 on each shirt they sell. It's nearer the eight quid mark. Now that's one hell of a lot of shirts to shift; around 800,000. Yep, they'll sure make their money back on shirt sales.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:20 pm

This place has become so moderator heavy it’s a shame to see, this isn’t a place for fans to have an opinion as much anymore, endless topics deleted without any explanation and mods who care more about the niggly UTC politics and digging others out than actually the football itself.

It’s terrible, why don’t you setup your own site where you and your like minded friends can have an unmoderated discussion? If it’s what people want they would all follow you. I suspect that it would be a very small jerk circle with people who wouldn’t be missed.

perhaps we should be looking at bringing in Brentford’s scouting team. Small club, punching above their weight and able to achieve well in the foreign markets / turn decent profits.

What is our model? I’m sure it’s not the case but from the outside in, there doesn’t appear to be a working strategy.

The club reeks of small time mentality from top to bottom. It's as though it needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and I honestly believe it's born from a small town society. As has been mentioned there are opportunities here to open up to an international market and I refuse to believe it's as good as it gets otherwise I may as well not bother. The fans want to see the club trying to compete, the same has been required for 2 and a half years on the pitch and the same old excuses get trotted out each and every window.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:03 pm

perhaps we should be looking at bringing in Brentford’s scouting team. Small club, punching above their weight and able to achieve well in the foreign markets / turn decent profits.

What is our model? I’m sure it’s not the case but from the outside in, there doesn’t appear to be a working strategy.

Brentford, a similar sized club to Burnley.

1) When did they last finish above burnley?
2) When did they last make more in a season financially?

And their strategy is better than Burnley’s?

NL Claret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:06 pm

You've lost me there, what is that based on? Don't tell me, you know 1000s who aren't renewing.

Ohh the drama on UTC.

Looking forward to your half time post on what Dyche should be doing in the second half.

Its a bit of a daft post. I dont know thousands of people to speak for. But I know plenty, many lifelong clarets who arent.

I went in the club shop yesterday to get a ticket for a couple of us for today. I was actually there and still changed my mind and didnt bother.

1) Not relevant to the point I was making
2) Through player sales or are you including premier league income?

Their success in the market and sales has been impressive. They have shown that smaller clubs can successfully work foreign foreign markets.

I don’t buy that we can’t find or attract players that could improve the first eleven.

Perhaps you do but you’re not exactly putting any points across that suggest why this is the case.

We refuse to operate outside this country but then complain that we cant afford whats on offer in this country. Its actually laughable. As if no world class players have ever been unearthed from outside the m6 corridor!

As I read your post, it said you felt that Brentford had a working strategy, but from the outside looking in Burnley didn't. Did I read that wrong?

It's just that for 2 very similar sized clubs, one has been in the Premiership for 6 seasons in the last 15 or so, whereas the one with the supposed working strategy hasn't.

If 2 athletes were of the same ability, and one bought new trainers every month, but the other kept beating him with his old tatty pair of trainers - who would have the better strategy?

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:38 pm

As I read your post, it said you felt that Brentford had a working strategy, but from the outside looking in Burnley didn't. Did I read that wrong?

It's just that for 2 very similar sized clubs, one has been in the Premiership for 6 seasons in the last 15 or so, whereas the one with the supposed working strategy hasn't.

If 2 athletes were of the same ability, and one bought new trainers every month, but the other kept beating him with his old tatty pair of trainers - who would have the better strategy?

Brentford arent a similar sized club though really. Never have been.

Theyve never been similar in stadium size, gates, achievements or in the main - leagues. Brentford are punching way above their weight.

We are at the top table where we have spent most of our existence.

Clearly we are doing lots of good things. But that doesnt mean we cant do better. And to surrender and not sign any players in January for this season and next is not good. Its foolish.

And for those who think we cant do any better. Of frances 23 man world cup winning squad, only 8 of them came through academies / started at top clubs.

15 of them came through lower leagues / small clubs.

Theres plenty out there.

In terms of bringing players in, I think Brentford are a great example of what can be achieved. They may need to sell and this may of course hinder progress in the league but they’ve done really well identifying players and turning a profit.

That for me should always have been our aim with recruitment. More recently, we’ve moved away from the likes of Mee, Trippier, Keane and Tarkowski.

We will always be the have nots but I’m not convinced we have the right strategy to bridge the gap a little.

He may not have been an achievable transfer but we were linked with Zayeck (sp) a few seasons ago. This sort of player can bring benefits now and turn a profit and I’d rather that than money being spent on Vydra, Gibson, Drinkwater.

We’ve spent / wasted a lot of money on players who have had little of any impact on the first XI.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:55 pm

We’ve spent / wasted a lot of money on players who have had little of any impact on the first XI.

To be fair that applies to every Premier league club.

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:46 pm

Brentford arent a similar sized club though really. Never have been.

Theyve never been similar in stadium size, gates, achievements or in the main - leagues. Brentford are punching way above their weight.

We are at the top table where we have spent most of our existence.

Clearly we are doing lots of good things. But that doesnt mean we cant do better. And to surrender and not sign any players in January for this season and next is not good. Its foolish.

Brentford's stadium capacity is 3,000 less than Burnley's. In the Championship last year, they averaged 10,500 and didn't really challenge for the play offs - it's broadly comparable with the attendances Burnley got before Owen Coyle's successful season. If Brentford are punching way above their weight - then how much more are Burnley? The clubs have been in the same divisions, for many times until the last 7 or 8.

I am not saying we shouldn't be able to sign players. I'm calling out a view that a Club of a similar size, similar investment profile, with worse results and achievements has a better strategy than Burnley. It doesn't make sense logically to me.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:44 pm

Do you honestly believe this absolute nonsense?

Fans aren't spending 10's of hours a week working at the club, making decisions that keep the club performing way above a level that it should be at. They put money in when it was needed - but now it's not needed - BECAUSE THE CLUB ARE PERFORMING VERY VERY WELL - no ifs, no buts, not maybes. FACT.

Calm down Mike.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:58 pm

To be fair that applies to every Premier league club.

It does, I don’t dispute that but for a club that is very cautious / sensible with the cash, our bigger money signings have been pretty bloody poor.

Completely agree CFC our recruitment policy if we even have one is nothing short of embarrassing. Our squad is ageing so badly if we do nothing to change that in the next few windows we will end up having to splash over 100 million in one window to replace them considering they will near retirement together. Im sick of this small club mentality christ yes we know what we are and where we've come from but that doesnt excuse our appalling business and not even considering looking abroad for talent which we know works out cheaper in general than buying homegrown talent. No excuse not to be looking into that market and dont insult me and other fans saying there isn't talent there whilst window after window some teams are signing gems

Brentford signings 2017/18 - I have to be honest, I don't follow football as closely as I once did, but I don't know many of these. Are they wasting money too?

1 July 2017 MF Scotland Theo Archibald Scotland Celtic Undisclosed [52]
1 July 2017 MF Scotland Ali Coote Scotland Dundee United Undisclosed [53]
1 July 2017 DF Denmark Henrik Dalsgaard Belgium Zulte Waregem Undisclosed [2]
1 July 2017 GK England Luke Daniels England Scunthorpe United Free [3]
1 July 2017 FW Finland Marcus Forss England West Bromwich Albion Free [54]
7 July 2017 MF South Africa Kamohelo Mokotjo Netherlands FC Twente Undisclosed [12]
14 July 2017 FW France Neal Maupay France Saint-Étienne Undisclosed [15]
18 July 2017 FW England Ollie Watkins England Exeter City Undisclosed [17]
1 August 2017 DF Denmark Mads Bech Sørensen Denmark AC Horsens Undisclosed [55]
1 January 2018 MF Denmark Emiliano Marcondes Denmark FC Nordsjælland Free [19]
14 January 2018 MF Finland Jaakko Oksanen Finland HJK Helsinki Undisclosed [56]
30 January 2018 MF Republic of Ireland Chiedozie Ogbene Republic of Ireland Limerick Undisclosed [57]

They sold one player from that list for 20 million.

https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.s ... =transfers

Their transfer income / expenditure over the last five years or so suggests some great success and a number of their current players are very highly regarded.

They sold one player from that list for 20 million.

https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.s ... =transfers

Their transfer income / expenditure over the last five years or so suggests some great success and a number of their current players are very highly regarded.

Brentford's debt is huge for a club of their size (and ours) running at over 2 times annual revenues - Their business model utilises and cross-pollinates with the owners primary business - be is a gambler (a very well informed one with very sophisticated systems and data gathering) and that is what the club utilises and has grown with but the club is still effectively a loss making enterprise at this juncture

They sold one player from that list for 20 million.

https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.s ... =transfers

Their transfer income / expenditure over the last five years or so suggests some great success and a number of their current players are very highly regarded.

In fact one today, on Soccer Saturday, was claimed to be the best player seen in the Championship!

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:07 pm

Brentford's debt is huge for a club of their size (and ours) running at over 2 times annual revenues - Their business model utilises and cross-pollinates with the owners primary business - be is a gambler (a very well informed one with very sophisticated systems and data gathering) and that is what the club utilises and has grown with but the club is still effectively a loss making enterprise at this juncture

Are they still a money ball type operation?

My reference to Brentford is that they can identify and recruit decent players at very reasonable prices. Surely our infrastructure should allow us to do the same.

I do wonder when Garlick will tell us we will need to downgrade the academy because of the cost once we get relegated, you know, to protect the future of the club in his magnificently inspirational tone

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:38 pm

If 2 athletes were of the same ability, and one bought new trainers every month, but the other kept beating him with his old tatty pair of trainers - who would have the better strategy?

Blimey! Wonder if he has any spare new ones he doesn't need?

Wasn’t the academy set up with a longer term view; that being that the funds were put aside to run it for the next ten years or something?

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:49 pm

How many shirt sales do you reckon it will take to generate 7 million quid?

Let's say £50 a pop. That's 140,000. Thing is though, clubs make nowhere near £50 on each shirt they sell. It's nearer the eight quid mark. Now that's one hell of a lot of shirts to shift; around 800,000. Yep, they'll sure make their money back on shirt sales.

You’re right it’s a lot of shirts, and we’re not Liverpool or Juventus. Opening up a new market is worth the investment, it’s not just short sales. You create more secondary traffic for your sponsors, you generate site visits and clicks. You diversify your fan base to your Include a global audience. Through this you’re now more attractive to sponsors, investment and so on.

Business isn’t a liner procedure, you strengthen your brand through all these activities and more.

Here's a summary of Brentford, with their better strategy put 2018.

http://financialfootballnews.com/brentf ... -finances/

Highlights

No profitable year in the previous 7
No promotion in the previous 7 years
Costs (wages) have increased 4 fold in the last 7 years
Brentford's net debt grew from £8m to £71m in the years unto 2018.

Meanwhile - here's Burnley's, with their poor strategy

http://financialfootballnews.com/category/burnley/

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

you do know that no club in the world sells 2 million official shirts a season and clubs like ours sell considerably less than 100 thousand so shirt sales is not going to cut it - additional sponsorship might if the player in question is his country's top player and/or has a massive PR profile - like Ronaldo at Juventus

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:12 pm

Wasn’t the academy set up with a longer term view; that being that the funds were put aside to run it for the next ten years or something?

essentially that is the idea and it is planned to go Cat 1 in the summer at a minimum of £4m per year - but still there will be those that say money has gone missing

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:16 pm

Here's a summary of Brentford, with their better strategy put 2018.

http://financialfootballnews.com/brentf ... -finances/

Highlights

No profitable year in the previous 7
No promotion in the previous 7 years
Costs (wages) have increased 4 fold in the last 7 years
Brentford's net debt grew from £8m to £71m in the years unto 2018.

Meanwhile - here's Burnley's, with their poor strategy

http://financialfootballnews.com/category/burnley/

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

I stand by the point that the players are out there and that you don’t have to spend silly amounts to get good players in. I’m unsure what our recruitment strategy is, other than to restrict ourselves to a more limited and expensive market, primarily with players that will bring no resale value.

Brentford have done very well identifying and selling a good number of players.

Our current approach isn’t working and I hope we adapt quickly enough to allow us to prolong our period at the top table.

But Brentford, like Howe at Burnley are signing lots of players - and they need paying. That puts pressure on the financial side, and despite signing good players, they've failed to go up. It's ok to cherry pick one small piece of success and say we should be doing that - but the whole package has to be looked at. Their strategy, the one you said was working, has failed financially, failed in terms of getting results, but they have been forced to sell players in order to survive.

That's the strategy Burnley had post ITV Digital when we had to sell Akinbiyi, Blake, Gray, Lafferty et al.... I prefer this strategy of not having to sell our best players, getting good results, punching well above our weight, developing a training ground and academy, and doing better in generally everything than Brentford.

We have a strategy of not selling our better players?

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:22 pm

you do know that no club in the world sells 2 million official shirts a season and clubs like ours sell considerably less than 100 thousand so shirt sales is not going to cut it - additional sponsorship might if the player in question is his country's top player and/or has a massive PR profile - like Ronaldo at Juventus

The shirts are symbolic, it’s about the ability to move into secondary and tertiary income streams for us and for our sponsors. Business is layers and layers of opportunity that are all linked to a single central source.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:39 pm

We have a strategy of not selling our better players?

We do appear to have now yes. Tarkowski didn't go. Dwight McNeill didn't go, Nick Pope signed a contract extension.....

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:58 pm

Brentford's stadium capacity is 3,000 less than Burnley’s

I’m pretty sure it’s not.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:58 pm

Brentford's stadium capacity is 3,000 less than Burnley's. In the Championship last year, they averaged 10,500 and didn't really challenge for the play offs - it's broadly comparable with the attendances Burnley got before Owen Coyle's successful season. If Brentford are punching way above their weight - then how much more are Burnley? The clubs have been in the same divisions, for many times until the last 7 or 8.

I am not saying we shouldn't be able to sign players. I'm calling out a view that a Club of a similar size, similar investment profile, with worse results and achievements has a better strategy than Burnley. It doesn't make sense logically to me.

You’re downplaying our club if you think Brentford are similar sized.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:58 pm

Brentford's stadium capacity is 3,000 less than Burnley's.

Its really not. Its 10,000 less.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:05 pm

They sold one player from that list for 20 million.

https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.s ... =transfers

Their transfer income / expenditure over the last five years or so suggests some great success and a number of their current players are very highly regarded.

I believe they refused £20M for one of their wide players from Villa in the summer, Benrahma or something. With him and Watkins that’s £40-60m worth of assets right there.

JBG injured again. Garlick needs to get his hand in his pocket.

Brentford moving into a brand new stadium next season as well I believe. Apart from the disabled facilities, which we were forced to improve have we used any of our money to improve the ground? We can't even manage hot water in the toilets or working hand dryers.