Dyche - "Mike Rigg has had it tougher than expected"

[Corky]

A different world in the same league - last season Roman Abramovich pumped £249m into Chelsea who had an operating loss of £196m before player sales - I don't ever want our club to operate like that

Bingo...single out probably the worst example and use it to justify what, in this context, I am not quite sure. You must be related to CombatClaret given his/her hysterical response to my thoughts on how we are handling transfers.

I just want a bit of clarity and transparency. That's all. But all we get from the Chairman is that given our finances it is difficult to bring players in and this message has more or less stayed the same for some time now. And then from the Manager we get "unlikely" as the in depth response.

[Chester Perry]

Corky - the manager was able to give his statement because the club has been working on this for months - there is plenty of in the know guidance out there that says clubs know by early November what chance they have in the Jan transfer with their targets and most clubs in the Prem are already working on next Jan now with the Summer window already known in terms of targets and what is achievable - it is the fans in the main who show a clear lack of appreciation of what is achievable.

BTW I am as disappointed as most with the situation but seek to understand and be constructive rather than be negative about it

[Safron]

It's hard to think constructively,if our none signing of any players ends with relegation

[Chester Perry]

It's hard to think constructively,if our none signing of any players ends with relegation

I didn't say it was easy and it is most definitely frustrating

[Safron]

Even though we have 24 points,I have never seen so much doom and gloom around the turf,even the first half of last season wasn't this bad ,it's as though there are only 5 games left , club needs a big lift , either from a couple of new bodies or a upturn in form,if Gibson leaves and no one else comes in I shudder to think what the turf will be like

[Quickenthetempo]

Even though we have 24 points,I have never seen so much doom and gloom around the turf,even the first half of last season wasn't this bad ,it's as though there are only 5 games left , club needs a big lift , either from a couple of new bodies or a upturn in form,if Gibson leaves and no one else comes in I shudder to think what the turf will be like

It's a result of the Spurs match.
Dyche reverted back to defensive tactics and hoof it, resulting in terrible football being played.
I haven't heard anyone moan about results. Maybe rolling over to the big 6 clubs?

But it's the football being played that's the problem.

Dyche and a few players got a few home truths walking off at half time of the Villa game and to be fair to them, the last game and a half they have tried playing football.

[FactualFrank]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

We all thought at the time that the Gibson signing was cover if Mee it Tarks left. There was outrage on this board that we only had Kevin Long as cover. It’s pretty fair to say that you would also expect and injury at some stage. If we hadn’t signed him people would still be moaning.

If the we had signed Cahill, people would be moaning on here that he wasn’t playing and that we should be signing younger players.

Wells and Vydra haven’t worked out, again signing probably to give us cover.

We can only play 11 at any time and it has always been clear that SD manages with loyalty. If an opportunity comes up to come into the 11 and you do well, you keep your shirt until that changes - Pieters at the start of the season and McNeil being good examples. Taylor being a previous example when Wars was here, Westwood would be another.

The opportunity hasn’t come up for Gibson and I suspect working with Vydra everyday hasn’t given SD any confidence.

Of course someone will disagree with me, but at times the club just can’t win with anything they do.

Spot on, and I've mentioned this recently. Many posters on here are posting after the fact yet I don't think they actually realise it.

[Wile E Coyote]

its a dilemma for dyche I think. he came here to be interviewed for the managers job and got it.
without doubt finances were discussed at length with regard to what the club was intending to do , knowing all this he accepted their offer.
getting success under the circumstances was remarkable. to maintain it is proving difficult.
It would probably frustrate the hell out of anyone though if the inability or unwillingness to strengthen the squad due to finance was a constant pressure as the years have passed. just makes me believe how great a feat it has been by the manager and his assorted players for seven years. that's why it is a nonsense to berate the way we play football, he has the silk purse from a sow's ear thing to contend with every august, and ultimately it will be our downfall unless things changed dramatically . Not matters which dyche can control.

[KateR]

I don't believe it's a dilemma for SD, he got a job when he needed one, get's paid well, does not have to work under the threat of being sacked as many other club managers do. I believe he has done a fantastic job and his reward is that the customer is demanding more for less, now some fans are starting to sound like West Ham fans, I would bet a lot of money that sexy football was never mentioned at the interview or during annual planning meetings and sure as hell wont be one of his KPI's he gets measured against.

I am confident he is as frustrated by the lack of transfers as much as the fans are, am sure he works to put plans together to convince the board to spend some money, everybody and there dog knows what is at stake so not in dispute.

I am sure that Mike Rigg is the most frustrated of all and this job is/has to be thankless, spend your time effort and energy trying to identify candidates within very narrow parameters to then have players/clubs say no or yes but it's XX Millions, I can see no job satisfaction from this and probably why the personnel in this position changes as often as it does.

Where I get extremely frustrated is in seeing the same plan being the only plan used year after year with known outcomes and rarely have we seen players brought in to go straight in to the first team, particularly where we are weak, majority of players we do sign are clearly for back up. Is the first team good enough to stay up, so far they have been so difficult to argue against the policy/strategy over the last 5 years. I think the question many are asking, including me, is this a sustainable strategy, and are we looking to change/improve, the answer to me in what I have seen over the last 3 years is no it is not sustainable. If we moan about it year after year we are bound to be right sooner or later, I would really like to think, and up to this point have done so, that a different strategy is also being developed to help with recruitment but have reached the point of doubting this greatly but yes of course I don't really know.

The same message every window comes from the club so no great surprise there but it leaves you feeling empty, the sympathy vote has gone, now lot questioning this well run club philosophy as to yes that's great but, where is the money going, is MG lining his pocket, etc. Valid questions in some way but unless your a shareholder you don't have much right, granted it's supposed to be entertainment, but if that is the be all and end all we would be Man City supporters the last few years and this year Liverpool supporters, the only right we have is to moan, and vote with our feet/bums in seat.

[dsr]

Over the last 6 years up to June 2018, turnover has been just over £400m, operating profit (before depreciation) just over £100m, and net spend on players about £55m. We are left with less than £50m spare cash, a fair chunk of which has been spent on Gawthorpe, and £10m more on repaying the directors' loans early on. There are no vast wads of money that could and/or should have been spent on extra players.

[KateR]

dsr, has anyone actual said in so many words that we should be signing players for vast wads of money? I also agree with the fact we don't and shouldn't be doing that.

However if we take said players bought over last couple of years and had spent a little extra to get someone who might improve the team or instead of having 4 GK's and numerous strikers we actually spent a little on establishing an international network of scouts (I don't mean everywhere in the world but a focused area) might we have unearthed a young gem, give him a chance and even sell on?

A long time ago we were a club that bought, trained and sold as our strategy, that worked also but eventually broke down and we had nothing in place to change, therefore we plummeted down the leagues, I do hope you are not advocating we are well run and don't need to change anything as this is a sustainable model?

[TVC15]

Over the last 6 years up to June 2018, turnover has been just over £400m, operating profit (before depreciation) just over £100m, and net spend on players about £55m. We are left with less than £50m spare cash, a fair chunk of which has been spent on Gawthorpe, and £10m more on repaying the directors' loans early on. There are no vast wads of money that could and/or should have been spent on extra players.

As a matter of interest DSR were you Ken Dodd’s accountant ?

[vinrogue]

Mike Rigg needs to pull two rabbits out of the hat this window. Two players at roughly £5 million each from anywhere outside the British Isles, players we can afford and are hungry to do well in England, he may not find Mahrez or Kante but he just has to find a couple of rough diamonds for SD to work with. Remember the days of Trippier, Mee and Keane, rough diamonds that haven't turned out to be too bad for us one way or another.

[Papabendi]

with Dyche having the final say and having such a specific set of criteria I am afraid that is very unlikely.

[dsr]

As a matter of interest DSR were you Ken Dodd’s accountant ?

If you think the accounts filed at Companies House are fraudulent, then take it up with them, not me.

[TVC15]

If you think the accounts filed at Companies House are fraudulent, then take it up with them, not me.

No I don’t- the accounts are fine.

It’s your understanding as to how they work that is dodgy - profit after tax is what we have left AFTER player purchases, repaying any loans, or spend on Gawthorpe.

It’s not the first time you have tried to justify the club having less retained profits / reserves by deducting spend from a net profit figure - it’s not how it works

[Murger]

Didn't Gawthorpe only cost £10.6m? It's not that much in the grand scheme of things.

[Spijed]

Didn't Gawthorpe only cost £10.6m? It's not that much in the grand scheme of things.

Aren't the running costs a few million, especially in our desire to get to CAT 1 status?

[TVC15]

Didn't Gawthorpe only cost £10.6m? It's not that much in the grand scheme of things.

When you see the facilities its nothing - the main training pitch cost a million on its own.
I'm sure I read or heard that the price was so cheap because it was an agreed figure based on the naming rights going to Barnfield...so kind of a net / reduced price with Barnfield getting the sponsorship benefits.
Haven't had a look at the accounts to see but I imagine it was classified as cap ex to and then depreciated over a number of years so we can spread the costs.

Whatever as you say we have got brilliant facilities for a very small fraction of the revenue we have generated in the last few years.

[KateR]

IMO accounting can be done more that one way and still be within the law. I have no idea and am not really interested in the accounting side or the books, these areas do not justify transfer policy/strategy. McNeil is an asset to the company, this is in fact an asset that is growing in worth as opposed to assets like Barnfield, which I would imagine are being discounted over years rather than as one hit, but again I don't care.

I doubt very much that Dyche and Rigg get involved with the books but they most certainly do in transfers and that is what interests me and what I see as having been managed poorly over several years. Not just in relation to this Jan window although as always any window throws the spotlight on this side of how the club is handling there business.

[Royboyclaret]

Over the last 6 years up to June 2018, turnover has been just over £400m, operating profit (before depreciation) just over £100m, and net spend on players about £55m. We are left with less than £50m spare cash, a fair chunk of which has been spent on Gawthorpe, and £10m more on repaying the directors' loans early on. There are no vast wads of money that could and/or should have been spent on extra players.

In fact, over those six years, the net spend on players was £67m (0.4, 1.1, 10.4, 7.3, 41.0 and 7.2).

Also the Cash In Hand and at Bank in the last set of accounts was £34.4m.

Of course there was also the expenditure on the disabled corner stands.

Be very interested to see where TVC15's 'additional retained profits' appear.

[kentonclaret]

Of course Mike Rigg has had it tougher than expected, getting all of these young players out on loan and finding them the right clubs must be very stressful.

[TVC15]

In fact, over those six years, the net spend on players was £67m (0.4, 1.1, 10.4, 7.3, 41.0 and 7.2).

Also the Cash In Hand and at Bank in the last set of accounts was £34.4m.

Of course there was also the expenditure on the disabled corner stands.

Be very interested to see where TVC15's 'additional retained profits' appear.

In the capital and reserves
Last reported figure in the P&L account was £60.6m with total shareholders funds of £76.7m.

[Vegas Claret]

you do know that when somebody signs a player for 30 million they don't just hand over 30 million right ?

[Tall Paul]

If only the accounts included some sort of statement showing the flow of cash into and out of the club.

[TVC15]

If only the accounts included some sort of statement showing the flow of cash into and out of the club.

You mean like a flow of cash type statement ?

[TVC15]

you do know that when somebody signs a player for 30 million they don't just hand over 30 million right ?

Yup...who are you asking ?

[Royboyclaret]

In the capital and reserves
Last reported figure in the P&L account was £60.6m with total shareholders funds of £76.7m.

That figure is on the Balance Sheet, not the P&L, and the £60.666m is within the Total Shareholders Funds of £76.684m. As posted earlier the Cash at Bank and in hand was £34.412m.

As for the statement that player purchase values are within the Net Profit on the P&L, that most certainly is not the case. Only the relevant amortisation of the initial player cost appears on the P&L.

[TVC15]

That figure is on the Balance Sheet, not the P&L, and the £60.666m is within the Total Shareholders Funds of £76.684m. As posted earlier the Cash at Bank and in hand was £34.412m.

As for the statement that player purchase values are within the Net Profit on the P&L, that most certainly is not the case. Only the relevant amortisation of the initial player cost appears on the P&L.

I know the difference between a balance sheet and a P&L thanks.
You asked me where our retained profits sit - where do you think they are if they are not shown in our capital and reserves as shown on the balance sheet ?
The figure I quoted was the P & L account as shown in our reserves / balance sheet.

As I am sure you know (and I know I do !) our profit figures have got nothing to do with cash in the bank.

[claret2018]

People seem to equate signing players to staying up. Chances are they wouldn’t be much better than what we’ve currently got (Che Adams anyone?) yet people think that there’s no point in watching the rest of the season because we’re not signing some championship level player that’s being touted about by agents

[Murger]

People seem to equate signing players to staying up. Chances are they wouldn’t be much better than what we’ve currently got (Che Adams anyone?) yet people think that there’s no point in watching the rest of the season because we’re not signing some championship level player that’s being touted about by agents

Che Adams, BINGO.
We've ****** ourselves over really by constantly shopping in the same market and still having the gall to complain about it.

[Steddyman]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Dyche call it a day at the end of the season whether we stay up or go down. We are in a Catch 22 situation. He is our perfect manager, but we won't (rightly so) spend £90k a week on a big name (who won't accept a 50% pay cut on relegation). So unless Rigg starts unearthing the next Kante's/Mahrez's from abroad we will continue to stagnate.
Sean is being asked to cook a hearty omelette with one quails egg at the mo...

I don't think this is the issue at all. I think Dyche is just very stubborn in the type of player he wants leaving very few options left, and even when he does sign players, he doesn't give them a run of games.

[claret2018]

Che Adams, BINGO.
We've ****** ourselves over really by constantly shopping in the same market and still having the gall to complain about it.

Alright, Fernando Guerrero then

[Murger]

Alright, Fernando Guerrero then

What about Defour?

[Vegas Claret]

Yup...who are you asking ?

people on here who are saying we only have x y and z in the bank. Wouldn't surprise me if Everton still owe us money for Keane !

[Darnhill Claret]

As people on here rightly say, we didn’t pay our most recent signings in one lump sum. By the same token any signings that we made in the last 3 years, will still have an outstanding balance that we have to still service.

[dsr]

No I don’t- the accounts are fine.

It’s your understanding as to how they work that is dodgy - profit after tax is what we have left AFTER player purchases, repaying any loans, or spend on Gawthorpe.

It’s not the first time you have tried to justify the club having less retained profits / reserves by deducting spend from a net profit figure - it’s not how it works

There's nothing wrong with my understanding of the accounts. My explanation of them, however, was obviously not clear enough. So I'll try again.

In the five seasons from 2013-14 to 2017-18, BFC had total income of £402m, paid total wages of £215m, total operating costs excluding player signings of £50m, promotion bonuses of £21m, and tax of £13m. Total operating expenses, with all player sales and purchases stripped out, of £299m.

This leaves the club with a profit of £104m to spend on new signings, capital projects, and repayments of Brendan Flood's and other loans. They spent £124m on new signings but received £57m on sales, net £67m spends; plus about £15m on Gawthorpe and other building, plus £11m or so repaying the loans. That leaves about £11m profit that hasn't been spent.

Yes, you could argue that they could spend an extra £40m not just £10m because the cost of those new players will be spread over 4 years in the accounts. But the payment for those players won't be spread over 4 years; one year maximum, last time I knew the rule in detail, though that may have changed. If we spent £40m now, we would need to borrow £30m to fund it; and no guarantee that the players concerned would be worth anything. This is why the old football approach was to write off player costs all in one hit, not to spread it over the contract.

[dsr]

In fact, over those six years, the net spend on players was £67m (0.4, 1.1, 10.4, 7.3, 41.0 and 7.2).

Also the Cash In Hand and at Bank in the last set of accounts was £34.4m.

Of course there was also the expenditure on the disabled corner stands.

Be very interested to see where TVC15's 'additional retained profits' appear.

You're right, thanks. I had left off a minus sign in 2013-14. £67m net spend.

The "additional retained profits" are basically in the value of players signed. The balance sheet as at June 2018 shows cost of player contracts not yet written off as £49m.

[Goobs]

The thing that makes me laugh the most during the transfer window isn't the people going in to a blind panic because we haven't signed someone 4 days after the window opens or even those that think that spending lots of money automatically makes you safe despite the numerous examples of this plan spectacularly failing.

It is the fact that I still get excited by the transfer window and a little disappointed if there isn't at least one decent incoming and that one of my favourite ever seasons for transfers was when we signed a couple of ex internationals to go with our ex international player manager along with a promising U21 from one of the countries big clubs with a few others thrown in too and look how that turned out

[CombatClaret]

Bingo...single out probably the worst example and use it to justify what, in this context, I am not quite sure. You must be related to CombatClaret given his/her hysterical response to my thoughts on how we are handling transfers.

I just want a bit of clarity and transparency. That's all. But all we get from the Chairman is that given our finances it is difficult to bring players in and this message has more or less stayed the same for some time now. And then from the Manager we get "unlikely" as the in depth response.

"Is there a way of them giving you what you want but not revealing details of our scouting and negotiating strategy to every other club who we're in competition with?
What would you like, spreadsheets, emails?
Have you ever considered it's some fan's expectations which are the problem as opposed to the financial situation the club finds itself in?"

Just wanted to remind people of my "hysterical" response. A "hysterical" response I got no answer to.

[SparkyClaret]

I don't think this is the issue at all. I think Dyche is just very stubborn in the type of player he wants leaving very few options left, and even when he does sign players, he doesn't give them a run of games.

So here's the bit I can't wrap my head around. If we've signed the player, I doubt highly it's with Dyche being aware, so he must at least tacitly approve of signing them. But for him to then not give them a run of games, particularly when the players have been in poor form/look knackered etc. doesn't add up to me.

I'm not saying that Vydra is a miracle, 40 a season goal machine, but when Barnes and/or Wood have been poor at times this season, why not at least try him out? I'd say the same for Gibson and Drinkwater, but I appreciate they've both been on the physio slab for long periods since they arrived (and left obvs in Drinkwater's case).

[dsr]

So here's the bit I can't wrap my head around. If we've signed the player, I doubt highly it's with Dyche being aware, so he must at least tacitly approve of signing them. But for him to then not give them a run of games, particularly when the players have been in poor form/look knackered etc. doesn't add up to me.

I'm not saying that Vydra is a miracle, 40 a season goal machine, but when Barnes and/or Wood have been poor at times this season, why not at least try him out? I'd say the same for Gibson and Drinkwater, but I appreciate they've both been on the physio slab for long periods since they arrived (and left obvs in Drinkwater's case).

Of course Dyche approves the signing. He's the boss.

And like many other posters, you aren't placing any emphasis on what happens in training. We don't see training, so it's easy to forget about it; but Dyche sees training every day, and what he has seen all season is that Cork and Westwood are better options than Drinkwater.

I doubt Drinkwater was signed with the intention of playing him, anyway. He was signed at the last minute, which may be simply because he was unavailable till then because Chelsea were hanging on for a better offer; but I think it's more likely to be because we had only 3 midfielders, wanted a fourth in case of injury, and he was the best we could get that wouldn't pointlessly break the bank.

[ClaretAL]

Interesting Article....

https://www.theguardian.com/football/wh ... ion-battle

[Andreshotboots]

Interesting Article....

https://www.theguardian.com/football/wh ... ion-battle

Can't argue with any of that, add the fact that we are not seemingly prepared to strengthen then we are in trouble. The laid back attitude our board seem to have is astounding. Terrible transfer window after window, ageing squad and they expect us to stay up year on year.. Sadly I think we will go down this year, this next run of games will put us in a position that we won't recover from.

We produced a miracle second half of last season, we won't do that again.

[BOYSIE31]

Makes for horrific reading really but i am not surprised

[gandhisflipflop]

It all peaked for me after the shambolic July 2018 window. How can you ask the lads to bust a gut all season, then not play them/not take serious the competition they worked so hard to get to, and then deliver the same message the season after? It's no wonder we find motivation an issue in some games. Dyche either needs to change his philosophy or leave it to someone who will. Garlick doesn't get off lightly too, he needs to release the shackles a little bit and at least make an effort to grow Burnley FC on and off the pitch.

[dsr]

Can't argue with any of that, add the fact that we are not seemingly prepared to strengthen then we are in trouble. The laid back attitude our board seem to have is astounding. Terrible transfer window after window, ageing squad and they expect us to stay up year on year.. Sadly I think we will go down this year, this next run of games will put us in a position that we won't recover from.

We produced a miracle second half of last season, we won't do that again.

To put it into perspective, we don't actually need a "miracle second half of the season". If the second half of this season is as good (or bad) as the first half of last season, then we will be on the edge of relegation - it would be touch and go. Last season's first half form was no miraculously good.

[Top Claret]

Unfortunately Rigg can't do a lot we are way out of our depth financially at this level.

In football terms our directors do not have a pot to **** in. If the board have the best interest of the club at heart, they really should be looking at selling and making it public.

[SparkyClaret]

Of course Dyche approves the signing. He's the boss.

And like many other posters, you aren't placing any emphasis on what happens in training. We don't see training, so it's easy to forget about it; but Dyche sees training every day, and what he has seen all season is that Cork and Westwood are better options than Drinkwater.

I doubt Drinkwater was signed with the intention of playing him, anyway. He was signed at the last minute, which may be simply because he was unavailable till then because Chelsea were hanging on for a better offer; but I think it's more likely to be because we had only 3 midfielders, wanted a fourth in case of injury, and he was the best we could get that wouldn't pointlessly break the bank.

Just spotted the typo in my post - it was meant to say I'd be surprised if Dyche was NOT aware etc.

The reason I didn't mention training is because I don't watch them and it's not my area of expertise, I just pay for a season ticket so I can only speak on what I witness.

I don't see the benefit in signing someone if your conceit is correct and we got him with the intention of NOT playing him. Why not promote someone from the u23's if it's simply a case of having a warm body? Same with Vydra and Gibson to that extent.

Cheers for the response though, good to not get my head ripped off for venturing back onto the board

[Papabendi]

A pass completion rate in the 60% range and heading downwards....that is pretty damning.