Investor

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
Steddyman
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:45 pm
Been Liked: 624 times
Has Liked: 491 times

Re: Investor

Post by Steddyman » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:28 pm

snapcrackleandpop wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:10 pm
I have no reason to disbelieve you/this but why would Dyche be so critical of the board if he thought new owners were coming in.
Perhaps it is an attempt by Dyche to put pressure on Mike Garlick to accept a takeover so have to get a bigger transfer kitty, and to get the fans on side for a new owner?

summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 827 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Investor

Post by summitclaret » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:29 pm

Then it's going to be a big worry imo.

KateR
Posts: 4139
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6157 times

Re: Investor

Post by KateR » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:31 pm

Has a Fans of BFC group every been considered in terms of fans cooping a large purchase of shares and offering up someone from the fans group to sit on the Board and allow more influence, while bringing some investment into the club?

bfcjg
Posts: 13160
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 5004 times
Has Liked: 6722 times

Re: Investor

Post by bfcjg » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:32 pm

I've only ever know our wonderful club owned by Clarets, local people who get us and the town, some disastrous periods but bizarrely I always felt like the club was part mine. If we are taken over by non Clarets be they a London consortium, an American,Russian or far East one a part of the club will die and a part of my love for all things BFC will die with it.
These 4 users liked this post: summitclaret Erasmus Dazzler NewClaret

Aclaret
Posts: 4113
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:16 pm
Been Liked: 1299 times
Has Liked: 1391 times

Re: Investor

Post by Aclaret » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:37 pm

I'm sure Mike Garlick & John Ban.have made many contacts with their business's over the years, especially in the Far East where John B. Is/was based.
This user liked this post: MRG

IanMcL
Posts: 30129
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8654 times

Re: Investor

Post by IanMcL » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:41 pm

The ptmrkblem with investors, is that they always come with the idea of development of the site and a shiny new plastic ground, on marshland, outside the centre.

That would destroy Burnley.

Erasmus
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 574 times
Has Liked: 44 times

Re: Investor

Post by Erasmus » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:47 pm

As mentioned above, the term investor indicates a person who puts up money in the hope of an increased return, but apart from the Glaziers does this ever happen? Venkys certainly haven't made a huge sum out of being investors in Blackburn Rovers. So the question that occurs is why would anyone wish to become a benefactor of Burnley Football Club if they are not a supporter? We need to look carefully at what the motives behind any takeover would be.
This user liked this post: KateR

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 pm

Erasmus wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:47 pm
As mentioned above, the term investor indicates a person who puts up money in the hope of an increased return, but apart from the Glaziers does this ever happen? Venkys certainly haven't made a huge sum out of being investors in Blackburn Rovers. So the question that occurs is why would anyone wish to become a benefactor of Burnley Football Club if they are not a supporter? We need to look carefully at what the motives behind any takeover would be.
FSG would get an enormous return on the money they have put into Liverpool - possibly 4 to 5 times as much - which is not bad over 10 years. Even Abramovich could expect to get up to a £1 billion more than he has put in out of Chelsea, Abu Dhabi would at least break even on City if sold.

The key as you hinted is that only Man United provide an annual income for investors via a dividend (something Bob Lord was keen on), for the rest they have to sell it on if they are to make money.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:01 pm

KateR wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:57 pm
Thank you Chester, not quite what I was think but understand the similarities. I was thinking much more of a purely investment fund, not somewhere that did the good work the trust is doing, more specifically aligned to buying shares and having some representative.

If shares are hard to come buy, which I can understand but more of a fund that has enough money to be a significant investor and buy out shares from existing plus adding where appropriate, which could involve teaming with the Trust in regard to pooling of shares. Just a crazy idea.

Similar to when the issued a bond for TM & Gawthorpe, they could issue a bond (or a block of shares) that an investment group of BFC fans invest in, allowing representation where the investment could be limited to to smaller investments than the price of a single share.
The Shares and representation is their number 1 aim - just that it has proven so difficult they have become much more active in other areas - personally I think their biggest problem from the start was the involvement of Peter Pike - he means well in this area, but I for one would steer well clear of anything he is heavily involved in.

KateR
Posts: 4139
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6157 times

Re: Investor

Post by KateR » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:21 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:01 pm
The Shares and representation is their number 1 aim - just that it has proven so difficult they have become much more active in other areas - personally I think their biggest problem from the start was the involvement of Peter Pike - he means well in this area, but I for one would steer well clear of anything he is heavily involved in.
I don't know Peter Pike so can't comment and even in what I was trying to portray I can see lot's of pitfalls in who would represent the investment fund as being a major issue. I have no idea how the trust has approached the BFC board or tried to buy shares but I was thinking more along the lines of meeting the board, defining objectives and how the interaction would work, it could be more funding leads to more influence in the representation before trying to raise funds.

Certainly the Trust does not come across as anything I would invest in from what I have read, obviously fans would want to know what/how the hard earned money would be used to the betterment of the club and can/how will they recover money should they want it.

aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Investor

Post by aggi » Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:47 pm

KateR wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:31 pm
Has a Fans of BFC group every been considered in terms of fans cooping a large purchase of shares and offering up someone from the fans group to sit on the Board and allow more influence, while bringing some investment into the club?
As Chester said, the Trust has been trying to do it for many years (something I disagreed with them about when they set up).

They ran into issues for a number of reasons.
1. The shares aren't publicly traded so you're left buying bits and pieces from estates, individuals who want to get rid of them, etc rather than decent sized chunks of them.
2. The shares aren't cheap. They used to sell at £200 a pop but something like ten times that is probably more realistic now. That's ~ £25m for 10% of the shares. I don't think we have a fan group that can get anywhere near that.

The only way fans will get a seat on the board is if the club offer it (although, arguably, most of the board are Burnley fans).
This user liked this post: KateR

fatboy47
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
Been Liked: 2316 times
Has Liked: 2692 times
Location: Isles of Scilly

Re: Investor

Post by fatboy47 » Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:57 pm

I've not the time to read a 5 pager, but looking at the last few posts I'd suggest that it's lunacy to consider buying a chunk of anything when it's at the very peak of its value and has only one realistic direction of future travel.

Its a cyclical business.....at some point in the next 20 years you'll be able to buy a chunk of the club for the price of Coyles watch... That's when your investment will help.
This user liked this post: KateR

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Investor

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:29 am

summitclaret wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:24 pm
If it's not from the USA then it more likely to end in tears for us all.
you mean like Swansea ?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:40 am

Vegas Claret wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:29 am
you mean like Swansea ?
or Hicks a Gillett at Liverpool nearly took the club to administration and tried flogging the club to a con artist, the pair at Palace have wanted out for some time too, then of course you have Randy Lerner at Villa (did well at first but ran out of cash, sold them to Chinese who nearly took them out of existence), Ellis Short at Sunderland (poured money in took them to the 1st Division - sold them to the current bunch who the fans hate) there are plenty that tried and ran away.
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret

rob63
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:15 pm
Been Liked: 186 times
Has Liked: 586 times

Re: Investor

Post by rob63 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:46 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:49 pm
So, are we saying Newcastle can't have Sean Dyche, so Saudi's are going to buy Sean and Burnley FC, instead? ;)

Or, maybe it's Qatar buying Burnley so that they can get their own back on BeOutQ pinching their BeIN games? ;)

UTC
The article hints at Middle Eastern rather than Gulf states Paul, so Saudi, Qatari etc are out which takes us back to the western side of the Middle East, so come on down, President Assad! ;)

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Investor

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:50 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:40 am
or Hicks a Gillett at Liverpool nearly took the club to administration and tried flogging the club to a con artist, the pair at Palace have wanted out for some time too, then of course you have Randy Lerner at Villa (did well at first but ran out of cash, sold them to Chinese who nearly took them out of existence), Ellis Short at Sunderland (poured money in took them to the 1st Division - sold them to the current bunch who the fans hate) there are plenty that tried and ran away.
exactly, it doesn't matter where the investment comes from in any walk of life, it's always going to be a risk - so it boils down to how much of a risk do the board want to take ? Do they stick or twist ?!

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:55 am

rob63 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:46 am
The article hints at Middle Eastern rather than Gulf states Paul, so Saudi, Qatari etc are out which takes us back to the western side of the Middle East, so come on down, President Assad! ;)
it also hints at not being a majority shareholding - there is a lot of stirring going on in the article too, with just as much not being said in counter to the theme as there is pushing the agenda - and it is very much an agenda from what I have been seeing from the Mail of late

IAN HERBERT: Wigan facing ruin, Bolton sinking fast, Bury bust and Burnley at a crossroads as Sean Dyche's request for squad investment falls upon deaf ears... How football has wilted in the county of the Red Rose
Wigan entered administration this week in another blow for Lancastrian football
Championship club won the FA Cup in 2013 but now find themselves in trouble
Success is sustained for as long as local owners are interested then rot sets in
Bolton have fallen from the Premier League to League Two in just a few years
Burnley face unsettling times with Sean Dyche asking the board for investment
By IAN HERBERT FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 17:24, 2 July 2020 | UPDATED: 22:45, 2 July 2020

The evidence of the old Premier League days is everywhere at Wigan Athletic, killing the place by a thousand cuts with reminders of how far you can fall in football and how fast.

Each time the players push through the green swing doors to their dressing room, they see the giant mural of their 2013 FA Cup triumph on the wall.

But there is a pattern of decline where the clubs within the old Lancashire county boundaries are concerned.

Success delivered by a local owner with a passion for the place – for Whelan and Wigan, read Jack Walker at Blackburn and Eddie Davies for Bolton – is hard to sustain when those individuals decide enough is enough.

The uncomfortable truth is that the former mill towns simply don't attract credible takeover candidates in the way that those in the Greater London conurbation do.

Blackburn wound up with Venky's, who saw fit to sack Sam Allardyce, dispense with the wise counsel of chief executive John Williams and… well, take your pick of the public embarrassments which followed. Paying out £7.5m on players who never kicked a ball probably topped the lot.

Bolton wound up with the reviled Ken Anderson. So your heart sank when, after Whelan was worn down having spent around £100m fighting Wigan's battles, the phrase 'unnamed Hong Kong group' started circulating.

Attendances were not even breaking 8,000 at the time. A mere 4,709 saw a giant-killing over Bournemouth in the Cup.

Worse has befallen others within the old Red Rose county boundaries. Blackpool's civil war. Basket case Oldham. Bury, now bust.

Burnley have sailed serenely on - sticking resolutely to Sean Dyche when relegated in 2015 and spending so abstemiously that a marginal profit in each transfer market has become an article of faith.

But they, too, now stand at a crossroads. Dyche, not unreasonably, feels that his eight years of accomplishment at the club entitles him to significant squad investment from the board this summer and views the act of standing still as heading backwards amid the relentlessly shifting dynamics of the Premier League.

Burnley, whose entire spend this season has been £17.4m, play Sheffield United, whose comparable outlay has been £62m, this weekend.

Make no mistake about the private indignation the fixture brings for Dyche, as he watches Sander Berge (£19.3m) and Oli McBernie (£17m), who've arrived at Bramall Lane in the last year, run out at Turf Moor.

There is no sense of what transfer funds will be available to him this summer and how he might plan for another campaign in which far more moneyed clubs than Burnley – Leeds and West Bromwich Albion - will see the ground shift again.

Swirling around in the background – and the reason why no commitments have been made – is the suggestion that Burnley will be sold to a Middle East buyer this summer and that how the future looks will be dependent on whoever that buyer might be.

'Middle East' does not equate to 'Gulf state' if rumours are to be believed. But 'Middle East' of any description is actually deeply unwelcome.

Security means the club remaining in current hands, or at the very least still majority-owned by those individuals – Mike Garlick, Barry Kilby, Clive Holt, John Banaszkiewicz and others – who know the club top to bottom.

The model in many respects are Crystal Palace, defeated by Dyche's side last weekend and now three places below them, whose chairman Steve Parish has settled on the manager, a relatively prosaic football method and found American investors, Josh Harris and David Blitzer, to help him develop the club in return for a large stake. The Palace core has not been lost.

Dyche's imprint on Burnley is now absolute, in the way that Shankly's was at Liverpool; Busby's and Ferguson's at Manchester United.

The walls of the club's Gawthorpe Hall training facility, which he had a major role in creating, are adorned with murals of his motivational messages which have driven Burnley on.

Dismantling all that would leave the club's world looking immeasurably poorer. It's why anything less than a huge personal and financial commitment to him looks like folly.

The backlash against the board were Dyche to leave would, incidentally, be loud and long from fans, who have previously supported the cautious fiscal approach.

Dyche's public expressions of frustration should give cause for that board seek him out, sit him down, rebuild a relationship, adhere to his plans and express contrition that it had actually come to this.

Time is of the essence. The football landscape of the old Lancashire demonstrates that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Investor

Post by dsr » Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:15 am

Ian Herbert's Daily Mail article wrote:
...

It's why anything less than a huge personal and financial commitment to him looks like folly.

The backlash against the board were Dyche to leave would, incidentally, be loud and long from fans, who have previously supported the cautious fiscal approach.

Dyche's public expressions of frustration should give cause for that board seek him out, sit him down, rebuild a relationship, adhere to his plans and express contrition that it had actually come to this.

Time is of the essence. The football landscape of the old Lancashire demonstrates that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.
Isn't that the point of the alleged investor? To put a "huge financial commitment" into the club? We had £42m in the bank as at June 2019 - can't imagine it's much more now. We can't make a huge financial commitment out of that, and it would be folly to go into debt with no hope of ever repaying it.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:52 am

dsr wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:15 am
Isn't that the point of the alleged investor? To put a "huge financial commitment" into the club? We had £42m in the bank as at June 2019 - can't imagine it's much more now. We can't make a huge financial commitment out of that, and it would be folly to go into debt with no hope of ever repaying it.
I cannot imagine we have very much cash in had at this moment in time - at the end of the season it could be as low as £20m - that means it may have dropped by £20m in the year when in February I was expecting it to be above £50m by now

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Investor

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:20 am

"Dyche, not unreasonably, feels that his eight years of accomplishment at the club entitles him to significant squad investment from the board this summer and views the act of standing still as heading backwards amid the relentlessly shifting dynamics of the Premier League."

nail on head

as is this

"The model in many respects are Crystal Palace, defeated by Dyche's side last weekend and now three places below them, whose chairman Steve Parish has settled on the manager, a relatively prosaic football method and found American investors, Josh Harris and David Blitzer, to help him develop the club in return for a large stake. The Palace core has not been lost."

and this

"Time is of the essence. The football landscape of the old Lancashire demonstrates that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."

all utterly spot on

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:36 am

Must say Vegas that I cannot agree

Point 1 - Dyche has agreed on all the major spend at the club and the reserves held to fund the academy going forward

Point 2 - The American Investors at Palace have found the club to be a bit of a black hole as far as their money is concerned, there looks to be no way in which their loans can be repaid, even when the new stand is complete, they have wanted out for at least 2 years (as has Parish) complicated by the fact they want all their money back.

Point 3 - the key to any strategy is once you set course in belief you are doing the right thing is to stick with it, Personnel and tactics may change the strategy must not, if it does the whole fabric of the club is changed. Analysis will show you that in every case quoted that is what happened to those clubs and was the cause of their downfall.
This user liked this post: summitclaret

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Investor

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:44 am

I've answered in between :D
Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:36 am
Must say Vegas that I cannot agree

Point 1 - Dyche has agreed on all the major spend at the club and the reserves held to fund the academy going forward

"the act of standing still as heading backwards amid the relentlessly shifting dynamics of the Premier League."" - absolutely undeniable


Point 2 - The American Investors at Palace have found the club to be a bit of a black hole as far as their money is concerned, there looks to be no way in which their loans can be repaid, even when the new stand is complete, they have wanted out for at least 2 years (as has Parish) complicated by the fact they want all their money back.

"The Palace core has not been lost." - absolutely undeniable


Point 3 - the key to any strategy is once you set course in belief you are doing the right thing is to stick with it, Personnel and tactics may change the strategy must not, if it does the whole fabric of the club is changed. Analysis will show you that in every case quoted that is what happened to those clubs and was the cause of their downfall.
see above

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Investor

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:48 am

I would ask you CP, was signing Andre Gray for 7-10 million or whatever it was at the time a financial gamble ? I would suggest so. Sometimes you have to throw the dice with as much knowledge as possible.

If we continue our level of investment in the squad, at some point, Dyche will leave and we will go down - we will then be told, we've no money, have to sell all our players and more than likely tumble through the leagues

or

get some outside help and either prosper or see above.

Now, I know it's not as black and white as that, I've been involved in business long enough, but I'm not Long Time Lurker and I'm not going to write an essay on it ;)

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 603 times
Has Liked: 420 times

Re: Investor

Post by Long Time Lurker » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:49 am

Gordaleman wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:00 pm
Don't you listen to Sean? He says players like that are no longer available.
I don't believe this for one moment. The football world is full of quality players at very reasonable prices. Every transfer window throws up its fair share of bargains. The difference between finding these players and paying through the nose is quality scouting and recruitment.

Try telling Brentford that players are no longer available at reasonable prices. Despite having lesser resources than us they consistently manage to pay off their bills and maintain a very good performance level through their recruitment, despite losing their better players year on year.

Or look at some of these players from recent years.

Summer 2017

Enis Bardhi - 1.50m / Nico Schulz - 3.00m / Timothy Castagne - 6.00m / Serge Gnabry - 7.00m

Winter 2017

Nicolas Taglafico - 3.50m

Summer 2018

Mattéo Guendouzi - 7.00m / Fabián Balbuena - 3.50m / John McGinn - 3.00m / Emiliano Buendia - 1.50m / Said Benrahma - 1.50m / Josh Da Silva - Free Transfer

Winter 2018 - When we signed Peter Crouch

Karlan Grant - 1.50m / Josh Maja - 1.50m / Erling Haaland - 7.00m

Summer 2019 - When we signed Danny Drinkwater

Tonny Vilhena - 8.00m / Blas - 7.00m / Bryan Mbeumo - 6.00m / Alexander Isak - 6.00m

Winter 2019

Alexis Saelemaekers - 6.00m / Dion Cools - 1.00m

Summer 2020

Jeff Hendrick - Free Transfer

If you tick a few boxes in WYSCOUT to identify the best players in a given position, according to the stats they are producing, you will find some good players quite easily. However, so will every other team that is ticking the same boxes. That increases competition for those players, which pushes up their prices. Even if that doesn't occur the best players will attract the highest transfer fees. That is how it works, high visibility equals high prices and low visibility equals low prices.

If a club has a recruitment team that is only capable of identifying the obvious players then it stands to reason that such a club will end up paying hefty transfer fees. The difference between paying big transfer fees and finding bargains is a lot of hard work. It involves digging deep into the stats instead of surface skimming, watching players and making sound value judgements. If a recruitment team is unable to identify any bargains and hidden gems in the current market it isn't because they no longer exist, it is because they are doing a poor job finding them.

Stretching the budget guarantees nothing and it won't allow us to " get ahead of the curve ". Even if we snap the budget we won't get near to what a lot of the other clubs are prepared to spend. In the last two season Villa and Fulham poured more money into their recruitment than we can ever hope to match. It has brought them little success.

The difference maker isn't how much a club spends it is how they spend it. Quality recruitment will yield quality results and value for money, but poor recruitment can easily drain a club of all its cash reserves and saddle it with sub standard players on long term contracts and high wages. Handing the purse strings to a head of recruitment with a consistently poor record, in terms of squandering vast sums of money on unsuitable players, is far more likely to break a club than build it up and ensure its ongoing financial prosperity.

If your recruitment team tells you that they need more time to deliver positive results, or they tell you that positive results depend on tripling the size of the department or they need you to stretch the budget to fund the buying of next ( financial ) level players it might be because some or all of those things are genuinely needed. However, it is more likely to be a consequence of a recruitment team that is better suited to generating excuses instead of results.

Sean mentioned the cost of individual players, but I'm hoping the real thrust of his appeal was more concerned with the total amount that we may be required to spend in the next window, given that our poor recruitment strategy has put us in a position where we need to bring in quite a few players. I think increasing our expenditure level is probably on the cards, but the 9m year on year average is a misleading figure. In 2016/17 we had a net spend of roughly 40m and in the 18/19 season we hit a figure just over 20m. I would hazard to say that we have been living off all the good recruitment work we did in 2016/17 and 2017/18 for the last two seasons.

Had Rigg not wasted a huge amount of time and effort targetted unrealistic players last Summer we would have no doubt spent more than 10m ( I added together the initial 5m for Jay last year and the outstanding 5m to be paid this year ).

Unfortunately, with Captain Catastrophe currently in charge of our recruitment plan I am very worried. Rigg managed to waste an obscene amount of money at Man City, QPR and Fulham. If he pisses all our hard earned dry powder money up the wall the damage could set us back years.

We don't need an investor who will buy in for a reasonably cheap price and set about asset stripping us. Looking at how we are currently set up that is the most likely outcome we would experience, because we are ripe for it. Instead of all this Villa and Wolves talk I would be leaning towards Man Utd and the Glazers on a smaller financial scale.

What we need is a recruitment team that can earn us money by finding quality talent at reasonable prices.

I don't think the worst performing Technical Director in football over the the last 10 years, a foreign scout ( who seems more suited to a Head Of Academy in waiting position ), a USA and Latin America scout ( who seems more suited to a CEO in waiting position ), a fresh to club football data analyst and two guys we poached from Middlesbrough fit the bill.

The last two tick the qualification boxes, and they can't be held accountable for poor leadership, but the recruitment in support of the promotion or bust ethos at Middlesbrough was frightening. During the past couple of seasons they bought some very average players for high prices ( mostly on credit which is yet to be paid off ) and subsequently sold quite a few of them at a loss. If it wasn't for some free transfers ( that they sold on at a profit ), the money they got from us for the home grown Gibson and the sale of Traore their player trading account would be a horror show.
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 603 times
Has Liked: 420 times

Re: Investor

Post by Long Time Lurker » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:50 am

Vegas Claret wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:48 am
but I'm not Long Time Lurker and I'm not going to write an essay on it ;)
You know me too well :)
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Investor

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:55 am

Long Time Lurker wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:50 am
You know me too well :)
you simply couldn't have timed that any better sir :D

BenWickes
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:27 pm
Been Liked: 645 times
Has Liked: 470 times

Re: Investor

Post by BenWickes » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:08 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:40 am
or Hicks a Gillett at Liverpool nearly took the club to administration and tried flogging the club to a con artist,
I'd known about Liverpool weeks before it became public knowledge. Liverpool fans were in denial until that very night and didn't believe me until they literally had 24 hours to save the club. I stayed up 'til the wee hours with a Liverpool fan literally crying at the prospect of them going into administration. It just goes to show that investment/takeovers could easily go badly wrong at any club. If investment/takeover is imminent, we'd better be double and triple checking the viability of it and their long term plans.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Investor

Post by Grumps » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:53 am

The mail have been quite accurate with burnley stories over the years, there might just be something rumbling in the background. I remember when the man City takeover was announced out of the blue, I think those days are gone with all the in depth investigations the Premier league make on new investors :lol: :lol:

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Investor

Post by TVC15 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:20 am

Long Time Lurker wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:49 am
but the recruitment in support of the promotion or bust ethos at Middlesbrough was frightening. During the past couple of seasons they bought some very average players for high prices ( mostly on credit which is yet to be paid off ) and subsequently sold quite a few of them at a loss. If it wasn't for some free transfers ( that they sold on at a profit ), the money they got from us for the home grown Gibson and the sale of Traore their player trading account would be a horror show.
So you are saying if it wasn’t for the fact that they managed to sell some of their players at significant profits their player trading would be a horror show ?

Ok get it.

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 603 times
Has Liked: 420 times

Re: Investor

Post by Long Time Lurker » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:01 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:20 am
So you are saying if it wasn’t for the fact that they managed to sell some of their players at significant profits their player trading would be a horror show ?

Ok get it.
Sorry, I don't think you do.

Middlesbrough currently have outstanding debts of about 105m, along with player trading debtors of 5m and creditors of 30m ( which are due in 2020 ). That means they will have to find 25m in the coming months.

If you sign a player on a free transfer and subsequently sell them for a cash sum that will show up as a profit on your player trading account ( however, things are actually very different when you factor in signing fees and agent fees ).

In respect to free transfers, they sold Gaston Ramirez for 5.5m and Bernado Espinosa for 4.0m

Home grown players also count as a blanket profit on player trading accounts, because they cost the club nothing. So they registered a profit of 15m on Gibson and 5m on Reach back in 2016.

Over the course of the last couple of seasons they sold off most of their better players to fund the cost of new additions and keep the ship afloat. What is surprising is their rapid turnover rate for players, with few of their new signings lasting more than a year or two. The majority of their recent player acquisitions have subsequently left at either a loss or break even figure at best. That doesn't suggest quality long term planning or shrewd purchases.

All of this coincided with a radical change to their recruitment ethos.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/foo ... od-9649143

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/foo ... nd-9657186

In terms of their overall recruitment strategy, Middlesbrough decided to bet the farm on promotion back to the EPL.

They brought in a lot of players to get that job done, which swallowed up all of their parachute payments and then some. In all fairness they did come close to pulling it off, notching up a play off place and almost repeating that in 2019. This season they are flirting with relegation.

So, on the back of their recent recruitment, Middlesbrough have gone from being an EPL team to Championship relegation candidates in the space of three years. They spent all of their parachute money on transfer fees ( along with signing on fees and the wages to support them ). On top of all that they chose to do a lot of their business on credit, which needs to be repaid this year.

Over the last couple of windows they sold off most of their good players to make ends meet and they have few players left that are worth significant amounts. They also have a number of players who will probably leave for nothing in the next window, which might be better for Middlesbrough given they wages they are probably on.

That probably explains why they were demanding the ridiculous price of 30m for Dael Fry in the last window ( an okay Championship player, who hasn't had a great season and is arguably worth 6 -8 m tops ). We could do far better that money shopping elsewhere, so I hope we don't go back in for him or consider a Gibson / Fry swap. He has looked uncomfortable on the left of defence this season.

Take out the 25m ( discounting Reach ) that they earned from selling on those free transfer players, along with their home grown talent, and their financial picture would be grim. Throw in a relegation and they would be drowning, with no high value player assets left on their books to fund the buying of air.

The net result of the recent transfer dealings by Middlesbrough is probably why Adrian Bevington, the previous head of their recruitment, left the club in December.

https://trainingground.guru/articles/be ... -18-months

Recruiting people from the comfortable cloister of the FA, to fill important front line positions in the trenches where positive results actually matter, rarely seems to work ( if ever ). The best a club can hope for is a predictable interlude of " golden thread " jargon and poor performance.

As an interesting aside, here is another one. Dan Ashworth, describing the role of a Technical Director and extolling his own virtues and vision over the importance of giving a proven manager the greater say in recruitment. This was filmed shortly after he gave Chris Houghton his marching orders.

https://trainingground.guru/articles/da ... philosophy

Or maybe this will shed some light on matter. The resolute Tony Pulis commenting on the disastrous Middlesbrough transfer window of 2017 and his thoughts on the impact of Technical Directors.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/foo ... s-17862203

“The ‘sporting directors’, the ‘directors of football’, the people who bring these players in... if the signings turn out to be not good enough it is the manager who gets the sack. The sporting director still stays in place which I find absolutely astounding.

“You get some football clubs where there are people who have seen off four or five different managers and are still there.

“If you are going to give someone that responsibility then that person has to take responsibility.

“If they are spending money and bringing people in who are not performing then they should know that their job is at risk too.”

So we have a rapid recycling of players that has destabalised their team, millions wasted, looming debts, performance on the pitch that has put them in a relegation battle and most of their recruitment team leaving for pastures new. All told, I would call that a horror show of a transfer strategy.

BenWickes
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:27 pm
Been Liked: 645 times
Has Liked: 470 times

Re: Investor

Post by BenWickes » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:16 pm

Jeez! Any chance of giving us an abridged version of your thoughts? :? :lol:
This user liked this post: FactualFrank

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Investor

Post by TVC15 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:19 pm

LTL
Not even reading that....I am pretty sure I’ve forgotten more about football finances than you will ever know or understand.

aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Investor

Post by aggi » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:59 pm

Long Time Lurker wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:01 pm
Sorry, I don't think you do.

Middlesbrough currently have outstanding debts of about 105m, along with player trading debtors of 5m and creditors of 30m ( which are due in 2020 ). That means they will have to find 25m in the coming months.

If you sign a player on a free transfer and subsequently sell them for a cash sum that will show up as a profit on your player trading account ( however, things are actually very different when you factor in signing fees and agent fees ).

...
I don't fully agree but I see where you're coming from (I'm not sure where my knowledge stands compared to what TVC15 has forgotten). This bit isn't correct though: signing on fees and agent fees get capitalised as a transfer fee would.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Investor

Post by TVC15 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:22 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:59 pm
I don't fully agree but I see where you're coming from (I'm not sure where my knowledge stands compared to what TVC15 has forgotten). This bit isn't correct though: signing on fees and agent fees get capitalised as a transfer fee would.
It was my job for a few years !!
The likes of Man City, Celtic, Liverpool, Chelsea and many others were my customers.

You are correct btw - these costs are amortised...usually over a 3 or 4 year period.

Oh and you may well know more than me - but I have still forgotten more than LTL !!

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 603 times
Has Liked: 420 times

Re: Investor

Post by Long Time Lurker » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:22 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:59 pm
I don't fully agree but I see where you're coming from (I'm not sure where my knowledge stands compared to what TVC15 has forgotten). This bit isn't correct though: signing on fees and agent fees get capitalised as a transfer fee would.
Nods, in the section you highlighted I was drawing attention to the fact that free transfers are never completely free.

When it comes to accounting for those things they have to be included in the balance sheet, but they can be referenced in a couple of ways. The same is true for player amortisation which can be represented in different ways to spread the reduction so that the impact falls in beneficial time frames - like meeting FFP requirements.

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 603 times
Has Liked: 420 times

Re: Investor

Post by Long Time Lurker » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:13 pm

BenWickes wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:16 pm
Jeez! Any chance of giving us an abridged version of your thoughts? :? :lol:
Just that I'm a bit worried.

The next window will be very important. If we spend all of our hoarded financial resources, and we end up wasting it on sub standard players ( with long contracts and high wages that will be a drain on the club ), our ability to fend off any potential investors may decrease. Or we might have to sell players we would rather keep to maintain our " ability to say no ".

At the moment we have quite a bit of control over our own destiny. Garlick and Dyche are obviously proud of what they have built here and they obviously have a desire to protect what they have achieved, above and beyond a regular duty of care.

If we had a quality recruitment department in place, with a proven performance track record, then I would be a lot more confortable. However, we have restructured our recruitment philosophy over the last 18 months. I think we needed to do that, but setting out to do something that could yield beneficial results and getting the right people in place to deliver those results can be two different things.

Having a Technical Director in place who wasted an obscene amount of money at Man City, devastated QPR in the short space of six months, financially ravaged Fulham and made a mess of our last Summer window doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence.

Add in a revamped recruitment department, with a leaning towards statistics, that includes an Academy manager as our full time European scout, a marketing manager from Umbro as head scout for North and Latin America, a notable part of the Middlesbrough analytical team and my optimism takes another knock.

Top that off with what might be the most volatile and unpreditable transfer window any of us have seen, sprinkle in the contract fiasco and our manager feeling " out of the loop " in terms of our recruitment and I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic to say that I'm a bit worried.

Obviously, my fingers are firmly crossed ( hoping for the best ), we might well be on the verge of our best every transfer window and on the cusp of a brave new world filled with future success. It could happen, but then again it might not.

I would be far more relaxed if our recruitment team / strategy had already delivered the outstanding performance levels that can be attributed to the people who have been with us a long time - like our Chairman, Manager, Players, Playing staff and everyone else at the club.

People can label me a drama queen, put forward counter opinions, question the merit of discussing things until after the chips have fallen or choose to view the world through rose tinted glasses and happily clap along. I'm okay with all of those things, but part of being a member of a forum like this is generating discussion about things that could have a big impact on the club going forwards.

My apologies for not making this reply shorter, I tried, but just typing I'M WORRIED doesn't convey much.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Investor

Post by TVC15 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:24 pm

Long Time Lurker wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:22 pm
Nods, in the section you highlighted I was drawing attention to the fact that free transfers are never completely free.

When it comes to accounting for those things they have to be included in the balance sheet, but they can be referenced in a couple of ways. The same is true for player amortisation which can be represented in different ways to spread the reduction so that the impact falls in beneficial time frames - like meeting FFP requirements.
It’s got nothing to do with FFP - and there are accounting rules and principles around amortisation and timeframes.

The rest of your post makes no sense either - amortisation can’t be referenced in different ways and the meaning of amortisation is to gradually write off the cost of an asset - which is all you are describing. It’s an extremely common and normal accounting practice for any business purchasing assets....it’s not unique to football.

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Investor

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:51 pm

Takeover talk these days is a lot more exciting than the Shackleton/Ingleby days with a meeting in the Sparrow Hawk!

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Investor

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:33 am

Ultimately, cash is king, and while the club have quite a bit, it would go very quickly if we starting spending it on two or three high profile players.

I’ve been a huge advocate of spending more on fans infrastructure, which currently is crumbling around our ears in some places, but while those things set us up for the future, a few Gibsons (apologies to him for using him as an example) can be something with zero long term payback. Even I would admit though that now isn’t the time for rebuilding infrastructure.

We haven’t seen the worst of this pandemic yet either. The economic impact and medical stigma could both drive fans away long term, and Sky could lose revenue too, affecting the next TV deal.

All reasons to be careful. Someone that hopefully Sean, with his rather sheepish demeanour in the interviews today, has begun to realise.

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 603 times
Has Liked: 420 times

Re: Investor

Post by Long Time Lurker » Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:58 am

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:24 pm
It’s got nothing to do with FFP - and there are accounting rules and principles around amortisation and timeframes.

The rest of your post makes no sense either - amortisation can’t be referenced in different ways and the meaning of amortisation is to gradually write off the cost of an asset - which is all you are describing. It’s an extremely common and normal accounting practice for any business purchasing assets....it’s not unique to football.
Player registrations aren't like normal assets, that is why they are labelled as intangible assets on a clubs balance sheet.

An initial carrying value is attributed to a player registration when it is bought. That value is equal to the purchase price of the player and it is evenly distributed across the length of the contract and labelled as amortisation. However, it isn't set in stone.

The primary problem with player registrations is that their ongoing value can be subjective. While the purchase price of a player gives a solid accounting base to work from, it isn't the be all and end all of the matter.

Every year the carrying value of a player registration is assessed for " impairment " which can affect all the amortisation figures. So a club could attach an impairment value to a players registrations at an early point in the players time with a club, associating the decrease in the value of the asset with an earlier time than the initial purchase price previously dictated.

Because FFP is assessed over a three year period, it provides a club with the potential for creative accounting when it comes to player registrations. So a club could choose to try and use impairment to front load a financial hit before a relegation to offset a future loss. Doing that would reduce the registered accounting loss for the period when money gets tighter and the restrictions of FFP could be expected to bite more deeply.

Only the direct costs of purchasing a player can be capitalised. When a player is acquired through a free transfer it is difficult to ascertain the intangible asset value of that player, without a defined purchase price. As a consequence they are initially listed as a general cost within the initial period until an evaluation can be made that will permit their listing as an intangible asset.

In respect to signing on fees, these are usually recorded as employee benefit expenses ( the same can be true for some bonuses ). That means they aren't part of the direct puchase price that is used to determine amortisation. So a club that is giving out juicy signing on fees to get signings over the line wouldn't see them included in the player trading element of their balance sheet.

If a player is bought with borrowed finance, like Middlesbrough did, all the interest costs of that finance aren't included in the amortisation formulae either, even though they are associated with the purchasing of a players registration.

When we consider home grown players the youth development costs can't be capitalised. So the net profit from selling individual home grown players doesn't take that into account.

So while I understand and appreciate the point you are making, and I am well aware of the stringent rules that apply to all player registrations, that doesn't mean football clubs don't have any scope to represent their financial affairs in an advantageous manner.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19173
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Investor

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:07 am

There has been another approach to amortisation, exercised by that most financially creative organisation - Derby County - they have been formally charged by the EFL for it (back in January) and we are still awaiting the hearing

found here - https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/busines ... play-rules

the most pertinent part being

In last week’s statement, the club revealed it had also been charged over its player amortisation policy.

Under normal accounting standards for intangible assets, transfer fees are amortised on a straight-line basis over the period of the players’ contracts.

This accounting policy was previously identical to other clubs, but in 2015 Derby decided to assign residual values (the expected value) for players at the end of their contracts. It’s a manoeuvre that allowed Derby to cut annual player amortisation costs, in so doing reducing its losses.

Derby denied any wrongdoing, saying the player amortisation policy “was again reported transparently to the EFL executive as part of the club’s submissions and these were again approved and signed off in writing”.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire, who keeps close tabs on English football on his Price of Football website and podcast, says the charges in respect of the Pride Park sale and the amortisation policy represent a “test case” for the league.

BenWickes
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:27 pm
Been Liked: 645 times
Has Liked: 470 times

Re: Investor

Post by BenWickes » Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:01 am

Long Time Lurker wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:13 pm


My apologies for not making this reply shorter, I tried, but just typing I'M WORRIED doesn't convey much.
I do understand your concern but Dyche has this uncanny ability to fashion a silk purse out of a sows ear. Possibly this season coming more than ever he needs all his skills but I have faith.

summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 827 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Investor

Post by summitclaret » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:34 am


TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Investor

Post by TVC15 » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:40 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:07 am
There has been another approach to amortisation, exercised by that most financially creative organisation - Derby County - they have been formally charged by the EFL for it (back in January) and we are still awaiting the hearing

found here - https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/busines ... play-rules

the most pertinent part being

In last week’s statement, the club revealed it had also been charged over its player amortisation policy.

Under normal accounting standards for intangible assets, transfer fees are amortised on a straight-line basis over the period of the players’ contracts.

This accounting policy was previously identical to other clubs, but in 2015 Derby decided to assign residual values (the expected value) for players at the end of their contracts. It’s a manoeuvre that allowed Derby to cut annual player amortisation costs, in so doing reducing its losses.

Derby denied any wrongdoing, saying the player amortisation policy “was again reported transparently to the EFL executive as part of the club’s submissions and these were again approved and signed off in writing”.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire, who keeps close tabs on English football on his Price of Football website and podcast, says the charges in respect of the Pride Park sale and the amortisation policy represent a “test case” for the league.
Interesting CP - i doubt this kind of thing has happened for a few years as you can’t really get away with as much as football clubs used to in their accounts / finances back in the day.
When it came to football clubs accounts back in the 1990s and prior to this it really was like the Wild West. Some of the accounting practices and what football clubs tried and often got away with was outrageous.
I could not put the detail on here as it would probably breach some kind of confidentiality agreement but suffice to say there were a lot more unscrupulous football directors than there were honest ones - when you factor this in with accountancy firms who were equally unscrupulous with many of them with partners sat on the clubs boards it was no surprise that it was not easy for the Banks to fully understand what they were getting into when lending what at the time was huge amounts to clubs (but now feels like pennies in comparison to the debts to their owners).

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Investor

Post by dsr » Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:18 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:07 am
There has been another approach to amortisation, exercised by that most financially creative organisation - Derby County - they have been formally charged by the EFL for it (back in January) and we are still awaiting the hearing

found here - https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/busines ... play-rules

the most pertinent part being

In last week’s statement, the club revealed it had also been charged over its player amortisation policy.

Under normal accounting standards for intangible assets, transfer fees are amortised on a straight-line basis over the period of the players’ contracts.

This accounting policy was previously identical to other clubs, but in 2015 Derby decided to assign residual values (the expected value) for players at the end of their contracts. It’s a manoeuvre that allowed Derby to cut annual player amortisation costs, in so doing reducing its losses.

Derby denied any wrongdoing, saying the player amortisation policy “was again reported transparently to the EFL executive as part of the club’s submissions and these were again approved and signed off in writing”.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire, who keeps close tabs on English football on his Price of Football website and podcast, says the charges in respect of the Pride Park sale and the amortisation policy represent a “test case” for the league.
Considering that the residual value of a player at the end of his contract (unless he is still no more than 23 years old) is £nil, it's no wonder they are in trouble. Their auditor might be up there with them as well!

ewanrob
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 am
Been Liked: 361 times
Has Liked: 98 times

Re: Investor

Post by ewanrob » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:02 pm

Bump

If our hierarchy dont invest in our manager, they need ousting....my God what a performance UTC

levraiclaret
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
Been Liked: 428 times
Has Liked: 1460 times
Location: Leicestershire
Contact:

Re: Investor

Post by levraiclaret » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:09 pm

ewanrob wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:02 pm
Bump

If our hierarchy dont invest in our manager, they need ousting....my God what a performance UTC
Who are the hierarchy? What level of funds are available to them? Who will oust them and by what mechanism?
Great result again though.

ewanrob
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 am
Been Liked: 361 times
Has Liked: 98 times

Re: Investor

Post by ewanrob » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:17 pm

People at the top...just listen to Joe Cole post match interview on finances...bang on !

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3139 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Investor

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:20 pm

Would a huge transfer kitty really improve us? Given that the so called really good players wouldn't play for us anyway

levraiclaret
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
Been Liked: 428 times
Has Liked: 1460 times
Location: Leicestershire
Contact:

Re: Investor

Post by levraiclaret » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:22 pm

ewanrob wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:17 pm
People at the top...just listen to Joe Cole post match interview on finances...bang on !
Yeh I bet Joe Cole is a real whizz on football finances. What his solution? Spend money you don't have?

Post Reply