Investor

[Vegas Claret]

Throwing money (That we don't have.) at the problem, just doesn't work. How many clubs have to go bust for you to see that?

it's why they are looking for investment I would imagine

[ClaretTony]

Then we ultimately lose him, as simple as that....and with all due respect that is quite shocking.

So what do you propose? Are you suggesting we go into debt?

[Gordaleman]

it's why they are looking for investment I would imagine

Yes, hopefully they are, but they want an investor that doesn't want overall control. Someone with money who has the club's interests at heart, like the current board members. Give over 50% of the club to one investor and we could quickly be in trouble if that investor decided to pull out.

[summitclaret]

Yes, hopefully they are, but they want an investor that doesn't want overall control. Someone with money who has the club's interests at heart, like the current board members. Give over 50% of the club to one investor and we could quickly be in trouble if that investor decided to pull out.

Well that would be perfect, but realistically is there any such person out there? How rich is Brendan these days?

[Vegas Claret]

Yes, hopefully they are, but they want an investor that doesn't want overall control. Someone with money who has the club's interests at heart, like the current board members. Give over 50% of the club to one investor and we could quickly be in trouble if that investor decided to pull out.

I don't know what type of investor or potential sale they are looking at, but I'm sure they will do what is best for the football club. As frustrating as it can be that we don't have the funds to compete at a better level in the transfer market, I don't think anyone can genuinely point the finger at the board for not having the best interests of the club at heart.

[Gordaleman]

Well that would be perfect, but realistically is there any such person out there? How rich is Brendan these days?

There are already several like that on the board, (That's why we're so well run.) so I'm sure that eventually, we'll find another one. There's no great rush with the team doing as well as they are.

[Gordaleman]

I don't know what type of investor or potential sale they are looking at, but I'm sure they will do what is best for the football club. As frustrating as it can be that we don't have the funds to compete at a better level in the transfer market, I don't think anyone can genuinely point the finger at the board for not having the best interests of the club at heart.

Precisely my point. See my response to summitclaret.

[Vegas Claret]

Precisely my point. See my response to summitclaret.

the one caveat I would say is that "doing what is best for the football club" HAS to include keeping Dyche. So they will have to work something out

[Gordaleman]

the one caveat I would say is that "doing what is best for the football club" HAS to include keeping Dyche. So they will have to work something out

I'm sure that they already have. It's a storm in a teacup whipped up by the media.

Sean's going nowhere in a hurry.

[Steddyman]

There are already several like that on the board, (That's why we're so well run.) so I'm sure that eventually, we'll find another one. There's no great rush with the team doing as well as they are.

Unfortunately, that is just how Mike will see it. He has a bench full of kids, but that's fine, we are still in the league so job done.

[Gordaleman]

Unfortunately, that is just how Mike will see it. He has a bench full of kids, but that's fine, we are still in the league so job done.

Exactly. What's the problem then?

Oh, and why did we have a bench full of kids? A one off contract situation and the fact that our loan players couldn't play for us until 1st July.

We also had an unusually high amount of injuries

All situations now resolved.

[ewanrob]

So what do you propose? Are you suggesting we go into debt?

Theres debt and theres debt, as you well know....

[Gordaleman]

Theres debt and theres debt, as you well know....

Well if you can find a debt that doesn't have to be paid back, please tell Mr Garlick.

[Vegas Claret]

Exactly. What's the problem then?

Oh, and why did we have a bench full of kids? A one off contract situation and the fact that our loan players couldn't play for us until 1st July.

We also had an unusually high amount of injuries

All situations now resolved.

Can I call on you to be the voice of reason when my mrs loses her **** ?!

[Gordaleman]

Can I call on you to be the voice of reason when my mrs loses her **** ?!

Is she good looking? Maybe.

[ewanrob]

Well if you can find a debt that doesn't have to be paid back, please tell Mr Garlick.

When your other half suggested buying a house over 25 year, I assume you replied "jog on, how do we pay it back"

[Vegas Claret]

Is she good looking? Maybe.

[TVC15]

When your other half suggested buying a house over 25 year, I assume you replied "jog on, how do we pay it back"

Which bank do you think is lending to football clubs ?

[Gordaleman]

When your other half suggested buying a house over 25 year, I assume you replied "jog on, how do we pay it back"

So far as I'm aware, a mortgage has to be paid back?

By the way, my last twenty year mortgage was paid back in five to avoid having a debt hanging round my ears. Now I earn interest, not pay it. I know which I prefer.

[ewanrob]

Eh

[ewanrob]

I'm staggered at people responses, I'm saying if people didnt take on debt they wouldn't get anywhere in life...its what makes the world go around.

Listen, if we dont spend...then decline will come at a rate of knots that you wouldn't believe...I'm done.

[Rileybobs]

I'm staggered at people responses, I'm saying if people didnt take on debt they wouldn't get anywhere in life...its what makes the world go around.

Listen, if we dont spend...then decline will come at a rate of knots that you wouldn't believe...I'm done.

Likening a football club taking on debt to a person taking out a mortgage is a poor example though.

When people buy a house they make sure that they can afford the repayments and insure themselves against their financial situation changing. The value of their house is limited by what they can afford to pay back. The value of the house may increase or it may plummet, but in either case the house will still be standing.

For a football club to take on a debt they also have to be able to afford to repay it. The problem here is that the income of a football club like Burnley is that our current income levels are wholly reliant on us maintaining our Premier League status. Our assets, the players, are depreciating and cost a hell of a lot to run.

So we could get ourselves into debt and maybe finish a place or two higher in the league for a relatively minuscule reward. Or we could continue as we are by improving pretty much season on season, whilst keeping a little bit of cash set aside to help soften the inevitable blow of relegation whilst giving us the best chance of keeping our better players and bouncing back up, rather than sliding down the league or worse. Which is the most sensible option?

[Vegas Claret]

however we look at it, there is only one expert and that is Dyche - if he says we need to spend a little more to improve the team to retain the competitivness then we should look to help him do that, if the only way is via investment then.....

[Rileybobs]

however we look at it, there is only one expert and that is Dyche - if he says we need to spend a little more to improve the team to retain the competitivness then we should look to help him do that, if the only way is via investment then.....

Dyche isn’t the business expert though is he. And I think it’s clear that Dyche has his own interests, as well as the clubs at heart. So I’m happy to trust the board with financial and business related matters and leave Dyche to do what he does so well - which is getting the very best out of the players given to him.

[Gordaleman]

however we look at it, there is only one expert and that is Dyche - if he says we need to spend a little more to improve the team to retain the competitivness then we should look to help him do that, if the only way is via investment then.....

Dyche is a footballer and Garlick is a businessman. I know who I trust most to keep the club safe.

If we threw money at the situation for the sake of a couple of places in the league and it went wrong, Sean could walk away unharmed. The club can't.

[TVC15]

I'm staggered at people responses, I'm saying if people didnt take on debt they wouldn't get anywhere in life...its what makes the world go around.

Listen, if we dont spend...then decline will come at a rate of knots that you wouldn't believe...I'm done.

But which banks in the UK do you know who lend to any football club ?
There is a reason they pretty much pulled out of this sector 10 years ago.

Do you know of any other sector that has a higher percentage of businesses going into administration than football ?

[Vegas Claret]

Dyche isn’t the business expert though is he. And I think it’s clear that Dyche has his own interests, as well as the clubs at heart. So I’m happy to trust the board with financial and business related matters and leave Dyche to do what he does so well - which is getting the very best out of the players given to him.

fully understand all that, but if I play devils advocate (not the one on here!) and Dyche says to Garlick, unless we sign a new right back and winger that is going to cost at least 20 million I pretty much gaurentee we will go down if we get injuries - then what does Garlick do ? Does he gamble the "stretch" that Dyche talks about or does he just accept we go down with every chance we may never be back and have it so good ? Note: There is a difference between Dyche asking them to stretch the budget from 15 to 20 million and not 15 to 50 million which would be wholey unrealsitic.

[boatshed bill]

I've read through most of this now (and it is a bit arduous"), and this is my question:
Would a massive investment (A) guarantee us any more success than we already have achieved with SD?
(B) Guarantee SD a job?

Actually that's 2 questions, but never mind

[bfcmik]

for example when we first went in for jay. I can't remember the exact sum on the top of my head but was it 20m wba wanted and we were prepared to offer 15m? With an investor I really don't think having that extra 5m is asking too much to get an obvious target.

There have to be discussions between the Chairman, manager and transfer team about what would be a reasonable maximum value for any potential transfer before a target list is drawn up. Our maximum valuation on JayRod was less than WBA were prepared to accept. If we continually pay that 'little bit extra' clubs are asking then they will just keep bigging up their player valuations before talking to us. Which is what happens when clubs like Man Utd, Barca and Real Madrid go looking.

We are all aware that we can't go throwing stupid amounts of money at it, but buying players is an investment and our policy in recent years has been a policy of getting what's available to see us through short term with no hope of making any returns on those investments.

Dyche has to take some blame for this, he likes players who have shown their character over a few seasons. Most players who have shown such character at this level do not come cheap, either on transfer fees or wages, or wouldn't come to Burnley for double the money - we just ain't fashionable enough!

[Rileybobs]

fully understand all that, but if I play devils advocate (not the one on here!) and Dyche says to Garlick, unless we sign a new right back and winger that is going to cost at least 20 million I pretty much gaurentee we will go down if we get injuries - then what does Garlick do ? Does he gamble the "stretch" that Dyche talks about or does he just accept we go down with every chance we may never be back and have it so good ? Note: There is a difference between Dyche asking them to stretch the budget from 15 to 20 million and not 15 to 50 million which would be wholey unrealsitic.

The problem is that no amount of signings guarantees that you stay up. If I was Garlick I’d say you’ve got two fully capable, though not fantastic right backs so continue to do your job in getting the most out of them. I’d agree with a winger as we’ve lost Lennon which was seemingly one of Dyche’s bug bears. And you would expect that Garlick’s refusal to offer Lennon a new contract was to enable us to have the funds to upgrade in that position.

If we start giving Dyche £5m that we can’t afford here, and another £5m we can’t afford there, sooner or later we run out of cash.

[Vegas Claret]

The problem is that no amount of signings guarantees that you stay up. If I was Garlick I’d say you’ve got two fully capable, though not fantastic right backs so continue to do your job in getting the most out of them. I’d agree with a winger as we’ve lost Lennon which was seemingly one of Dyche’s bug bears. And you would expect that Garlick’s refusal to offer Lennon a new contract was to enable us to have the funds to upgrade in that position.

If we start giving Dyche £5m that we can’t afford here, and another £5m we can’t afford there, sooner or later we run out of cash.

I agree to a degree and I'm just throwing out the argument - so again, playing devils advocate - if Dyche wants a winger that will cost 15 million who is far better than the one he can get for 10 - what do you do ? At some point the first 11 needs to be improved either in quality, numbers or both (Dyche says so, he's the expert).

I'm not saying that comes from the current board, this is the entire point surely of getting some sort of investor - to bridge that type of required capital (5 million not 50). The fact they are actively looking for that suggests to me they also agree

edit: also, spending that extra 5 million doesn't gaurentee you get relegated, go bust and end up like Pompey - works both ways
another edit: Given Dyche's record, I personally don't think spending an extra 5 million to get a better winger is any sort of risk

[ClaretTony]

Theres debt and theres debt, as you well know....

And we pride ourselves in being debt free

[Vegas Claret]

Pride comes before a fall

[Gordaleman]

Pride comes before a fall

What goes up, must come down. One day we will, but jumping off a cliff is not what Burnley needs right now.

[Vegas Claret]

What goes up, must come down. One day we will, but jumping off a cliff is not what Burnley needs right now.

stretching the budget by 5 million as an example is not in any way jumping off a cliff !! 50 million on the other hand would be !

[boatshed bill]

stretching the budget by 5 million as an example is not in any way jumping off a cliff !! 50 million on the other hand would be !

And £5 million will make next to no difference to our ability to retain PL status.
sometimes (actually all he time() you have to trust and believe the people who have invested in Burnley Football Club.

[Gordaleman]

stretching the budget by 5 million as an example is not in any way jumping off a cliff !! 50 million on the other hand would be !

We wouldn't just be buying one player for an extra £5 million would we? Let's say four players. That's £20 million plus extra wages and agent's fees straight away.

We're clearly not going to agree on this, so lt's forget it.

[Stockbrokerbelt]

I presume an investor that can invest in BFC who can use it as a loss leader for his business Interests would be ideal, the levels of finance we are talking about is not high st banks. I’m hoping some good old boy from the USA with his feet firmly in the hi tech business world Will take pity on us & want to back the underdog.

[Vegas Claret]

We wouldn't just be buying one player for an extra £5 million would we? Let's say four players. That's £20 million plus extra wages and agent's fees straight away.

We're clearly not going to agree on this, so lt's forget it.

no, i was clear every time about stretching the budget by 5 million, i never once said 5 million mulitple times - that was the example I was giving

The one you are giving would stretch the budget to what I said we can't do

I was very clear, stretching the budget from 15 to 20 as opposed from 15 to 50 (you probably missed it in my early reply to Mr Riley)

[Gordaleman]

no, i was clear every time about stretching the budget by 5 million, i never once said 5 million mulitple times - that was the example I was giving

The one you are giving would stretch the budget to what I said we can't do

I was very clear, stretching the budget from 15 to 20 as opposed from 15 to 50 (you probably missed it in my early reply to Mr Riley)

No, I knew what you meant but no club only buys one player if they intend to 'Stretch' the budget to improve the team. If that was the case, we could probably quite easily spend £20 million on one player every season.

[jurek]

I think Garlick should hopefully realise that we've come to stage
where, although we've have had 5 good years in the top division;
financially stable and not in debt, the team is ageing and without fresh blood
it's more than likely to go downhill from here.
Especially as it doesn't seem as if we've got 2 or 3 youngsters ready to blood next season
and we know we've let 3 go. 4 if you count Gibson and we might still recoup
some money for him.

We also know that our income this year is likely to diminish but not clear
how much. 10m, 20m? Hopefully not as much as that.
We'll probably have 5-10m more coming in for finishing much higher than last season.

However, we also know we have some decent assets in Pope, Tarks, McNeil
(and I'd add Taylor and Wood to those three) so if the worst came to the worst
then we could sell a couple or so and recoup more than a reasonable amount
- possibly 50m+.

So for me it could boil down to two options:

1 Sell one of our prize assets (probably McNeil) Hopefully for 25m+.
and we'll put that towards the transfer kitty.
Then hopefully Dyche can bring in the 3 or 4 we need.

2 Get an investor in who'll put 30m+ upfront
and doesn't want a hefty return on his dosh. Maybe 4%?
Plus a salary. We pay back over 5 years and possibly much earlier
if we do sell one or two of our assets.

I'd do it myself if I had the money.

[Vegas Claret]

No, I knew what you meant but no club only buys one player if they intend to 'Stretch' the budget to improve the team. If that was the case, we could probably quite easily spend £20 million on one player every season.

disagree totally, all depends what is required - Dyche could say he wants this winger at 15 and a full back at 5, Garlick might say you can have a winger at 10 and a full back at 5 - Dyche might then decide to just take the winger at 15 and leave the full back. There's no right or wrong, just a conversation - my main point being that we should, given Dyche's record, be brave enough to give Dyche an extra 5 million for example (and not 50!!). If that 5 is not enough then it is what it is of course

[Gordaleman]

disagree totally, all depends what is required - Dyche could say he wants this winger at 15 and a full back at 5, Garlick might say you can have a winger at 10 and a full back at 5 - Dyche might then decide to just take the winger at 15 and leave the full back. There's no right or wrong, just a conversation - my main point being that we should, given Dyche's record, be brave enough to give Dyche an extra 5 million for example (and not 50!!). If that 5 is not enough then it is what it is of course

The thrust of your early argument was that we should back Sean and give him more money to spend. I don't call £5 million any increase at all. Would you or I know if that had happened? I think not. Was it four seasons ago that we spent damn near £40 million? I wouldn't surprise me one bit if we did something similar this summer, but we can't do it every year.

We don't have a huge fan base like most city clubs, and those fans buy club merchandise. In the case of the big six, that's millions all over the world. No way can 'Little old Burnley' compete with those revenues.

I'm bored now with Man Ure winning 3-0, so I'm signing off. Good night.

[boatshed bill]

OK, so some would like to see major investment. So how much? Would they have to buy MG out first? Would they want the current management set up?
Me, I'd leave it how it is. Hopefully we can manage a couple more years basically with what we have. Maybe our investment in youth will start to show dividends.

If it's not broke.....

[rob63]

disagree totally, all depends what is required - Dyche could say he wants this winger at 15 and a full back at 5, Garlick might say you can have a winger at 10 and a full back at 5 - Dyche might then decide to just take the winger at 15 and leave the full back. There's no right or wrong, just a conversation - my main point being that we should, given Dyche's record, be brave enough to give Dyche an extra 5 million for example (and not 50!!). If that 5 is not enough then it is what it is of course

We bid £20m last year for Phillips at Leeds, (£5m stretched from our previous record)......if we'd succeeded with that bid Vegas, there would've been no £9m for Brownhill in January, I'd have thought. Hopefully our recruitment side will have widened their scope this window & we'll finally get some players with ability from outside our usual Championship hunting ground.

[Vegas Claret]

We bid £20m last year for Phillips at Leeds, (£5m stretched from our previous record)......if we'd succeeded with that bid Vegas, there would've been no £9m for Brownhill in January, I'd have thought. Hopefully our recruitment side will have widened their scope this window & we'll finally get some players with ability from outside our usual Championship hunting ground.

yeah but had we got Philips we wouldn't have gone for Brownhill surely ? I'm just playing devils advocate tbh, I know we don't have an unlimited budget

[dsr]

When your other half suggested buying a house over 25 year, I assume you replied "jog on, how do we pay it back"

At risk of stating the obvious, if you buy a house there is a very fair chance that it will still be worth at least the value of the mortgage for the life of the mortgage - even if it's 25 years.

When you buy a footballer, that's not true. A footballer's worth can drop to zero virtually overnight. (Insurance won't cover all eventualities.)

[Wile E Coyote]

so now we all need to be in possession of an economics degree to love football, what a load of .........
All fans want success, not some detailed financial statement to ponder.
if we need to throw the kitchen sink at it, all well and good. who wants security and mediocrity?

[dsr]

All fans want success, not some detailed financial statement to ponder.
if we need to throw the kitchen sink at it, all well and good. who wants security and mediocrity?

But what happens if we don't recognise success when it comes?

[DCWat]

How much would it cost us if Dyche were to leave, for the sake of upping what we are prepared to spend (within reason)? I’d certainly be concerned for our survival next season if he were to leave during the close season.

There won’t be one person suggesting that we should spend to excess and risk the future of the club, but we perhaps do need to be a little less risk averse.

How much have Ajax made on Zayech, for example? I’m not saying we could have got him, but we were linked and could probably have blown Ajax out of the water in terms of wages and quite possibly without paying more than we do to others in the squad.

Alongside developing our own youth (some of whom will hopefully make the first team and become valuable assets) I’d like us to be aiming to bring in some good young talent that we can hopefully benefit from in the team now and financially from, down the line.

It’s easier said than done and there are challengers for these sorts of players, but would it be a bad idea to try to develop a reputation for developing and selling good young talent?

A mixture of experienced pros, youth and signings that we aim to make a decent profit on, needs to be a model for us, for me at least.

Fingers crossed the scouting at all ages and wider than the UK might help us to do something like this.