Owt for nowt

[MACCA]

So if anyone were to suggest that we want profits so that if we get relegated it won't mean the death of the club, you would call out "liar - no businessman would ever want to have reserves in case the bad times come".?

So we dont sign a much needed player for x position to improve our chances of survival because we want to save money for if we go down?
I, let's close the gate, the horse has run off...

Let's take the CM fiasco and do a little scenario.

We need a spare CM Mr Garlick, loan or otherwise, if one gets injured we are up the creek, and will probably go down, splash the 8m please ( let's be silly in th figures )

Nope I'm saving this 20m incase we go down we may need it...

We save the 8m, go down, lose best part of 60m in TV revenue in the process...
Fortunately Mr Dyche the miracle man gets us straight back up and starts clawing back the huge amounts of revenue lost by the neglect shown in the first place.

Rather than put buckets under the hole ready for when it rains, why dont we just fix the roof?

Anyway all irrelevant, Mr Dyche should not be trusted in what he wants, needs or thinks. The guy clearly doesn't know what he's on about.

[ten bellies]

Looks like the summer silly season is here.

[Longsidelenny1882]

Time to say bye to dyche and his staff a big thank you for what you have done for the club we will move on and see where it takes us remember all clarets nobody bigger than the club up the clarets

[Leisure]

MACCA - I've just re-read all your comments etc on Mr Garlick and you really do seem to have a problem with him! Instead of continuing to make vague comments/aspersions about him, why don't you just come out with it and say what the issue is!

[Gordaleman]

I really don't believe some of the comments on this thread. Two weeks ago people were saying "Sack the board" if Sean doesn't get what he wants. Now, on the basis of a 'Rag' article, many of the same people are saying "Sack Dyche". How fickle are football fans?

I know one thing, if Sean is debating his future, comments like some of those on here might just make his mind up for him.

Sean has been brilliant for this club and if a little off the cuff remark, probably said in jest, is going to be enough for fans to drive him away, then I despair.

[MACCA]

MACCA - I've just re-read all your comments etc on Mr Garlick and you really do seem to have a problem with him! Instead of continuing to make vague comments/aspersions about him, why don't you just come out with it and say what the issue is!

I told you I don't.
Dont waste your time reading or guessing what you think I might think of him.

If it wasnt on this board I'd tell you exactly why, however as before it would get deleted and it's not fair as he couldnt reply.

If it comes down to who I'd trust or believe between Mr Dyche and Mr Garlick, it would be Mr Dyche every single time.

Others will have their reasons for it to be the other way round, I have my reasons for why not.

[jtv]

Or, rather than waste 10m+ on the Walter's and Wells cheap options, let's put that money into another transfer.

Did Mr Garlick just go out and buy those players without consulting Dyche?

[cricketfieldclarets]

We can discuss this elsewhere

How many different areas have we neglected window after window praying we get lucky with no injuries etc?
How many times have we taken the cheap option, or option D or E to save a few quid?

Then whoop whoop we've made 20m profits this season, then the transfer windows approaching...
We are skint, no money, move a long.

We repeat it almost yearly, why?

In fairness to Garlick in his time as chairman we have:

Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.
Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.
Bought The Stadium back.
Produced multiple England players.
Become debt free.
Broken our transfer record 5 times.
Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.


sure there is a lot we could still do. And im the first to think windows could be better. But the reality is they have done a great job. Most people would have taken one or two of the above!

The clubs in great shape. If Dyche doesnt want to be on the ride, while having full autonomy thats his problem.

[Leisure]

I told you I don't.
Dont waste your time reading or guessing what you think I might think of him.

If it wasnt on this board I'd tell you exactly why, however as before it would get deleted and it's not fair as he couldnt reply.

If it comes down to who I'd trust or believe between Mr Dyche and Mr Garlick, it would be Mr Dyche every single time.

Others will have their reasons for it to be the other way round, I have my reasons for why not.

Sorry but if you're not prepared to substantiate your comments, aspersions etc on here then I would suggest that you just keep them to yourself and not post them on here.

[dsr]

So we dont sign a much needed player for x position to improve our chances of survival because we want to save money for if we go down?
I, let's close the gate, the horse has run off...

Let's take the CM fiasco and do a little scenario.

We need a spare CM Mr Garlick, loan or otherwise, if one gets injured we are up the creek, and will probably go down, splash the 8m please ( let's be silly in th figures )

Nope I'm saving this 20m incase we go down we may need it...

We save the 8m, go down, lose best part of 60m in TV revenue in the process...
Fortunately Mr Dyche the miracle man gets us straight back up and starts clawing back the huge amounts of revenue lost by the neglect shown in the first place.

Rather than put buckets under the hole ready for when it rains, why dont we just fix the roof?

Anyway all irrelevant, Mr Dyche should not be trusted in what he wants, needs or thinks. The guy clearly doesn't know what he's on about.

You could be right about Dyche's first year. We made about £35m profit, of which £11m was spent on players, £11m on repaying the Flood loans (that was unavoidable), and £11m on the new training ground. So we could have borrowed another few million to sign a new player as you wanted, or we could have spent money on more new players and not bothered with the new training ground, and perhaps stopped up. Or perhaps not.

But if you're criticising the spending on the new training ground, then have a go at Dyche for that one. He has often said that that was what he wanted to do and it would have been wrong to spend the lot on players. Dyche's fault, not Garlick's.

So what actually are you complaining about? Are you complaining that if we had spent more money six years ago, we wouldn't be where we are now? Or that if we had spent more money last year, we wouldn't be where we are now? Are you complaining that we don't want to be where we are now? Where do you think we should be now? If Garlick had been even moderately competent, who would be managing the club and where should the club be?

[NewClaret]

Sounds like a jokey comment to me. Probably laughing when he said it. No big deal.

If he wanted out he’d just say or wait for the offer and leave. Suspect it’s more likely setting expectations with clubs/agents - very clever if it works.

[Leisure]

In fairness to Garlick in his time as chairman we have:

Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.
Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.
Bought The Stadium back.
Produced multiple England players.
Become debt free.
Broken our transfer record 5 times.
Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.


sure there is a lot we could still do. And im the first to think windows could be better. But the reality is they have done a great job. Most people would have taken one or two of the above!

The clubs in great shape. If Dyche doesnt want to be on the ride, while having full autonomy thats his problem.

James - Good Post but please let's not allow that list of positives get in the way of someone who obviously has a personal issue with the Chairman!

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

I’ve only read page 1 but the obvious question is what rag is it from?
A pist up journo in the pub could have wrote that.

[Giftonsnoidea]

£7m going to Dyche and £7m to hmrc over the next two years of his contract. Sounds like he’s goading the chairman to sack him now. Garlick is not going to sack him and not going to give him the money he wants so the sniping is futile really.

If he can get any money back from the Gibson fiasco I’m sure he should be allowed that to spend.

It does look like a made up article taking the **** tbh

[Longsidelenny1882]

Great post again cricketfield utc

[Jakubclaret]

£7m going to Dyche and £7m to hmrc over the next two years of his contract. Sounds like he’s goading the chairman to sack him now. Garlick is not going to sack him and not going to give him the money he wants so the sniping is futile really.

If he can get any money back from the Gibson fiasco I’m sure he should be allowed that to spend.

It does look like a made up article taking the **** tbh

What gives, come & get me rescue plea sounds the plan, it'd be more likely whilst under contract a compensation package is agreed, no way he's leaving without something coming back.

[andyh]

Newspaper reports are always done with a spin on them. I can hear Sean saying those words with a huge grin on his face. If so it does change the meaning somewhat. I think he is rightfully proud of his achievements within the constraints he has. And if Lallana is “free” then he obviously is only considering the fee not his considerable wages.

Lets just see where we end up. I still can’t see a vacancy that would move Sean in the right direction. Most of the slightly bigger clubs are car crashes at present. Newcastle, Villa, Everton all look to be a bad short term bet.

[Somethingfishy]

The squad we have has taken us to 10th position and we're 3rd best on form since January'ish. With Brownhill looking like a good replacement for Hendrick, I don't see that the squad is too thin. Maybe 1 or 2 additions would help, as we're now starting to see lads coming through from the Academy and if we're not going to use them then there's little point in continuing with it (the Academy).

It's not too thin if you are counting the kids on the bench. I am all for bringing the kids through but they are sat on the bench and Dyche has shown he is more or less unwilling to use any of them even when there is little at stake in the games we have. Is he trying to make a point to Garlick? Only SD will know. I am not of the opinion that Brownhill was brought in as a replacement for Hendrick. That has been forced out of necessity rather than design. Brownhill was bought for centre midfield and Hendrick was rarely used there. If Hendrick was still here Brownhill would be behind him in the pecking order and he would still be on the bench getting occasional minutes. Dyche has more or less alluded to that in saying he didn't want to throw him in. Dyche doesn't seem the type to place too much faith in the kids. Even blooding McNeil was forced on him by sheer lack of numbers.

[Giftonsnoidea]

Newspaper reports are always done with a spin on them. I can hear Sean saying those words with a huge grin on his face. If so it does change the meaning somewhat. I think he is rightfully proud of his achievements within the constraints he has. And if Lallana is “free” then he obviously is only considering the fee not his considerable wages.

Lets just see where we end up. I still can’t see a vacancy that would move Sean in the right direction. Most of the slightly bigger clubs are car crashes at present. Newcastle, Villa, Everton all look to be a bad short term bet.

Yeah it does sound like a joke, always looks bad in print, I guess this is from a press conference so would be good to watch it

[scouseclaret]

In fairness to Garlick in his time as chairman we have:

Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.
Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.
Bought The Stadium back.
Produced multiple England players.
Become debt free.
Broken our transfer record 5 times.
Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.


sure there is a lot we could still do. And im the first to think windows could be better. But the reality is they have done a great job. Most people would have taken one or two of the above!

The clubs in great shape. If Dyche doesnt want to be on the ride, while having full autonomy thats his problem.

“Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.”
Agreed - big tick for MG and the board.

“Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.”

When Dyche was first appointed, he called out the Board as to why they hadn’t addressed the facilities when we got promoted in 2009. It’s fair to say that we might not have got the facilities we now have without the guidance of a manager prepared to take a long-term view.

“Bought The Stadium back.”
Facilitated by the money generated by SD getting us back in the Premier League. Those involved made good money out of this transaction.

“Produced multiple England players.”
Mainly brought to the club by Sean Dyche, whom they would all credit with having improved them as players.

“Become debt free.”
See “bought the stadium back” ( I have no problem with the board earning a decent rate of interest on their loans, btw, but it was not an act of pure altruism.)

“Broken our transfer record 5 times.”
Facilitated by Sean Dyche. We’ve also broken our outward transfer record a few times!

“Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.”

All the product of the exceptional management skills of Sean Dyche. I would stop short of saying these achievements were despite the Board, but I think it’s fair to say they are well beyond anything we had a right to expect with the resources made available.

[MACCA]

In fairness to Garlick in his time as chairman we have:

Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.
Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.
Bought The Stadium back.
Produced multiple England players.
Become debt free.
Broken our transfer record 5 times.
Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.


sure there is a lot we could still do. And im the first to think windows could be better. But the reality is they have done a great job. Most people would have taken one or two of the above!

The clubs in great shape. If Dyche doesnt want to be on the ride, while having full autonomy thats his problem.

Spot on

[COBBLE]

Probably more humour than anger but no doubt he is frustrated. But the manager should show more respect for the bigger picture. Garlick was prime mover in this situation when he selected a little known inexperienced manager and gave him the chance and crucially the time to develop his undoubted potential. At any other club he would not have survived the relegation and the first half of the Europa league season. Garlick should not take a less risk averse stance. If Sean wants to go they should work it out mutually and respectfully. There are plenty out there who would like a seven year project. But I prefer Sean to stay.

[Giftonsnoidea]

Our board are pretty good at choosing managers, credit where it is due! even Eddie Howe did his bit by getting all those exceptional bargains in for us for Dyche to build his team onto.

[MACCA]

James - Good Post but please let's not allow that list of positives get in the way of someone who obviously has a personal issue with the Chairman!

Be quiet you, you're not even worthy of the keep net these days even when it's not full to the brim.

To be fair the other 2 arent usually weekend posters, but I reckon if we bump it Monday theyll get involved.

Out on the beer now

Stay safe gents, UTC

[Bin Ont Turf]

It's time we had a Classic Thread section on here, to put this one in.

[dsr]

All the product of the exceptional management skills of Sean Dyche. I would stop short of saying these achievements were despite the Board, but I think it’s fair to say they are well beyond anything we had a right to expect with the resources made available.

So when you compare Burnley with other clubs of a similar size - say, Preston, Blackburn, Watford, Bournemouth, Ipswich, Norwich, Stoke, Swansea I think is a fair representative sample - how would you rate our Board of Directors compared with theirs?

And ignoring the advantages of having vast moneybags, who do you think - out of those clubs or any other - would run the club better?

I don't think any of this criticism of Garlick is based on him personally. It's based on money spent. His critics think that we shouldn't have £40m in the bank (as at last June), that we should have spent more money - to a greater or lesser degree - than we have. It's not about how to run a football club; it's about having too much cash in the bank,

[scouseclaret]

It's not too thin if you are counting the kids on the bench. I am all for bringing the kids through but they are sat on the bench and Dyche has shown he is more or less unwilling to use any of them even when there is little at stake in the games we have. Is he trying to make a point to Garlick? Only SD will know.

No he isn’t trying to make a point. It’s them or nobody - there are no other players available. He was accused of making a point to Garlick when he chose not to select a full bench. What is he meant to do???

[dsr]

Is he trying to make a point to Garlick? Only SD will know.

No, I know as well. We had a squad of 23 which was fine; for various reasons, 11 of them were unavailable, which left us short. He couldn't fill the bench with kids because they hadn't been corona tested.

[Tribesmen]

Well as for the Sun write up yer whatever .
Sean is good for Burnley and Burnley is good for Sean we all know this now where this leads to in the future is anyone guess .
Not worried as paper talk is just that .
Sean will go on to a bigger club but will he have the same impact is a good question as i am sure he sees himself as an England manager maybe .
He has huge goals , lets hope he can take us to the next level which is champions league football , don't laugh as he is the man who could do it with our club .

[scouseclaret]

So when you compare Burnley with other clubs of a similar size - say, Preston, Blackburn, Watford, Bournemouth, Ipswich, Norwich, Stoke, Swansea I think is a fair representative sample - how would you rate our Board of Directors compared with theirs?

And ignoring the advantages of having vast moneybags, who do you think - out of those clubs or any other - would run the club better?

I don't think any of this criticism of Garlick is based on him personally. It's based on money spent. His critics think that we shouldn't have £40m in the bank (as at last June), that we should have spent more money - to a greater or lesser degree - than we have. It's not about how to run a football club; it's about having too much cash in the bank,

I think some of those clubs are well run, others clearly not. And I’m not saying Burnley isn’t a well run club - it clearly is. I do, though, think that after all he’s achieved SD deserves better backing from the board, and it does seem that whenever these issues arise, Garlick is given a very easy rise on here. I think there are questions to answer.

[jtv]

Seeing that a number of posters, and SD, are claiming that the Club will get anything as long as it is for free, how come the Club was not the first one to furlough staff during the pandemic like richer clubs (Spurs etc) did?

[Hibsclaret]

Whether there are questions to answer or not, none of it should be publicised by comments of the like we are hearing and reading about. No need to air dirty laundry certainly not when you are a club the size of Burnley with 1 loss in 14 games in the premier league......

[dsr]

I think some of those clubs are well run, others clearly not. And I’m not saying Burnley isn’t a well run club - it clearly is. I do, though, think that after all he’s achieved SD deserves better backing from the board, and it does seem that whenever these issues arise, Garlick is given a very easy rise on here. I think there are questions to answer.

How much? We had £40m in the bank as of June 2019. What would the "correct" figure have been if Dyche had been given "backing"? Should we be overdrawn, or living on no overdraft but no cash either, or perhaps £20m saved instead of £40m?

[Rileybobs]

I think some of those clubs are well run, others clearly not. And I’m not saying Burnley isn’t a well run club - it clearly is. I do, though, think that after all he’s achieved SD deserves better backing from the board, and it does seem that whenever these issues arise, Garlick is given a very easy rise on here. I think there are questions to answer.

I keep hearing how Dyche deserves ‘backing’ but what does that mean? Should we be backing him with money we don’t have? I don’t get it.

[Staniola]

Good grief. This thread is embarrassing. It reads like some other clubs’ message boards. Burnley fans don’t react like this. He was being flippant - he often is in his press conferences. Please leave the drama queenery to others.

[Somethingfishy]

No he isn’t trying to make a point. It’s them or nobody - there are no other players available. He was accused of making a point to Garlick when he chose not to select a full bench. What is he meant to do???

That was my original point to be fair. Leisure countered saying we had kids to use and wanted us utilising the academy. You are of course right in that he had nobody else to choose from and that illustrates my point. The squad is just too thin. We need an active transfer window now more than ever. However if he has them on the bench why not give them a few minutes here and there? Or does he think they are not good enough?

We are supposed to be a Premier league club and yet we are forced to fill the bench full of kids that the manager is very reluctant to utilise for one reason or another. I could understand it back in the early days of Cotterill but now? Come on. It really isn't good enough.

Just to clarify my position on the OP. It was likely said in jest. Surely we understand Dyches humour by now and we know the media will spin it negatively? They seem to be on a mission to talk him out and into other jobs. There are issues between Dyche and Garlick for certain but I am firmly in the Dyche camp. He is performing miracles with what he has been given and yet he seems to find himself in a worsening position regards squad size and depth. He is clearly frustrated and these jokes are becoming more and more regular so it must be on his mind.

[tiger76]

Funnily enough Arteta is saying exactly the same things as SD, https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53425833 must be a transfer window round the corner.

[Leisure]

It's not too thin if you are counting the kids on the bench. I am all for bringing the kids through but they are sat on the bench and Dyche has shown he is more or less unwilling to use any of them even when there is little at stake in the games we have. Is he trying to make a point to Garlick? Only SD will know. I am not of the opinion that Brownhill was brought in as a replacement for Hendrick. That has been forced out of necessity rather than design. Brownhill was bought for centre midfield and Hendrick was rarely used there. If Hendrick was still here Brownhill would be behind him in the pecking order and he would still be on the bench getting occasional minutes. Dyche has more or less alluded to that in saying he didn't want to throw him in. Dyche doesn't seem the type to place too much faith in the kids. Even blooding McNeil was forced on him by sheer lack of numbers.

I would agree with your comments on Brownhill but with Hendrick gone and him in the team we don't appear to be weakened. Also, yes we have kids on the bench at the minute (and who probably won't get on) but only because of all the missing injured players. Hopefully in the near future some of those Academy lads will be seriously considered for stepping up to the bench in their own right, rather than just because we have no one else!

[Rileybobs]

That was my original point to be fair. Leisure countered saying we had kids to use and wanted us utilising the academy. You are of course right in that he had nobody else to choose from and that illustrates my point. The squad is just too thin. We need an active transfer window now more than ever. However if he has them on the bench why not give them a few minutes here and there? Or does he think they are not good enough?

We are supposed to be a Premier league club and yet we are forced to fill the bench full of kids that the manager is very reluctant to utilise for one reason or another. I could understand it back in the early days of Cotterill but now? Come on. It really isn't good enough.

I wonder if there are extenuating circumstances why we can’t fill the bench with senior players?

[dsr]

That was my original point to be fair. Leisure countered saying we had kids to use and wanted us utilising the academy. You are of course right in that he had nobody else to choose from and that illustrates my point. The squad is just too thin. We need an active transfer window now more than ever. However if he has them on the bench why not give them a few minutes here and there? Or does he think they are not good enough?

We are supposed to be a Premier league club and yet we are forced to fill the bench full of kids that the manager is very reluctant to utilise for one reason or another. I could understand it back in the early days of Cotterill but now? Come on. It really isn't good enough.

Squad:
GK Pope, Hart, Peacock-Farrell
FB Lowton, Bardsley, Taylor, Pieters
CB Mee, Tarkowski, [Gibson], Long
CM Cork, Westwood, Brownhill, Hendrick
WM Gudmondsson, Brady, McNeill, Lennon
CF Barnes, Wood, Rodriguez, Vydra

Seems like a fairly well-rounded squad, Gibson excepted. Why do you think it's not good enough? Which positions should we have strengthened last January because of inadequate numbers?

[MACCA]

It's time we had a Classic Thread section on here, to put this one in.

I agree, if there's a reminder permanently there, it should make it a touch harder.

It's like shelling peas today

[Rileybobs]

I agree, if there's a reminder permanently there, it should make it a touch harder.

It's like shelling peas today

Ah so you’re daft comments earlier were a fishing trip? I don’t think that’s going to wash.

[MACCA]

Ah so you’re daft comments earlier were a fishing trip? I don’t think that’s going to wash.

No they were not! What makes you think that?

Like I always say, you should believe 95% of things on the internet.

[Somethingfishy]

I wonder if there are extenuating circumstances why we can’t fill the bench with senior players?

I think i explain it within my post. "The squad is too thin". Which is my entire point if you read back.

[dsr]

I think i explain it within my post. "The squad is too thin". Which is my entire point if you read back.

23 first team players. I don't think that's too thin. How many should we have had, on 1st February last?

[scouseclaret]

How much? We had £40m in the bank as of June 2019. What would the "correct" figure have been if Dyche had been given "backing"? Should we be overdrawn, or living on no overdraft but no cash either, or perhaps £20m saved instead of £40m?

Well, for a start, we could ask why there is only £40m in the bank, given that...
i) we must have generated around £750m in revenue under Dyche's tenure, and
ii) we consistently operate with one of the lowest wage bills in the PL, and
iii) we have had a net transfer spend of just £10m a season over the last five seasons:
...but we're not really allowed to go there.

Other than that, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to your question, but SD is well aware of the finances of the club and how it operates, and I would trust him not to make unreasonable demands of the Board. Therefore, if he identifies players he wants - or would like to keep - they should go the extra mile to facilitate that.

[Leisure]

I wonder if there are extenuating circumstances why we can’t fill the bench with senior players?

Yes, injuries.

[Pimlico_Claret]

In fairness to Garlick in his time as chairman we have:

Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.
Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.
Bought The Stadium back.
Produced multiple England players.
Become debt free.
Broken our transfer record 5 times.
Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.


sure there is a lot we could still do. And im the first to think windows could be better. But the reality is they have done a great job. Most people would have taken one or two of the above!

The clubs in great shape.

But apart from that.... Teasdale out!

[jtv]

Therefore, if he identifies players he wants - or would like to keep - they should go the extra mile to facilitate that.

Perhaps the Board was prepared to go the extra mile for Hendrick but he wanted two extra miles?

[Rileybobs]

I think i explain it within my post. "The squad is too thin". Which is my entire point if you read back.

I disagree that the squad is too thin. Should we carry enough players to cover for unprecedented levels of injury and players running out of contract amid-season due to a global pandemic?