Nothing in the article is changing my mind about things I have been speculating on here for years, regarding the accounts analysis type threads.

It all seemed to me to be about maximising the value of the company in preparation for a sale, which would sustain several generations of the owner’s families and in that sense is logical for them to do rather than splash it on a risky player or a ground development which, as others have said, won’t raise the capacity much.

If that does prove to be the case, it rankles when we have gone many years without even running hot water. All legal and above board, but a bit depressing if true.

The other thing I would speculate on is whether the Clarets are attractive in the context of a wider investment into the left behind regions of the UK before Boris throws all his money in that he has promised to. We have seen it before where a football owner is a visible public figure and it can be a savvy move to create a presence.

it matters not who takes over the club as players do not want to sign for burnley if there are any other offers on the table. Even when we finished 7th and were the being lauded in the press they still didn't come. We are experiencing the clubs best time for years and we still cant sell out every game. Throwing money at it will be just like Wigan Bolton Blackburn Fulham etc-good money for lazy useless plonkers. Sleep tight.

Sleep tight and dream of something else

Without knocking the board, the manager and the principles of what has got the club to the position it is now. The business over the last three years has been shocking to say the least. I wouldn’t class shocking as the quality of individuals that the club has signed. I would class it as of direction. We are known as a selling club. Most fans would accept that, however none of the players we have signed are at the age we could improve and make any value on. We are now in a position that because we have looked after the short term with the first team personnel for such a long time we are in a position that now the investment needed is that high that we cannot compete. It’s all well and good proclaiming we make a profit however if you don’t have a fluid plan then it catches upto you. The only department this has happened is goal keepers. That model needs to be applied to the rest of the club. The initial investment is high however if Sean can un earth talent alongside experience individuals we can have a business model alongside success

corporal jones wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:37 pm

it matters not who takes over the club as players do not want to sign for burnley if there are any other offers on the table. Even when we finished 7th and were the being lauded in the press they still didn't come. We are experiencing the clubs best time for years and we still cant sell out every game. Throwing money at it will be just like Wigan Bolton Blackburn Fulham etc-good money for lazy useless plonkers. Sleep tight.

that's the Premier League, I think we should raise the white flag and surrender Corporal, maybe volunteer for duty in league 2

corporal jones wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:37 pm

it matters not who takes over the club as players do not want to sign for burnley if there are any other offers on the table. Even when we finished 7th and were the being lauded in the press they still didn't come. We are experiencing the clubs best time for years and we still cant sell out every game. Throwing money at it will be just like Wigan Bolton Blackburn Fulham etc-good money for lazy useless plonkers. Sleep tight.

Even Liverpool dont sell out every game...

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:24 pm

Nothing in the article is changing my mind about things I have been speculating on here for years, regarding the accounts analysis type threads.

It all seemed to me to be about maximising the value of the company in preparation for a sale, which would sustain several generations of the owner’s families and in that sense is logical for them to do rather than splash it on a risky player or a ground development which, as others have said, won’t raise the capacity much.

If that does prove to be the case, it rankles when we have gone many years without even running hot water. All legal and above board, but a bit depressing if true.

The other thing I would speculate on is whether the Clarets are attractive in the context of a wider investment into the left behind regions of the UK before Boris throws all his money in that he has promised to. We have seen it before where a football owner is a visible public figure and it can be a savvy move to create a presence.

Tha's talking about Burnley and surrounding areas tha nose!...........Running hot water? .....You've gone soft!

I thought the Egyptian was American based ?

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:24 pm

Nothing in the article is changing my mind about things I have been speculating on here for years, regarding the accounts analysis type threads.

It all seemed to me to be about maximising the value of the company in preparation for a sale, which would sustain several generations of the owner’s families and in that sense is logical for them to do rather than splash it on a risky player or a ground development which, as others have said, won’t raise the capacity much.

If that does prove to be the case, it rankles when we have gone many years without even running hot water. All legal and above board, but a bit depressing if true.

The other thing I would speculate on is whether the Clarets are attractive in the context of a wider investment into the left behind regions of the UK before Boris throws all his money in that he has promised to. We have seen it before where a football owner is a visible public figure and it can be a savvy move to create a presence.

I've been saying it for years, but regularly got shot down.

MG is a business man first and foremost.

Is it moral for the majority shareholders to take more money out of the club than they have ever put in from their own personal wealth?

Maybe it’s naive thinking but I see our board members more as custodians. Personal wealth has been used to purchase shares but not to outright fund the day to day running of the club which they’ve strived to make self sufficient.
As Cresspool claret has said it rankle if the proceeds of the sale are taken away from the club which has been underinvested on the basis of self sustainability.

As a fan what would you do in their shoes?
Make sure they next lot are ‘good eggs‘ and take out every penny you can get?
Or do something like locking away some of the share dividend into a trust fund for the club for the express use of funding the Cat 1 academy for the next 20 years?
Or is there another way?

The West Ham in Crisis version...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... SApp_Other

The article heading is Dyche and Garlick Rift Leaves Burnley in Transfer Limbo.
Sub headings - Chairman reluctant to invest amid American takeover BIDS and Manager laments thin Squad.

Mind at when Championship strikers are selling for near 30 million Garlick has a point. But so does SD.
None of the six senior players out of contract next season are youngsters.

It looks as though something will definitely happen and that somethinh may well be a takeover.

What is worrying me is that we will have three players out injured for Saturdays match.

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:33 am

Is it moral for the majority shareholders to take more money out of the club than they have ever put in from their own personal wealth?

Maybe it’s naive thinking but I see our board members more as custodians. Personal wealth has been used to purchase shares but not to outright fund the day to day running of the club which they’ve strived to make self sufficient.
As Cresspool claret has said it rankle if the proceeds of the sale are taken away from the club which has been underinvested on the basis of self sustainability.

As a fan what would you do in their shoes?
Make sure they next lot are ‘good eggs‘ and take out every penny you can get?
Or do something like locking away some of the share dividend into a trust fund for the club for the express use of funding the Cat 1 academy for the next 20 years?
Or is there another way?

If it was me, sleeping at night would be a big consideration. The owners are after all custodians of something that gives hope to many people who would otherwise have little, and there is something about those of us who have done OK giving something back to the place we came from.

But the allure of making 10, 20, 30 times more money than was originally invested is an investor’s dream. I expect them to take that route, and the key for the fans is whether as a byproduct of all this we finally get some money spent on us by a new investor, and also on the team to keep us at this level. That all depends on who the buyer will be and what their intentions are.

The flipside is too much dilly dally and we will be relegated with no manager, only a few players and a diminishing bank account. That will make that final payday far less.

The third possibility is that all this is hot air and there is no intention to sell - that depends on how much of a buzz it gives them day to day.

So it’s all down to Mike and the other owners, what we experience for the next decade or two will be down to what they decide. I can see why Sean may feel a bit powerless.

Oh for the day when we had someone able to find young talent unwanted and unloved at other clubs, Mee, Trippier and Keane for example, Heaton and Pope both heading for Division 1 given a chance with us. Take a punt and see where it goes. To do that we maybe need to employ someone to make this a priority.......oh heck......have we got someone in that job? Is he still furloughed? When does he get back?

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:49 am

If it was me, sleeping at night would be a big consideration. The owners are after all custodians of something that gives hope to many people who would otherwise have little, and there is something about those of us who have done OK giving something back to the place we came from.

But the allure of making 10, 20, 30 times more money than was originally invested is an investor’s dream. I expect them to take that route, and the key for the fans is whether as a byproduct of all this we finally get some money spent on us by a new investor, and also on the team to keep us at this level. That all depends on who the buyer will be and what their intentions are.

The flipside is too much dilly dally and we will be relegated with no manager, only a few players and a diminishing bank account. That will make that final payday far less.

The third possibility is that all this is hot air and there is no intention to sell - that depends on how much of a buzz it gives them day to day.

So it’s all down to Mike and the other owners, what we experience for the next decade or two will be down to what they decide. I can see why Sean may feel a bit powerless.

But even if we had got more investment we are unlikely to have seen any more success than we have done in recent times. The gap between the big clubs and the rest is huge, far bigger than we can ever bridge, investors or not.

Stayingup wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:34 am

The article heading is Dyche and Garlick Rift Leaves Burnley in Transfer Limbo.
Sub headings - Chairman reluctant to invest amid American takeover BIDS and Manager laments thin Squad.

Mind at when Championship strikers are selling for near 30 million Garlick has a point. But so does SD.
None of the six senior players out of contract next season are youngsters.

It looks as though something will definitely happen and that somethinh may well be a takeover.

What is worrying me is that we will have three players out injured for Saturdays match.

As long as they are back for Sunday's we should be OK.

Burnley87 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:14 pm

Without knocking the board, the manager and the principles of what has got the club to the position it is now. The business over the last three years has been shocking to say the least. I wouldn’t class shocking as the quality of individuals that the club has signed. I would class it as of direction. We are known as a selling club. Most fans would accept that, however none of the players we have signed are at the age we could improve and make any value on. We are now in a position that because we have looked after the short term with the first team personnel for such a long time we are in a position that now the investment needed is that high that we cannot compete. It’s all well and good proclaiming we make a profit however if you don’t have a fluid plan then it catches upto you. The only department this has happened is goal keepers. That model needs to be applied to the rest of the club. The initial investment is high however if Sean can un earth talent alongside experience individuals we can have a business model alongside success

Good post and been saying exactly that on here for the last few years but as per usual got laughed at by the usual crowd

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:40 am

But even if we had got more investment we are unlikely to have seen any more success than we have done in recent times. The gap between the big clubs and the rest is huge, far bigger than we can ever bridge, investors or not.

I'm for investment, but totally agree with you that it may not bring about more success...but it will allow us to continue at the top table albeit still punching above our weight. Right now the board seem reluctant to invest big in the playing squad, there are clearly reasons behind that and though it irks me to say it, I've finally come to the conclusion that we have to trust them and see where it takes us....but my, it's been a great 5 years UTC

How much money do the current board get paid or receive in divided payments?

If an American/Middle East/Far East consortium by the club for £150 million and then spend a further £200m on players and wages - where is the return on their investment going to come from?

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:33 am

Is it moral for the majority shareholders to take more money out of the club than they have ever put in from their own personal wealth?

Maybe it’s naive thinking but I see our board members more as custodians. Personal wealth has been used to purchase shares but not to outright fund the day to day running of the club which they’ve strived to make self sufficient.
As Cresspool claret has said it rankle if the proceeds of the sale are taken away from the club which has been underinvested on the basis of self sustainability.

As a fan what would you do in their shoes?
Make sure they next lot are ‘good eggs‘ and take out every penny you can get?
Or do something like locking away some of the share dividend into a trust fund for the club for the express use of funding the Cat 1 academy for the next 20 years?
Or is there another way?

Of course, the same question the other way round would be to ask is it moral that an owner who is doing his best and has invested millions of his owen money into the club, should lose out if the club isn't successful. If the club was now in the fourth division and in debt and Garlick's shares were worth nothing, would it be moral for the club to reimburse him?

The whole question of whether clubs should be private companies owned by individuals is a good one. Something like the Green Bay Packers ownership model, whereby no-one can own more than a few percent of the shares and shares can't be sold, only passed on to relatives or left by legacy, would be an interesting start point for discussion. But of course you tehn have the legality of devaluing the shares worth billions so it's not a practical proposition.

But your wording of majority shareholders "taking more money out of the club than they have ever put in" is wrong. Garlick has put in a few million and never taken much of anything out; what you're talking about, I think, is making a profit on his shares. This isn't taking money out of the club.

They don’t take payments out as far as I know. Their shares are worth far more now than when they bought them. Plenty of profit in it for them.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:02 am

How much money do the current board get paid or receive in divided payments?

If an American/Middle East/Far East consortium by the club for £150 million and then spend a further £200m on players and wages - where is the return on their investment going to come from?

The current board get no salary, no dividends.

You've hit on exactly the problem with American consortia. They tend to be in it to make money. We'd be better of with a individual who fancies a hobby - as long as it's the right individual, of course.

Nixon saying nothing happening regarding takeover...does he get anything right though?

Villa have some major investors.

Why are they not in the Champions league this season?

Sheedyclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:16 am

Nixon saying nothing happening regarding takeover...does he get anything right though?

Nixon won't know anything about it if it's subject to a NDA.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:40 am

But even if we had got more investment we are unlikely to have seen any more success than we have done in recent times. The gap between the big clubs and the rest is huge, far bigger than we can ever bridge, investors or not.

Hmm agree and disagree.

The ‘big 6’, yes impossible to reach them but you have seen what Leicester and Wolves have been able to do.

Leicester have spent but spent wisely (and sold for serious profit due to excellent recruitment over the years). They were pushing for top 4 last year.

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:09 am

They don’t take payments out as far as I know. Their shares are worth far more now than when they bought them. Plenty of profit in it for them.

The shares are only worth what someone is prepared to pay. At the moment they are worthless. For the non majority shareholders, unless there is a takeover accepted by 90% of the shares (could be higher), there is very little profit. How much would you pay for a share that gives no dividend and is difficult to sell?

I'm not going to quote any poster. Just a few observations of my own.

Mike Garlick, John B and others have put their own money into Burnley FC by buying shares. That's what makes them the owners of the club. If things go well under their ownership then their shares will be worth more, if they go very well and someone else wants to buy their shares, i.e. buy the club, then they will sell their shares for more than they paid for them.

However, if things don't go well, then simply put, they will lose their money and the club goes bust. That's the "privilege" of ownership. Maybe new owners will step in to rebuild the club. There are a number of examples where this has been initiated by the club's fans.

If the reports of interested investors are accurate, then MG and JB (and other large shareholders) will get a return on their money if the price that is offered (and paid) by new investors is sufficient to persuade MG and JB to sell.

MG and JB et al are all owners of Burnley FC because they are fans of Burnley and have connections with the town as well as the club - this remains true for most smaller football clubs, of which very few are in the Premier League.

We all share connections with Burnley and being fans of Burnley FC with MG and JB. Is it important that new investor builds connections with Burnley and becomes a fan of the club as well as the club's owner?

UTC

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:02 am

How much money do the current board get paid or receive in divided payments?

If an American/Middle East/Far East consortium by the club for £150 million and then spend a further £200m on players and wages - where is the return on their investment going to come from?

A football club is a front for the wider community. Investment into the football club and the wider economic area is the general model for any purchase.

Don’t look at the football club as a singular commodity, instead see it as a doorway into the wider community, industry and the investment opportunities that offers.

As an investor you want to maximise your investment opportunities, diversify your incomes, which better lets you weather wider and more individualised financial storms. Football clubs are nothing but loss leaders and ego boosts.

The club is sat within the proposed Northern Powerhouse, on top of that Lancashire could become a devolved local authority, on top of that the north could be devolved from the rest of England in the coming years.

Manchester and Leeds have clearly divided up the business so they’re both not fighting for the same incomes, and thus safeguarding the symbiotic economic prosperity of both.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:28 am

Hmm agree and disagree.

The ‘big 6’, yes impossible to reach them but you have seen what Leicester and Wolves have been able to do.

Leicester have spent but spent wisely (and sold for serious profit due to excellent recruitment over the years). They were pushing for top 4 last year.

Their recruitment and then selling for big profits has been excellent

BOYSIE31 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:44 am

Our recruitment and then selling for big profits has been excellent

Totally agree

Goobs wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:41 am

As long as they are back for Sunday's we should be OK.

OOOps haha.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:00 am

Totally agree

I'm sure you have only changed his words for a joke but it's poor taste and a poor feature of the website you can do it.

Maybe best to ban people who do it if the website can't change it?

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:10 am

The current board get no salary, no dividends.

You've hit on exactly the problem with American consortia. They tend to be in it to make money. We'd be better of with a individual who fancies a hobby - as long as it's the right individual, of course.

I thought the American model was to take out a loan to buy a franchise and then make the franchise pay the installments until enough of debt had been paid off and then sell the franchise for more than the remaining debt?

I wouldn't expect anyone to put in significant funds for improving the squad because the return on investment will be low and at the same time high risk.

BenWickes wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:44 pm

On a basic salary? I'll bow to your expertise but for me. A manager has to earn more than the employee otherwise the entire structure has broken down. There has to be a pyramid system. No wonder players have the power they have.
I can't imagine managing an employee earning more than me. Defeats the object of being a manager.

Our senior developers certainly earn more than their managers, that's for certain.

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:49 am

If it was me, sleeping at night would be a big consideration. The owners are after all custodians of something that gives hope to many people who would otherwise have little, and there is something about those of us who have done OK giving something back to the place we came from.

But the allure of making 10, 20, 30 times more money than was originally invested is an investor’s dream. I expect them to take that route, and the key for the fans is whether as a byproduct of all this we finally get some money spent on us by a new investor, and also on the team to keep us at this level. That all depends on who the buyer will be and what their intentions are.

The flipside is too much dilly dally and we will be relegated with no manager, only a few players and a diminishing bank account. That will make that final payday far less.

The third possibility is that all this is hot air and there is no intention to sell - that depends on how much of a buzz it gives them day to day.

So it’s all down to Mike and the other owners, what we experience for the next decade or two will be down to what they decide. I can see why Sean may feel a bit powerless.

Great Post !

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:40 am

But even if we had got more investment we are unlikely to have seen any more success than we have done in recent times. The gap between the big clubs and the rest is huge, far bigger than we can ever bridge, investors or not.

I agree.

My only real gripe (a big one) was not investing in the stadium and taking fans for granted. The investment in the team was OK until the last couple of years, but is now at the point where it threatens our league status, so I think people are now legitimately justified in grumbling about that too. We would never have competed financially with other mid-division clubs though but we still needed a pipeline - Charlie Taylor and Nick Pope types for age and ability level.

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:08 am

Of course, the same question the other way round would be to ask is it moral that an owner who is doing his best and has invested millions of his owen money into the club, should lose out if the club isn't successful. If the club was now in the fourth division and in debt and Garlick's shares were worth nothing, would it be moral for the club to reimburse him?

The whole question of whether clubs should be private companies owned by individuals is a good one. Something like the Green Bay Packers ownership model, whereby no-one can own more than a few percent of the shares and shares can't be sold, only passed on to relatives or left by legacy, would be an interesting start point for discussion. But of course you tehn have the legality of devaluing the shares worth billions so it's not a practical proposition.

But your wording of majority shareholders "taking more money out of the club than they have ever put in" is wrong. Garlick has put in a few million and never taken much of anything out; what you're talking about, I think, is making a profit on his shares. This isn't taking money out of the club.

There are examples where a purchase results in debt sitting on the club’s books (Man Utd?) so I think it is conceivable that a sale in essence takes money out of the club. It is also likely that assets sat in a bank are more attractive to buyers than player or facilities assets. The real question is - will the fans ever see any benefit from those profits in recent years, on or off the pitch? I think there is a chance that is no.

Whether Garlick is up for selling or not, does the spectre of relegation not seriously undermine the share value that the directors hold.
Do we not have enough confidence in the high value of the likes of Tarks, Pope and McNeil to justify squad strengthening to the tune of £20m this window - therefore maintaining some optimism around the club and its profile. Feels a bit self-defeating, if indeed its a strategy.

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:33 am

Is it moral for the majority shareholders to take more money out of the club than they have ever put in from their own personal wealth?

Maybe it’s naive thinking but I see our board members more as custodians. Personal wealth has been used to purchase shares but not to outright fund the day to day running of the club which they’ve strived to make self sufficient.
As Cresspool claret has said it rankle if the proceeds of the sale are taken away from the club which has been underinvested on the basis of self sustainability.

As a fan what would you do in their shoes?
Make sure they next lot are ‘good eggs‘ and take out every penny you can get?
Or do something like locking away some of the share dividend into a trust fund for the club for the express use of funding the Cat 1 academy for the next 20 years?
Or is there another way?

As dsr said, if the club's value had gone down would you have expected the club/fans to make up the shortfall.

Some seem to be viewing it as a given that they came in to make big profits. Realistically it was a hugely risky investment with probably a bigger chance of losing everything than the potential profit that people are now getting worked up about.

As I've said elsewhere, a lot of people have leapt on the idea that a few have mooted that they look like accounts prepared for a sale whilst ignoring that such a cash reserve is probably going to be required when we're relegated.

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:40 pm

I agree.

My only real gripe (a big one) was not investing in the stadium and taking fans for granted. The investment in the team was OK until the last couple of years, but is now at the point where it threatens our league status, so I think people are now legitimately justified in grumbling about that too. We would never have competed financially with other mid-division clubs though but we still needed a pipeline - Charlie Taylor and Nick Pope types for age and ability level.

I don't disagree with this but am wondering whether there has been a bit of a change of strategy. We're seeing (at least that's how it feels to me) a lot of players come in at development squad level and I wonder whether this is the area we're focusing on for profits.

It’s disappointing to see our transfer strategy change in recent years, we were doing so well with a conveyor belt of talent ready to be sold on when the time is right, the last couple of years it’s been largely signing players without resale value. Where’s the next Tarkowski for when we sell Tarkowski? Why was £15M spent on a 3rd choice central defender with no resale value? If we were to sell Taylor, where’s his young hungry developed replacement? Pieters has been solid for us but as a club reliant on player sales, we haven’t invested smartly in recent times which could bite us in the ass in the future.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:35 pm

It’s disappointing to see our transfer strategy change in recent years, we were doing so well with a conveyor belt of talent ready to be sold on when the time is right, the last couple of years it’s been largely signing players without resale value. Where’s the next Tarkowski for when we sell Tarkowski? Why was £15M spent on a 3rd choice central defender with no resale value? If we were to sell Taylor, where’s his young hungry developed replacement? Pieters has been solid for us but as a club reliant on player sales, we haven’t invested smartly in recent times which could bite us in the ass in the future.

Gibson was what, 25 when he signed for us? And had a resale on him. You can't blame the club for him being a tosser.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:35 pm

It’s disappointing to see our transfer strategy change in recent years, we were doing so well with a conveyor belt of talent ready to be sold on when the time is right, the last couple of years it’s been largely signing players without resale value. Where’s the next Tarkowski for when we sell Tarkowski? Why was £15M spent on a 3rd choice central defender with no resale value? If we were to sell Taylor, where’s his young hungry developed replacement? Pieters has been solid for us but as a club reliant on player sales, we haven’t invested smartly in recent times which could bite us in the ass in the future.

Yep and being saying the same for a couple of years - welcome to my way of thinking

aggi wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:10 pm

I don't disagree with this but am wondering whether there has been a bit of a change of strategy. We're seeing (at least that's how it feels to me) a lot of players come in at development squad level and I wonder whether this is the area we're focusing on for profits.

That was a main part of Mike Rigg's remit according to an interview he gave a few month's into the job. Don't know if you remember but he made the "If we sell Jimmy Dunne for £1m", comment which caused consternation at the time.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:35 pm

It’s disappointing to see our transfer strategy change in recent years, we were doing so well with a conveyor belt of talent ready to be sold on when the time is right, the last couple of years it’s been largely signing players without resale value. Where’s the next Tarkowski for when we sell Tarkowski? Why was £15M spent on a 3rd choice central defender with no resale value? If we were to sell Taylor, where’s his young hungry developed replacement? Pieters has been solid for us but as a club reliant on player sales, we haven’t invested smartly in recent times which could bite us in the ass in the future.

Presumably Glennon is seen as Taylor's replacement, he shows promise. By definition young & hungry players tend not to be developed already unless they've come from lower leagues, and then they're not Premier League savvy as SD would say.

No problem with young lads but apart from Mc Neil they never get a chance anyway

I presume 1 or 2 might play tomorrow and they should but they wont

BOYSIE31 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:09 pm

I presume 1 or 2 might play tomorrow and they should but they wont

What?

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:52 pm

What?

Just making sure he's right whatever happens

For whatever reason, it appears that our young players (with one notable exception) seem to stall in the Under 23s.
In recent years we have coached quite a few promising lads to L1 or 2 level. Maybe they just weren't good enough, but we spend a fair bit of money on "development" with little financial gain, if any.