aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:29 pm

Cheers both, that was who I guessed but I hadn't seen anything.

The 2nd one was the worst - though most seemed to have missed it, absolutely no need for it and a marked difference from the Chairman's approach https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... eague.html

amazing how the noises from the club are often about how aligned it is with the town and the supporters ........................

Garlick has seen the clubs wage bill go up to 90m by backing Dyche.
Has seen the average age of the squad rise to the oldest in the division by giving Dyche free reign.
Seen 3 players with combined transfer fees of 39m become almost worthless. (Gibson, Hendrick and Brady)

All extra monies from the premier league seem to go on bonuses.

The club will be 50m short in the budget.

I can see why Garlick is reluctant to give Dyche money.

It's his job to keep the club afloat and make sure we don't have a massive debt when we eventually get relegated.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:03 pm

Garlick has seen the clubs wage bill go up to 90m by backing Dyche.
Has seen the average age of the squad rise to the oldest in the division by giving Dyche free reign.
Seen 3 players with combined transfer fees of 39m become almost worthless. (Gibson, Hendrick and Brady)

All extra monies from the premier league seem to go on bonuses.

The club will be 50m short in the budget.

I can see why Garlick is reluctant to give Dyche money.

It's his job to keep the club afloat and make sure we don't have a massive debt when we eventually get relegated.

When totalling all the expenses of a business like above you must also include the income it has earned during the same period. He may have seen the wages go up but so has turnover.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:03 pm

Garlick has seen the clubs wage bill go up to 90m by backing Dyche.
Has seen the average age of the squad rise to the oldest in the division by giving Dyche free reign.
Seen 3 players with combined transfer fees of 39m become almost worthless. (Gibson, Hendrick and Brady)

All extra monies from the premier league seem to go on bonuses.

The club will be 50m short in the budget.

I can see why Garlick is reluctant to give Dyche money.

It's his job to keep the club afloat and make sure we don't have a massive debt when we eventually get relegated.

It’s also his job to give the best manager we’ve had for years, something to work with as he aims to keep us in the top league for yet another year.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:07 pm

It’s also his job to give the best manager we’ve had for years, something to work with as he aims to keep us in the top league for yet another year.

Do you mean put his own money in?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:07 pm

When totalling all the expenses of a business like above you must also include the income it has earned during the same period. He may have seen the wages go up but so has turnover.

I agree, but I think everyone on here knows about them. They are highlighted quite often.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:03 pm

Garlick has seen the clubs wage bill go up to 90m by backing Dyche.
Has seen the average age of the squad rise to the oldest in the division by giving Dyche free reign.
Seen 3 players with combined transfer fees of 39m become almost worthless. (Gibson, Hendrick and Brady)

All extra monies from the premier league seem to go on bonuses.

The club will be 50m short in the budget.

I can see why Garlick is reluctant to give Dyche money.

It's his job to keep the club afloat and make sure we don't have a massive debt when we eventually get relegated.

Ha ha ,I’ve heard it all now ,Dyche’s fault the wage bill has gone up ,unbelievable

joey13 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:18 pm

Ha ha ,I’ve heard it all now ,Dyche’s fault the wage bill has gone up ,unbelievable

Paying lads 40-50 grand a week to play one game a season hasn't exactly helped though has it?

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:10 pm

Do you mean put his own money in?

No, I mean providing some funds from the monies that Dyche’s management has brought into the club.

We’ve had a good number of windows with limited spending, which helped to build a healthy bank balance. We can’t go every season without dipping deeper into our pockets. Some (I’d argue this one) require more spending when we’ve seen the squad age and become depleted.

Dyche has shown his ability to keep the team up so for me, despite funds being depleted due to Covid, he needs to be backed to do so again and the funds that will bring.

If we continue to keep operating with a depleted squad, we are risking there being a far, far bigger loss; financially and through the loss of Dyche.

Dyche has to be backed and if not, Garlick’s legacy will likely be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

jrgbfc wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:22 pm

Paying lads 40-50 grand a week to play one game a season hasn't exactly helped though has it?

Which lads are these? the ones for backup in case of an injury?

Far to many moan when we have players earning 30-40k to sit on the bench and not play, these are the same people who moan we dont have cover when Tarkowski bruises his toe... or Pope pulls a muscle...

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:31 pm

Which lads are these? the ones for backup in case of an injury?

Far to many moan when we have players earning 30-40k to sit on the bench and not play, these are the same people who moan we dont have cover when Tarkowski bruises his toe... or Pope pulls a muscle...

Same ones as well who are quick to point out we beat Sheff Utd's reserves and ignoring 2 of them costing a combined 40million plus wages

DCWat wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:26 pm

No, I mean providing some funds from the monies that Dyche’s management has brought into the club.

We’ve had a good number of windows with limited spending, which helped to build a healthy bank balance. We can’t go every season without dipping deeper into our pockets. Some (I’d argue this one) require more spending when we’ve seen the squad age and become depleted.

Dyche has shown his ability to keep the team up so for me, despite funds being depleted due to Covid, he needs to be backed to do so again and the funds that will bring.

If we continue to keep operating with a depleted squad, we are risking there being a far, far bigger loss; financially and through the loss of Dyche.

Dyche has to be backed and if not, Garlick’s legacy will likely be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

As far as I know 30m was the highest reported monies in our bank.
If that's correct then this Covid mess will of wiped it out two fold

Unless there is money we don't know about?

joey13 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:18 pm

Ha ha ,I’ve heard it all now ,Dyche’s fault the wage bill has gone up ,unbelievable

Dyche has control of the club. All the players in the squad are here because Dyche wants them.
All the good and bad things he his responsible for.

good post by chester perry

Do those who so fervently support the Chairman expect us to get through the season with so few players ?

All this takeover talk sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Might just be an old fashioned dispute between folk wanting to take the recruitment strategy in opposite directions.

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:25 pm

Do those who so fervently support the Chairman expect us to get through the season with so few players ?

Well, i imagine we will get through the season as long as we have a sensible chairman.
We may get relegated, but that is another matter.

I wonder why the bookies don't think we're likely to get relegated.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:38 pm

As far as I know 30m was the highest reported monies in our bank.
If that's correct then this Covid mess will of wiped it out two fold

Unless there is money we don't know about?

So you’d rather risk going with what we’ve got in the hope that we can stay up and begin to rebuild the pot?

I’d rather we spent some to give us a greater chance of maintaining our entitlements to the big pot.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:08 pm

Well, i imagine we will get through the season as long as we have a sensible chairman.
We may get relegated, but that is another matter.

I perhaps should have added " without being relegated " after get through the season, but I thought that was self evident.

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:37 pm

I perhaps should have added " without being relegated " after get through the season, but I thought that was self evident.

I think we all accept that our time in the PL will run out, could be this season. Whatever, I trust the chairman to do what he believes to be in the long term best for the club.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:41 pm

I think we all accept that our time in the PL will run out, could be this season. Whatever, I trust the chairman to do what he believes to be in the long term best for the club.

I'd agree with that to an extent, I don't think we will ever be permanent top flight fixture. But whilst we still have Sean Dyche i think we can continue to challenge for top half finishes if he gets some more backing. Given everything he's done for the club it's a shame that Garlick isn't prepared to stump up some more cash. Without Dyche we would still be a Championship club at best

If the club have come out since the pandemic and said we don't need to sell then I have missed it. It is something we have been often told before the financial world of regular football was turned upside down this year.
I think our big sale players will start to leave the squad, even maybe before the transfer window shuts next.
If this doesn't happen this time and we manage to bring in a new face it will be a result for me.
A big 'Well done' to Dunne, Benson and Long last night, great to get through a difficult tie against a Premier League side good enough to come above us last season.

Dyche's mantra used to be "we don't have to sell"
This season that has changed to "we won't sell on the cheap"

Thanks, yes I thought there had been a shift and pretty understandable in the circumstances

In his interview today SD said we are often onto 4th or 5th pick with targets as we can't/won't pay for target 1,2 or 3.

We just don't have enough money. Rejuvenating an ageing squad good enough for a top ten finish would cost more than we could raise even through selling a couple of our star players.
I can see the policy (Mike Rigg's remit) of bringing in young players with the intention of turning them into first-teamers as being the only way we can survive in the PL.
I get the impression that Sean Dyche has a rather different view.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:28 pm

So you’d rather risk going with what we’ve got in the hope that we can stay up and begin to rebuild the pot?

I’d rather we spent some to give us a greater chance of maintaining our entitlements to the big pot.

As a fan I would like money spending on stars to put me on the edge of my seat.

But realistically we haven't the finances to. I don't want the chairman plowing money in as loans like Bolton or Blackburn as it will end in tears.

I just don't think all this criticism of the chairman is fair.

The trouble is there's too much of a gap between our ageing squad and the young blood coming in (as they are several years from being able to hold down a first team place.)
Our current squad will find it hard to keep us in the Premier league without experience being brought in to add to it, even if only replacing the three who left this summer
Loans are a short term answer if that is what is required

I think i've worked out what's going on, SD has been told that there is no money to spend unless we generate it (Tarky), SD doesn't want to sell Tarky, hence the stand-off, and SD saying he stays "unless it's taken out of my hands"

I can see Tarky missing Sunday, and being sold next week to Leicester for £35M.

Hope i'm wrong.

claretandy wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:30 pm

I think i've worked out what's going on, SD has been told that there is no money to spend unless we generate it (Tarky), SD doesn't want to sell Tarky, hence the stand-off, and SD saying he stays "unless it's taken out of my hands"

I can see Tarky missing Sunday, and being sold next week to Leicester for £35M.

Hope i'm wrong.

Our squad will not be strengthened by the sale of James Tarkowski, £35m minus the sell on and we will be weaker.

But surely it's up to Dyche to realise the players he generally wants to sign, British and experienced are normally too expensive for us?
It's almost as if he's refusing any sort of compromise and banging his head against a brick wall. He can whinge all he wants but it won't change anything.

jrgbfc wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:40 pm

But surely it's up to Dyche to realise the players he generally wants to sign, British and experienced are normally too expensive for us?
It's almost as if he's refusing any sort of compromise and banging his head against a brick wall. He can whinge all he wants but it won't change anything.

Absolutely,
and I think he's pulled off a very serious PR blunder by making his feelings public.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:34 pm

Our squad will not be strengthened by the sale of James Tarkowski, £35m minus the sell on and we will be weaker.

I agree, but i don't think we will sign anyone without selling him.

What you’ve got to ask yourself is what does Garlick have to gain by not ‘backing’ Dyche? If he’s not being frugal in the interests of the clubs long term security then why else?

At the end of the day he knows the clubs finances better than anyone, and he will also have a good understanding of the potential financial ramifications of the current pandemic. Maybe he is being a little too risk averse though I don’t think any of us can claim that with any certainty, but surely he has earned our trust.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:39 pm

Couldn't agree more - can't see much changing though unfortunately. No one seemed to want to believe me some time ago but manager and chairman seem to continue to be at loggerheads and ultimately there will only be one solution and that will be one of them having to go. It doesn't take a genius to work out which one of the two it will be either.

I didn't believe the 'loggerheads' stuff... I've even commented on this thread with my speculation, but I think I'm wrong - takeover is in the mix, but turns out Dyche doesn't speak to any board members anymore - only through third parties and is seriously unhappy... it's worse than what the press are saying.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:28 pm

I didn't believe the 'loggerheads' stuff... I've even commented on this thread with my speculation, but I think I'm wrong - takeover is in the mix, but turns out Dyche doesn't speak to any board members anymore - only through third parties and is seriously unhappy... it's worse than what the press are saying.

That is not the case, suggesting he doesn’t talk to any board members. Maybe that’s the case with some directors but very definitely not with others.

But I’ve been saying for months and months, long before the shutdown, that there were serious problems.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:32 pm

That is not the case, suggesting he doesn’t talk to any board members. Maybe that’s the case with some directors but very definitely not with others.

But I’ve been saying for months and months, long before the shutdown, that there were serious problems.

Do you have any sense of how many board members play an important role at the club still? I'm presuming for people like Clive Holt that the role for him is a fairly ceremonial one

JohnDearyMe wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:35 pm

Do you have any sense of how many board members play an important role at the club still? I'm presuming for people like Clive Holt that the role for him is a fairly ceremonial one

Don’t think I’d be too far out suggesting one. The chairman owns over half of the active shares. It’s the first time that’s happened since Lord’s days.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:32 pm

That is not the case, suggesting he doesn’t talk to any board members. Maybe that’s the case with some directors but very definitely not with others.

But I’ve been saying for months and months, long before the shutdown, that there were serious problems.

Doesn't sound like he will be here much longer if this carrys on . There will only be 1 winner

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:36 pm

Don’t think I’d be too far out suggesting one. The chairman owns over half of the active shares. It’s the first time that’s happened since Lord’s days.

Such a shame that the relationship has broken down. Fully agree with what you said on Talk Sport that we've got the best manager in the league. Sadly it seems like it's only a matter of time before Dyche leaves

Reecey1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:43 pm

Doesn't sound like he will be here much longer if this carrys on . There will only be 1 winner

I’ve posted a few times that I think he’s here still because no opportunities have come up. There are two sides to every argument but this one is doing the club no favours.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:45 pm

I’ve posted a few times that I think he’s here still because no opportunities have come up. There are two sides to every argument but this one is doing the club no favours.

I’m not sure you **** stirring on here is helping either.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:32 pm

That is not the case, suggesting he doesn’t talk to any board members. Maybe that’s the case with some directors but very definitely not with others.

But I’ve been saying for months and months, long before the shutdown, that there were serious problems.

Basically, the manager and the board are not speaking and it's past the point of no return now and it won't be resolved. We all know what's coming next, but what happens after that... I'm really don't know.

Your mention to the chairman holding more than half the shares was significant from what I was told.

Bertiebeehead wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:51 pm

I’m not sure you **** stirring on here is helping either.

Stirring? I’m giving an opinion, no more, no less.

Would you prefer me to say everything in the garden is rosy? There has been something wrong for over a year and seems to be deteriorating even further.

Is Garlick reluctant to give Dyche cash because he thinks Dyche will leave as soon as an opportunity arises, or is that a little far fetched?

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:53 pm

Basically, the manager and the board are not speaking and it's past the point of no return now and it won't be resolved. We all know what's coming next, but what happens after that... I'm really don't know.

Your mention to the chairman holding more than half the shares was significant from what I was told.

You said he’s not talking to any board members. That is quite simply not true.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:53 pm

Basically, the manager and the board are not speaking and it's past the point of no return now and it won't be resolved. We all know what's coming next, but what happens after that... I'm really don't know.

Your mention to the chairman holding more than half the shares was significant from what I was told.

So put yourself in the chairman's shoes; would you give SD a budget given that you think he'd like out?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:56 pm

You said he’s not talking to any board members. That is quite simply not true.

OK, fair enough, I'm only saying what I was told - but the bottom line is, from what I believe - the relationship has completely broken down