• Dyche & Garlick

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:04 pm**

Want to make this clear that I absolutely do not want Dyche out, I am just asking the question... there is a clear issue between Dyche & Garlick that we are all aware of, is this transmitting to the players?

Tonight worried me because of the lack of effort and belief which could well be down to the issues the 2 are having.

Unless this gets sorted quickly I can only see this going one way. We have a bad run and Garlick then has the excuse to fire Dyche and find someone more suited to his ideas

For everyone involved I hope this gets resolved quickly

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:13 pm**

If garlicks ready to sell why would he put up cash?

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:14 pm**

Wellsy1882 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:13 pm
If garlicks ready to sell why would he put up cash?

Can't argue with that. Which is why it needs resolving quickly

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:16 pm**

When we were promoted under Dyche..on both occasions...much was made of how everyone at the club from top to bottom was pointing in the same direction and how powerful this was. Now we seem to have the opposite and I am really fearful that it will have the opposite outcome. Bad times and you are right...it needs sorting fast.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:18 pm**

I really don't get the stick MG is getting right now.
he's done brilliantly for BFC and for Sean Dyche.
People need to understand that there isn't any money, we've spent it.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:19 pm**

It’s clear that without some major peace talks that one of them needs to go.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:23 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:18 pm
I really don't get the stick MG is getting right now.
he's done brilliantly for BFC and for Sean Dyche.
People need to understand that there isn't any money, we've spent it.

Yes MG and the rest of the board have been good for this club in there is but we’re not in the past. We’re in the present and this is now not good enough. Learn by history. Bob Lord was good for Burnley (f£&k excellent in fact) but didn’t move with the times. Sometimes people hit a limit and this board have hit their limit.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:24 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:18 pm
I really don't get the stick MG is getting right now.
he's done brilliantly for BFC and for Sean Dyche.
People need to understand that there isn't any money, we've spent it.

Why's there no money then?

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:26 pm**

DomBFC1882 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:24 pm
Why's there no money then?

Because Mike has specced top grade hide for the leather settees in the boardroom.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:27 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:18 pm
I really don't get the stick MG is getting right now.
he's done brilliantly for BFC and for Sean Dyche.
People need to understand that there isn't any money, we've spent it.

What about the £40m in the bank?

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:30 pm**

We have money
Its not being spent
Hopefully due these talks

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:32 pm**

bf2k wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:23 pm
Yes MG and the rest of the board have been good for this club in there is but we’re not in the past. We’re in the present and this is now not good enough. Learn by history. Bob Lord was good for Burnley (f£&k excellent in fact) but didn’t move with the times. Sometimes people hit a limit and this board have hit their limit.

Okay, say Garlick moves with the times. Does that mean spend? How much? I know we should spend, but nothing much more than £20m, £30m at a push if the right players were available.

What possibly can we achieve? That’s the worry in all this. The past few years have been brilliant. But what else can we possibly do? Even to match our best PL finish year after year would take mega spending now and even that wouldn’t we guaranteed. The gap from 20th to 9th is small compared to 9th to 1st. The top 6 plus Wolves, Everton will occupy the Top 8 now. Okay, Wolves, Everton might drop a few places now and again, but the team replacing them won’t ever be the same team eg Burnley.

Staying in the league is the target. Wether that is 17th or 9th. We could go and spend £50m, finish 9th or spend £0 and finish 17th. Financially the latter is better. It’s a very, very tough place to be for Garlick. Dyche will want better places and be able to get his targets. Every manager does, but very few actually get them.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:32 pm**

It's not Garlicks money though it is the tv money we get the directors dont pocket any money check the accounts, we have a business to run and who knows when cash will flow through the turnstiles and other commercial activities. I am though concerned that money possibly might be being kept away from the manager to grow the club. A clear statement from the board would help.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:32 pm**

Wellsy1882 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:13 pm
If garlicks ready to sell why would he put up cash?

It isn't called Garlick Football Club.It isn't his money.The money he put in shares is what he gets back if bought out.The 50 million or whatever is in the bank is the clubs.So we do have money to spend.Its all very well being the only club in the entire league not in debt but the **** show tonight shows you why we need to spend.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm**

NewClaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:27 pm
What about the £40m in the bank?

Apparently this is about it (top).
I guess our chairman sees this as a cushion in case of loss of revenue owing to Covid19.
Ask yourself, if you wish, who has spent all the money?

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:34 pm**

[*]

damo_whitehead wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:04 pm
Want to make this clear that I absolutely do not want Dyche out, I am just asking the question... there is a clear issue between Dyche & Garlick that we are all aware of, is this transmitting to the players?

Tonight worried me because of the lack of effort and belief which could well be down to the issues the 2 are having.

Unless this gets sorted quickly I can only see this going one way. We have a bad run and Garlick then has the excuse to fire Dyche and find someone more suited to his ideas

For everyone involved I hope this gets resolved quickly

I don’t think it was lack of effort. The shape wasn’t quite right, which meant they always looked a yard off it.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:35 pm**

Duchess needs to shut up or leave. His constant sniping is reflected in the team’s performance

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:37 pm**

Garlick has broad shoulders, he has allowed all the pressure and expectation to be heaped on him, leaving SD to concentrate on the football. SD was acting very like this last time we wobbled at the start of the season, and quietly they worked together behind the scenes and put it right.

I do not expect Garlick will be any different this time. No matter how panicky his fellow Burnley fans get. Very few see the whole picture, even fewer of them would be willing to risk the football club by yelling it to all.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:43 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm
Apparently this is about it (top).
I guess our chairman sees this as a cushion in case of loss of revenue owing to Covid19.
Ask yourself, if you wish, who has spent all the money?

Nobody. It’s in the bank. It needs spending. If we had the playing staff we need, a “cushion” would be great, but I’d rather have a team than a cash pile.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:45 pm**

The more money that’s in the bank account the more the club is worth

Honestly Iv never been more embarrassed at the start of the season since the ITV digital collapse and Stan was in his last season

I feel sorry for Sean Dyche and the playing squad. The manager is outperforming the directors and when that happens the ship loses its rudder.

The club explained the situation after the Charlie Austin which has been well published in the media. I think the fans need a proper explication again. Not a bullsh*t statement but a reasoning on where the club is going.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:49 pm**

NewClaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:27 pm
What about the £40m in the bank?

Buy a player at £10m his wages will be £7m (at least) for a 3 year contract.

Fees won’t be a major issue for our targets. Dyche isn’t thick. He’ll know what players will cost. It’ll be their wages. Which imho, if a player goes for £10m/£15m he’s well entitled to receive the same there or thereabouts over his contract.

So whatever a player is signed for, expect double that. Not always the case obviously eg Stephens will be getting far more than his fee and others getting less than theirs eg Wood.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:51 pm**

When Dyche came in the defence was sured up. We became less creative but the framework and personnel enabled us to mix up the play and actually play some nice football. The system hasn't changed however we no longer have all the personnel to make it tick. Some fans complained 2 years ago the football was becoming stale, while results stayed positive. We lost players like Ings and Arfield which gave us that edge to be able to beat a man and carry the ball. Then Dwight emerged and the team looked better again. However Dwight has papered the cracks for a season or two. Players are doubling up on him, at a young age he is not a consistent performer and when he's not on it, we look poor. For the last few transfer windows we have signed more of these Steady Eddie type players, players who lack the technical ability we need, but can do a job, Stephens being a prime example.
We have brought in the odd young player, Taylor, Brownhill but not enough to be moving forwards. I believe better football/results is only a few signings away. The problem is these signings never come.
We play the way we do because it suits us.
When we had Ings, Trippier, Airfield et al we played some good football. We don't have that quality in the side anymore and it's the poor transfer windows to blame for me. That comes down to the chairman for me, unless of course Dyche walked into Garlicks office and asked for Stephens! I think it's more likely Dyche asked for Santa maria, x, y, z and was left with Stephens as a cheap stop gap option.
I'm not stupid enough to believe we'll get Ings, Tripps and a load of world beaters in or spend ridiculous amounts of money but I'd just like to see some young technically good players coming in!!

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:51 pm**

Three things struck me tonight

1) Dale Stephens was constantly referred to as a Dyche type player and we pursued him for four years?
2) The "bench" had no attacking players on it ( that I was aware of) - do we have nay attacking players in the U23's
3) We fit players into the system not system to the available players - could we have got away with playing 4-3-3 tonight.

I would venture Dyche only knows how to play one way. It has been very successful for us in financial terms and in footballing terms. He has a list of players he wants in that system and will attempt to buy (i.e Dawson) them.

Dyche will not change or be sacked, Garlick will attempt to keep the club he loves financial secure and fans being true fans will always want better.

And yes I was at the orient match but stop dragging that up please look forward and stop banging on about irrelevant past events.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:52 pm**

NewClaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:27 pm
What about the £40m in the bank?

The accounts showed £40m cash on 30-June-2019. There's been a lot spent since then: a) transfer commitments on players acquired before that date and not paid by that date; b) wages of players that were increased since Jul-2018, including players that were signed after Jul-2018; c) Jay Rod signed, summer 2019, so transfer fee and wages; d) Drinkwater, (part) wages for half season - unless we got a refund; e) Brownhill signed Jan-2020; f) wage increased/new contracts for existing players since Jul-2019; g) all the covid-19 impacts, both higher costs and reduced revenues - so far, mostly match day income cuts and h) the Ben Gibson situation, which is just an unknown cost outside the club at this stage.

Some variables between numbers reported in accounts for year to Jun-2019 and the numbers that will, eventually, be reported for season ended Jul-2020 (13 month period) - so, hard to know exact outcome for the year gone.

And, covid-19 is continuing into this season, so no match day income for a long time - and there are tv revenue rebates to come.

Who knows, I think it's safer to think about Mike Garlick's estimate of possible loss that he spoke about in April - though I think he was only forecasting the impact of last season wasn't finished - which it was, after a fashion. I don't think MG was expecting covid-19 to still be impacting 2020/21 - at least not back in April - were any of us?

Above, just my assumptions. Others may have different figures - but no one has got £40 million cash.

Who knows, despite comments above, MG (and John B) may have needed to lend the club funds these last few months.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:54 pm**

Dyched wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:32 pm
Okay, say Garlick moves with the times. Does that mean spend? How much? I know we should spend, but nothing much more than £20m, £30m at a push if the right players were available.

What possibly can we achieve? That’s the worry in all this. The past few years have been brilliant. But what else can we possibly do? Even to match our best PL finish year after year would take mega spending now and even that wouldn’t we guaranteed. The gap from 20th to 9th is small compared to 9th to 1st. The top 6 plus Wolves, Everton will occupy the Top 8 now. Okay, Wolves, Everton might drop a few places now and again, but the team replacing them won’t ever be the same team eg Burnley.

Staying in the league is the target. Wether that is 17th or 9th. We could go and spend £50m, finish 9th or spend £0 and finish 17th. Financially the latter is better. It’s a very, very tough place to be for Garlick. Dyche will want better places and be able to get his targets. Every manager does, but very few actually get them.

It means invest. Any business needs good investment in the right areas. Don’t invest your business fails. Yes investment has been made in the training and youth side (small investment in terms of premier league teams but investment all the same that was desperately needed). However, the team needs investment to keep going. I’m not even saying we should be pushing for Europe but this side now will be lucky to survive.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:57 pm**

brexit wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:51 pm
Three things struck me tonight

1) Dale Stephens was constantly referred to as a Dyche type player and we pursued him for four years?
2) The "bench" had no attacking players on it ( that I was aware of) - do we have nay attacking players in the U23's
3) We fit players into the system not system to the available players - could we have got away with playing 4-3-3 tonight.

I would venture Dyche only knows how to play one way. It has been very successful for us in financial terms and in footballing terms. He has a list of players he wants in that system and will attempt to buy (i.e Dawson) them.

Dyche will not change or be sacked, Garlick will attempt to keep the club he loves financial secure and fans being true fans will always want better.

And yes I was at the orient match but stop dragging that up please look forward and stop banging on about irrelevant past events.

If you listen to SD in pre-match presser he said Burnley has tried to sign Dale Stephens 4 years ago - then let it drop - and came back to sign him when Brighton made him available this window. He said that we'd not been chasing DS for 4 years.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:58 pm**

Burnley87 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:45 pm
The more money that’s in the bank account the more the club is worth

Nonsense.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:12 pm**

The whole thread is nonsense, like many other threads at the moment

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:06 am**

this entire thing is way beyond us , no one has a clue whats been going on. probably no in fighting anyway.these rumours just grow and grow with no substance.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:20 am**

Tall Paul wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:58 pm
Nonsense.

it's only worth 30 quid

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:20 am**

If we had £40million in the bank, how much has had to be used to replace lost income last and this season. Once anyone knows that they can criticise Garlick for not spending if there is still money left. I will criticise MG if Sean has no idea how much of the £40million has gone due to Covid-19

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:57 am**

If the Club spent £30m today, the chances are they wouldn't be able to pay the bills next season.

There can't be a forecasted budget because there is uncertainty over income.

Every Club is the same but those spending have rich owners.

Garlick will quite rightly not jeopardise the Club in pursuit of a rainbow.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:26 am**

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:19 pm
It’s clear that without some major peace talks that one of them needs to go.

Well for the clubs sake, let's hope it's not the miracle worker who's brought in so much money and kept us competitive even with restraints in place.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:38 am**

Conroy92 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:51 pm
When Dyche came in the defence was sured up. We became less creative but the framework and personnel enabled us to mix up the play and actually play some nice football. The system hasn't changed however we no longer have all the personnel to make it tick. Some fans complained 2 years ago the football was becoming stale, while results stayed positive. We lost players like Ings and Arfield which gave us that edge to be able to beat a man and carry the ball. Then Dwight emerged and the team looked better again. However Dwight has papered the cracks for a season or two. Players are doubling up on him, at a young age he is not a consistent performer and when he's not on it, we look poor. For the last few transfer windows we have signed more of these Steady Eddie type players, players who lack the technical ability we need, but can do a job, Stephens being a prime example.
We have brought in the odd young player, Taylor, Brownhill but not enough to be moving forwards. I believe better football/results is only a few signings away. The problem is these signings never come.
We play the way we do because it suits us.
When we had Ings, Trippier, Airfield et al we played some good football. We don't have that quality in the side anymore and it's the poor transfer windows to blame for me. That comes down to the chairman for me, unless of course Dyche walked into Garlicks office and asked for Stephens! I think it's more likely Dyche asked for Santa maria, x, y, z and was left with Stephens as a cheap stop gap option.
I'm not stupid enough to believe we'll get Ings, Tripps and a load of world beaters in or spend ridiculous amounts of money but I'd just like to see some young technically good players coming in!!

Very true we have lost our better creative players over the years. Many brought in by the previous manager. But this manager tightened up the style and our keeper and teo CB's have been rocks. That's why we must get Mee back asap and a replacement for Tarks.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:48 am**

Both Dyche and Garlick have done wonders for the club and BOTH have a massive amount of credit in the bank for me which means I'm reluctant to criticise either. However I genuinely believe Garlick is keeping the money "careful" as he's always done, because he has the very best long term interests of the club at heart. That has been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid thing and reduced revenues, but I do get why that's worrying him. As I said somewhere else on here during the week, those clubs chucking big money around on players right now, may be playing a very dangerous game if the pandemic drags on and projected revenues reduce even further. Garlick might be being overly cautious, but he does have a point and he clearly does love the club. As for SD, well I don't think he should ever have gone public with their differences of opinion on spending as I think that (understandably) riled Garlick and made the situation far worse. I also think he's being a bit silly and dicing with the future of the club in order to illustrate his point by not even putting one of the young forwards on the bench yesterday so he'd absolutely nowhere to go attacking wise in the last 15 minutes when we needed something. Not one attacker on the bench. Why? We have got some! I know they're young and untried at this level, but...

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:53 am**

JohnMac wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:57 am
If the Club spent £30m today, the chances are they wouldn't be able to pay the bills next season.

There can't be a forecasted budget because there is uncertainty over income.

Every Club is the same but those spending have rich owners.

Garlick will quite rightly not jeopardise the Club in pursuit of a rainbow.

Don’t think aiming to stay in this division after 5 seasons is pursuing a rainbow. Letting your best manager in an era start the season with 14 fit professionals is pretty shoddy ownership.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:56 am**

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:53 am
Don’t think aiming to stay in this division after 5 seasons is pursuing a rainbow. Letting your best manager in an era start the season with 14 fit professionals is pretty shoddy ownership.

Oh dear what have you done, all the bed wetters will be on now

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:00 am**

With
Tarks Mee JBG Cork Jay Rod Barnes (possibly) in the team
and Brady on the bench, although he’d put pressure on McNeil at present likely we’d have won this game

25 Man Squad
Keepers ~ Pope Bailey Norris
RB - Lowton Bardsley
CB - Mee Tarks Long Dunne (Gibson)
LB - Taylor Peters Glennon
CM - Westwood Cork Brownhill Stephens Benson
L & RM - McNeil JBG Brady
F - Wood Barnes Jay Rod Vydra

A lot of wages and purchasing money there

Lost - Lennon Hendrick Hart
Gained - Brownhill Stephens Norris

Injuries aside the board have provided and maintain a squad that has been good enough to keep us in the Premier League for 4 years including a 7th & 10th place finish

10 million pound training centre so there should be young players coming through and in that 25 man squad

If you’re the board and you spend 15 million pound on Gibson plus wages and Dyche can’t man manage him then you’re even more cautious.

You can’t control the 7 man, out of your first 15, injury list

Your manager, well paid, then sends out a team that he basically tells many of them that they’re not good enough to be there

Then he fails to use his bench
For example:
Lowton on for Bardsley as more attacking option when needing a goal
Benson for Stephens, not match fit, allowing Brownhill back in the middle and Bensons young enthusiastic legs on the wing
Pieters on for an under performing McNeil, Pieters who has a goal in him can also defend back freeing Taylor and gives 100%

But no you send them out making it clear to many of them
that they’re temporary make weights

Flog them for 90 mins

Tell the bench players that they’re not good enough to even play premier league for 20 - 25 mins in a losing struggling under strength team

Well managed
Gibson should have been there
Tarks bruised toe my f@@king arse
Mee I believe is compassionate leave and fair enough but that is out of the boards control
Other 4 injuries are all players provided, by the board, paid for either up front or weekly or both without going into specifics, again out of the boards control that they’re injured.

Both the board and Dyche have more than done their job in the past decade plus and 7 years plus respectively but one is disrespecting and taking the other for granted and my opinion it’s the well paid Mr Dyche putting out an unmotivated team and blaming someone else for the situation that needs to take an introspective look at himself.

IMO just like Tarks, bruised toe, Mr Dyches, bruised ego, have both outgrown us in their own minds.

Do your job Mr Dyche

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:06 am**

BleedingClaret wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:00 am
With
Tarks Mee JBG Cork Jay Rod Barnes (possibly) in the team
and Brady on the bench, although he’d put pressure on McNeil at present likely we’d have won this game

25 Man Squad
Keepers ~ Pope Bailey Norris
RB - Lowton Bardsley
CB - Mee Tarks Long Dunne (Gibson)
LB - Taylor Peters Glennon
CM - Westwood Cork Brownhill Stephens Benson
L & RM - McNeil JBG Brady
F - Wood Barnes Jay Rod Vydra

A lot of wages and purchasing money there

Lost - Lennon Hendrick Hart
Gained - Brownhill Stephens Norris

Injuries aside the board have provided and maintain a squad that has been good enough to keep us in the Premier League for 4 years including a 7th & 10th place finish

10 million pound training centre so there should be young players coming through and in that 25 man squad

If you’re the board and you spend 15 million pound on Gibson plus wages and Dyche can’t man manage him then you’re even more cautious.

You can’t control the 7 man, out of your first 15, injury list

Your manager, well paid, then sends out a team that he basically tells many of them that they’re not good enough to be there

Then he fails to use his bench
For example:
Lowton on for Bardsley as more attacking option when needing a goal
Benson for Stephens, not match fit, allowing Brownhill back in the middle and Bensons young enthusiastic legs on the wing
Pieters on for an under performing McNeil, Pieters who has a goal in him can also defend back freeing Taylor and gives 100%

But no you send them out making it clear to many of them
that they’re temporary make weights

Flog them for 90 mins

Tell the bench players that they’re not good enough to even play premier league for 20 - 25 mins in a losing struggling under strength team

Well managed
Gibson should have been there
Tarks bruised toe my f@@king arse
Mee I believe is compassionate leave and fair enough but that is out of the boards control
Other 4 injuries are all players provided, by the board, paid for either up front or weekly or both without going into specifics, again out of the boards control that they’re injured.

Both the board and Dyche have more than done their job in the past decade plus and 7 years plus respectively but one is disrespecting and taking the other for granted and my opinion it’s the well paid Mr Dyche putting out an unmotivated team and blaming someone else for the situation that needs to take an introspective look at himself.

IMO just like Tarks, bruised toe, Mr Dyches, bruised ego, have both outgrown us in their own minds.

Do your job Mr Dyche

And do your job Mr Garlick.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:08 am**

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:53 am
Don’t think aiming to stay in this division after 5 seasons is pursuing a rainbow. Letting your best manager in an era start the season with 14 fit professionals is pretty shoddy ownership.

This is spot on.

A couple of posts on here suggesting that spending money is to try and achieve something impossible.

The reality is that we need to spend some money just to stand still at the moment.

The situation between Dyche and Garlick needs resolving very quickly as it’s distracting everybody from the job at hand.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:23 am**

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:53 am
Don’t think aiming to stay in this division after 5 seasons is pursuing a rainbow. Letting your best manager in an era start the season with 14 fit professionals is pretty shoddy ownership.

Do you think we are relegation candidates?

We won 7 games in 9 after losing Jeff Hendrick, he is still the only regular we have lost.

Do you think the Club can afford to recruit 3 or 4 more players who if starting will want £**k a week just because we have injuries?

Those injured players will be back and if we lose Tarkowski I'm sure we will sign someone to replace him but it won't be for £40m.

We are Burnley, we operate in the world of sensible reality.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:27 am**

JohnMac wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:23 am
Do you think we are relegation candidates?

We won 7 games in 9 after losing Jeff Hendrick, he is still the only regular we have lost.

Do you think the Club can afford to recruit 3 or 4 more players who if starting will want £**k a week just because we have injuries?

Those injured players will be back and if we lose Tarkowski I'm sure we will sign someone to replace him but it won't be for £40m.

We are Burnley, we operate in the world of sensible reality.

If Tarks stays we only need to sign Gibson's replacement and a right winger. We are losing points because we haven't. It's that simple.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:28 am**

JohnMac wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:23 am
Do you think we are relegation candidates?

We won 7 games in 9 after losing Jeff Hendrick, he is still the only regular we have lost.

Do you think the Club can afford to recruit 3 or 4 more players who if starting will want £**k a week just because we have injuries?

Those injured players will be back and if we lose Tarkowski I'm sure we will sign someone to replace him but it won't be for £40m.

We are Burnley, we operate in the world of sensible reality.

We need to recruit new players regardless of the injuries. Maybe we should start the golden gate back up when we are allowed back on to help.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:33 am**

Posted elsewhere but could this conflict be filtering down to the squad affecting what was excellent team spirit now that it is looking like no takeover with ££££££ coming in and no/few new additions of quality

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:42 am**

If there is still money in the bank then MG will want it to stay that way whilst potential takeover negotiations continue
He can then walk away with a nice package and leave any new owners to decide whether to spend it or not
My thought (for what it is worth) is that MG would let SD have funds from any potential sale of Tarks
On the other side SD wants to keep Tarks and whilst this "mystery" toe injury continues he is adamant that JT stays
Hence the clear breakdown in relationship between themselves
Dyche seems to be holding the winning hand
He can point to a lack of financial support from the Chairman as the reason for our possible relegation and would still walk away with his reputation in tact
Garlick seems to be on a hiding to nothing and has little to offer in terms of a suitable defense
He is also watching his additional pension fund sail away

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:43 am**

Do agree with the post above saying Dyche could’ve done more to win the game last night. Lowton on at RW, Brownhill central (he’s wasted on the wing) and Glennon on for Dwight in some way may have given us more energy in the last 15 when we needed it. Do think he was proving a point, which is a bit silly.

Accept there is an injury crisis but we have known for two seasons we need a right winger and haven’t solved the problem, so Dyche should really have the options at his disposal.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:46 am**

The two guys have different objectives.

Garlick has a long term objective of ensuring the club survives. Covid 19 will see off many businesses larger than BFC, airlines for instance. We have no idea what financial pressures the club faces and nobody inc MG can estimate what the ultimate cost of Covid will be. It is the potential for loss of income cannot be estimated. Not just gate receipts, there could be a huge loss of tv income

Dyche has a shorter term objective of winning games. Owing to injuries he has not the tools to do this. He is frustrated and rightly so. He has a squad that, when fit, should be good enough to keep us in the PL. that is all we can hope for right now until ‘normal’ returns.

These guys have worked together for years. They are both experienced and professional enough to understand each other’s challenges so I don’t believe that the rift is as bad as it appears.

It is simply two guys who don’t have the resources to do their job as well as they would like. MG needs money that he hasn’t got and SD needs players which, if injuries clear, he may have soon.

The potential sale is a red herring.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:52 am**

Paul Waine wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:52 pm
The accounts showed £40m cash on 30-June-2019. There's been a lot spent since then: a) transfer commitments on players acquired before that date and not paid by that date; b) wages of players that were increased since Jul-2018, including players that were signed after Jul-2018; c) Jay Rod signed, summer 2019, so transfer fee and wages; d) Drinkwater, (part) wages for half season - unless we got a refund; e) Brownhill signed Jan-2020; f) wage increased/new contracts for existing players since Jul-2019; g) all the covid-19 impacts, both higher costs and reduced revenues - so far, mostly match day income cuts and h) the Ben Gibson situation, which is just an unknown cost outside the club at this stage.

Some variables between numbers reported in accounts for year to Jun-2019 and the numbers that will, eventually, be reported for season ended Jul-2020 (13 month period) - so, hard to know exact outcome for the year gone.

And, covid-19 is continuing into this season, so no match day income for a long time - and there are tv revenue rebates to come.

Who knows, I think it's safer to think about Mike Garlick's estimate of possible loss that he spoke about in April - though I think he was only forecasting the impact of last season wasn't finished - which it was, after a fashion. I don't think MG was expecting covid-19 to still be impacting 2020/21 - at least not back in April - were any of us?

Above, just my assumptions. Others may have different figures - but no one has got £40 million cash.

Who knows, despite comments above, MG (and John B) may have needed to lend the club funds these last few months.

All fair points but we have had income over that period too. There’s every chance the cash pile had grown to March 20. Understand it will have taken a battering since.

But he still has an option open to him to borrow some low cost funding like Spurs. I hate debt and would much rather we avoid it, but equally there’s a case for it at the moment if all our cash has gone; if it hasn’t, we should crack on and spend it.

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:55 am**

Why would mg give dyche more money to spend when his wasted £15 mil on Gibson then for all intends and purpose sack the lad after a fall out he had with woan, Gibson should have been the next off the production line but now is wasting away in the championship. I know its always a gamble but surely mg is looking at affordable replacements until he can sell up and the owner can let dyche waste their money instead

Posted: **Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:03 am**

taffy wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:55 am
Why would mg give dyche more money to spend when his wasted £15 mil on Gibson then for all intends and purpose sack the lad after a fall out he had with woan, Gibson should have been the next off the production line but now is wasting away in the championship. I know its always a gamble but surely mg is looking at affordable replacements until he can sell up and the owner can let dyche waste their money instead

So a failed means no more money to spend? Great logic.

Dyche & Garlick

Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick

Re: Dyche & Garlick