Dyche Today

[Spiral]

Yes we do, with the way some on here big up Tarkowski, his left leg must be £30M alone.

A contracted player isn't a mortgageable asset. I'm talking ground, training facilities, hotels etc. We don't have that to such a degree required to guarantee the kind of debt required to strengthen in the way you're suggesting. Metallica aren't playing at Turf Moor anytime soon. We have mortgageable assets, but not to the degree needed to gamble on a PL football team. You're playing fantasy football.

[diamondpocket]

If only it were so simple. I can only assume we've planned for relegation in the form of relegation clauses. There's a navigable strategy in place (depressing as it is) should the worse happen. There never existed a solid strategy for navigating the collapse of football in the way the pandemic has brought about, i.e. a 'price correction' to use economic terms, because it wasn't exactly on anyone's radar before March of this year. Sure, the transfer market is alive and kicking with the realms of the funny-money clubs - those backed by the oligarchs, the sovereign wealth funds, and those with a $hitload of hopefully-just-about-manageable debt - but back in the real world everyone else has had to readjust. Burnley is hunkering down. That's all we can do, really. Hunker down, fight every battle. Sounds romantic, and it is a bit, but unless there's a magic wand laying about anywhere we're f.ucked.

Jesus, if we are that bad after 5 years in The Prem then there's gonna be no more football other than The Prem once COVID has moved on.

[Rileybobs]

Because without him we might get relegated

And without signing players we might get relegated. If you’re claiming that Garlick isn’t signing players because it will affect his ‘cash out’ then it stands to reason that he would cash in on our biggest asset doesn’t it?

[TVC15]

Why can’t we loan the money if we are broke? Spend £30M in the market, if we go down, sell Tarkowski Mcneil and Pope for £70M+?

From who ?
Who is going to lend us £30m ?
Banks pulled out of this sector more than a decade ago.

The debts other clubs are carrying are to their owners / backers.

[KRBFC]

A contracted player isn't a mortgageable asset. I'm talking ground, training facilities, hotels etc. We don't have that to such a degree required to guarantee the kind of debt required to strengthen in the way you're suggesting. Metallica aren't playing at Turf Moor anytime soon. We have mortgageable assets, but not to the degree needed to gamble on a PL football team. You're playing fantasy football.

Quite possibly but you still haven’t given me a reason why we can’t invest in players now and recoup later? If we get relegated this season, are you telling me we couldn’t recoup? Norwich have just sold Godfrey £30M, Lewis £15M. They have Aarons Cantwell and Buendia to go. Possibly £70m+ recoup at Norwich in a market where nobody has cash to spend. So why can’t we spend £30M now and do the same as Norwich? Wood Taylor Tark Pope McNeil surely aren’t all gonna die from covid?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Norwich have a decent sized chunk of debt and a wage bill that exceeds their income, has done for years in the championship.
Those player sales should help clear those debts but we shall see.

[Rumbletonk]

And without signing players we might get relegated. If you’re claiming that Garlick isn’t signing players because it will affect his ‘cash out’ then it stands to reason that he would cash in on our biggest asset doesn’t it?

He should sell the ground too then and hope they don't notice

[NewClaret]

They all get covid and die. Then what?

Extreme example, I know, but what you're advocating is putting the club at the risk of being over leveraged. Never in the history of any business, ever, has this been a good idea.

Disagree. A bit of debt is fine. Perhaps not £30m but I wouldn’t be averse to us borrowing to invest during these times. Spurs borrowed £175m for example, and all our competition will hold some debt. Sticking rigidly to living within our means is enviable but potentially more financially disastrous.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Disagree. A bit of debt is fine. Perhaps not £30m but I wouldn’t be averse to us borrowing to invest during these times. Spurs borrowed £175m for example, and all our competition will hold some debt. Sticking rigidly to living within our means is enviable but potentially more financially disastrous.

Why is it potentially more disastrous?

[Rileybobs]

He should sell the ground too then and hope they don't notice

Now you’re not making sense. There was a substantial offer on the table for Tarkowski. If Garlick’s primary aim was to profit as much as possible by selling the club then, by your very logic, he would surely have sold Tarkowski.

I personally find these unsubstantiated claims about Mike Garlick’s ethics and motives below the belt. We know things aren’t right at the club at the moment, but there’s absolutely no grounds on which to attack his character.

[Spiral]

Jesus, if we are that bad after 5 years in The Prem then there's gonna be no more football other than The Prem once COVID has moved on.

That's kind of the point, though. Imagine if there's no vaccine - a not-inconceivable prospect. Sky, BT and international broadcasters have already made quite clear their opinions on the price of an empty stadium. Even reduced capacity games will come at a cost. And once the liquidity dries up everyone panics. Can clubs endure a two-season or more income depression? Many premier league clubs possibly can, for a time, but not indefinitely - and not without there being a price correction. These are not normal times. To Burnley's relief, Garlick seems quite aware of that.

[diamondpocket]

But if this continues for the next few years then even Prem clubs will have to cut the cloth accordingly as well as players and the rest of the football world. It will inevitably not be sustainable and as we have seen with market values going up gradually with the TV deals eventually they will start to come down as TV revenue declines. The main thing is to stay in The Prem whilst COVID continues. This is the only place where substantial money will be guaranteed. And where we can still attract the best of the rest. Our position/standing wouldn't change unless we sell to rich, rich owners who can then bankroll us.

[Rumbletonk]

If you were in negotiation to buy Burnley then mid negotiation they sold their best player what would you say?

Rileybobs

[Spiral]

Quite possibly but you still haven’t given me a reason why we can’t invest in players now and recoup later? If we get relegated this season, are you telling me we couldn’t recoup? Norwich have just sold Godfrey £30M, Lewis £15M. They have Aarons Cantwell and Buendia to go. Possibly £70m+ recoup at Norwich in a market where nobody has cash to spend. So why can’t we spend £30M now and do the same as Norwich? Wood Taylor Tark Pope McNeil surely aren’t all gonna die from covid?

You've rather undone your own argument. Norwich kind of model themselves on Burnley. They have saleable assets, as we do, but they didn't over-commit last season. They got relegated at the first time of asking, as did we, but they're sustainable. If your argument is to invest more, don't draw on Norwich. If your argument is be sustainable, they why look at Norwich when we're ahead of the curve on that model.

Folk throw around the term 'investment' like it's a guaranteed thing. Our record signing was an unmitigated disaster. That's no reason not to spend, of course, but it's a good reason to be a bit cautious, now of all times. Again, these are not normal times.

[Spiral]

But if this continues for the next few years then even Prem clubs will have to cut the cloth accordingly as well as players and the rest of the football world. It will inevitably not be sustainable and as we have seen with market values going up gradually with the TV deals eventually they will start to come down as TV revenue declines. The main thing is to stay in The Prem whilst COVID continues. This is the only place where substantial money will be guaranteed. And where we can still attract the best of the rest. Our position/standing wouldn't change unless we sell to rich, rich owners who can then bankroll us.

As ever, if money spent were an indicator of league standing we'd be mid-bottom championship. But we're not. It isn't a guaranteed thing. I stress again, we need players, with that I agree, but I feel Garlick is taking the blame for a dreadful run of form that's the responsibility of the players and manager first and foremost, because virtually the same set of players were hitting upper-mid table/edging champions league form during project restart.

[Rileybobs]

If you were in negotiation to buy Burnley then mid negotiation they sold their best player what would you say?

Rileybobs

We were obviously close to selling our best player, so I don't think for one minute that Garlick decided not to sell Tarkowski because of his concern of what the potential investors may think. He didn't sell because no-one met his valuation of the player. If his aim was to make as much money as possible from selling the club, as you claim, then he would have sold Tarkowski. Your argument has no credibility.

[KRBFC]

You've rather undone your own argument. Norwich kind of model themselves on Burnley. They have saleable assets, as we do, but they didn't over-commit last season. They got relegated at the first time of asking, as did we, but they're sustainable. If your argument is to invest more, don't draw on Norwich. If your argument is be sustainable, they why look at Norwich when we're ahead of the curve on that model.

Folk throw around the term 'investment' like it's a guaranteed thing. Our record signing was an unmitigated disaster. That's no reason not to spend, of course, but it's a good reason to be a bit cautious, now of all times. Again, these are not normal times.

When i said do the same as Norwich I meant fire sale our assets to raise funds once relegated if needed. Why can’t we spend the Tarkowski fee now? (When he leaves next year). Fees are staggered instalments, instalments we can pay with PL income or from selling assets. We could quite easily sell McNeil for £15M, Tarkowski £20M and Pope £15M next summer and those are incredibly low figures.

[Spiral]

When i said do the same as Norwich I meant fire sale our assets to raise funds once relegated if needed. Why can’t we spend the Tarkowski fee now? (When he leaves next year). Fees are staggered instalments, instalments we can pay with PL income or from selling assets. We could quite easily sell McNeil for £15M, Tarkowski £20M and Pope £15M next summer and those are incredibly low figures.

All or bust, then? Is that what you're saying?

Honestly, mate, you sound like a bloody gambler. Gambling on transfer market futures is not a sound basis on which to stabilise a sports club.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

When i said do the same as Norwich I meant fire sale our assets to raise funds once relegated if needed. Why can’t we spend the Tarkowski fee now? (When he leaves next year). Fees are staggered instalments, instalments we can pay with PL income or from selling assets. We could quite easily sell McNeil for £15M, Tarkowski £20M and Pope £15M next summer and those are incredibly low figures.

Length of contract can alter the size of a fee.

Tarks runs out next year doesn't it?
If he doesn't sign a new one.. Where does your spending money come from?

McNeil could suffer a career ending injury... Where does your spending money come from then?

Pope could suffer a shoulder injury and be out long term.

[Rumbletonk]

We were obviously close to selling our best player, so I don't think for one minute that Garlick decided not to sell Tarkowski because of his concern of what the potential investors may think. He didn't sell because no-one met his valuation of the player. If his aim was to make as much money as possible from selling the club, as you claim, then he would have sold Tarkowski. Your argument has no credibility.

When you're trying to sell a Premier League club you don't sell one of the main reasons you're in the premier league

[GodIsADeeJay81]

When you're trying to sell a Premier League club you don't sell one of the main reasons you're in the premier league

I genuinely don't think we've tried to sell Dyche.

[DCWat]

There’s a middle ground, it doesn’t have to be all or bust. We’re playing with our piece of the cash cow by doing nothing, which could prove more costly.

[Spiral]

We're not exactly doing 'nothing'. We have a wage bill to pay for, you know.

[Rileybobs]

When you're trying to sell a Premier League club you don't sell one of the main reasons you're in the premier league

You do if you’re trying to maximise your return though don’t you? It’s exactly the same reasoning that you claim why Garlick hasn’t signed anyone for a substantial fee.

[Rumbletonk]

You do if you’re trying to maximise your return though don’t you? It’s exactly the same reasoning that you claim why Garlick hasn’t signed anyone for a substantial fee.

You've got me there. If I had 100mill on the table I'd trying and squeeze another 40 on the sly

[KRBFC]

All or bust, then? Is that what you're saying?

Honestly, mate, you sound like a bloody gambler. Gambling on transfer market futures is not a sound basis on which to stabilise a sports club.

How are we bust though? We are a selling club without funds to buy.

[KRBFC]

Length of contract can alter the size of a fee.

Tarks runs out next year doesn't it?
If he doesn't sign a new one.. Where does your spending money come from?

McNeil could suffer a career ending injury... Where does your spending money come from then?

Pope could suffer a shoulder injury and be out long term.

Taylor, Wood, Brownhill? Plus the players we buy don’t automatically lose all value.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Taylor, Wood, Brownhill? Plus the players we buy don’t automatically lose all value.

They're all an injury away from being unsaleable.

Or they could choose to run down their contracts and refuse to move in the meantime.

Clubs don't tend to rely on potential future transfer fees for a number of reasons.

Some clubs have gone down the route of future ticket sales, or TV money (Leeds did that on at least one of those many years ago, as did Bolton the other year)

Others "sell" their ground etc.

[Spiral]

How are we bust though? We are a selling club without funds to buy.

The phrase all or bust typically means making a gamble which either pays off or you're out of the game - which is what you seem to want. The essence of the phrase is the gamble. The idea of any club being a "buying" club or a "selling" club is such nonsense. Clubs, all of them, buy players. Clubs, all of them, also sell players. Burnley, like every other club in the land, is neither a buying club nor a selling club, because such an absolute distinction does not exist. We buy from lower and we sell to higher, and we also buy from higher and sell to lower, but all that truly matters is fielding a decent side today and making the scales balance so that we might field a decent side tomorrow. Without huge debt, a sports-washing sovereign wealth fund willing to lose millions for political leverage, a billionaire buying the club as a toy, or some naïve investment firm looking to profit from football (HA!!! Idiots!!!), the balance of the scales should always precede the 'decency' of the team because without that balance we won't be able to build one tomorrow.

[KRBFC]

The phrase all or bust typically means making a gamble which either pays off or you're out of the game - which is what you seem to want. The essence of the phrase is the gamble. The idea of any club being a "buying" club or a "selling" club is such nonsense. Clubs, all of them, buy players. Clubs, all of them, also sell players. Burnley, like every other club in the land, is neither a buying club nor a selling club, because such an absolute distinction does not exist. We buy from lower and we sell to higher, and we also buy from higher and sell to lower, but all that truly matters is fielding a decent side today and making the scales balance so that we might field a decent side tomorrow. Without huge debt, a sports-washing sovereign wealth fund willing to lose millions for political leverage, a billionaire buying the club as a toy, or some naïve investment firm looking to profit from football (HA!!! Idiots!!!), the balance of the scales should always precede the 'decency' of the team because without that balance we won't be able to build one tomorrow.

£30m investment into the playing squad would not make us bust, so no I’m not advocating we take stupid gambles.

[Spiral]

£30m investment into the playing squad would not make us bust, so no I’m not advocating we take stupid gambles.

The Chinese broadcaster PPTV refused to pay for its broadcast rights back in March, I think, on a contract set to run up until 2022 worth about £176m per season across the whole league, partly due to rescheduling of games - which is itself due to covid/public health policy and the pressure it has put on domestic broadcasters to screen every game - and possibly also for geopolitical reasons but who knows for sure, but for Burnley that's approaching £10m a season that has just disappeared practically overnight. We also have zero matchday revenue. With such a drop in revenue I wouldn't be surprised if we're soon/currently chewing through the surplus funds we've built over the years just to pay the current wage bill. You talk about £30m like it's pocket change. In premier league TV bizarro-land it halfway is, or rather was before *gestures towards the collapse of football as a live spectator sport*, but that bubble is bursting in slow motion.

Let me just stress again that at no point in the last few months have I said this is all rosy or that the squad is perfectly fine; I'm just suggesting that there might be practical reasons why this window is proving so much more challenging than others, and that a bit of forbearance from supporters might be in order.

[Les Lawrence]

We won't go bust.How many clubs have gone in last 20 years?

[TVC15]

£30m investment into the playing squad would not make us bust, so no I’m not advocating we take stupid gambles.

Explain how this would work and where this £30m would come from.
You keep on mentioning how it might be repaid if we got relegated but not once said how and where it would come from.
It’s got to be a bit more tangible / real than saying we just get the £30m from somewhere.

The owners won’t do it - or they would have by now.

It doesn’t sound like we have got it spare anywhere - good chance we will be posting losses for a couple of years at the very least.

Banks have pulled out of the sector years ago - and even if they hadn’t they would not lend that money against player assets which could be worth a lot less or nothing (for a number of reasons) in 12 months time. Our land is not worth £30m either - but it’s kind of irrelevant as no Bank would entertain this.

It’s ok simplifying all this into the very real prospect that the club will get relegated without spending money on new players but do you not think this might have crossed Garlick and the rest of the boards mind ? If the answer was as simple as you are suggesting with all due respect why don’t you think they have gone down this route ?

[NewClaret]

Why is it potentially more disastrous?

Because if we go down we lose £100 odd million per season in TV revenue. We then lose all our players, manager, etc. and potentially fall back to obscurity for decades. Raising £20m now to protect £100m per season (if we invest well) is very good business sense. It’s not about panicking, it’s about accepting these difficult times require different solutions.

[NewClaret]

Explain how this would work and where this £30m would come from...

Banks have pulled out of the sector years ago - and even if they hadn’t they would not lend that money against player assets which could be worth a lot less or nothing (for a number of reasons) in 12 months time. Our land is not worth £30m either - but it’s kind of irrelevant as no Bank would entertain this.

It’s ok simplifying all this into the very real prospect that the club will get relegated without spending money on new players but do you not think this might have crossed Garlick and the rest of the boards mind ? If the answer was as simple as you are suggesting with all due respect why don’t you think they have gone down this route ?

Fair points.

Spurs raised £175m from the govt-backed covid business loans, I understand. if they can, why can’t we?

Not sure it’s true that the banks pulled out of the sector either. Presumably all clubs have a bank? This would just be a credit facility and I’d be amazed if most clubs didn’t hold a revolving credit facility with their banks.

The bigger question is why Dyche keeps saying we’re in great financial shape yet the board don’t spend and we keep excusing them due to covid? Either Dyche is lying or there is money to spend.

[winsomeyen]

I’m sure the chairman will come out and explain what’s going on.

Dont hold your breath,!!

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Quite possibly but you still haven’t given me a reason why we can’t invest in players now and recoup later? If we get relegated this season, are you telling me we couldn’t recoup? Norwich have just sold Godfrey £30M, Lewis £15M. They have Aarons Cantwell and Buendia to go. Possibly £70m+ recoup at Norwich in a market where nobody has cash to spend. So why can’t we spend £30M now and do the same as Norwich? Wood Taylor Tark Pope McNeil surely aren’t all gonna die from covid?

Your football points aside, what a crass statement about COVID deaths. People are dying, have died, have some respect.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Explain how this would work and where this £30m would come from.
You keep on mentioning how it might be repaid if we got relegated but not once said how and where it would come from.
It’s got to be a bit more tangible / real than saying we just get the £30m from somewhere.

The owners won’t do it - or they would have by now.

It doesn’t sound like we have got it spare anywhere - good chance we will be posting losses for a couple of years at the very least.

Banks have pulled out of the sector years ago - and even if they hadn’t they would not lend that money against player assets which could be worth a lot less or nothing (for a number of reasons) in 12 months time. Our land is not worth £30m either - but it’s kind of irrelevant as no Bank would entertain this.

It’s ok simplifying all this into the very real prospect that the club will get relegated without spending money on new players but do you not think this might have crossed Garlick and the rest of the boards mind ? If the answer was as simple as you are suggesting with all due respect why don’t you think they have gone down this route ?

You can’t seriously believe after 5 seasons at this level we haven’t got 30 million to spend on new players? Not forgetting the past windows where we’ve spent next to nothing.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

As ever, if money spent were an indicator of league standing we'd be mid-bottom championship. But we're not. It isn't a guaranteed thing. I stress again, we need players, with that I agree, but I feel Garlick is taking the blame for a dreadful run of form that's the responsibility of the players and manager first and foremost, because virtually the same set of players were hitting upper-mid table/edging champions league form during project restart.

I take your point, the players and manager are responsible. Yet, every other club has strengthened, this gives a huge lift to the club, the manager, and creates competitive training as players respond to that pressure.

Dyche has been very clear about wanting new players in. This will affect the group when it doesn’t happen. Players talk constantly to other players in the game. Friends, former teammates, academy friends, a lot of ‘tapping up’ happens informally. If players are doing this and nothing happens, good faith is the first casualty.

It looks from the outside that we’ve gone stale.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Then what is the right thing? It seems like the club don’t have money to invest and you said you don’t wanna surrender. Players are assets, with a market value, I see no issue with investing into our squad being safe with knowledge that if all goes tits up, we have potentially close to £100M in assets to sell and recoup in emergency. Why not spend now and recoup later? What’s the benefit of waving the white flag now, getting relegated, selling our assets and then rebuilding. Seems counter productive to me, why not have your flashiest most expensive assets and your new assets playing together in the same squad.

Because the difference with our assets is that they are all at risk of poor form, injury and even ‘the market’.

We definitely need to invest. But it shouldnt be on players possible values. That would be suicide.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Fair points.

Spurs raised £175m from the govt-backed covid business loans, I understand. if they can, why can’t we?

Not sure it’s true that the banks pulled out of the sector either. Presumably all clubs have a bank? This would just be a credit facility and I’d be amazed if most clubs didn’t hold a revolving credit facility with their banks.

The bigger question is why Dyche keeps saying we’re in great financial shape yet the board don’t spend and we keep excusing them due to covid? Either Dyche is lying or there is money to spend.

Takeover has/had paused/slowed down everything

[JohnMcGreal]

You can’t seriously believe after 5 seasons at this level we haven’t got 30 million to spend on new players? Not forgetting the past windows where we’ve spent next to nothing.

Not sure where this £30 million figure keeps coming from but even if cash is tight, that's no excuse for not being a bit more creative in bringing in players on loan, or signing a few players out of contract.

We're desperately short of bodies right now, and we need additions one way or the other. The fact that we don't seem to be interested or capable of bringing anyone in is alarming, because this squad is in a poor state.

[TVC15]

You can’t seriously believe after 5 seasons at this level we haven’t got 30 million to spend on new players? Not forgetting the past windows where we’ve spent next to nothing.

The reason I “seriously” believe it is because I understand our accounts.
Take a look at our last reported position yourself and then factor in the points Spiral is making about reduced revenue.
It’s not just about recent transfer window spend either - our wage bill in 2019 was £87m - in 2020 with the extended accounting period up to end of July 20 I’d conservatively estimate it will have exceed £90m (and I know right now it’s less than that with players who have left).
The profits we posted were also held up by the sales of Gray and Keane - there will be little or nothing left to come from this this year.

[TVC15]

Fair points.

Spurs raised £175m from the govt-backed covid business loans, I understand. if they can, why can’t we?

Not sure it’s true that the banks pulled out of the sector either. Presumably all clubs have a bank? This would just be a credit facility and I’d be amazed if most clubs didn’t hold a revolving credit facility with their banks.

The bigger question is why Dyche keeps saying we’re in great financial shape yet the board don’t spend and we keep excusing them due to covid? Either Dyche is lying or there is money to spend.

I don’t know Spurs exact situation - but their financial model and their billionaire owner is a very different situation to ours. At some point that gov loan will I imagine just get added to whoever is funding their already very large debt.

I worked for a bank who were one of the main lenders to the sector any my customers included City, Liverpool, Celtic, Leeds, Chelsea and many others. Banks did pretty much pull out of the sector a number of years ago - too many of them were going into receivership. Trying to recoup monies from a football club is not easy - imagine how the locals can turn against a bank for even trying. Imagine how that is in a place like Glasgow !!

I’m not just taking a wild guess at this stuff.

[TVC15]

Duplicate sorry

[/quote]

[Jakubclaret]

The money is there it always has been I reckon there's about 50 million which could be spent but it's been held back on purpose until the situation with Covid becomes clearer hence the reluctance, I think it's more of a sensible strategy to throw caution to the wind & spend now even if you have to pay over the odds it's insurance money for league retention status, listening to dyche last night the admission was there that it's a different group when the other 4 return back so in the meantime it's make a do & play catch up as results will improve once everyone's fit, not a ideal situation but it is what it is. It's a very risky strategy which could backfire as the league is stronger this year & other clubs have strengthened.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You can’t seriously believe after 5 seasons at this level we haven’t got 30 million to spend on new players? Not forgetting the past windows where we’ve spent next to nothing.

We had the money, but incase you've failed to notice there has been a pandemic that's cut match day revenue, there have been rebates requested for TV revenue etc.

[warksclaret]

If we are that broke why did it take 9 months to move Gibson on. You cannot blame SD for this. Thats a million pound in wages. He was never going to fit in proved by the fact we sold him during Mee's injury.Both are left footed centre halves

[Rileybobs]

If we are that broke why did it take 9 months to move Gibson on. You cannot blame SD for this. Thats a million pound in wages. He was never going to fit in proved by the fact we sold him during Mee's injury.Both are left footed centre halves

Well we couldn't sell him when the transfer window was closed could we. We also couldn't sell him if nobody wanted to buy him.

[randomclaret2]

Our financial position now is as nothing compared to what it will be if we are relegated