• Interview with Neil Hart

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:14 am**

Just released by the club.

https://youtu.be/55MhY2F_c6Y

Bit of ‘I’m alright Jack’ about it from my perception.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:29 am**

I didn’t take that from it, I thought it was a decent interview and gave the reality of a few situations.

Investing that the club had no option really with PPV.

We’ve lost tens of millions.

Didn’t like his dressing up of the transfer window.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:31 am**

burnmark wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:14 am
Just released by the club.

https://youtu.be/55MhY2F_c6Y

Bit of ‘I’m alright Jack’ about it from my perception.

Bit of the club faces challenges, as every one does, but will be alright was my take.

Good interview. Tells it as it is. Keeping Tarks, McNeil and all - good transfer window. PPV - some will pay, some won't. Even mentioned "new investor" - which may be the first time the club has publicly confirmed that there are things ongoing.

UTC

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:37 am**

At least theyve come out and communicated, so well done to them for that

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:43 am**

Finally, we have some form of communication!

Sounds very much like something is happening re outside investment - without confirming anything Hart was much more open than I thought he would be about it.

And, apparently, he "envisages we will have a generally active January and next summer window"........

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:48 am**

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:43 am
Finally, we have some form of communication!

Sounds very much like something is happening re outside investment - without confirming anything Hart was much more open than I thought he would be about it.

And, apparently, he "envisages we will have a generally active January and next summer window"........

This, you can't see us having "a generally active January", unless the takeover goes through, especially if we have lost "tens of millions of pounds"

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:50 am**

Most of what he said was fine and I would agree that having the choice of watching the games or not watching the games being able to watch is the better one. I can’t help but think the vast majority of our fan base won’t pay the money though some will and good on them if they do, but at least we have the choice or do you have to have sky etc to watch them? In that case you won’t have a choice at all if you haven’t got sky etc would you!

The 2 things that I couldn’t agree with was him saying that if he was a fan he would pay, that ignores every single fan out there who is struggling and basically says your a crap fan if you don’t pay also he mentioned we could be fairly active inter Jan transfer window! If we are short of money the last thing we need to be is active in the January window prices will go through the roof and IF we are struggling still by then it would likely be too late anyway. As it happens i as frustrating as it was I’m not overly concerned about our lack of signings I would rather see how some of the younger players get on than spend money we seemingly haven’t got on players that may or may not perform better than the kids anyway.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:54 am**

Good to finally get some communication out. There is not a lot he can say but i took from that the take over talk are still ongoing, and I was aware of talk of tv money rebates, but i was not aware that it had actually happened and the significant amount that it had cost "10s of Millions" which ordinarily we would have spent in the transfer window. Very brave of him to state we will have a busy January window.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:56 am**

'There's an indication most season ticket holders are going to leave their money in the account', rather than getting a refund.

Where has he got this indication from?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:59 am**

Didn’t particularly warm to him in truth.

A lot of spin, no direct probing questions - things like “how keen are you for fans to come back into the stadium” are a waste of my Saturday morning. They need the balls to be interviewed by a proper journalist, not an in-house media channel (though the local ones aren’t exactly Andrew Neil either). p.s. some communication remains better than none though.

Instead of the spin about the broadcasters choosing £14.95, I would like to know what the fee is that the PL are charging them per game which needs recouping plus their costs. For example, if its £10, we can hardly blame Sky and BT.

I thought the “I’d pay it” and “its cheaper than attending the match” a little condescending. Not everyone is a CEO, and season ticket holders have been forced to forego their season ticket costs PLUS the £14.95 fees if they want to watch home matches this season while keeping ballot options open, their cash flow may mean its of little immediate benefit that they then get their ticket for next season.

Basically, from all kinds of organisations, including government, at the moment there seems little empathy for struggling people at the most crucial time in over half a century. I suspect those struggling people will turn out to have long memories.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:08 am**

A very decent interview, comes across as genuine and speaks well. Covid-19 has hit the club very hard and that accounts for a lot of the activity/inactivity recently. Nice to have some real communication from the club other than Dyche’s one track statements, a win or 2 now will set us on our way again!

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:13 am**

At last we have had some sort of communication from the club to the fans

Got sick of the club keep coming out with the bull **** that they are part of the community, when as a season ticket holder of 50 plus years, I have never felt more isolated

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:17 am**

A good interview. I think he came across well and shone a bit of light on the financial situation and the club’s strategy moving forwards. Certainly beats a lot of the negativity that has been posted on here over the past few weeks.

Re the PPV prices - I think in Burnley’s case it is quite possible that twice as many people would pay for the games if they were half the price. Although I accept that possibly wouldn’t be the case across all Premier League clubs. It doesn’t sound like the club had any say in the price point.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:27 am**

Sounds like takeover talks or investment are still ongoing "we will discuss with supporters and stakeholders when that reaches a conclusion".

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:39 am**

"We remain solution focussed"

HOUSE!

Not bad. A bit heavy on the bullsh*t bingo. Poor answer on the transfer window and nothing about the tension between board and manager.

As someone further up posted, could have done with a few more probing questions.

Better than nowt though.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:45 am**

ClaretAL wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:54 am
Good to finally get some communication out. There is not a lot he can say but i took from that the take over talk are still ongoing, and I was aware of talk of tv money rebates, but i was not aware that it had actually happened and the significant amount that it had cost "10s of Millions" which ordinarily we would have spent in the transfer window. Very brave of him to state we will have a busy January window.

The rebate is to be payed next year, but it sounds like we will be booking the loss in this years accounts.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:46 am**

JarrowClaret wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:50 am
Most of what he said was fine and I would agree that having the choice of watching the games or not watching the games being able to watch is the better one. I can’t help but think the vast majority of our fan base won’t pay the money though some will and good on them if they do, but at least we have the choice or do you have to have sky etc to watch them? In that case you won’t have a choice at all if you haven’t got sky etc would you!

Whilst I don't disagree with what you have said, this interview confirms my suspicions that the club is operating as a collective of 20 clubs when it comes to broadcasting. The move to how they broadcast the games and how much they charge wasn't a decision the club could make in isolation.

The purpose of broadcasting is to give those supporters who would have in other times been paying to watch the game live in a stadium. It isn't about broadcasting to allow the fan and supporter who wouldn't normally be there at the game.

Where I would provide a bit of clarity and whilst this may not change people's decisions to watch the game due to costs, despite the various statements telling us that you need Sky/BT to watch these games..This is simply not true. Below explains how you can watch.

Games shown on Sky Sports - You can access this on Now TV with a £9.99 day pass. https://www.nowtv.com/sports-purchase

Games shown on Sky Box Office - You can access this through https://help.nowtv.com/article/can-i-wa ... -on-now-tv

Games shown on BT Sport - You can pay for a monthly BT Sport pass (£25 which is the most expensive of the options). https://www.bt.com/sport/monthly-pass

Games shown on BT Sport box office - again you can buy these through their website and watch on an app/your device https://btsportboxofficen.bttv.bt.com/

Games shown on Amazon - If they don't make free to air, they offer a 30 day free trial and/or £7.99 for a month. Last year, their games were shown around xmas so getting prime - even if paying the £7.99 could be of additional value if you use Amazon to get presents for xmas etc.

Thought the interview was a decent interview overall. Let's see if the January/Next Summer is going to be active now this has been said..

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:47 am**

It sounds like his Hart's in the right place.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:01 pm**

Very good

utc

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:17 pm**

Sproggy wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:39 am

Poor answer on the transfer window and nothing about the tension between board and manager.

You didn't really expect him to comment on that did you?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:23 pm**

Always impressed when I hear him speak. Comes across so we’ll.

ST Refunds: believe him when he said he has the fans interest at heart and do think the variety of options provided is fair. Not sure how they compare to what other clubs on this point but I’d bet fairly well.

PPV: was convinced that the club would have little say in the pricing. Interesting to hear how the decision making works. Overall, I’m happy we have the option to watch if we want to and, in any event, many will continue to watch free streams.

Transfer Window: he has a point that there are certain positives. Wish he’d been clearer about our lack of success strengthening though; did we try to sign players - Wilson aside there were no really firm links, who CT says SD never wanted? Were we just unable to sign the players Sean wanted? Was it our financial position that prevented us being active, and, if so, why do we hope that may change by January? Presume that’s linked to...

Investment: good to see the club acknowledge this. He sounded positive, so maybe it’s not too far away. Seemed to have a smile on his face and a glint in his eye, so maybe it’s better news than we’d dare hope?

Overall, feel more positive after SD’s interview yesterday and this. Wish we heard more from Neil Hart.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:43 pm**

Difficult to please everyone if he doesn’t do the interview “they should have communicated” if he does the interview “he’s said the wrong things”. I personally think he spoke quite well however he’s put his neck on the line by saying we will be active in January which being only 2 1/2 months away makes me think investment must be very close.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:29 pm**

We have no choice but to have an active window next summer with the number of players OOC at the end of this season.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:30 pm**

claretandy wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:45 am
The rebate is to be payed next year, but it sounds like we will be booking the loss in this years accounts.

The overseas rebate has been paid by the Premier League, but will be deducted from their central payments over this and next season- it is the domestic rebate that the Premier League will be paying back this year and next.

There is the issue of the missing Chinese TV income (currently £320m+) from last season and next and overseas broadcasters have been asking for rebates this season.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:47 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:17 am
Re the PPV prices - I think in Burnley’s case it is quite possible that twice as many people would pay for the games if they were half the price. Although I accept that possibly wouldn’t be the case across all Premier League clubs. It doesn’t sound like the club had any say in the price point.

Agree - for us £14.95 seems a lot comparable to our cheap(er) ticket prices. If you’re a United fan paying £40 a ticket, £14.95 seems much better value. Also think it’s often overlooked that there will be costs to televise a game - camera men, commentators, producers, interviewers, etc will all want paying, as well as the clubs wanting a cut.

Hoping in the long run all broadcasters get access to PPV matches so that the competition can keep the prices down/offer different services at different prices to appeal to different fans.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:53 pm**

Thought he came across well. Interesting to see that Hart spoke on this interview instead of Garlick. I think this summer's transfer window can best be viewed as 'protect what we have got' (my words) ahead of an 'active January transfer market' (Hart's words). Might be adding 2 & 2 to make 5 here, but I would suspect the club are looking to have this takeover situation resolved in someway before the end of the year to help in January. I don't think they had a say with the PPV model, looks to me like it was presented to the PL teams under the heading of 'take it or leave it'.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:00 pm**

Paddy1882 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:43 pm
Difficult to please everyone if he doesn’t do the interview “they should have communicated” if he does the interview “he’s said the wrong things”. I personally think he spoke quite well however he’s put his neck on the line by saying we will be active in January which being only 2 1/2 months away makes me think investment must be very close.

Agree - I was nitpicking a bit. Just some more detail on the exact financial position and transfer window would have been nice.

Hope we hear a lot more from him in future. Seems to come across as a nice, genuine bloke.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:02 pm**

I’m assuming the “active” January transfer window means we will be selling Tarks and Pope

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:04 pm**

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:02 pm
I’m assuming the “active” January transfer window means we will be selling Tarks and Pope

Did wonder that!! We’ll be more active because we’ll be able to sell so we can buy!

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:06 pm**

Much needed and generally a positive commentary from the Club. He talks about the importance of the fans which heightens the need for communication

On the window he glossed over it by talking of retaining players rather than a poor recruitment window in view of injuries. I would also be very surprised if we have a busy January window but lets see. Having seen him I would hope that if Rigg and Dyche are at loggerheads over player choices, that he could mediate

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:15 pm**

I find him very smarmy but then I remember its one club for all

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:16 pm**

If this window was an active and successful one, based on who stayed as opposed to who came in, I can’t wait for the list of January contract extensions.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:20 pm**

A nonsense of an interview and a terrible transfer window, however the club tries to dress it up.

If that’s what the hierarchy really think, then they’re more out of touch with the fans than I thought.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:28 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:20 pm
A nonsense of an interview and a terrible transfer window, however the club tries to dress it up.

If that’s what the heirarchy really think, then they’re more out of touch with the fans than I thought.

Terrible to you maybe. If the club’s target was to get through the transfer window without losing key players then they will class it as a decent window. As hard as it is for some of us frustrated fans to acknowledge, we could well have come out of this transfer window much weaker had we sold Tarks.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:35 pm**

Does anyone else struggle to understand Peter Oliver when he speaks off camera?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:20 pm**

Sean Dyche's Watch wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:35 pm
Does anyone else struggle to understand Peter Oliver when he speaks off camera?

Yes, I played the question twice to which NH replied "Absolutely not, We expect to be active over the next couple of windows (or words to that effect.) I still don't know quite what was asked.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:28 pm**

Active Jan window - don't make me laugh

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:29 pm**

DCWat wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:16 pm
If this window was an active and successful one, based on who stayed as opposed to who came in, I can’t wait for the list of January contract extensions.

Will have same team and squad in 5 years time

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:41 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:20 pm
A nonsense of an interview and a terrible transfer window, however the club tries to dress it up.

If that’s what the hierarchy really think, then the fans are more out of touch with reality than I thought.

Sorry, corrected it for you.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:13 pm**

Pete76 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:41 pm
Sorry, corrected it for you.

We’ve been outspent by every Premier League club and the majority of the Championship clubs this transfer window, so the ‘little old Burnley, we have no money’ claptrap emanating from the chairman no longer works

It certainly doesn’t wash with our manager anymore.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:37 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:13 pm
We’ve been outspent by every Premier League club and the majority of the Championship clubs this transfer window, so the ‘little old Burnley, we have no money’ claptrap emanating from the chairman no longer works

It certainly doesn’t wash with our manager anymore.

Surely being outspent by all other PL clubs suggests that the ‘we have no money’ claptrap isn’t claptrap?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:45 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:37 pm
Surely being outspent by all other PL clubs suggests that the ‘we have no money’ claptrap isn’t claptrap?

I think of it more like the chairman is tighter than a duck’s arse, the manager has had enough of it and has made it known publicly on multiple occasions, thus the chairman is convinced that the manager will be off at the earliest opportunity so is even more unwilling to back him.

Unfortunately for mystic Mike, his ‘look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of them self’ philosophy looks doomed to failure if Dyche leaves and we are relegated.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:51 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:45 pm
I think of it more like the chairman is tighter than a duck’s arse, the manager has had enough of it and has made it known publicly on multiple occasions thus the chairman is convinced that the manager will be off at the earliest opportunity so is unwilling to back him.

Unfortunately for mystic Mike, his ‘look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of them self’ philosophy looks doomed to failure if Dyche leaves and we are relegated.

So which is it? Is Garlick not spending money because he’s tight or because he doesn’t want to back Dyche?

It’s getting really tedious now so I’m not really interested in getting into another discussion about this. But there are some well considered posts on this board based on actual knowledge of the club’s financial position.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the situation that we’re in then that’s fine, but you’re being presented with evidence as to why we are not spending a lot of money. Why are you sticking with the ‘Garlick is tight’ rhetoric, which just doesn’t make sense?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:51 pm**

Just my opinion. The club won't spend if there is a take over about to happen .there again I know nothing

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:00 pm**

lrac wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:51 pm
Just my opinion. The club won't spend if there is a take over about to happen .there again I know nothing

I felt that was hinted at in the interview with Hart when he said that he expects us to be active in Jan and next summer. To me that suggests that he expects our financial situation to have changed for the better. Still, the people who have decided that Garlick is tight-fisted will not change their views.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:02 pm**

It was OK. What you'd expect from a CEO even if he is not a real one. Mind you a cheap jacket. Contrast stitching on the button hole a very poor show.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:16 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:51 pm
So which is it? Is Garlick not spending money because he’s tight or because he doesn’t want to back Dyche?

It’s getting really tedious now so I’m not really interested in getting into another discussion about this. But there are some well considered posts on this board based on actual knowledge of the club’s financial position.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the situation that we’re in then that’s fine, but you’re being presented with evidence as to why we are not spending a lot of money. Why are you sticking with the ‘Garlick is tight’ rhetoric, which just doesn’t make sense?

Then why are we in this situation yet every other Premier League club seemingly isn’t, considering we’re supposedly so well run?

If you want to ignore the musings of the manager then so be it, but I’m sure he knows the finances of the club better than you, I or anybody else on this message board, and he’s been pleading for new players for a while now.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:21 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:16 pm
Then why are we in this situation yet every other Premier League club seemingly isn’t, considering we’re supposedly so well run?

Because all the other clubs go into debt to do it. We don't.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:22 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:16 pm
Then why are we in this situation yet every other Premier League club seemingly isn’t, considering we’re supposedly so well run?

If you want to ignore the musings of the manager then so be it, but I’m sure he knows the finances of the club better than you, I or anybody else on this message board, and he’s been pleading for new players for a while now.

If you really need to ask that first question then there doesn’t seem any point discussing this.

As for your second paragraph, I’m not ignoring the musings of the manager, I’m sensing someone who is frustrated by our financial constraints. Someone who has a vested interest in spending as much money as he can. Not somebody who necessarily has the clubs best interests at heart. He also seemed to change his tune when we held on to Tarkowski.

Why are you hanging on Dyche’s every word but dismissing the CEO, who without doubt will have a better grasp of the position we’re in than our manager?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:23 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:16 pm
Then why are we in this situation yet every other Premier League club seemingly isn’t, considering we’re supposedly so well run?

If you want to ignore the musings of the manager then so be it, but I’m sure he knows the finances of the club better than you, I or anybody else on this message board, and he’s been pleading for new players for a while now.

It should be blatantly obvious why we differ from other PL clubs.

Interview with Neil Hart

Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart

Re: Interview with Neil Hart