Annual accounts released

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thing is, in Garlicks case, he was otherwise pretty silent but then issued a statement out-of-the-blue prophesising doom.

It was all just very strange that a few weeks after lockdown he was predicting the financial implications. Perhaps made more strange by these results showing the cash pile sat at £80m a few months later.

He made a statement that had the potential to be true.
If he'd said naff all, people would complain about that.

Damned either way with some of you, always has been.

[NewClaret]

He made a statement that had the potential to be true.
If he'd said naff all, people would complain about that.

Damned either way with some of you, always has been.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

For me, for a broadly silent chairman, it was odd he would release a statement 10 days in to lockdown quoting the potential financial impacts. I’m not aware that any others did.

Of course it had the potential to be true, just odd to me that he’d discuss the worst case scenario, so openly so early in the pandemic. I’m still not sure we know what the full financial impacts will be, tbh.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

For me, for a broadly silent chairman, it was odd he would release a statement 10 days in to lockdown quoting the potential financial impacts. I’m not aware that any others did.

Of course it had the potential to be true, just odd to me that he’d discuss the worst case scenario, so openly so early in the pandemic. I’m still not sure we know what the full financial impacts will be, tbh.

Unique situation and he did what he thought was right.
Overall, it was the right thing to do in my opinion, and the fan base is rightly aware of the potential impact even now.

[TsarBomba]

Unique situation and he did what he thought was right.
Overall, it was the right thing to do in my opinion, and the fan base is rightly aware of the potential impact even now.

Any football fan of reasonable intelligence knew that Covid, and the closure of grounds for the foreseeable would have an impact on finances.

I too think it was very unnecessary. It was another example of ‘operation lower expectations’.

I do find, in general, that we are very good at talking ourselves down in the media, and have done this for a number of years.

We know that we are little old Burnley. We don’t need it ramming down our throats 24/7, least by the club itself.

Bizarre.

[NewClaret]

Any football fan of reasonable intelligence knew that Covid, and the closure of grounds for the foreseeable would have an impact on finances.

I too think it was very unnecessary. It was another example of ‘operation lower expectations’.

I do find, in general, that we are very good at talking ourselves down in the media, and have done this for a number of years.

We know that we are little old Burnley. We don’t need it ramming down our throats 24/7, least by the club itself.

Bizarre.

As well as lowering expectations/promoting the “little old Burnley” narrative, to me it symbolised how our mindset was all too often about fearing/planning for the worst.

I can understand the cautious approach to an extent, and it served us well to a point, but we certainly needed/need a different approach if we want to move forward.

At the end of the day, the pandemic will impact other prem teams far more than it’ll impact BFC, plus our main market for recruitment in the Championship - particularly those without parachute payments. The statement could therefore have been more focussed on reassuring fans we were well placed to weather the storm, but instead announced the worst case a few weeks in.

[Chester Perry]

As well as lowering expectations/promoting the “little old Burnley” narrative, to me it symbolised how our mindset was all too often about fearing/planning for the worst.

I can understand the cautious approach to an extent, and it served us well to a point, but we certainly needed/need a different approach if we want to move forward.

At the end of the day, the pandemic will impact other prem teams far more than it’ll impact BFC, plus our main market for recruitment in the Championship - particularly those without parachute payments. The statement could therefore have been more focussed on reassuring fans we were well placed to weather the storm, but instead announced the worst case a few weeks in.

The statement said we had the cash in hand to see through to August without any further payments from the Premier League or resorting to loans from either the shareholders or external sources, no other club was in that position. It was a double statement, one of the risks if football was not to return or planning to return before August 2020 and also a statement of financial strength - the press picked up on one side but not the other, they chose to focus on the negative - quelle surprise. It would have been just as easy for them to it turn around and talk of Burnley's relative financial strength. the reason for that is that while they may have admired the club's financial discipline and strategic execution they found it boring and poor for clicks.

[NewClaret]

The statement said we had the cash in hand to see through to August without any further payments from the Premier League or reporting to loans from either the shareholders or external sources, no other club was in that position. It was a double statement, one of the risks if football was not to return or planning to return before August 2020 and also a statement of financial strength - the press picked up on one side but not the other, they chose to focus on the negative - quelle surprise. It would have been just as easy for them to it turn around and talk of Burnley's relative financial strength. the reason for that is that while they may have admired the club's financial discipline and strategic execution they found it boring and poor for clicks.

That’s true. And there was also a community aspect to the statement, to be fair.

I just think we should be well enough accustomed to how the press bend stories not to provide them the ammunition. These three headlines say it all:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 47291.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... t-21815530

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... -lockdown/

Total sensationalising, as you say. Overall though, I just can’t see why we needed to be so explicit so soon in to the pandemic. I think we were the only one, certainly at the time.

He may end up being correct with the £50m total impact though.

[Paul Waine]

Any football fan of reasonable intelligence knew that Covid, and the closure of grounds for the foreseeable would have an impact on finances.

I too think it was very unnecessary. It was another example of ‘operation lower expectations’.

I do find, in general, that we are very good at talking ourselves down in the media, and have done this for a number of years.

We know that we are little old Burnley. We don’t need it ramming down our throats 24/7, least by the club itself.

Bizarre.

As well as lowering expectations/promoting the “little old Burnley” narrative, to me it symbolised how our mindset was all too often about fearing/planning for the worst.

I can understand the cautious approach to an extent, and it served us well to a point, but we certainly needed/need a different approach if we want to move forward.

At the end of the day, the pandemic will impact other prem teams far more than it’ll impact BFC, plus our main market for recruitment in the Championship - particularly those without parachute payments. The statement could therefore have been more focussed on reassuring fans we were well placed to weather the storm, but instead announced the worst case a few weeks in.

Guys, I fear you've missed the point of why Mike Garlick made his statement. We all recall he spoke in early April, following the release of BFC's accounts. At that time the country was a few weeks into covid-19, lockdown 1 had started on 23rd March, football had been suspended, there was no football on tv. Mike Garlick was addressing the impact on football finances if the season was cancelled and tv money had to be refunded. MG wasn't sending a message to Burnley fans, he was sending a message to the Premier League and the Government - a way had to be found to complete the season. At the same time, other clubs, particularly those that feared relegation, Watford and Brighton come to mind, were saying the season should be cancelled and no team should be relegated. Mike Garlick did all football fans a big favour in making the case to resume the season - and that's how it's turned out. There was more credibility in Mike Garlick speaking out - few would have worried for the finances of ManU, Arsenal or Chelsea or Man City. Others may have felt it would be no more than "a shame" if Liverpool had missed out on winning the league, because it wasn't completed. Plus, there's been a way we can all see all the games on tv this season as covid-19 has run through lockdown 2 and lockdown 3. I doubt any of us saw all of this coming 12 months ago.

UTC

[NewClaret]

Guys, I fear you've missed the point of why Mike Garlick made his statement. We all recall he spoke in early April, following the release of BFC's accounts. At that time the country was a few weeks into covid-19, lockdown 1 had started on 23rd March, football had been suspended, there was no football on tv. Mike Garlick was addressing the impact on football finances if the season was cancelled and tv money had to be refunded. MG wasn't sending a message to Burnley fans, he was sending a message to the Premier League and the Government - a way had to be found to complete the season. At the same time, other clubs, particularly those that feared relegation, Watford and Brighton come to mind, were saying the season should be cancelled and no team should be relegated. Mike Garlick did all football fans a big favour in making the case to resume the season - and that's how it's turned out. There was more credibility in Mike Garlick speaking out - few would have worried for the finances of ManU, Arsenal or Chelsea or Man City. Others may have felt it would be no more than "a shame" if Liverpool had missed out on winning the league, because it wasn't completed. Plus, there's been a way we can all see all the games on tv this season as covid-19 has run through lockdown 2 and lockdown 3. I doubt any of us saw all of this coming 12 months ago.

UTC

They’re fair points, Paul. There were certainly times when there was a media narrative that the season may not restart (although I remember that being a little later in to lockdown but I may be wrong), and maybe that was the point in speaking out. Whatever the meaning behind it though, the media certainly didn’t write “Burnley Chairman makes case for PL restart” as their headlines.

It’s all a bit academic now, given he’s said it, we did restart and he’s now our ex Chairman.

To only drop 3% revenue in a season where a quarter was impacted by Covid was a decent result. Far better than some feared. This season will be the bad one, then hopefully on a more even footing the season after. Just wish I knew how much of the cash had been used in the takeover.

[Paul Waine]

They’re fair points, Paul. There were certainly times when there was a media narrative that the season may not restart (although I remember that being a little later in to lockdown but I may be wrong), and maybe that was the point in speaking out. Whatever the meaning behind it though, the media certainly didn’t write “Burnley Chairman makes case for PL restart” as their headlines.

It’s all a bit academic now, given he’s said it, we did restart and he’s now our ex Chairman.

To only drop 3% revenue in a season where a quarter was impacted by Covid was a decent result. Far better than some feared. This season will be the bad one, then hopefully on a more even footing the season after. Just wish I knew how much of the cash had been used in the takeover.

The Premier League Chairman/Shareholders held meetings to discuss what to do following the lockdown and suspension. That's the primary body that Mike Garlick was addressing. Agreed. the media headlines didn't report it like that.

I don't think we need to worry about how much of the club's cash balance have been loaned to the new owners to provide them with some of the funds they require to buy the shares they've bought. Borrowing inter-company will be lower cost than borrowing from MSD. The money will be available to carry out our new owners' plans for the club.

UTC

[scouseclaret]

Hi scouse, the £46 million is a cash movement item. It doesn't represent the transfer values of the incoming players that you name, but all the cash paid out in the period in respect of those players and other players that were signed in previous periods, where some money was paid out in the 13 months of 2019/20. Plus, I expect it includes agent fees paid out for players transferred into the club and any agent fees paid out on the re-negotiation/extension of player contracts that took place in the period (I'm assuming that agents don't have to wait a long time to receive their fees).

UTC

Well we know that we spent £4m-odd on agents fees - that had been disclosed separately, and you’re correct to point out that it could include instalments from signings made in previous periods (although it would be equally fair to say that we might not have paid in full for the signings we did make, like Rodriguez). However, with our transfer record in recent years, I’m still struggling to see how we could get near £46m, nor can I believe we’d have spent an 8-figure sum on signing-on fees for contract renewals.

[Chester Perry]

Well we know that we spent £4m-odd on agents fees - that had been disclosed separately, and you’re correct to point out that it could include instalments from signings made in previous periods (although it would be equally fair to say that we might not have paid in full for the signings we did make, like Rodriguez). However, with our transfer record in recent years, I’m still struggling to see how we could get near £46m, nor can I believe we’d have spent an 8-figure sum on signing-on fees for contract renewals.

Roughly - £29m new players, £13m in outstanding transfer fees and £4m in Agents fees adds up to £46m

[aggi]

Well we know that we spent £4m-odd on agents fees - that had been disclosed separately, and you’re correct to point out that it could include instalments from signings made in previous periods (although it would be equally fair to say that we might not have paid in full for the signings we did make, like Rodriguez). However, with our transfer record in recent years, I’m still struggling to see how we could get near £46m, nor can I believe we’d have spent an 8-figure sum on signing-on fees for contract renewals.

It wouldn't. As I said:
At the end of the previous season we owed £14m on transfers, this season we owed £2m.

[Chester Perry]

The first clear views of our financial results are starting to emerge from reputable sources

this is @SwissRambles detailed thread on Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

and this is his 2 page summary sheet of Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

There is also an article from Matt Slater in the Athletic, which is a bit hit and miss really - very uneven particularly in seeking to justify his previous numbers on the takeover and comparison to clubs around us (their numbers are not for a whole 13 month season like ours) and I expected better

https://theathletic.com/2498645/2021/04 ... ed-article

[claretandy]

The first clear views of our financial results are starting to emerge from reputable sources

this is @SwissRambles detailed thread on Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

and this is his 2 page summary sheet of Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

There is also an article from Matt Slater in the Athletic, which is a bit hit and miss really - very uneven particularly in seeking to justify his previous numbers on the takeover and comparison to clubs around us (their numbers are not for a whole 13 month season like ours) and I expected better

https://theathletic.com/2498645/2021/04 ... ed-article

It's almost like someone has an agenda to push.

[Chester Perry]

It's almost like someone has an agenda to push.

Slater took a lot of pelters for his numbers around the takeover - I said at the time they sounded credible, so I understand why it was done - though find it unnecessary (feels more of an editorial decision) I was more bothered by the comparison with the those clubs who kept to their usual reporting periods and will therefore have substantial tv/commercial revenues moved into the next set of accounts,

[jojomk1]

From a simple man's point of view it seems Garlick had been doing pretty much the right things
Breaking even when we had three months of Covid issues is being lauded by most writers as an example of a well run club
The previous year, with no restrictions, we only made £5m profit
What are the profit/loss expectations for this current year when we will have had almost a full season of Covid measures
Garlick has always maintained that his goal was to secure the long term future of the club, not just this season and maybe next
We will eventually be relegated and what will the P&L show then
We were making losses when a regular Championship side and we even recorded a loss of £3.7m in the season that Dyche took us back up
Money in the bank is not just for the short term so it can be spent on transfer fees and wages
We have seen what has happened to a shed load of clubs who were relegated (failed get back up) and didn't have the correct financial plans in place to deal with the scenario
The dry powder is/was kept under the bed for a reason

[CrosspoolClarets]

The Swiss Ramble analysis on Twitter is good as usual, but it only lightly refers to the takeover and the reality is that that good husbandry of the club finances is only really beneficial to the former major shareholders because it has underpinned their sale proceeds. The new finances are likely to be very different. Not disastrously so, unless the club is relegated, but different.

That seems to be the thrust that Matt Slater was getting at a month or two ago.

Looking at a parallel universe where BFC had gone into administration after being poorly run, and ALK had bought the club out of administration, I’d be interested to see how the future accounts would compare. I could probably work it out but I’m tired and have too many other things to do for now. We see lots of examples of clubs coming out of administration and thriving under new ownership, arguably without a big debt hanging over them.

I’m not particularly knocking anyone involved with these comments - it was all so easily predictable. Ultimately, the only way we as fans will benefit for the very long term is if some of the Premier League wealth is spent on major ground development (which tends to get preserved even in dire circumstances, a la Bolton) . So far, that hasn’t been the case, so when and if we go down, we are no better off other than for the experience.

[dandeclaret]

The Swiss Ramble analysis on Twitter is good as usual, but it only lightly refers to the takeover and the reality is that that good husbandry of the club finances is only really beneficial to the former major shareholders because it has underpinned their sale proceeds. The new finances are likely to be very different. Not disastrously so, unless the club is relegated, but different.

That seems to be the thrust that Matt Slater was getting at a month or two ago.

Looking at a parallel universe where BFC had gone into administration after being poorly run, and ALK had bought the club out of administration, I’d be interested to see how the future accounts would compare. I could probably work it out but I’m tired and have too many other things to do for now. We see lots of examples of clubs coming out of administration and thriving under new ownership, arguably without a big debt hanging over them.

I’m not particularly knocking anyone involved with these comments - it was all so easily predictable. Ultimately, the only way we as fans will benefit for the very long term is if some of the Premier League wealth is spent on major ground development (which tends to get preserved even in dire circumstances, a la Bolton) . So far, that hasn’t been the case, so when and if we go down, we are no better off other than for the experience.

Well..... apart of course from the

1) Category 1 academy that we now have
2) The brand new training ground that the club now has
3) The improved disabled facilities that the club now has

and that's before the improved squad strength, the improved under 23 set up and improved global brand.

Yeah, but apart from that, what did the last board ever do for us.

The aquaduct?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Why do people always swing back round to the ground?

Majority of clubs outside the PL fail to sell out their grounds regularly.
A number in the PL don't manage it either.

There is no point spaffing loads on a new stand etc when we don't have any justification for it.

We've got a ground that meets PL requirements, the disabled fans are now properly looked after, let's leave it at that for now.

[aggi]

The Swiss Ramble analysis on Twitter is good as usual, but it only lightly refers to the takeover and the reality is that that good husbandry of the club finances is only really beneficial to the former major shareholders because it has underpinned their sale proceeds. The new finances are likely to be very different. Not disastrously so, unless the club is relegated, but different.

That seems to be the thrust that Matt Slater was getting at a month or two ago.

Looking at a parallel universe where BFC had gone into administration after being poorly run, and ALK had bought the club out of administration, I’d be interested to see how the future accounts would compare. I could probably work it out but I’m tired and have too many other things to do for now. We see lots of examples of clubs coming out of administration and thriving under new ownership, arguably without a big debt hanging over them.

I’m not particularly knocking anyone involved with these comments - it was all so easily predictable. Ultimately, the only way we as fans will benefit for the very long term is if some of the Premier League wealth is spent on major ground development (which tends to get preserved even in dire circumstances, a la Bolton) . So far, that hasn’t been the case, so when and if we go down, we are no better off other than for the experience.

Isn't that what football is generally about though?

(As an aside, if ALK had bought the club out of administration the accounts would have probably looked pretty bad as the points deduction would have likely put us in the Championship.)

[android]

One disclosure in the accounts surprised me a bit. I have not read the entire thread or others so it may already have been known, although I have not seen it mentioned from what I have read on here.

Alan Pace is disclosed as the ultimate controlling party. I think this means he owns more than 75% of the club (able to pass a Special Resolution on his own). Mike Garfield was not considered a controlling party before the takeover and I think he owned over 50%. I had guessed that Alan Pace would have the largest shareholding but I had also (wrongly it seems) assumed that the shares would be more widely distributed between the new directors. It makes Alan Pace not just the most important director, as Chairman, but far and away the most important director, as he has personal control.

[Chester Perry]

One disclosure in the accounts surprised me a bit. I have not read the entire thread or others so it may already have been known, although I have not seen it mentioned from what I have read on here.

Alan Pace is disclosed as the ultimate controlling party. I think this means he owns more than 75% of the club (able to pass a Special Resolution on his own). Mike Garfield was not considered a controlling party before the takeover and I think he owned over 50%. I had guessed that Alan Pace would have the largest shareholding but I had also (wrongly it seems) assumed that the shares would be more widely distributed between the new directors. It makes Alan Pace not just the most important director, as Chairman, but far and away the most important director, as he has personal control.

That would probably refer back to his stake in ALK, which is more difficult to find out about as it is registered in Delaware

There has been no change to the articles at the club in relation to the minimum share holding relating to becoming a director of the club so we have to assume that the other four hold enough of a shareholding to meet that requirement, and two of them are not directors of ALK/Velocity. If those two have put up money for shares it could mean that ALK paid either nothing or very little upfront for their shareholding.

[aggi]

One disclosure in the accounts surprised me a bit. I have not read the entire thread or others so it may already have been known, although I have not seen it mentioned from what I have read on here.

Alan Pace is disclosed as the ultimate controlling party. I think this means he owns more than 75% of the club (able to pass a Special Resolution on his own). Mike Garfield was not considered a controlling party before the takeover and I think he owned over 50%. I had guessed that Alan Pace would have the largest shareholding but I had also (wrongly it seems) assumed that the shares would be more widely distributed between the new directors. It makes Alan Pace not just the most important director, as Chairman, but far and away the most important director, as he has personal control.

I would suspect (although I'm a bit rusty on the rules having been out of the office for a year) that Pace has been declared as the person in control of the ultimate holding company (which owns more than 75% of the shares) in Delaware but this may not be actually reflected in terms of him having a controlling shareholding in that company.

[android]

Thanks Chester. Yes, for clarity, it is apparently ALK (via Velocity Sports in Jersey) that has the super majority shareholding in BFC (not Alan Pace personally) with presumably relatively small amounts owned by the directors personally to satisfy the Articles requirement. But it seems then that ALK is not the broadly based partnership I assumed it was but very much controlled by Alan Pace. Or perhaps ALK is broadly based in terms of ownership but Alan Pace has a greater stake in the BFC vehicle than he does in other areas of ALK. Maybe BFC is his baby and other ALK partners/directors have greater financial stakes in other investments. The point I was getting at is, whatever the ownership of ALK and sub-structures within it, surely the statement in the accounts means that it is Alan Pace personally who has ultimate control of BFC?

[android]

Thanks aggi, although your point is making my brain hurt. I'm probably being a bit thick.

[aggi]

One disclosure in the accounts surprised me a bit. I have not read the entire thread or others so it may already have been known, although I have not seen it mentioned from what I have read on here.

Alan Pace is disclosed as the ultimate controlling party. I think this means he owns more than 75% of the club (able to pass a Special Resolution on his own). Mike Garfield was not considered a controlling party before the takeover and I think he owned over 50%. I had guessed that Alan Pace would have the largest shareholding but I had also (wrongly it seems) assumed that the shares would be more widely distributed between the new directors. It makes Alan Pace not just the most important director, as Chairman, but far and away the most important director, as he has personal control.

I missed this part originally. Ultimate controlling party doesn't necessarily mean they have over 75%, it's commonly taken to mean ultimate as in final, i.e. the owner at the top of the chain. This could translate to 51% of the holding company at the top.

It may be that Pace owns 51% or more of that top company or it may be, for example, that he owns fewer shares but has the authority (which can't be revoked without Pace agreeing) to make decisions on behalf of some or all of the other shareholders. With the companies being based in jurisdictions such as Jersey and Delaware we will likely never know (until the next Panama Papers).

[CrosspoolClarets]

Isn't that what football is generally about though?

(As an aside, if ALK had bought the club out of administration the accounts would have probably looked pretty bad as the points deduction would have likely put us in the Championship.)

If what you are replying to me is suggesting that the “experience” is all that matters as fans, well, yes, I’m sure that’s true, but my point made yesterday (missed by a few people replying) was new facilities are the only way our “experience” is preserved after this golden period ends and as yet we don’t have any.

Good facilities like I have visited overseas would make for a great day out, even if the entertainment is average.

Of course we are benefitting from the Premier League to watch now.
Of course the club (as opposed to us) are benefitting from the academy, training ground etc.
Of course administration would affect us as fans, IF we are within 9 points of the drop zone in May (one year in the last three that occurred).
Of course the disabled have benefitted from their new area.
Of course the old regime ran the finances well, though we could debate for whose benefit ultimately.

But looking 10-20 years ahead, if I am expecting to keep trekking across the UK with multiple generations of the family in tow, I’d want far better facilities, because it is likely it will be to watch lower league football. So far we’ve missed that chance, and given the tightened finances that the sale has probably led to, it is hard to see it happening. That’s why I don’t look back on the last regime with the rose tinted specs many do.

I regard that (in the context of the positives I list above) as a balanced view.

[android]

I missed this part originally. Ultimate controlling party doesn't necessarily mean they have over 75%, it's commonly taken to mean ultimate as in final, i.e. the owner at the top of the chain. This could translate to 51% of the holding company at the top.

It may be that Pace owns 51% or more of that top company or it may be, for example, that he owns fewer shares but has the authority (which can't be revoked without Pace agreeing) to make decisions on behalf of some or all of the other shareholders. With the companies being based in jurisdictions such as Jersey and Delaware we will likely never know (until the next Panama Papers).

Yes, interesting. It's unfortunate that a required disclosure of "ultimate controlling party" is not as useful as it might be in the absence of a more precise definition of the term. I suppose it is sufficiently clear to tell us that Alan Pace is more than just the senior director and one way or another he does have ultimate control.

[Paul Waine]

Note 26:
Controlling party

At the period end date there is no overall controlling party of Burnley FC Holdings Limited.

On 30 December 2020, a majority shareholding in Burnley FC Holdings Limited was acquired by Calder
Vale Holdings Limited. The ultimate parent company of the new group is Velocity Sports Limited, a
company incorporated in Jersey, of which Alan Pace is considered to be an ultimate controlling party.

I've no idea whether the "an ultimate controlling party" is any different from "the ultimate controlling party..."

I believe the corporate chain is BFC Holdings - Calder Vale - Kettering Capital - Velocity Sports.

I've also no idea whether ALK Capital sits above Velocity Sports, or if there are other links in the chain.

Mike Garlick, of course, had slightly less than 50% shareholding, hence there was "no overall controlling party" under the previous ownership structure.

UTC

[Chester Perry]

That depends on how you read the bonus situation - for the first time the club have confirmed that bonus pools are based on final league position - that position was 5 places higher (normally an extra £15m of revenue (last year about £10m)

I have been thinking about this and ClaretAndy's very sound points

The numbers presented - particular the difference between 12 month and 13 month figures suggest that our monthly wage bill before bonuses is around £6m and change so we can see a £79m - £80m wage bill for 13 months and a circa £20m - £21m bonus pot. If we run that back to the previous years accounts the suggestion is therefore around £15m - £17m bonus pot - so no more than a £6m uplift in bonus for the 5 place improvement (and therefore a modest uplift in overall wage spend as Claretandy suggested).

for a number of years some of us (particularly RoyBoyClaret - we are missing his valued input - and myself) have been trying to determine the rates of overall bonus pot calculation. The current accounts help with the size of the pot, this year but not how it is calculated, as we still do not know if is based on actual payments received (if it is the club has probably saved several millions on bonuses) or predominately achievement based (staying up, European qualification, cup wins) or final position based. My suspicion is a combination of the two with an emphasis on the achievement

[claretandy]

I have been thinking about this and ClaretAndy's very sound points

The numbers presented - particular the difference between 12 month and 13 month figures suggest that our monthly wage bill before bonuses is around £6m and change so we can see a £79m - £80m wage bill for 13 months and a circa £20m - £21m bonus pot. If we run that back to the previous years accounts the suggestion is therefore around £15m - £17m bonus pot - so no more than a £6m uplift in bonus for the 5 place improvement (and therefore a modest uplift in overall wage spend as Claretandy suggested).

for a number of years some of us (particularly RoyBoyClaret - we are missing his valued input - and myself) have been trying to determine the rates of overall bonus pot calculation. The current accounts help with the size of the pot, this year but not how it is calculated, as we still do not know if is based on actual payments received (if it is the club has probably saved several millions on bonuses) or predominately achievement based (staying up, European qualification, cup wins) or final position based. My suspicion is a combination of the two with an emphasis on the achievement

Purely speculation on my part, but i think there will be a bonus for staying up (17th), and maybe 50% of the merit payments for higher than 17th goes into the bonus pool.

[brunlea99]

A good interview with Kieran McGuire - the piece includes a Facebook link to the full video.

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-20339418

[Chester Perry]

A good interview with Kieran McGuire - the piece includes a Facebook link to the full video.

https://www.lancs.live/all-about/burnley-takeover

Maguire looks absolutely haggard - it is no wonder he keeps getting things mixed up - he calls us Bury in that piece

[aggi]

If what you are replying to me is suggesting that the “experience” is all that matters as fans, well, yes, I’m sure that’s true, but my point made yesterday (missed by a few people replying) was new facilities are the only way our “experience” is preserved after this golden period ends and as yet we don’t have any.

Good facilities like I have visited overseas would make for a great day out, even if the entertainment is average.

Of course we are benefitting from the Premier League to watch now.
Of course the club (as opposed to us) are benefitting from the academy, training ground etc.
Of course administration would affect us as fans, IF we are within 9 points of the drop zone in May (one year in the last three that occurred).
Of course the disabled have benefitted from their new area.
Of course the old regime ran the finances well, though we could debate for whose benefit ultimately.

But looking 10-20 years ahead, if I am expecting to keep trekking across the UK with multiple generations of the family in tow, I’d want far better facilities, because it is likely it will be to watch lower league football. So far we’ve missed that chance, and given the tightened finances that the sale has probably led to, it is hard to see it happening. That’s why I don’t look back on the last regime with the rose tinted specs many do.

I regard that (in the context of the positives I list above) as a balanced view.

I'd say the "experience" is also preserved in memories.

I'd like some new facilities but for me that's only a small part of the "experience".

I'm not sure whether Turf Moor's town centre location really lends itself to the extended matchday experience that you get at places like Brighton. It's too near too much competition.

[dsr]

If what you are replying to me is suggesting that the “experience” is all that matters as fans, well, yes, I’m sure that’s true, but my point made yesterday (missed by a few people replying) was new facilities are the only way our “experience” is preserved after this golden period ends and as yet we don’t have any.

Good facilities like I have visited overseas would make for a great day out, even if the entertainment is average.

Of course we are benefitting from the Premier League to watch now.
Of course the club (as opposed to us) are benefitting from the academy, training ground etc.
Of course administration would affect us as fans, IF we are within 9 points of the drop zone in May (one year in the last three that occurred).
Of course the disabled have benefitted from their new area.
Of course the old regime ran the finances well, though we could debate for whose benefit ultimately.

But looking 10-20 years ahead, if I am expecting to keep trekking across the UK with multiple generations of the family in tow, I’d want far better facilities, because it is likely it will be to watch lower league football. So far we’ve missed that chance, and given the tightened finances that the sale has probably led to, it is hard to see it happening. That’s why I don’t look back on the last regime with the rose tinted specs many do.

I regard that (in the context of the positives I list above) as a balanced view.

I wonder how many people are all that bothered about facilities?

Speaking for myself, I'm not. I want a comfortable seat with a good view, and I have that in the Bob Lord Stand. I use the toilet occasionally, the food kiosk very occasionally. The rest is detail. I'm not bothered about the half-time board with the numbers to slot in and you can see which match is which from your programme. Or the big TV screen for that matter, or bars, or any other facility. If Burnley aren't at home, I watch Accrington Stanley, or Colne, neither of whom have facilities to touch Burnley's. (At those grounds, I stand up. The only "facility" is a roof.)

[AlargeClaret]

When people talk about “ better facilities “ what do they actually want ? Far as I see we have perfectly decent facilities . i.e bars , toilets , disabled , security , basic but more than adequate food ,decent overall views and seats /legroom in the ground etc . While corporate side can always be expanded, I’ve never really seen demand on the Turf for micro beers /niche restaurants/organic juice bars etc . Most fans baulk at a balti pie never mind a dash of balsamic .

While an expansion and improvement in the away end ( if and when demolished ) is needed I’d be interested to hear what is is that people require ?

[aggi]

When people talk about “ better facilities “ what do they actually want ? Far as I see we have perfectly decent facilities . i.e bars , toilets , disabled , security , basic but more than adequate food ,decent overall views and seats /legroom in the ground etc . While corporate side can always be expanded, I’ve never really seen demand on the Turf for micro beers /niche restaurants/organic juice bars etc . Most fans baulk at a balti pie never mind a dash of balsamic .

While an expansion and improvement in the away end ( if and when demolished ) is needed I’d be interested to hear what is is that people require ?

If you're a bloke who's going on the match, maybe a very swift pint beforehand and that's about it then the facilities are adequate.

If you're taking young kids on then I'd say things like the toilets are far from decent. Same if you have a disability and you don't want to go in the new sections, disabled toilets are pretty non-existent in the rest of the ground.

I don't think people are calling for organic juice bars but maybe a beer that's a step up from a bottle of Carlsbeg that's been slowly decanted into a plastic glass. Something exotic like a pint of Moorhouse's for instance. Maybe some pies where the meat is recognisable too.

[AlargeClaret]

If you're a bloke who's going on the match, maybe a very swift pint beforehand and that's about it then the facilities are adequate.

If you're taking young kids on then I'd say things like the toilets are far from decent. Same if you have a disability and you don't want to go in the new sections, disabled toilets are pretty non-existent in the rest of the ground.

I don't think people are calling for organic juice bars but maybe a beer that's a step up from a bottle of Carlsbeg that's been slowly decanted into a plastic glass. Something exotic like a pint of Moorhouse's for instance. Maybe some pies where the meat is recognisable too.

Fair points but isn’t our disabled stand state of the art (ish) ? Toilets are toilets and tbf give or take the turd on the floor they’re plentiful and well maintained . With 1000’s taking a slash it’s a tough gig in all fairness . As for pies well Holland’s are what they are I guess .( a steady 6/10 pie) The “ retail window “ being so short it’s about speed and gulp really

[dandeclaret]

I'd say the "experience" is also preserved in memories.

I'd like some new facilities but for me that's only a small part of the "experience".

I'm not sure whether Turf Moor's town centre location really lends itself to the extended matchday experience that you get at places like Brighton. It's too near too much competition.

Remember that day at Scunthorpe under Stan? When Glen scored from 20 yards, and we all invaded the pitch and the directors box, came back to Burnley and went out in the Swan with Paul Cook and Ronnie Jepson in there?

Yeah, it was terrible wasn't it? Really bad facilities at Scunthorpe......

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Fair points but isn’t our disabled stand state of the art (ish) ? Toilets are toilets and tbf give or take the turd on the floor they’re plentiful and well maintained . With 1000’s taking a slash it’s a tough gig in all fairness . As for pies well Holland’s are what they are I guess .( a steady 6/10 pie) The “ retail window “ being so short it’s about speed and gulp really

I preferred the pies at Brighton, chicken, leek and Ham I think it was.
A solid 9/10 and I think our pie purchaser needs to look around a bit more.

[ClaretTony]

When people talk about “ better facilities “ what do they actually want ? Far as I see we have perfectly decent facilities . i.e bars , toilets , disabled , security , basic but more than adequate food ,decent overall views and seats /legroom in the ground etc . While corporate side can always be expanded, I’ve never really seen demand on the Turf for micro beers /niche restaurants/organic juice bars etc . Most fans baulk at a balti pie never mind a dash of balsamic .

While an expansion and improvement in the away end ( if and when demolished ) is needed I’d be interested to hear what is is that people require ?

In terms of the food, Burnley FC Supporters Groups were carrying out research last season into what was on offer at other Premier League grounds. Obviously that was never concluded but the fact is we were miles behind a lot of clubs in what we offer. I've never bought anything on our ground since I got my mouth burned with one of those pies with a black base but, in truth, is the offering even close to adequate?

[aggi]

Fair points but isn’t our disabled stand state of the art (ish) ? Toilets are toilets and tbf give or take the turd on the floor they’re plentiful and well maintained . With 1000’s taking a slash it’s a tough gig in all fairness . As for pies well Holland’s are what they are I guess .( a steady 6/10 pie) The “ retail window “ being so short it’s about speed and gulp really

There's a whole variety of people that don't really need all the facilities in the disabled stand and may prefer to sit in another stand. There was this story a while ago for instance https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... urnley-fc/ and I remember a poster on here, possibly with Crohn's disease, who was saying similar. Or, as I said, just trying to take small children to the match and use the toilet.