Burnley Football Club - first accounts under ALK

[ClaretTony]

Only a guess, but he probably thinks you've criticised everything else he's done... Not the funniest thing I've read, but each to their own.

And he got that wrong then

[ClaretTony]

I'm not really singling you out, just a convenient comment, but during the takeover a lot of people had a pretty rosy outlook on what a takeover by American private equity really meant.

It wasn't so much that aggi, but the information I was getting from people who I trusted. It so happened that they weren't misleading me but they'd been misled themselves.

[gandhisflipflop]

When he was called out by the press (The Athletic, I seem to remember?) about the way in which the takeover was structured, he basically rubbished their article.

It’s since turned out to be incredibly accurate.

The proof will be in time, which a lot of fans aren’t prepared to give.

[NewClaret]

hearsay, but from a trusted source - though it is reasonably easy to work out what the broad annual commitment is from released information

definitely not documented specifically in the public domain other than that I have previously shared - Freight Investor Holdings Limited accounts

What’s the annual commitment/speculated repayment schedule then?

[KRBFC]

lets see - off the top of my head

- No new investors and stage payments having to be made from club funds
- factoring a recent transfer out to improve cash flow at time when a stage payment of similar value was just coming overdue
- lots of empty seats also in hospitality areas
- lack of any significant revenue generating initiatives 16 months after taking control and saying they had a well worked set of plans and a very significant increase in non football staff
- no major new sponsorship deals announced to supplement existing ones (and some of those are drawing to a close as well)
- the cost of dismissing (and replacing a management team that had recently signed new deals)
- interest rates on existing loan increasing
- cash holding reducing substantially, with a clear indication being used to pay for the club not developing it

but Sidney told us all we're gonna be selling more shirts in Africa and become a social media powerhouse with our esports ventures? growing our Twitter following?

Do we have the facts on how many Twitter followers we've gained?

[Newcastleclaret93]

but Sidney told us all we're gonna be selling more shirts in Africa and become a social media powerhouse with our esports ventures? growing our Twitter following?

Do we have the facts on how many Twitter followers we've gained?

Numerous posters said that it would be easy for the club to improve the non tv commercial revenue.

[gandhisflipflop]

but Sidney told us all we're gonna be selling more shirts in Africa and become a social media powerhouse with our esports ventures? growing our Twitter following?

Do we have the facts on how many Twitter followers we've gained?

Did you think they can increase the profile in 18 months?

[Newcastleclaret93]

Did you think they can increase the profile in 18 months?

According to many posters it would be incredibly easy. Your argument should be with them.

[RVclaret]

According to many posters it would be incredibly easy. Your argument should be with them.

They may well have done so this season - the accounts published are for last season which was covid hit

[Newcastleclaret93]

They may well have done so this season - the accounts published are for last season which was covid hit

Potentially, but difficult to see where or how unless the LEDS have made a substantial difference.

[Nori1958]

lets see - off the top of my head

- No new investors and stage payments having to be made from club funds
- factoring a recent transfer out to improve cash flow at time when a stage payment of similar value was just coming overdue
- lots of empty seats also in hospitality areas
- lack of any significant revenue generating initiatives 16 months after taking control and saying they had a well worked set of plans and a very significant increase in non football staff
- no major new sponsorship deals announced to supplement existing ones (and some of those are drawing to a close as well)
- the cost of dismissing (and replacing a management team that had recently signed new deals)
- interest rates on existing loan increasing
- cash holding reducing substantially, with a clear indication being used to pay for the club not developing it

Excuse my ignorance, but how much of that is fact, and how much your opinion, however educated that opinion might be.
As pointed out elsewhere surely our income will have increased with crowds being back?
Do we know, for definate, whether or not the loans/repayments have been renegotiated in the 12 months since the accounts were produced?
Have we ever announced a new sponsor whilst the current one is still active?

As I suggested this could all be cleared up with a statement from Mr Pace,if allowed.

[RVclaret]

Potentially, but difficult to see where or how unless the LEDS have made a substantial difference.

They also want to go to the US in the summer for pre-season to tap into new revenue possibilities. Couldn’t do that last summer with covid. These things all take time and seen as though a chunk of the 18 months since they took over have still had the pandemic cloud lingering, it’s probably been harder to deliver on several fronts.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Did you think they can increase the profile in 18 months?

You're trying to reason with people who are purposely being dense to try and points score against me, which never works.

Of course it's never easy and the speed always depends on the business and the market it's working in, plus the club lacked various requirements to do this stuff.

They're also ignoring the small matter of the Pandemic etc.

They're just best off being ignored when they're like this.

[KRBFC]

Did you think they can increase the profile in 18 months?

No, I never was convinced we'd grow enormously hence my post, you're arguing with the wrong person.

[Chester Perry]

but Sidney told us all we're gonna be selling more shirts in Africa and become a social media powerhouse with our esports ventures? growing our Twitter following?

Do we have the facts on how many Twitter followers we've gained?

Twitter is up around 25% - that is the main account, there are others which make it a more difficult measure
Instagram has roughly doubled
TikTok up nearly 800% a lot of that work has been done by the women's team

all of which is quite good year on year - who would have though the best part of 670k twitter users would be interested enough to follow our club

we are still poor against our rivals but we are who we are from where we are

[Vegas Claret]

seems the last 4 games are significantly huge for us then !

[Long Time Lurker]

Excuse my ignorance, but how much of that is fact, and how much your opinion, however educated that opinion might be.
As pointed out elsewhere surely our income will have increased with crowds being back?
Do we know, for definate, whether or not the loans/repayments have been renegotiated in the 12 months since the accounts were produced?
Have we ever announced a new sponsor whilst the current one is still active?

As I suggested this could all be cleared up with a statement from Mr Pace,if allowed.

I concur with the speculations of Chester. As you point out, Covid was responsible for a substantial reduction in our match day, culinary and other commercial earnings. In 2019 our total earnings for these areas was £20.97m. The recent accounts give a figure of £9.65m which is a net fall of £11.32m.

Now that the majority of people are happily ignoring the existence of Covid these revenue streams should return to their previous levels, which will be a very welcome boost to the clubs earnings. However, for me the recent set of accounts raises more questions than they answer. I've only had time for a quick glance through them, so I'm not prepared to go into detail yet, but I do find a number of things very concerning.

It tends to be a sign of the times, but many people rush to comment before reading things through fully. Neither do they appear to want to spend any time thinking about what isn't in plain sight and served up to them on a plate. So, our non broadcasting revenue streams could lead to more money in the banks if they return to previous levels and our wage bill has decreased substantially. The latter change has resulted in a much healthier balance in respect to our wages vs turnover.

Happy days, except that last bit is complete ******** and a product of flim flam accounting. A process by which a set of accounts can be truthful and at the same time present a picture that is misleading.

The wage figure for the previous accounts covered a period of 13 months and the new accounts only detail wages for a period of 12 months. So the previous figure is obviously going to be a lot higher. Secondly, the previous figure was centred upon a higher league placement which carried with it significant bonus payments that served to inflate the wage bill.

Finally, we only added Dale Stephens and Will Norris to the wage bill in the Summer window of 2020. On the opposite side of the scales we removed Ben Gibson, Joe Hart, Jeff Hendrick, Aaron Lennon and Adam Legzdins from the wage bill. I think it is fair to assume that moving four major wage earners off our books and bringing in one would lead to a big temporary reduction on our total wage bill.

So yes, the recovery of non broadcasting revenue streams could put more cash in our coffers ( providing we replace the sponsors we will probably lose ) but I suspect that any increase will be completely wiped out when we include the wages of our recent signings into the equation.

I don't think our wages vs turnover ratio is getting better as the accounts appear to suggest. In fact I think the ratio is probably getting worse, which will only increase our financial problems. Like I said, the last set of accounts have a number of items that make them appear a lot better than they actually are.

I might comment again after reading them through more carefully. However, my first impression are that if we stay up and ALK can't attract some deep pocket investors in the next couple of years we are fu**cked. If we stay up and changes are made to the parachute payment system then we would be super duper FU**CKED!.

If we get relegated this season we will have to sell everything that isn't nailed down to stay afloat and then rely on Garlick and Co not asking for any more of their money. Whether we fall any further would depend on how good a job our poor recruitment team can do with little to no money and a massively reduced attraction point.

The best outcome that I can envision, without any new investors on the horizon, is that we stay up and use our PL attraction point to build a solid Championship squad and lower our wage bill. We battle bravely next season with a weakened squad and get relegated. This would trigger the same relegation scenario, but we would at least have a competitive Championship squad that could mount a promotion battle over a number of seasons.

Unfortunately, I think this seasons free transfers while numerous in nature present somewhat slim pickings. The time to sign up some young central midfielders for reasonably low prices was the Winter window and we buggered things up. Instead of going after good young players like Patrick Berg, Joey Veerman, Morten Frendrup, Joe Bell and plenty of others we decided to go after Aaron Ramsey, Jesse Linaard and an expensive veteran left winger from the mickey mouse leagues that didn't fit into our system.

Fortunately we signed Wout, because his Cvoid stance meant Wolfsberg had to sell him and his desire to play in the PL ( along with his Covid Stance ) made us the only possible destination for him at short notice. We got lucky with Wout, but the rest of the window was another poorly planned fiasco that did us harm. The idea of our future being in the hands of ALK and our consistently poor recruitment team fills me with more than a little dread.

If we stay up I fully expect us to chase after a bunch of unrealistic free transfers in the Summer window instead of the lesser ones that we might actually have a bit of a chance with. Should we go down I can't see our transfer activity going very well at all.

[ClaretPete001]

Excuse my ignorance, but how much of that is fact, and how much your opinion, however educated that opinion might be.
As pointed out elsewhere surely our income will have increased with crowds being back?
Do we know, for definate, whether or not the loans/repayments have been renegotiated in the 12 months since the accounts were produced?
Have we ever announced a new sponsor whilst the current one is still active?

As I suggested this could all be cleared up with a statement from Mr Pace,if allowed.

I think what Chester is saying is that in relative terms the things you allude to are small beer.

The biggest problem is competing year on year with a whole bunch of billionaires and a rake load of debt.

Whether Bernard in accounts has saved a few quid on bog roll switching to a cheaper brand is only relevant is if you wish to argue that a few quid means we are better off.

The answer is yes switching to cheaper bog roll increases the profits but it doesn't get you out of the sh*t....!

[NewClaret]

seems the last 4 games are significantly huge for us then !

Very much so. We need to fill the turf and try to roar them over the line.

[fatboy47]

Reading this I'd say our best chance of survival is to get down the bookies tomorrow with whatevers still left, and lump onto some random nag that's still got four legs.

Unless every other street urchin in downtown Calcutta has suddenly adopted us as his 2nd team and demanded the latest away kit for next Xmas.

[Nori1958]

I think what Chester is saying is that in relative terms the things you allude to are small beer.

The biggest problem is competing year on year with a whole bunch of billionaires and a rake load of debt.

Whether Bernard in accounts has saved a few quid on bog roll switching to a cheaper brand is only relevant is if you wish to argue that a few quid means we are better off.

The answer is yes switching to cheaper bog roll increases the profits but it doesn't get you out of the sh*t....!

Broadcasting rights are our biggest income stream, if they've got back to normal this season that's more than a change og bog roll, as is having crowds back

[Jakubclaret]

No wonder the fraud clown didn’t want to be exposed by Simon Jordan you’d get lord Lucan agreeing to a interview first.

[ClaretPete001]

Broadcasting rights are our biggest income stream, if they've got back to normal this season that's more than a change og bog roll, as is having crowds back

Matchday revenue is £5 million and the loss of broadcasting revenue is around £10 million. We will likely to be back to £130 million turnover.

Players wages are likely to be up because we have signed new players this year.

We also have 10 OOCs to deal with and the additional interest payments on a full year with MSD. Not to mention a pay off to a former management team etc.

So, it could be better but the relative amounts we are talking about is small beer in PL terms. And without substantive new revenue streams the risk of relegation is high.

[RVclaret]

Matchday revenue is £5 million and the loss of broadcasting revenue is around £10 million. We will likely to be back to £130 million turnover.

Players wages are likely to be up because we have signed new players this year.

We also have 10 OOCs to deal with and the additional interest payments on a full year with MSD. Not to mention a pay off to a former management team etc.

So, it could be better but the relative amounts we are talking about is small beer in PL terms. And without substantive new revenue streams the risk of relegation is high.

With all that said it’s probably still a profit making year, which would be an improvement on Current accounts, which made a small loss (third smallest in the PL so far).

[spt_claret]

With all that said it’s probably still a profit making year, which would be an improvement on Current accounts, which made a small loss (third smallest in the PL so far).

Going off of purported figures on the new signings' wages either at Burnley or at their prior clubs and adjusting for PL wage bumps for some, plus Wood's claimed salary being cut short early, I'd very roughly guess this year's accounts are between 5.5m and 9m in profit, before you adjust for transfer amortisation (even if player spend is net profit there's agents and signing on fees to consider, so this may have not dropped as much as 2020 to 2021, or even ticked up). It's impossible to know if those wage claims are remotely accurate but that's my best rough guess. That's also without factoring in Dyche's compensation. So that's potentially shaving a few million more off combined.

All in all I can see us having made a marginal profit- improvement to be sure but I am skeptical that even if we stay up we'll have any noteworthy transfer money to spend without either selling to buy, taking on more debt, or eating into the depleted cash reserves (which we presumably want to build up enough to pay off the Dell loan eventually, or repayments to Garlick).

People keep saying to give the owners more time, and some of us for all our criticisms have moved back our expectations or made accomodations. Based on the past four games the decision to chuck Dyche appears to have been a good one, which buys time to the end of the season, but time is running out even if we stay up. We need them to deliver on their revenue growth fast to have any real chance of both paying off the purchase sustainably and overhauling the squad.

I think we will be very reliant on free transfers and loans, and may see more OOC renewals than some would like (and perhaps not see some people would like).

[JohnDearyMe]

seems the last 4 games are significantly huge for us then !

I've already bought the domain name AFC Burnley in preparation for if we get relegated...

[gawthorpe_view]

I've already bought the domain name AFC Burnley in preparation for if we get relegated...

That's the spirit.

[Long Time Lurker]

seems the last 4 games are significantly huge for us then !

Nods, we need to stay up and the recruitment team have to compound all expectations and perform to a very high standard. Supporting the squad we have ( albeit with some departures and possible sales ) and making the most of a free transfer pool with gems like Florian Grillitsch who are unlikely to join us if any other clubs express an interest and common sense targets that are thin on the ground.

Maintaining our PL status would give us a much greater level of attraction. However, I suspect we will still be hurt by knowledge of our massive debts, no real indication that we will be able to pay them off, no established manager, no backroom staff, the thread bare remnants of a club identity, no defined playing style and a squad poised before a massive transition point.

Securing another year in the PL would be a big help, but it is merely the tip of a bigger iceberg.

The next 4 games are huge, deciding on the next manager will be massive, performing in the Summer transfer window will be gigantic and securing additional investment will be imperative.

[Long Time Lurker]

Our real problem is that the club hasn't made any real money since we've been in the Premier League, our stock price rose with promotion and then froze.

Arguably, the only viable way for a smaller club like ours to make money from football is to bounce between the PL and the Championship at regular intervals. The club wins promotion, the coffers are filled by the broadcast revenue, all of the players get promotion wage increases ( that still place them at the bottom of the PL pay scale ), a bit of money is spent signing new players, new multi-year sponsorship deals are signed, the club is relegated, the coffers are filled again with parachute payments, a player sale or two are sold and the wages return to Championship levels.

That is what Norwich have been doing. Promote, don't spend much, fill the coffers, take advantage of the PL attraction point to sign some new players ( without spending excessively ), drop down, sell the attention grabbers for large sums, rinse and repeat.

Promotion to the PL is what raised the value of our club. The only problem is that we stayed up and our running costs continued to increase over time. We could have been better off financially had we been relegated from and returned to the PL once during the last six years.

People look at the big numbers associated with the broadcast revenue and assume that we must be raking in the cash, but business doesn't work like that.

If I work really hard and I manage to sell 100 bobbles at £1 each that doesn't mean that I've made a profit of £100. Out of that profit I have to cover the costs associated with making the bobbles that I sold. Things like materials, labour, electricity for my bobble workshop and so on.

If the cost of making my bobbles is 50p that would reduce my profit to £50.

If the cost of making my bobbles is £1 that would reduce my profit to £0.

If the cost of making my bobbles is £1.50 then despite all of my hard work and effort I would actually make a loss of £50. In this scenario I would have been better off financially had I sat back with my feet up and done nothing. on the bobble making front.

That is the case with our club. Our total revenue has increased massively due to our extended stay in the Premier League, but our costs have increased by an equally large amount. A lot more money has come into the club and a lot more money has gone out of the club.

Before the takeover we were probably generating an annual profit of something like £5m. This figure was further bolstered by the cash we got from selling players like Michael Keene and Andre Gray. It allowed us to build up a healthy pot of cash in the dry powder store. Ordinarily we would have spent all of that money to refresh the squad, but our failures in multiple transfer windows prevented that from happening.

Looking back to our Europa season there was a clear desire to push on and move forwards, not at a great pace but a steady pace. Garlick had obviously identified that the difference between posting a profit and a loss was player development and player sales. To that extent he went out and he hired Rigg to mastermind out recruitment. The idea being that improving our recruitment would allow us to find better players at cheaper prices and source development candidates who would increase in skill and value which could be translated into a lucrative revenue stream.

It was the right idea, but we hired the wrong bloke. The last thing we needed was somebody who had spent his last 2 years on the periphery of the football world after multiple failures at multiple clubs. We needed a proven performer in the role and we hired a perpetual failure.

What made everything a lot worse was that Riggs arrival coincided with the development of a toxic environment that was firmly centred upon on our recruitment, with Garlick and Dyche failing to see eye to eye and Dyche having less and less of a voice in recruitment decisions.

Window after window the recruitment department failed to perform. It isn't surprising really, poor leaders attract poor followers and the bulk of our new technical staff came from the failed attempt to replicate Brentfords model at Middlesbrough. The same recruitment staff that wasted all of that clubs parachute money on a series of over-priced turnstile signings who rarely stayed at the club for more than a season, were sold at a loss and failed to perform.

What we should have done, as many on here suggested, was target quality young players in the sub £10m price range with development potential. Ideally in the sub £5m range. However, we didn't do that at all. The recruitment team obviously had a clear policy, which was stretching our budget by signing some cheap veterans so we could direct the bulk of it towards widely known young players in the £10m plus price range.

So that is what we did, we started our windows by signing the cost conscious veterans and then we chased after a series of nonsensical players who were unlikely to join us. Players that weren't in our price range, didn't want to join us or at clubs that didn't want to sell them. The windows opened, the windows closed and all we had to show for it was more veteran players on the books drawing high wages and more money in the dry powder store. The squad was never really refreshed with young legs and we kept kicking the can down the road.

I've no doubt that Garlick thanked his lucky stars when ALK turned up on our door stop. Some fans were abusing him and his family on social media, the successful partnership he once had with Dyche was in toxic tatters, we had an aging squad ( many approaching the latter stages of their contracts ) and barely enough money to fund an extensive rebuild, a ground requiring a lot of expenditure in the future, revenue streams ravaged by Covid with no real idea when they would return to normal and what must have been the ridiculously long overdue realisation that the bloke he had hired to push our recruitment forward was completely f**king useless.

And here was an investment group offering to absolve him of all this stress and put millions into his pockets. Happy days, all he had to do was sell up. The decision was made, all transfer activity for the Summer immediately stopped, because the money in the dry powder store was needed to part fund the leveraged buyout and ALK assumed ownership of the club.

So here we are. The leveraged buyout of Manchester United was a horrific development for many, but in financial terms it was relatively simple and secure. The colossal revenue streams of that club and its lucrative assets meant that it could service any debts and continually funnel lots of money into the pockets of its new owners.

Our story is very different. Little old Burnley is barely generating the revenue streams it needs to keep its head above water. It definitely isn't generating enough pure profit to service the interest payments on a growing debt, fund an extensive squad rebuild and put money aside to pay off the capital owed to Dell and the previous owners.

The debt repayment to Dell is important, because if ALK can't attract new investors or raise revenue streams to put aside £65m plus over the next four years then they will have to default on the debt to Dell. That would mean re-negotiating the loan, selling everything off to pay them or giving them the club. On top of all that ALK also have to put aside money to pay Garlick and Co, because while they might be happier to wait for their money they probably won't wait forever.

The simple financial truth is that we don't have and we never have had the revenue streams that could support the massive borrowing that underpinned the leveraged buyout by ALK. Everything hangs on them finding investors to pump money into the club in exchange for equity, which they have so far failed to do in their 14 months at the club. It is somewhat hypocritical that they fired Dyche for his poor results on the pitch when the financial development results off the pitch have been far worse.

[Taffy on the wing]

............I think i'll go to bed now!

[Vegas Claret]

Very much so. We need to fill the turf and try to roar them over the line.

I wish I was there

[1HappyClaret]

Burnley take out £12.5m pay day loan for sale of Chris Wood.
Credit: Kevin Maguire

[Newcastleclaret93]

Burnley take out £12.5m pay day loan for sale of Chris Wood.
Credit: Kevin Maguire

We have got to pray we don’t get relegated this season.

I still don’t get how this change in ownership was allowed.

[RVclaret]

Burnley take out £12.5m pay day loan for sale of Chris Wood.
Credit: Kevin Maguire

Been discussed on previous pages already

[Newcastleclaret93]

Been discussed on previous pages already

Missed that. I assume this loan has been done to cover sacking Dyche?

[RVclaret]

Missed that. I assume this loan has been done to cover sacking Dyche?

CP speculates it maybe for a payment to previous owners, suggesting cash flow tightness. Others have speculated for that reason you mentioned, as well as potential for paying 20% of the 65m MSD loan if relegated, or for summer transfer funds.

[Nori1958]

CP speculates it maybe for a payment to previous owners, suggesting cash flow tightness. Others have speculated for that reason you mentioned, as well as potential for paying 20% of the 65m MSD loan if relegated, or for summer transfer funds.

So really.... Nobody knows what it was for?

[RVclaret]

So really.... Nobody knows what it was for?

Correct

[jedi_master]

Makes you wonder if we were absolutely gagging for someone to come in for a player in January - maybe the off-field team even hawked Wood around? Pure speculation obviously.

[Lancasterclaret]

Makes you wonder if we were absolutely gagging for someone to come in for a player in January - maybe the off-field team even hawked Wood around? Pure speculation obviously.

One thing I don't think we need at the moment is more speculation based on nothing at all Jedi!

[NewClaret]

Makes you wonder if we were absolutely gagging for someone to come in for a player in January - maybe the off-field team even hawked Wood around? Pure speculation obviously.

Either way, a great piece of business.

[gawthorpe_view]

Burnley take out £12.5m pay day loan for sale of Chris Wood.
Credit: Kevin Maguire

Spending money before you get it fits the often seen pattern of clubs who were in financial trouble.

Hedging, factoring, call it what you will, if the alarm bells weren't ringing on Tuesday, they should be now.

[jedi_master]

Either way, a great piece of business.

Yes absolutely, no doubt about that.

[jedi_master]

One thing I don't think we need at the moment is more speculation based on nothing at all Jedi!

The lifeblood of this messageboard though

Though, I do agree, but it doesn’t paint the picture of us being exactly gutted to be getting an unexpected bidder for one of our players does it?

Cash flow issues would explain the widely held belief that we were spending absolutely nothing before Wood was sold - probably because we couldn’t afford to? Then again, against the points I’m making, we did then sign Weghorst and tried to sign Orsic. We can but guess based on the evidence presented though.

[Lancasterclaret]

The lifeblood of this messageboard though

Though, I do agree, but it doesn’t paint the picture of us being exactly gutted to be getting an unexpected bidder for one of our players does it?

Cash flow issues would explain the widely held belief that we were spending absolutely nothing before Wood was sold - probably because we couldn’t afford to? Then again, against the points I’m making, we did then sign Weghorst and tried to sign Orsic. We can but guess based on the evidence presented though.

We should have been selling our best players for ridiculous fees though, and we will have to go forward

[CrosspoolClarets]

That Kevin Maguire tweet doesn’t tell us anything new. If we stay up, bringing forward that fee is unlikely to be needed. If we don’t, we know there have to be sales and that fee may help us keep hold of a player we may otherwise have to sell. So it doesn’t change anything, finances will be bad if we drop because the costs of buying out the former owners haven’t yet been all trickled through, that’s all we need to know.

[jedi_master]

We should have been selling our best players for ridiculous fees though, and we will have to go forward

Absolutely, I said that when we were getting £30m bids for Tarkowski and look at what’s going to happen to him now.

Nothing I’m saying r.e the Wood sale is through frustration that he went to be clear, I thought it was a ridiculous price for a waning player and I think we were going down with the team as it was. It was worth the ‘twist’ (not that we had a say in it with a release clause) to see if we could change anything. I’m just not so sure how disappointed the club was that someone came in for him having seen that.

[JohnDearyMe]

That's the spirit.

Don't worry i was only being facetious (i hope!)

[Herts Clarets]

Absolutely, I said that when we were getting £30m bids for Tarkowski and look at what’s going to happen to him now.

Nothing I’m saying r.e the Wood sale is through frustration that he went to be clear, I thought it was a ridiculous price for a waning player and I think we were going down with the team as it was. It was worth the ‘twist’ (not that we had a say in it with a release clause) to see if we could change anything. I’m just not so sure how disappointed the club was that someone came in for him having seen that.

Totally agree with this, however for this strategy to be a success and not weaken the side, there needs to be a replacement either already in the ranks or identified to recruit at a lower fee than the outgoing player. If you think back to the start of last season when Tarky's stock was probably at its highest, (couple of caps for England, 2 years left on his contract) we lined up at Leicester with Jimmy Dunne and Kevin Long as our first choice centre backs. In fact if you take away players playing out of position or untried youth players, they were our only choice centre backs. And there lies the flaw in that strategy, failing to recruit for the future and preferring journeymen who will sit on the bench 11 months out of 12 and provide cover when needed or ageing "good pros" who offer nothing in resale value, do not improve the starting 11 but provide a body on the pitch/bench and are good for morale in the dressing room.

[dandeclaret]

No wonder the fraud clown didn’t want to be exposed by Simon Jordan you’d get lord Lucan agreeing to a interview first.

Apparently every conversation on the internet eventually ends up with the Nazi’s, Schrödinger’s Cat, or Simon Jordan…. That’s evolution for you.