Transfer finances
Transfer finances
Just opening up a thread to discuss the transfer finances, seeing as it’s being openly discussed on the transfer rumours thread.
Anyway I’ll start…
lol go VK and AP booo SD and MG…..
Anyway I’ll start…
lol go VK and AP booo SD and MG…..
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
-
- Posts: 4189
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2320 times
- Has Liked: 2696 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: Transfer finances
Any news on Incomings?
Re: Transfer finances
Booo who?
-
- Posts: 2568
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:01 pm
- Been Liked: 785 times
- Has Liked: 1010 times
Re: Transfer finances
VK & AP are not in the same league as SD & MG.
-
- Posts: 4293
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1600 times
- Has Liked: 679 times
Re: Transfer finances
I’m guessing you live in a simplistic world. Sean Dyche and the previous owners gave us nearly 10 years in the Premier League (or at the top of the Championship). They also invested in buying Turf Moor back and developing the training grounds and school.
However, their finances were limited so we really struggled to make costly signings.
One season under our new owners saw us relegated. We’ve sold most of the team and bought players at a fraction of the previous players. One successful match and you think everything is going to be roses?
I hope you are right!
These 2 users liked this post: Bosscat AfloatinClaret
-
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3861 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: Transfer finances
It's strange.
Some people hate Garlick for not spending 30m on transfers but love Pace who took 113m out of the club, used tge parachute money to pay his loan off and took roughly +50m profit on transfers.
If Kompany pulls this off he will be the greatest manager there's been.
Some people hate Garlick for not spending 30m on transfers but love Pace who took 113m out of the club, used tge parachute money to pay his loan off and took roughly +50m profit on transfers.
If Kompany pulls this off he will be the greatest manager there's been.
These 2 users liked this post: Bosscat forzagranata
-
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Transfer finances
The cold hard facts are that Garlick sold the club knowing the terms of the sale. If he wasn't happy with it he wouldn't have done it. But 50 million in your personal account isn't something to easily turn down....
-
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 8:04 pm
- Been Liked: 698 times
- Has Liked: 4020 times
Re: Transfer finances
Took 50 mil? Like it or not we got relegated. We have to be sustainable. We had to rebuild. I never wanted to see Dyche go, but can say in all honesty that what I am seeing at the moment is far removed and much more exciting.Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:35 pmIt's strange.
Some people hate Garlick for not spending 30m on transfers but love Pace who took 113m out of the club, used tge parachute money to pay his loan off and took roughly +50m profit on transfers.
If Kompany pulls this off he will be the greatest manager there's been.
•Young attack mind players, bursting with energy.
•Investment in players, we have needed it for 4 years. I accept we are in a massive profit at the moment, some will serve the debt and get us out of the mud.
• A lowering of average age in an ageing squad.
• A new exciting way of playing.
• Outstanding media engagement, we can actually see a bit of what happens at Gawthorpe.
• Improvements in and around Turf Moor.
The debt is there, I don't like it anymore than anyone else. Pace is rebranding and rebuilding whilst making us sustainable. The best players have all gone to the Premier League, there are reasons why. To my knowledge none of the other released have signed anywhere as yet.
Let's get behind it, if all goes to plan, come May we may well be someway back an even financial kilter. The difference is we will have a more youthful attacking squad with a lot of value in it.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
- Posts: 8128
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3078 times
- Has Liked: 5042 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Transfer finances
There are two sides to every story.LoveCurryPies wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:25 pmI’m guessing you live in a simplistic world. Sean Dyche and the previous owners gave us nearly 10 years in the Premier League (or at the top of the Championship). They also invested in buying Turf Moor back and developing the training grounds and school.
However, their finances were limited so we really struggled to make costly signings.
One season under our new owners saw us relegated. We’ve sold most of the team and bought players at a fraction of the previous players. One successful match and you think everything is going to be roses?
I hope you are right!
Fergie gave Man U their greatest 25 years, but the team he left for Moyes to pick up was over aged and poor. Ring a bell.
Sean Dyche will rightly go down as the best Burnley manager in my lifetime, and I'm retired. The football at times was fantastic, particularly in the Championship, but also at times tough, through necessity, and I have no problem with that. With the budget he had, he worked miracles.
BUT, like Fergie the team he left behind had gone stale and flat, for the want of younger legs. The ball had rolled uphill, finally came to a stop, and needed major changes. Without major changes it would have just accelerated going downhill.
It needed exactly what AP and VK look like giving us, and there is no way we would have made the same changes had we clung on to Sean. The players wanted out, for various reasons, but even if they hadn't the sales were a necessity in order to buy a new, younger squad. One successful match doesn't mean everything is a bed of roses, but there was enough on show last Friday to show that we are heading back uphill again, and that should be applauded by everyone.
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 Shaggy
Re: Transfer finances
That’s the thing financially at the moment we have made a lot of money through player sales and slashed costs with getting rid of the high wages/relegation clauses. We have bought in a young refreshed squad who appear at this level better suited than those who left, they at least have a lot of resale value I’d we do well this season.
Still have the parachute payments aswell.
Still have the parachute payments aswell.
This user liked this post: Colburn_Claret
-
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Transfer finances
We're signing prospects on 4-5 year contracts. The idea is to make money on them.
-
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3861 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: Transfer finances
When I say took, we don't know where it has gone. The club has received it.mybloodisclaret wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:49 pmTook 50 mil? Like it or not we got relegated. We have to be sustainable. We had to rebuild. I never wanted to see Dyche go, but can say in all honesty that what I am seeing at the moment is far removed and much more exciting.
•Young attack mind players, bursting with energy.
•Investment in players, we have needed it for 4 years. I accept we are in a massive profit at the moment, some will serve the debt and get us out of the mud.
• A lowering of average age in an ageing squad.
• A new exciting way of playing.
• Outstanding media engagement, we can actually see a bit of what happens at Gawthorpe.
• Improvements in and around Turf Moor.
The debt is there, I don't like it anymore than anyone else. Pace is rebranding and rebuilding whilst making us sustainable. The best players have all gone to the Premier League, there are reasons why. To my knowledge none of the other released have signed anywhere as yet.
Let's get behind it, if all goes to plan, come May we may well be someway back an even financial kilter. The difference is we will have a more youthful attacking squad with a lot of value in it.
There's no evidence of Pace paying his own debts back and we won't find out until next year.
It was Kompany who mentioned the parachute payment being used for the loan.
As for what Kompany is doing. It's been brilliant so far. I back the team 100%. But don't trust Alan Pace.
These 4 users liked this post: dsr mybloodisclaret BurnleyFC fatboy47
Re: Transfer finances
I don’t particularly like Garlick or Pace. Loved Sean Dyche and really like what Kompany is trying to achieve and how he goes about his business.
This user liked this post: forzagranata
-
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 8:04 pm
- Been Liked: 698 times
- Has Liked: 4020 times
Re: Transfer finances
Fair one. The way I see it is he was clearly a succesful investment banker and businessman on Wall St. He clearly isn't a mug. He is reshaping the club, and I think he will no exactly what he is doing and how he is going to do it.Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:06 pmWhen I say took, we don't know where it has gone. The club has received it.
There's no evidence of Pace paying his own debts back and we won't find out until next year.
It was Kompany who mentioned the parachute payment being used for the loan.
As for what Kompany is doing. It's been brilliant so far. I back the team 100%. But don't trust Alan Pace.
The way we were headed, even with the Magic of Dyche I think we would have struggled big time this season. The same big players would have left, and I am not sure we would have been anywhere near as dynamic as we have been in their replacement, making a a tough ask of SD further away from possible than it is now.
Our ex owner, wouldn't have known where to start other than selling players.
Re: Transfer finances
People would have went ape **** if Garlick sold all of our best players for £70m and reinvested 20%, banking the rest to pay off his mortgage.
This user liked this post: Quickenthetempo
-
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 858 times
- Has Liked: 265 times
Re: Transfer finances
Much as I don’t agree with the business model adopted by Pace and ALK, ask yourself the question - in who’s bank account(s) does the much of the 100-odd million he used to buy the club currently reside?Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:35 pmIt's strange.
Some people hate Garlick for not spending 30m on transfers but love Pace who took 113m out of the club, used tge parachute money to pay his loan off and took roughly +50m profit on transfers.
If Kompany pulls this off he will be the greatest manager there's been.
Was Garlick’s parsimony ultimately for the good of the club, or himself?
These 2 users liked this post: BurnleyFC Top Claret
-
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
- Been Liked: 1110 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
- Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Re: Transfer finances
Seems like Burnley fans would’ve only been happy if Mike Garlick handed over his shares for nowt. Left the keys under the mat and said, all yours Alan.
Can you imagine the uproar if the share buy back from small shareholders was, we are just taking them, you get nothing.
Can you imagine the uproar if the share buy back from small shareholders was, we are just taking them, you get nothing.
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 AfloatinClaret
-
- Posts: 4189
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2320 times
- Has Liked: 2696 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: Transfer finances
Tripe. Head in sand.RammyClaret61 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:13 amSeems like Burnley fans would’ve only been happy if Mike Garlick handed over his shares for nowt. Left the keys under the mat and said, all yours Alan.
These 3 users liked this post: BurnleyFC Top Claret bf2k
-
- Posts: 8128
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3078 times
- Has Liked: 5042 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Transfer finances
But he was never in a situation where he had to. AP is.
We all thought that just being in the Prem would provide enough money to leave the club comfortable. It was a pipe dream. Players costs and wages went up just as much as the money. We were treading water when we thought we were swimming.
Hindsight says we should have been selling the odd star in order to freshen up the squad with younger players with a resale value.
There's no doubt the squad had run its course, and if we had avoided relegation against Newcastle, I think we would have been facing a terrible season.
Whether the '70 million' goes on new players, or servicing the debt, matters little, either way its being put to good use.
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: Transfer finances
Where did the £47 million come from to buy the club? At one point we had £80 million in the bank.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:34 amBut he was never in a situation where he had to. AP is.
We all thought that just being in the Prem would provide enough money to leave the club comfortable. It was a pipe dream. Players costs and wages went up just as much as the money. We were treading water when we thought we were swimming.
Hindsight says we should have been selling the odd star in order to freshen up the squad with younger players with a resale value.
There's no doubt the squad had run its course, and if we had avoided relegation against Newcastle, I think we would have been facing a terrible season.
Whether the '70 million' goes on new players, or servicing the debt, matters little, either way its being put to good use.
What are you talking about?
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Transfer finances
Pretty sure most of this one could be added to one of the other ALK threads.
-
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3861 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: Transfer finances
I thought it was accepted on here that the 80m or so was boosted by a TV rights payment that was needed for wages straight away.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:45 amWhere did the £47 million come from to buy the club? At one point we had £80 million in the bank.
What are you talking about?
That 30m was the surplus?
-
- Posts: 8128
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3078 times
- Has Liked: 5042 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Transfer finances
Ask Mike Garlick where the money in the bank went. The accounts come out every year, the cost of running a club in the Prem is a fortune. We never did make enough money to keep pace with it. We were in profit from the first year we went up, but I doubt we made any profit after that. We stayed in the red, but our profit was dropping every year. That 80mill was probably being eaten into every year, just to keep us moving forward. Then there was the little matter of Covid on top.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:45 amWhere did the £47 million come from to buy the club? At one point we had £80 million in the bank.
What are you talking about?
It's why we shopped bargain basement, and why so few of our players had a resale profit on them.
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: Transfer finances
It's hardly a pertinent point.Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:56 amI thought it was accepted on here that the 80m or so was boosted by a TV rights payment that was needed for wages straight away.
That 30m was the surplus?
We spent £37 million on shares and still had £50 million in the bank. We then spent another £10 million and borrowed £65 million so clearly we had money in the PL - we just decided to spend it on shares and not players.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Transfer finances
Worth mentioning again, but anyone who thinks we would magically keep making money in the premier league just needs to look at Swansea and their time in it
They sold players at a profit, didn't really take that many risks, but still found that wage demands to stay competitive started to outstrip revenue, even with TV money
Clubs our size without multi-millionaire owners are always going to hit the buffers at some stage sadly
They sold players at a profit, didn't really take that many risks, but still found that wage demands to stay competitive started to outstrip revenue, even with TV money
Clubs our size without multi-millionaire owners are always going to hit the buffers at some stage sadly
-
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3861 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: Transfer finances
The share price was valued at what it was. Everyone benefitted from it from other directors to fans.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 amMuch as I don’t agree with the business model adopted by Pace and ALK, ask yourself the question - in who’s bank account(s) does the much of the 100-odd million he used to buy the club currently reside?
Was Garlick’s parsimony ultimately for the good of the club, or himself?
If ALK had the money to buy them, like 99% of other football owners. Nobody would bat an eye lid.
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: Transfer finances
None of this is factually true. Like "that 80mill was probably being eaten into every year" - the cash reserves were increasing year on year.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:59 amAsk Mike Garlick where the money in the bank went. The accounts come out every year, the cost of running a club in the Prem is a fortune. We never did make enough money to keep pace with it. We were in profit from the first year we went up, but I doubt we made any profit after that. We stayed in the red, but our profit was dropping every year. That 80mill was probably being eaten into every year, just to keep us moving forward. Then there was the little matter of Covid on top.
It's why we shopped bargain basement, and why so few of our players had a resale profit on them.
We had enough money in the PL to spend £47 million on shares and accrue debts with interest only repayments of £5 - 6 million.
Clearly Pace and co thought we had money in the PL because they used it to buy shares and clearly intended to stay in the PL and thrive.
All this is self-evident..!
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: Transfer finances
True, but at the point we got relegated we had money in the bank that is self-evident.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:01 amWorth mentioning again, but anyone who thinks we would magically keep making money in the premier league just needs to look at Swansea and their time in it
They sold players at a profit, didn't really take that many risks, but still found that wage demands to stay competitive started to outstrip revenue, even with TV money
Clubs our size without multi-millionaire owners are always going to hit the buffers at some stage sadly
And I know you agree but it's also worth re-iterating that there is no virtue in a community club spending the best part of £200 million from cash, loans and by selling assets just to get new owners- none whatsoever.
However it ends up no one can say the club benefited from squandering so much money on none-trading activity.
These 2 users liked this post: Lancasterclaret bf2k
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
That’s true initially when they took over but I believe when that position was compromised the finances were hitting skid row that plan changed to mitigate any potential losses & then more focus was placed on relegation as opposed to circumnavigation.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:10 amNone of this is factually true. Like "that 80mill was probably being eaten into every year" - the cash reserves were increasing year on year.
We had enough money in the PL to spend £47 million on shares and accrue debts with interest only repayments of £5 - 6 million.
Clearly Pace and co thought we had money in the PL because they used it to buy shares and clearly intended to stay in the PL and thrive.
All this is self-evident..!
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: Transfer finances
“More focus was placed on relegation” ?Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:22 amThat’s true initially when they took over but I believe when that position was compromised the finances were hitting skid row that plan changed to mitigate any potential losses & then more focus was placed on relegation as opposed to circumnavigation.
How did that focus materialise during this time ?
How do you think the plan changed ?
Do you think AP took Nathan to one side before the Newcastle game and told him that we are on skid row now finance wise so give away a penalty and I’ll make sure you get a big move next year
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
I was more referring to SJs comments regarding CW for me that signalled white flag territory without going into whether it was forced clearly some people outside of BFC think the same, it’s only some people within BFC who seem to hanging onto the company line.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:42 am“More focus was placed on relegation” ?
How did that focus materialise during this time ?
How do you think the plan changed ?
Do you think AP took Nathan to one side before the Newcastle game and told him that we are on skid row now finance wise so give away a penalty and I’ll make sure you get a big move next year
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: Transfer finances
So you think that selling a player who was having his poorest season at the club and could not hit a barn door at the time for £25m to a club doubling his wage and offering him a massive signing on fee was Burnley “raising the white flag” ?Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:05 amI was more referring to SJs comments regarding CW for me that signalled white flag territory without going into whether it was forced clearly some people outside of BFC think the same, it’s only some people within BFC who seem to hanging onto the company line.
Ok then……there’s me thinking it was not part of our plans at all and came totally out of the blue.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
It never worked out with the replacement & I can’t be 100% sure that Chris wood wouldn’t have scored the goals that ensured our survival can you? On the assumption it was a summer release clause do you not think it’s a reckless gamble.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:14 amSo you think that selling a player who was having his poorest season at the club and could not hit a barn door at the time for £25m to a club doubling his wage and offering him a massive signing on fee was Burnley “raising the white flag” ?
Ok then……there’s me thinking it was not part of our plans at all and came totally out of the blue.
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Transfer finances
He didn't go on to score a shed load at Newcastle so I think we can safely say he wasn't going too here either.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:24 amIt never worked out with the replacement & I can’t be 100% sure that Chris wood wouldn’t have scored the goals that ensured our survival can you? On the assumption it was a summer release clause do you not think it’s a reckless gamble.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
No that’s true but he wasn’t really integrated into their setup, I firmly believe he would have come good it’s fair to say he would have at least equalled WW tally.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:32 amHe didn't go on to score a shed load at Newcastle so I think we can safely say he wasn't going too here either.
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Transfer finances
He didn't though, he just had to score and he couldn't do it, he's completely lost formJakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:39 amNo that’s true but he wasn’t really integrated into their setup, I firmly believe he would have come good it’s fair to say he would have at least equalled WW tally.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
If you say so but somebody who specialises in player recruitment clearly doesn’t agree because they shelled out £25 mil for him.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:48 amHe didn't though, he just had to score and he couldn't do it, he's completely lost form
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Transfer finances
It isn't just me saying so, he didn't score much unless you can show me otherwise.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:51 amIf you say so but somebody who specialises in player recruitment clearly doesn’t agree because they shelled out £25 mil for him.
He contributed with hold up play etc, but as a Goal scorer his touch has gone.
He will find it again, but that is no longer our concern.
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: Transfer finances
Talking absolute nonsense again. He had one of the best wingers in the divisions making chances for him and one of the form midfielders in the whole Premier League from January…..not to mention fantastic full backs. Didn’t Newcastle gain more points after Christmas than any other team other than the top 2 ?…..and still Wood missed lots of chances and scores was it one penalty ?Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:39 amNo that’s true but he wasn’t really integrated into their setup, I firmly believe he would have come good it’s fair to say he would have at least equalled WW tally.
And what is the summer release clause you referenced ?
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
Hang on a sec here, you are making it sound as if we replaced him with a piero in his pomp we somehow managed to replace him with somebody crappier if you think that’s good business acumen fair enough, we know the experiment never worked but then again we’ll never know what could have happened had we persevered with something else & exercised patience we saw the money which was a bloody good offer & lost sight of the bigger picture & potentially lost the prize of preserving our PL status, the cold hard facts.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:36 amTalking absolute nonsense again. He had one of the best wingers in the divisions making chances for him and one of the form midfielders in the whole Premier League from January…..not to mention fantastic full backs. Didn’t Newcastle gain more points after Christmas than any other team other than the top 2 ?…..and still Wood missed lots of chances and scores was it one penalty ?
And what is the summer release clause you referenced ?
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: Transfer finances
Well we replaced him with someone who was in an international team a tad better than the one Wood played for and who had a much better goal scoring record per game in one of Europes major leagues.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 pmHang on a sec here, you are making it sound as if we replaced him with a piero in his pomp we somehow managed to replace him with somebody crappier if you think that’s good business acumen fair enough, we know the experiment never worked but then again we’ll never know what could have happened had we persevered with something else & exercised patience we saw the money which was a bloody good offer & lost sight of the bigger picture & potentially lost the prize of preserving our PL status, the cold hard facts.
So yep we probably did think we were getting a better player and also for £13m less than we sold Wood for.
And didn’t he score more than Wood did in the premier league from January ?
But in your very very strange world you seem convinced he would have scored more goals for a struggling team like Burnley who during the season were at the bottom (or very near the bottom) of all the teams in chances created than he did actually score playing for the 3rd best team in the league for the last 4 or 5 months of the season ?
Different opinions are fine…..but opinions based on no substance or hindsight are pointless.
-
- Posts: 2568
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:01 pm
- Been Liked: 785 times
- Has Liked: 1010 times
Re: Transfer finances
I started a thread a while ago about this. What I wanted from it was.
How much was the debt that was causing all the consternation. (Not bothered who's fault it was - just the amount)?
How much have made from transfers out?
How much have we spent on incomings?
How much difference are we in terms of savings on wages. (As a reasonable guesstimate)?
How far are we away now from servicing that debt to a more managable and potentially lessening the risk of catastrope?
I realise there will be complications on fees and staged payments etc
How much was the debt that was causing all the consternation. (Not bothered who's fault it was - just the amount)?
How much have made from transfers out?
How much have we spent on incomings?
How much difference are we in terms of savings on wages. (As a reasonable guesstimate)?
How far are we away now from servicing that debt to a more managable and potentially lessening the risk of catastrope?
I realise there will be complications on fees and staged payments etc
Re: Transfer finances
Seriously, that is your weak response?RammyClaret61 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:13 amSeems like Burnley fans would’ve only been happy if Mike Garlick handed over his shares for nowt. Left the keys under the mat and said, all yours Alan.
Can you imagine the uproar if the share buy back from small shareholders was, we are just taking them, you get nothing.
I think most fans wanted ALK to pay for their own shares, using their own money and not the clubs, they plunged the club into debt and are now selling players to pay this debt.
Re: Transfer finances
You think selling our best players and putting it towards ALKs £120m mortgage is good use? Really? How do you value ALK at £100m+? We're talking figures close to Harry Kane. ALK have seen us relegated, constantly looked to make profit on player sales for their own benefit to take money out of the club.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:34 amBut he was never in a situation where he had to. AP is.
We all thought that just being in the Prem would provide enough money to leave the club comfortable. It was a pipe dream. Players costs and wages went up just as much as the money. We were treading water when we thought we were swimming.
Hindsight says we should have been selling the odd star in order to freshen up the squad with younger players with a resale value.
There's no doubt the squad had run its course, and if we had avoided relegation against Newcastle, I think we would have been facing a terrible season.
Whether the '70 million' goes on new players, or servicing the debt, matters little, either way its being put to good use.
ALK selling players and taking money out of the club is absolutely in no way a benefit to the club, it's the complete opposite.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
Opinions based on no substance or hindsight are pointless - Chris wood had a very good track record throughout the years in the PL up there, how the hell we expected somebody to surpass that who’d never played a game in the PL is beggars belief, put it this way you never saw Newcastle trying to sign WW.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:34 pmWell we replaced him with someone who was in an international team a tad better than the one Wood played for and who had a much better goal scoring record per game in one of Europes major leagues.
So yep we probably did think we were getting a better player and also for £13m less than we sold Wood for.
And didn’t he score more than Wood did in the premier league from January ?
But in your very very strange world you seem convinced he would have scored more goals for a struggling team like Burnley who during the season were at the bottom (or very near the bottom) of all the teams in chances created than he did actually score playing for the 3rd best team in the league for the last 4 or 5 months of the season ?
Different opinions are fine…..but opinions based on no substance or hindsight are pointless.
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: Transfer finances
We did not plan the sale of Wood - whatever weird crap theories you choose to come up with it was completely out of the blue. Wood clearly wanted to go and we got an unbelievable price for a player who had done very well for us up until last season. He was awful last year before we sold him…….and then awful after we sold him. In fact he had an even worse record than WW. Which bit of this are you not getting ?Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:43 pmOpinions based on no substance or hindsight are pointless - Chris wood had a very good track record throughout the years in the PL up there, how the hell we expected somebody to surpass that who’d never played a game in the PL is beggars belief, put it this way you never saw Newcastle trying to sign WW.
And where have you got this stuff about a summer release clause ? Is this something else you have just dreamed up ?
I know you are Captain Hindsight but put that aside for a minute how do you keep hold of a player who wants to leave and is being offered a contract that we could only dream of matching ? If Wood could not hit a barn door in the 5 months up to Newcastle approaching how do you think he would play for us if we refused to let him go ? Did you not see his interview at the time about how he was playing in his comfort zone ?
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Transfer finances
https://talksport.com/football/1018963/ ... -news/amp/Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:21 pmWe did not plan the sale of Wood - whatever weird crap theories you choose to come up with it was completely out of the blue. Wood clearly wanted to go and we got an unbelievable price for a player who had done very well for us up until last season. He was awful last year before we sold him…….and then awful after we sold him. In fact he had an even worse record than WW. Which bit of this are you not getting ?
And where have you got this stuff about a summer release clause ? Is this something else you have just dreamed up ?
I know you are Captain Hindsight but put that aside for a minute how do you keep hold of a player who wants to leave and is being offered a contract that we could only dream of matching ? If Wood could not hit a barn door in the 5 months up to Newcastle approaching how do you think he would play for us if we refused to let him go ? Did you not see his interview at the time about how he was playing in his comfort zone ?