Interview with Matt Williams

[Vegas Claret]

I just posted this on the transfer thread but it's about more than so thought it should have it's own thread
https://x.com/BBCLancsSport/status/1920078659190219206

[CleggHall]

Impressive, an honest informative interview.
Talks very highly of the manager and the chairman, but no we wouldn’t be satisfied with a nil all draw with Man Utd in November. They are there for the taking!

[Quickenthetempo]

Interesting that he says Scott Parker was fully aware of all the outgoings and shows why he never had a strop at the time
Some fans are still adamant he had the rug pulled from underneath him.

[warksclaret]

There’s no substitute for knowing the facts

[Yorkshirelad]

Whoever signed Matt Williams on did us a big favour comes across as a genuine guy

[ClaretTony]

Whoever signed Matt Williams on did us a big favour comes across as a genuine guy

Matt’s in his tenth season at Burnley. Came in during Dyche’s second promotion season to work with Dave Baldwin. He’s a really good bloke.

[bumba]

He says in his interview he says we don't need to sell.and will only sell if it's an offer we can't refuse.
To me that means players like Esteve shouldn't be going for less than £50 million and huge sell on clauses

[Indecisive]

He says in his interview he says we don't need to sell.and will only sell if it's an offer we can't refuse.
To me that means players like Esteve shouldn't be going for less than £50 million and huge sell on clauses

I mean he is likely to say that to be fair.

Wouldn’t put us in the best negotiating position to say any different….

[Tribesmen]

Maybe a tad off topic but , I always think whatever player we sell its always at the bottom scale price wise .
If the same player was coming from City , Liverpool or Chelsea they will always get a higher price for the same player .
Let's say Brewster at Sheff Utd , he he was a Burnley player would he have gone for 30 million ?

[martin_p]

He says in his interview he says we don't need to sell.and will only sell if it's an offer we can't refuse.
To me that means players like Esteve shouldn't be going for less than £50 million and huge sell on clauses

Unfortunately all the power is in the hands of players these days so the words don’t mean much.

[fatboy47]

He says in his interview he says we don't need to sell.and will only sell if it's an offer we can't refuse.

As opposed to saying we're pretty well permanently strapped for cash and would have to take low-ball offers for our stand-out players you mean?

Quelle surprise!

[bumba]

I mean he is likely to say that to be fair.

Wouldn’t put us in the best negotiating position to say any different….

Just don't mention it then, why bring it up?

[Roosterbooster]

Just don't mention it then, why bring it up?

Saying nothing is better than saying we need money
Saying we don't need the money is better than saying nothing

[RVclaret]

Saying nothing is better than saying we need money
Saying we don't need the money is better than saying nothing

We don’t need the money. We made £100m in sales last summer and We’ve just been promoted to a league where we’ll get a minimum £135m revenue. What he’s saying is highly accurate.

[bumba]

Saying nothing is better than saying we need money
Saying we don't need the money is better than saying nothing

Based on what!? We said last summer we didn't need to sell and sold anything that got an offer.
Just don't say a word in public.

[jtv]

Based on what!? We said last summer we didn't need to sell and sold anything that got an offer.
Just don't say a word in public.

We sold anything that did not want to stay.

[Roosterbooster]

Based on what!? We said last summer we didn't need to sell and sold anything that got an offer.
Just don't say a word in public.

We sold Berge, Odobert, Muric, Vitinho, JBG, Twine, Weghorst, Zaroury, Al-Dakhil, O'Shae, McNally, Bastien for well over £100m

That's a profit of over £40m as far as I can work out

[Roosterbooster]

We don’t need the money. We made £100m in sales last summer and We’ve just been promoted to a league where we’ll get a minimum £135m revenue. What he’s saying is highly accurate.

I'm agreeing with you

[Chester Perry]

We don’t need the money. We made £100m in sales last summer and We’ve just been promoted to a league where we’ll get a minimum £135m revenue. What he’s saying is highly accurate.

It is a bold statement - that the events of the coming months and the accounts presented next April will either support or not

It is not unreasonable to believe the club are currently carrying debts in excess of £60m (before transfer commitments), given the carry over from the last accounts - even with MGG mostly, though not completely, out of the picture.

The repayments that enabled the MGG exit were significant to our club - probably on a similar level with the operational turnover for this season (the last accounts stated the repayments due this season were just shy of £70m).

The replacement loan of £40m from Fasanara Capital will have helped with cashflow. Possibly even preventing the need of further repayments from Velocity - though they may well be needed if we are not to restructure our financing again this summer. We still do not know of Velocity are intent on repaying or are just enabling the business through it's cashflow challenges. Either way it is probably only that or further player sales that will prevent/postpone the need for a further round of refinancing this summer.

[RVclaret]

It is a bold statement - that the events of the coming months and the accounts presented next April will either support or not

It is not unreasonable to believe the club are currently carrying debts in excess of £60m (before transfer commitments), given the carry over from the last accounts - even with MGG mostly, though not completely, out of the picture.

The repayments that enabled the MGG exit were significant to our club - probably on a similar level with the operational turnover for this season (the last accounts stated the repayments due this season were just shy of £70m).

The replacement loan of £40m from Fasanara Capital will have helped with cashflow. Possibly even preventing the need of further repayments from Velocity - though they may well be needed if we are not to restructure our financing again this summer. We still do not know of Velocity are intent on repaying or are just enabling the business through it's cashflow challenges. Either way it is probably only that or further player sales that will prevent/postpone the need for a further round of refinancing this summer.

The last accounts are outdated by a year, like you’ve already noted, which makes half of that speculation (which is fine). The club will likely engage in factoring future PL payments, further investment from Velocity or raising the debt level again, before player sales - so id say it’s highly accurate that Williams stated we aren’t under financial pressure to sell.

[Chester Perry]

The last accounts are outdated by a year, like you’ve already noted, which makes half of that speculation (which is fine). The club will likely engage in factoring future PL payments, further investment from Velocity or raising the debt level again, before player sales - so id say it’s highly accurate that Williams stated we aren’t under financial pressure to sell.

You have just significantly expanded the parameters of the financial situation you originally stated - there was nothing about Refinancing/factoring in your previous statement

[bumba]

We sold Berge, Odobert, Muric, Vitinho, JBG, Twine, Weghorst, Zaroury, Al-Dakhil, O'Shae, McNally, Bastien for well over £100m

That's a profit of over £40m as far as I can work out

We don't even know how much exactly we got for those players I'd imagine £40 million profit is way out, as stated below the club is in significant debt so will at some point need to sell.
Williams should have just kept quiet in public.

[Claretnick]

We don't even know how much exactly we got for those players I'd imagine £40 million profit is way out, as stated below the club is in significant debt so will at some point need to sell.
Williams should have just kept quiet in public.

If Matt Williams doesn't know the ins and outs of the club's finances better than us on this forum then we are in real trouble!

[NottsClaret]

I appreciate people can get sensitive around any perceived criticism about the club, and I don't know enough about finances to even know if this is a critiscism, but surely nobody really believes we're not carrying some pretty huge debts and will have lost an absolute fortune again this season?

I don't really care, it's not my money and we're back in the Prem, but as ever, all our players are for sale.

[beddie]

I imagine the Board and especially Alan will be looking for suitable investors, now doubt he’ll have been doing the ground work over a long period, hopefully now we’re back in the Premiership it might and I hope it does prove beneficial.

[RVclaret]

You have just significantly expanded the parameters of the financial situation you originally stated - there was nothing about Refinancing/factoring in your previous statement

Not really - point was we aren’t under financial pressure to sell players because we’ve been promoted.

I appreciate people can get sensitive around any perceived criticism about the club, and I don't know enough about finances to even know if this is a critiscism, but surely nobody really believes we're not carrying some pretty huge debts and will have lost an absolute fortune again this season?

I don't really care, it's not my money and we're back in the Prem, but as ever, all our players are for sale.

£88m transfer sales received post the latest accounts means it’s highly unlikely we will have ‘lost an absolute fortune again’, while it’s also possible the debt was halved / significantly reduced to £40m.

And yes, Williams alluded to ‘every player having a price’, which is obvious, but the topic of conversation here is whether we ‘need to sell’, which Williams said we don’t, and many agree with.

[bumba]

If Matt Williams doesn't know the ins and outs of the club's finances better than us on this forum then we are in real trouble!

That isn't the point he obviously knows the ins and outs but if we end up selling now he looks stupid, I just don't see why he even had to talk about it

[Row x]

That isn't the point he obviously knows the ins and outs but if we end up selling now he looks stupid, I just don't see why he even had to talk about it

Why does he look stupid?

We don't need to sell, but all players have a price is roughly what he said. If we sell that price has been reached

[bumba]

Why does he look stupid?

We don't need to sell, but all players have a price is roughly what he said. If we sell that price has been reached

If they go below what they should then he'll look stupid

[taio]

Nothing he said would make him look stupid in the future

[Row x]

If they go below what they should then he'll look stupid

A few straws being clutched now

[billyhamilton82]

It is a bold statement - that the events of the coming months and the accounts presented next April will either support or not

It is not unreasonable to believe the club are currently carrying debts in excess of £60m (before transfer commitments), given the carry over from the last accounts - even with MGG mostly, though not completely, out of the picture.

The repayments that enabled the MGG exit were significant to our club - probably on a similar level with the operational turnover for this season (the last accounts stated the repayments due this season were just shy of £70m).

The replacement loan of £40m from Fasanara Capital will have helped with cashflow. Possibly even preventing the need of further repayments from Velocity - though they may well be needed if we are not to restructure our financing again this summer. We still do not know of Velocity are intent on repaying or are just enabling the business through it's cashflow challenges. Either way it is probably only that or further player sales that will prevent/postpone the need for a further round of refinancing this summer.

Yada Yada

If, buts, maybes and conjecture with a constant negative spin on the owners, even when well respected members of the organisation state something positive, its immediately dragged down with negative connotations.

No balance, just that we are in debt and its all the owners fault.

Have you ever posted anything positive on here Chester?

Do you realise this is one of the most successful periods of our history?

[Goliath]

Yada Yada

If, buts, maybes and conjecture with a constant negative spin on the owners, even when well respected members of the organisation state something positive, its immediately dragged down with negative connotations.

No balance, just that we are in debt and its all the owners fault.

Have you ever posted anything positive on here Chester?

Do you realise this is one of the most successful periods of our history?

Childish. His posts are informative and make a complex topic more digestible. Who would you like him to blame for the debt?

It seems quite clear that these owners are gambling on Premier league money and luckily have had 2 instant promotions back to the PL. In both seasons I think failure to be promoted would have been fairly disastrous for the club.

[NewClaret]

We don't even know how much exactly we got for those players I'd imagine £40 million profit is way out, as stated below the club is in significant debt so will at some point need to sell.
Williams should have just kept quiet in public.

Not looked these up so going entirely from memory on reported fees, which I know aren’t certain but equally nor are the purchase prices:

Muric - bought for £2m, sold for £8-10m = £6m
O’Shea - bought for £7m, sold for £15-18m = £8m
Odobert - bought for £12m, sold for £25-30m = £13m
Berge - bought for £12m, sold for £20-£25m = £8m
JBG - free, sold for £500k is the rumour = £0.5m
Vitinho - only cost a million, sold for £8m = £7m
Al Dakhil - bought for £4m, sold for £8m = £4m
Zaroury - bought for £4m, sold for £5m = £1m
Weghorst, Bastien, McNally, Twine = probably raised some cash but likely zilch profit. When you consider loan fees received for each, plus sale fees, I’d imagine break even overall.

I get just shy of £47.5m using the lower sale figures (expected guaranteed) figure on each sale, so I doubt £40m is way out - think it’ll be there or thereabouts about right.

[ClaretPete001]

We don’t need the money. We made £100m in sales last summer and We’ve just been promoted to a league where we’ll get a minimum £135m revenue. What he’s saying is highly accurate.

Not really very meaningful. In July 23rd's Accounts we had over £230 million worth of Creditors.

We also spent Eur50 million last summer. It's too complicated and there is too little information to really make anything of these figures.

Of course, saying we made £100 million on Sales is a fact but not mentioning we also spent leaves a somewhat misleading figure of £100 million in the public domain because that is not what we made on Nett Sales, which is the only meaningful figure.

And, of course, PL contracts and expenses will soon eat up £135 million. The song essentially remains the same as long as we can perform these Houdini acts we are fine.

[ClaretPete001]

It is a bold statement - that the events of the coming months and the accounts presented next April will either support or not

It is not unreasonable to believe the club are currently carrying debts in excess of £60m (before transfer commitments), given the carry over from the last accounts - even with MGG mostly, though not completely, out of the picture.

The repayments that enabled the MGG exit were significant to our club - probably on a similar level with the operational turnover for this season (the last accounts stated the repayments due this season were just shy of £70m).

The replacement loan of £40m from Fasanara Capital will have helped with cashflow. Possibly even preventing the need of further repayments from Velocity - though they may well be needed if we are not to restructure our financing again this summer. We still do not know of Velocity are intent on repaying or are just enabling the business through it's cashflow challenges. Either way it is probably only that or further player sales that will prevent/postpone the need for a further round of refinancing this summer.

I presume you refer to bank loans not debts. We also created debts by forwarding PL money etc. so the £60 million figure is not really meaningful as far as I can see.

But I agree, how much of the debt from the July 23 accounts have been paid down will be interesting. On the track record so far very little but who knows.

[clarets1978]

Not looked these up so going entirely from memory on reported fees, which I know aren’t certain but equally nor are the purchase prices:

Muric - bought for £2m, sold for £8-10m = £6m
O’Shea - bought for £7m, sold for £15-18m = £8m
Odobert - bought for £12m, sold for £25-30m = £13m
Berge - bought for £12m, sold for £20-£25m = £8m
JBG - free, sold for £500k is the rumour = £0.5m
Vitinho - only cost a million, sold for £8m = £7m
Al Dakhil - bought for £4m, sold for £8m = £4m
Zaroury - bought for £4m, sold for £5m = £1m
Weghorst, Bastien, McNally, Twine = probably raised some cash but likely zilch profit. When you consider loan fees received for each, plus sale fees, I’d imagine break even overall.

I get just shy of £47.5m using the lower sale figures (expected guaranteed) figure on each sale, so I doubt £40m is way out - think it’ll be there or thereabouts about right.

Surely the Weghorst transfer would contribute a hefty loss to that figure?

[ClaretPete001]

Not looked these up so going entirely from memory on reported fees, which I know aren’t certain but equally nor are the purchase prices:

Muric - bought for £2m, sold for £8-10m = £6m
O’Shea - bought for £7m, sold for £15-18m = £8m
Odobert - bought for £12m, sold for £25-30m = £13m
Berge - bought for £12m, sold for £20-£25m = £8m
JBG - free, sold for £500k is the rumour = £0.5m
Vitinho - only cost a million, sold for £8m = £7m
Al Dakhil - bought for £4m, sold for £8m = £4m
Zaroury - bought for £4m, sold for £5m = £1m
Weghorst, Bastien, McNally, Twine = probably raised some cash but likely zilch profit. When you consider loan fees received for each, plus sale fees, I’d imagine break even overall.

I get just shy of £47.5m using the lower sale figures (expected guaranteed) figure on each sale, so I doubt £40m is way out - think it’ll be there or thereabouts about right.

Again it's difficult to do this kind of exercise because we don't know how much of the old contract was paid off when we sold them. So, we might make money but not generate that much cash. In other words, the money received is really just paying off debt and is not not new money into the accounts.

It's just not possible to make any inferences on the current financial situation based upon adding up what we think we have made without any of the underlying information.

The one thing that is certain is we didn't make £100 million from Net sales last summer.

[jlup1980]

There's a lot of hyperbole on here.

I suspect there's an element of truth to what Matt is saying. We likely don't "need" to sell. That doesn't mean we won't sell, though. The model is clear - buy low, sell high. Look at last summer. The only player we held onto was Koleosho... everyone else who could achieve a profit was sold. We have to do this to sustain our current level.

IMO, we will never be a club that can reject serious offers for our players. What fans think our players are worth will differ greatly from the clubs valuation.

Transfermarkt suggests we paid €12m for Esteve last summer, and €17.3m for Trafford two summers ago. If Newcastle offer £40m plus add ons for Trafford, he will be gone. Same with Esteve. We might not like it, but that's the Pace model.

[NewClaret]

Surely the Weghorst transfer would contribute a hefty loss to that figure?

Not sure how the accounting works really. During his time we will’ve received significant loan fees (not sure if they contribute to profit/loss, or when they are booked if they do i.e. we might’ve benefited from them in previous seasons accounts). Or whether on a player sale it’s the net difference between purchase and sale price that is booked as profit/loss, or all the accounting wizardry that goes on over the course of a players contract actually makes it a more complicated equation.

But yes, potentially.

Still, think he cost £12m and we sold him for £2m so if loan fees don’t count and we took a £10m hit we’d still be at £37.5m profit using the above numbers.

[NewClaret]

There's a lot of hyperbole on here.

I suspect there's an element of truth to what Matt is saying. We likely don't "need" to sell. That doesn't mean we won't sell, though. The model is clear - buy low, sell high. Look at last summer. The only player we held onto was Koleosho... everyone else who could achieve a profit was sold. We have to do this to sustain our current level.

IMO, we will never be a club that can reject serious offers for our players. What fans think our players are worth will differ greatly from the clubs valuation.

Transfermarkt suggests we paid €12m for Esteve last summer, and €17.3m for Trafford two summers ago. If Newcastle offer £40m plus add ons for Trafford, he will be gone. Same with Esteve. We might not like it, but that's the Pace model.

Agree. All clubs bar a handful of elite clubs are “selling clubs”. It’s not just our model, or the “Pace model” though. That’s football. It’s the football pyramid model. Smaller clubs get their best players bought by the bigger clubs.

Everything Matt said was true and already well understood by our fans.

[RVclaret]

Not sure how the accounting works really. During his time we will’ve received significant loan fees (not sure if they contribute to profit/loss, or when they are booked if they do i.e. we might’ve benefited from them in previous seasons accounts). Or whether on a player sale it’s the net difference between purchase and sale price that is booked as profit/loss, or all the accounting wizardry that goes on over the course of a players contract actually makes it a more complicated equation.

But yes, potentially.

Still, think he cost £12m and we sold him for £2m so if loan fees don’t count and we took a £10m hit we’d still be at £37.5m profit using the above numbers.

Accounting profit is based on the actual sale profit + cumulative amortisation over the period the player was with the club. For example, Berge we paid £12m for, 4 year contract, so £3m contribution to yearly amortisation. One year of that would have been done by the time he moved to Fulham for £20m so the accounting profit would have been £8m + £3m =11m. Another way to look at it is the actual sale price (£20m) - remaining amortisation (£9m).

[NewClaret]

Accounting profit is based on the actual sale profit + cumulative amortisation over the period the player was with the club. For example, Berge we paid £12m for, 4 year contract, so £3m contribution to yearly amortisation. One year of that would have been done by the time he moved to Fulham for £20m so the accounting profit would have been £8m + £3m =11m. Another way to look at it is the actual sale price (£20m) - remaining amortisation (£9m).

Perfect, thanks RV. Very clear.

In that case, all of my figures above are likely inflated by 20-25% meaning £40m profit is probably on the low side.

In relation to Weghorst, maybe a small loss. But the other players who I think we roughly sold for the same price as we paid, would provide a small amount of profit. Imagine that group are probably about break even overall though as I suggested.

Do you know how loan fees interact with that calculation?

[Spike]

Williams is quite good at feeding some snippets every now and again without anyone every knowing the full financial picture