how long before investors....?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:07 pm

Royboyclaret wrote:Try to see it as attempting to hold back the tide........Make no mistake we are fast becoming a very desirable commodity within a global market. Now 7th in the biggest league in the world and about to report a potential £40 million profit in the financial year just ended on the back of a £35 million profit last time in the Prem.

All adds up to a very attractive proposition and with great respect to the seven current members of the Board I suspect several of them would never have envisaged being custodians of a business with an annual Income in excess of £120 million. One of those is about to complete 30 years of stalwart service but I doubt he, or any of the other six, would resist an offer of enormous proportions so long as the deal ensured everything that we hold dear at the club remains intact.

But how could an investor make much money out of us once you take out all the wages and transfer fees etc.?

If we get relegated where would that leave the investor, unless they strip out all our assets?

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:18 pm

Spijed wrote:But how could an investor make much money out of us once you take out all the wages and transfer fees etc.?

If we get relegated where would that leave the investor, unless they strip out all our assets?

And this has happened to a number of clubs. Investors suddenly find that everything isn't nearly so attractive when the team slides out of the PL and the value of their investment is slashed and actually becomes a money pit (Exhibit one - Venkys)

Also, as mentioned above, numerous clubs have been bought by investors making all sorts of promises and guarantees to the previous owners who have often been local people who love the club and frequently those promises have turned out to be utter bull****.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:20 pm

Royboyclaret wrote:
All adds up to a very attractive proposition and with great respect to the seven current members of the Board I suspect several of them would never have envisaged being custodians of a business with an annual Income in excess of £120 million. One of those is about to complete 30 years of stalwart service but I doubt he, or any of the other six, would resist an offer of enormous proportions so long as the deal ensured everything that we hold dear at the club remains intact.

Realistically though only Garlick, Banaszkiewicz and Kilby are key shareholder, as long as they don't need (chose) to sell we will be ok.

Dressinggown · Post by **Dressinggown** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:21 pm

Milk the cash cow which is the Premier League whilst the sun shines on us.

Avoid the need to sell to outside investors at the same time.

Our owners are our fans.

Sorted.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:32 pm

NRC wrote:so IF our Board do have to deal with enquirers relatively frequently, one would imagine future husbandry would be very high on the list. One way to assure the future of the club as a clear community identifier is to do what Swansea did, and make that conditional on investors...... that way the fans/community have a direct stake.

The balance becomes ROI for the Board, which SHOULD satisfy them. the alternate view on that is if the Board do not apply that kind of husbandry, then it's all been rhetoric...

That didn't stop the American owners appointing an American manager at Swansea. A disaster in the making!

AshevilleNCClaret · Post by **AshevilleNCClaret** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:40 pm

Man City and Chelsea are not really "investments" - they are owned by insanely rich owners who can throw nearly an unlimited money at their teams with not really a second thought whether or not they are profitable.
As for Burnley being attractive for an outside investor: we are only profitable because of the TV money. No amount of marketing is going to make Burnley a world-wide brand. And that TV money is only as good as we stay in the PL, which for the near future, is going to be a struggle.
No one is going to look to buy us as a way to make money.

Bop · Post by **Bop** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:41 pm

Ting Tong Turf.

Dear God, I hope it's not true.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:36 pm

levraiclaret wrote:I'll see your City, Chelsea and Leicester and raise you Birmingham, Sunderland, Forest, Rovers, Arsenal, Coventry, QPR, Palace, Liverpool, Everton, Leeds, West Bromwich Albion, Watford, Bournemouth, Hull City, Wolves and Villa.

I'm sure Rovers will take the success they had for a few seasons in League One. Id happily trade winning the PL title if it meant we spent a year or two in League One.

QPR, Hull, Bournemouth, Watford all gained promotion with foreign investment.

Wolves, Villa and Birmingham have all been backed financially by foreign owners this year, Wolves look very good for promotion (something they wouldn't have achieved without the investment)

Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton all remain in the PL with foreign investors.

90% of the ones listed aren't badly run at all and have had success because of foreign investors. Coventry, Leyton Orient, Portsmouth are 3 that spring to mind as bad examples of foreign investors but I'm not sure how you can say sides like Wolves are badly run, 2nd in the league and have been seriously improved since the investors came In.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:39 pm

Spijed wrote:And would you be happy if we sack a manager if he loses four games in a row?

We could easily end up with 2-3 managers per season.

No absolutely not but they don't all sack managers after 4 games and in the case of Cellino at Leeds, he made terrible appointments so had to rectify it. Put it this way, if Dave Hockaday was ever manager here, if want him sacked before he even managed 4 games.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:43 pm

levraiclaret wrote:As I have posted elsewhere, BFC is becoming an exemplar of a well run club.

Lets keep on keeping on.

Are we actually well run or do we appear well run because of the performance of the team? If we were relegated this season, how long could we last in the Championship? Id suspect we are well run because the team is performing and banking the club a fortune. If we ended up relegated and in the Championship for 5+ years could we avoid debt? Would we then be badly run because wed end up in debt?

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:57 pm

I for one, would be very suspicious of the motives of any potential Foreign investor/Buyer in a club of our size. In the normal scheme of things, investors put in money to get a return on their investment...even the Glaziers borrowed the bulk of the money to buy United and have since repaid that money by heaping the debt on to the Football Club..

I don't want a Lithuanian business-man buying 20% of our Club, I don't want an unknown Brazilian buying our Club & then forgetting where his cheque-book is, I don't want people trying to change our Club's name, or our Club colours. I don't want our Chairman being banged up abroad for money-laundering, I don't want to be at the whim of an Eastern European oligarch, but above all, in the name of all that is good and holy, I do not want Burnley F.C. to be the vehicle for some Chicken farmers to increase their " Global brand f*%$ing awareness " !!!

I like the fact we have Directors called Mike, John, Barry, and Brendon who are supporters and have a shared history and experience with the fans. I like the fact one of them arranges to buy travelling supporters a beer, when we're playing in London. I like the fact they don't take a salary or dividends, and I like the fact we still accept pitchside advertising from local bakeries,solicitors and scaffolding companies who supported the Club when the Club needed it, and havn't been forgotten now we're having a taste of the big-time....

I posted the above in January, on a similarly themed thread....my view has not changed..UTC !!

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:05 pm

Clarets4me wrote:I like the fact we still accept pitchside advertising from local bakeries,solicitors and scaffolding companies who supported the Club when the Club needed it, and havn't been forgotten now we're having a taste of the big-time....

I remember it well and should CWR Scaffolds ever decide they can't afford to continue with their sponsorship then we should divert UTC funds to make it happen. In the words of Handbag Sammy "It's part of our heritage ain't it".

UTC!

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:53 pm

i would welcome it , the game is awash with money, we allow betting advertisements, we feed our fans fast food and basically flog anything . we let the stands be rebranded years ago.
our kick off is dictated by sky. if dyche jumps ship the whole thing could collapse like a house of cards. I would love a huge investment to protect our current status.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:55 pm

As long as we're in the Premier League and the TV money remains lucrative, I honestly don't see any reason to sell. We're flush with cash as it is and we've found a way to get decent results.

Long may it continue.

northeastclaret · Post by **northeastclaret** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:55 pm

I think we are forgetting one important fact, our success is due to Sean Dyche, when he leaves ,whatever our financial status at that time, it will take a miracle to retain our premier league status. Anyone who is interested in taking over the club , if they don't secure Dyche on a long term contract will lose a lot of money.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:57 pm

northeastclaret wrote:I think we are forgetting one important fact, our success is due to Sean Dyche, when he leaves ,whatever our financial status at that time, it will take a miracle to retain our premier league status. Anyone who is interested in taking over the club , if they don't secure Dyche on a long term contract will lose a lot of money.

i just said that

ExistentialWanderer · Post by **ExistentialWanderer** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:38 am

northeastclaret wrote:I think we are forgetting one important fact, our success is due to Sean Dyche, when he leaves ,whatever our financial status at that time, it will take a miracle to retain our premier league status. Anyone who is interested in taking over the club , if they don't secure Dyche on a long term contract will lose a lot of money.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment. Dyche and the board have worked wonders for the club. New owners would have designs on a return for their investment. That wouldn't be bobbing along trying to finish above 18th. They'd be looking at higher targets. It's questionable whether Dyche would be part of their plans. To a degree I can understand that as the football isn't the prettiest, but it is effective.
Whether we like it or not, we're not ever going to win the Premier League with our current finances, even if we're getting stronger every year. so are all the others. We're realistic. We aim to do as well as possible and ultimately not get relegated.
It's great to see us competing with clubs at this level again but to what aim?
Part of me thinks 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'. I don't understand where you think we'd lose a lot of money. Fans are fickle, there may be some who stay away but is loyalty really that real when you sit in your armchair and hear of exciting signings we could never afford before, popping in hat-tricks and playing sexy football?
It doesn't matter anyway. For every Dyche fan or traditionalist, there'd be someone plastic who comes along to replace them. That has happened in the past 30 years anyway. Case in point being a game I went on for my birthday in April 1987. Lost 0-2 at home to Cambridge Utd, crowd was less than 2,000. Perversely we took 30,000 to Wembley the following year. Funny how they all come out of the woodwork when we get a whiff of success. It will happen at some point and we're powerless to stop it. One can only hope the board (current) use due diligence in negotiations.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:15 am

northeastclaret wrote:I think we are forgetting one important fact, our success is due to Sean Dyche, when he leaves ,whatever our financial status at that time, it will take a miracle to retain our premier league status. Anyone who is interested in taking over the club , if they don't secure Dyche on a long term contract will lose a lot of money.

Even before Dyche though weren't we the most stable club in the Championship, in that we were only ever likely to get promoted, and never get relegated to league one?

Ever since we went up with Stan in charge we've never been in trouble, unlike many clubs such as Notts Forrest, Leicester, Leeds, Rovers, Bolton, PNE, Wolves, Derby etc. who've all suffered relegation.

It shows we have stronger foundations than virtually any other club around and that we are more likely to go straight back up.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:51 am

More luck than judgement even getting a foreign investor.
The Chinese chippy owner near the Turf isn't the answer.

Why wouldnt any rescueBolton, Cov, Pompey?

But I must add....

Long Live The Venkys

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:15 am

NRC wrote:you think we're established enough, Ian? EW makes a sound point re the balance sheet though....

Burnley is not a sleeping giant with massive possibilities for increasing its home market. So income outside of the TV rights is limited. Whilst the TV rights are attractive, they are finite. Anyone trying to milk that would detract from the club.

Walt · Post by **Walt** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:15 am

The day will come. As said, we'll have to hope when the current majority holders decide their days as custodians have ended that they make a very good choice.

I don't think there will be a queue of rich locals wishing to take the reigns to keep our set up similar to what it is now unfortunately.

Walt · Post by **Walt** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:28 am

In many ways it's brilliant the financial strength we have. Should we stay up again with the expected profits our position obviously becomes stronger.

With that and the infrastructure improving it's going to take a heck of a lot of money just to buy the club, nevermind have pockets deep enough to invest further. The success we're having to facilitate this position of strength is going to make it even harder to find someone both suitable and willing to put that money into us.

Bit of a double edged sword in my opinion.

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:39 am

In the past some of our board members have used us badly,loaning us money to develop, than claiming it back at Wonga style interest rates when their other buinesess went pear shaped
We should be veryj careful of anyone wanting a piece of our very successful pie

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:05 am

KRBFC wrote:I'm sure Rovers will take the success they had for a few seasons in League One. Id happily trade winning the PL title if it meant we spent a year or two in League One.

QPR, Hull, Bournemouth, Watford all gained promotion with foreign investment.

Wolves, Villa and Birmingham have all been backed financially by foreign owners this year, Wolves look very good for promotion (something they wouldn't have achieved without the investment)

Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton all remain in the PL with foreign investors.

90% of the ones listed aren't badly run at all and have had success because of foreign investors. Coventry, Leyton Orient, Portsmouth are 3 that spring to mind as bad examples of foreign investors but I'm not sure how you can say sides like Wolves are badly run, 2nd in the league and have been seriously improved since the investors came In.

We've had success / promotions without outside cash thrown at us. If you want to look at it from a 'brand management' point of view, the 'fairy-tale' status we've retained by not prostituting ourselves out has a value in itself that will (and probably already has) bring us more fans globally.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:39 am

AndrewJB wrote:We've had success / promotions without outside cash thrown at us. If you want to look at it from a 'brand management' point of view, the 'fairy-tale' status we've retained by not prostituting ourselves out has a value in itself that will (and probably already has) bring us more fans globally.

Absolutely but the game has changed, how long can we realistically survive at the top without the finance?

If we are relegated tomorrow, how long could we financially last in the Championship without debts piling up?

I like the current board and wouldn't want the entire club sold but you can only go so far without the investment. Providing Garlick retained some control id welcome a rich guy alongside him.

Ambrose · Post by **Ambrose** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:51 am

The day BFC is not a locally owned/run club, is the day I walk away and I assume many others will do likewise. I have no interest in supporting a foreign owned business franchise, that is Burnley Football Club, in name only.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:11 am

What's the deal with people favouring local and genuine fans at the helm of the club, and then using the following examples as routes we don't want to go down:

Lifelong Boro fan Steve Gibson
Lifelong Brighton fan Tony Bloom
Lifelong Bolton fan Eddie Davies

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:42 am

Bolton - their mess can be linked directly to Davies and the poor financial running of the club during his ownership.

Boro - Gibson wrote off £80million or so a few years ago.

Brighton - owe Bloom £180 million ish, the club doesn't own the ground or training facilities.

You'll need to find better examples.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:51 am

Sidney - Boro still have debts are owed to the parent group all owned by Gibson - believe it is significantly over £100m now

Living outside your mean's without converting loans into shares means that when the benefactor owner (note: not a custodian) has had enough or dies the conversion to reality destroys you see both Bolton post Eddie and Rovers post Jack (though the venky's have been magicians in getting so little for the vast sums they have poured into their club)

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:55 am

I haven't kept up with Boro's finances lately, they're busy trying to lord it on certain fb pages.

Wolves' and Villa's will make interesting reading these next couple of seasons.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:56 am

Sidney1st wrote:Bolton - their mess can be linked directly to Davies and the poor financial running of the club during his ownership.

Boro - Gibson wrote off £80million or so a few years ago.

Brighton - owe Bloom £180 million ish, the club doesn't own the ground or training facilities.

You'll need to find better examples.

But I thought this thread was about not getting foreign investors because they'll ruin the club, and the alternative is going with local fans because they're great and nothing ever goes wrong with local fans?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:59 am

Bear in mind that it wasn't that long ago that our board quietly sold Turf Moor and Gawthorpe to a company based in a tax haven. Maybe it was necessary but, if things hadn't worked out as they did, we could well be in that list of salutary lessons that others are posting with regard to other clubs.

At the moment there are a fair chunk of clubs, ourselves included, who are making their way in the Premier League by breaking even rather than dipping into the owners' money. This is teams like West Brom, Stoke, Bournemouth, Southampton, etc who are surviving on gate receipts and TV money. Given that gate receipts are becoming an increasingly small proportion of revenue then there is little reason why we can't be competing in this strata.

The advantage of deep pockets isn't for when things go well, it's when they go badly. If a club gets relegated or the tv deal goes tits up then those deep pockets mean that drastic decisions don't need to be made. You can keep on paying your premier league players for another year in the hope that they'll get you back to the top table rather than have to look at cost cutting.

As we don't have those deep pockets we are, I assume, trying to build up a contingency fund which is why our spending is lower than many of our peers.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:07 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:But I thought this thread was about not getting foreign investors because they'll ruin the club, and the alternative is going with local fans because they're great and nothing ever goes wrong with local fans?

It's about finding the right investors.
There are good and bad in both foreign and uk investors but as it stands we currently have the best ones for us.

Could things go wrong with our board?
They've already shown they can and do make mistakes, but they also appear to learn from those mistakes.

Gibson - he's been at Boro since the 80's when he saved them from extinction, so I'm assuming he was relatively young back then.
He's nearly 60 now and he's got a good few years left in the tank.
I also suspect he'd have provisions made if the worst was to happen, but equally the risk of Boro falling over like Rovers is there.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:14 pm

Serious question

Just how much better do you think we can get?

The top six is impossible, then you've got Everton, then you've got thirteen relegation candidates.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, we can't get much better than this, even with millions more poured in.

gandhisflipflop · Post by **gandhisflipflop** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:16 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:
The top six is impossible.

No it's not.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:17 pm

Good question.

With the right scouting and signings we could do something bizarre like get a European spot or win a cup one season.
Leicester had alot of things go their way when they got that title in regards to the usual suspects having a torrid season.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:18 pm

Plus if our away form last season was even half as good as our home form then we would've made top 10 easily.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:33 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Serious question

Just how much better do you think we can get?

The top six is impossible, then you've got Everton, then you've got thirteen relegation candidates.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, we can't get much better than this, even with millions more poured in.

Unless there is another possibility of having a season like Leicester.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:55 pm

Spijed wrote:Unless there is another possibility of having a season like Leicester.

Leicester was an Epic alignment Schmeical, Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez, Vardy rest of the team having the season of their life as the belief grew and all the usual competitors in a rebuild with the other nearly teams (Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool) not on it enough and making the usual mistakes.

We have good players but no one approaching Kante, Mahrez or Vardy. Kante in particular could improve any team on the planet

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:00 pm

aggi wrote:Bear in mind that it wasn't that long ago that our board quietly sold Turf Moor and Gawthorpe to a company based in a tax haven. Maybe it was necessary but, if things hadn't worked out as they did, we could well be in that list of salutary lessons that others are posting with regard to other clubs.

At the moment there are a fair chunk of clubs, ourselves included, who are making their way in the Premier League by breaking even rather than dipping into the owners' money. This is teams like West Brom, Stoke, Bournemouth, Southampton, etc who are surviving on gate receipts and TV money. Given that gate receipts are becoming an increasingly small proportion of revenue then there is little reason why we can't be competing in this strata.

The advantage of deep pockets isn't for when things go well, it's when they go badly. If a club gets relegated or the tv deal goes tits up then those deep pockets mean that drastic decisions don't need to be made. You can keep on paying your premier league players for another year in the hope that they'll get you back to the top table rather than have to look at cost cutting.

As we don't have those deep pockets we are, I assume, trying to build up a contingency fund which is why our spending is lower than many of our peers.

Aggi you will find that Stoke and Bournemouth have both dipped into the owners money in recent years without paying it back - Saints had to in the early days of the revival but recently has been from Player sales and development (the Burnley model of the 50's, 60's and 70's). West Brom is the club we are closest to in model.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:13 pm

Ambrose wrote:The day BFC is not a locally owned/run club, is the day I walk away and I assume many others will do likewise. I have no interest in supporting a foreign owned business franchise, that is Burnley Football Club, in name only.

i take your point, and to a large extent i agree with you. Burnley feels somehow to be the real deal just now. many cite how our careful financial dealings have ensured we have not overstretched ourselves and therefore not allowed the club to be weakened.
The problem is we are constrained by being a little fish in a big sea whereas our competitors are geared up for massive spending sprees when the transfers are being arranged.
Sean Dyche has to take what he's given to build a realistic team capable of thriving in this division. It's nothing short of a miracle that we are even in this elite league, let alone 7th at the moment.
Ultimately though this is a knife edge situation, it could go either way. I rather doubt any other manager out there could replicate this achievement.
In order to remain competitive we need colossal amounts of cash, this can only happen if investment is a factor.
Tons of examples of how clubs not too far away have fell foul of this route, but similarly there are plenty of clubs who have reaped huge rewards and excelled. It depends largely on how well intentioned any would be investors did their business.
We are currently punching well above our weight, to give us a fair chance of staying at the top levels of football, we need to be welcoming a package that can sustain our status for many seasons to come.If we don't then relegation scraps will become inevitable sooner than later and we will find ourselves back at square one needlessly.

diamondpocket · Post by **diamondpocket** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:18 pm

We do not need investors, we need to stay in this League and leave Dyche to continue what he is doing on & off the field; he is our most prized asset and we need to keep him happy and evolving.
We can see the approach working in front of our eyes; buying some first teamers on record fees; some very promising players being bedded in for a year before moving up to become starters whilst gradually bulking the squad with competitive experienced pros.
Pope & Tarks have come in so far; Taylor looks to be one for the future; I expect a promising centre-half, strker & right wing berth to be next on the agenda in Jan; keep our midfield as it is and you can see for this year & next where we're gonna be and with Dyche at the help I expect us to be comfortable mid-table looking up. In the meantime, we pick up good promising players with pedigree and bed them in to our routines on & off the pitch.
But I wouldn't want our manager to leave just yet.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:30 pm

sorry, we do need investors, and soon.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:07 pm

Chester Perry wrote:Aggi you will find that Stoke and Bournemouth have both dipped into the owners money in recent years without paying it back - Saints had to in the early days of the revival but recently has been from Player sales and development (the Burnley model of the 50's, 60's and 70's). West Brom is the club we are closest to in model.

I'm talking more about the past three years or so where the TV deals have really ramped up. They both owe significant amounts of money to their owners (Stoke got a bit carried away with transfers under Pulis and Bournemouth obviously used that funding to get promoted) from years gone by but the current position with the large tv deals is such that owners either need to make significant investments to get to the next tier or, as a lot of clubs are doing, break even each year whilst the debts are just left in the background.

Our overall position is different in that we don't have those debts but the year-on-year position is similar.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:12 pm

Hopefully we get investment on a par with Palace, they've got the 20th most expensive squad in world football.

Then we'll really be going places.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:22 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:But I thought this thread was about not getting foreign investors because they'll ruin the club, and the alternative is going with local fans because they're great and nothing ever goes wrong with local fans?

No, the thread is about how long it is before investors are bringing forward proposals that the existing Board has to seriously consider.

As to Dyche being the underpin and therefore the risk, if I was an investor I'd tie him down with an offer that made him and his family secure beyond their dreams. There are plenty of investors that own clubs in league positions well below us, and actually made those investments with the clubs at those levels. It's not a question of improvement, it's a question of regular cash and profitability on the basis of a well-run club......

....... and that's us.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:32 pm

Sidney1st wrote:It's about finding the right investors.
There are good and bad in both foreign and uk investors but as it stands we currently have the best ones for us.

Could things go wrong with our board?
They've already shown they can and do make mistakes, but they also appear to learn from those mistakes.

Gibson - he's been at Boro since the 80's when he saved them from extinction, so I'm assuming he was relatively young back then.
He's nearly 60 now and he's got a good few years left in the tank.
I also suspect he'd have provisions made if the worst was to happen, but equally the risk of Boro falling over like Rovers is there.

Forgive me if I'm being stupid but Boros debt doesn't have to be repaid if Gibson decides he doesn't want the money back? So if hes willing to dump his money into the club he loves then where's the harm and how does it make him a bad owner?

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:35 pm

diamondpocket wrote:We do not need investors, we need to stay in this League and leave Dyche to continue what he is doing on & off the field; he is our most prized asset and we need to keep him happy and evolving.
We can see the approach working in front of our eyes; buying some first teamers on record fees; some very promising players being bedded in for a year before moving up to become starters whilst gradually bulking the squad with competitive experienced pros.
Pope & Tarks have come in so far; Taylor looks to be one for the future; I expect a promising centre-half, strker & right wing berth to be next on the agenda in Jan; keep our midfield as it is and you can see for this year & next where we're gonna be and with Dyche at the help I expect us to be comfortable mid-table looking up. In the meantime, we pick up good promising players with pedigree and bed them in to our routines on & off the pitch.
But I wouldn't want our manager to leave just yet.

But how long can we realistically expect to stay in the PL without paying the big bucks? Then when we're relegated, what happens then.... We would end up in deep sh** without the TV income.

Its almost like the longer we stay in the PL the more we set ourselves up for a bigger fall when relegation strikes. A good foreign investor would be a safety blanket or give us the platform to really even the playing field in the PL and give us a much better chance long term.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:00 pm

How long is a bit of string?

We are doing better so far than some clubs who've paid out the big bucks and have been doing for years.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:02 pm

KRBFC wrote:Forgive me if I'm being stupid but Boros debt doesn't have to be repaid if Gibson decides he doesn't want the money back? So if hes willing to dump his money into the club he loves then where's the harm and how does it make him a bad owner?

Gibson's group of companies has subsidised the football club for many years in the form of loans - we have seen time and again that when that kind of benefactor leaves and the club has not started to live within it's means there is an inevitable collapse - that has it's greatest impact on the supporters, ordinary employees and the creditors (often small local businesses), For the two local clubs this has occurred even when all or a large part of the substantial debt has been waived