Mike Garlick/Peter Coates comments on Brexit and football

[tiger76]

there isn't a dedicated thread on this news item,some of this uncertainty may explain Burnley's reluctance to shop abroad for the time being.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45206066

[Spijed]

Link

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/cla ... -1-9304707" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

Of course, we haven't been in the market for overseas players for very long. But the exchange rate issue is a red herring, because the current spot Euro exchange rate is 1.12, which is in the lower-middle of the range 1.05 to 1.25, typically) that it was from 2008-2014 and from 2016 to date. There's only been two of the last 10 years when the rate has been over 1.25, so to say that the rate now makes it harder to sign players is a thin excuse - if excuse it is.

If we signed 6 non-UK and Ireland foreigners, we'd still only have 8 - less than probably any other Premier team, and certainly less than the big teams. We'd have plenty of time to cope with the transitional arrangements, so I doubt that will be making any difference, either.

[piston broke]

Of course, we haven't been in the market for overseas players for very long. But the exchange rate issue is a red herring, because the current spot Euro exchange rate is 1.12, which is in the lower-middle of the range 1.05 to 1.25, typically) that it was from 2008-2014 and from 2016 to date.

But during the earlier period it was up and down like a fiddlers elbow. We never exchanged for less than E1.20 just by sitting on my sterling pension.
On Brexit night it was E1.40 and confidently expected to go to E1.50 with a remain vote.
Not a red herring at all.

[dsr]

But during the earlier period it was up and down like a fiddlers elbow. We never exchanged for less than E1.20 just by sitting on my sterling pension.
On Brexit night it was E1.40 and confidently expected to go to E1.50 with a remain vote.
Not a red herring at all.

Yes, I'm not denying that the exchange rate makes it harder to sign players now than it has been for 2 of the last 10 years. But from mid-2008 to mid-2014 it didn't leave the 1.05 - 1.25 range (apart from literally a few days) and so conditions now are similar to conditions then.

The other issue, of course, is that it's the same for all English clubs, and the money received has increased so vastly that it makes the exchange rate issue pale into insignificance. If income rises from £60m to £100m, and most of that income is to be spent in Sterling as well, 20% on the Euro rate matters less.

[Falcon]

Don't buy Sterling anyway, he misses too many chances.

[burnleymik]

Disappointing. Using this as an excuse to push his political agenda is poor form.

I have no issue with a vote on the type of deal, as long as there is not an option included to remain in the EU. That referendum has been done and not yet implemented. Overturning the voters choice before it has even happened, is to nullify and therefore an affront to democracy.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Of course, we haven't been in the market for overseas players for very long. But the exchange rate issue is a red herring, because the current spot Euro exchange rate is 1.12, which is in the lower-middle of the range 1.05 to 1.25, typically) that it was from 2008-2014 and from 2016 to date. There's only been two of the last 10 years when the rate has been over 1.25, so to say that the rate now makes it harder to sign players is a thin excuse - if excuse it is.

If we signed 6 non-UK and Ireland foreigners, we'd still only have 8 - less than probably any other Premier team, and certainly less than the big teams. We'd have plenty of time to cope with the transitional arrangements, so I doubt that will be making any difference, either.

Spot on. And regardless of any fluctuations, overseas players are cheaper and earn less.

Burnley earn more TV money than Barcelona. We can attract and keep top european players. We just choose not to.

I think this is more a political argument from Garlick and Coates than a football one. Using the limelight to argue their political point.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Bull **** !

I have no political axe to grind and, as a Burnley supporter, I have a lot of time for our Board but this is twaddle and bull **** !

[claretspice]

But during the earlier period it was up and down like a fiddlers elbow. We never exchanged for less than E1.20 just by sitting on my sterling pension.
On Brexit night it was E1.40 and confidently expected to go to E1.50 with a remain vote.
Not a red herring at all.

In addition, I imagine any properly advised footballer is currently looking for a contract that reflects the risk that Sterling plummets in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and so uses a notional interest rate of something closer to 1:1 - at best.

You don't too much attention to today's exchange rate when you're looking for a 3 or 4 year contract. You're looking at the future.

There's also the potential work permit issue to be considered.

[nil_desperandum]

I have no issue with a vote on the type of deal, as long as there is not an option included to remain in the EU. That referendum has been done and not yet implemented. Overturning the voters choice before it has even happened, is to nullify and therefore an affront to democracy.

I think that this has been pointed out to you before, but, you really don't understand how democracy works.
You don't just stick by a decision forever. If people change their minds about something then - if it's possible, you try to change policy. That's why we have regular elections, and the option of interim elections if desirable.
As a country we tend not to have referenda, but once we go down this route then there's no logical reason why we can't have another, IF, (and this is important) the majority of the population want one.

[DCWat]

In addition, I imagine any properly advised footballer is currently looking for a contract that reflects the risk that Sterling plummets in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and so uses a notional interest rate of something closer to 1:1 - at best.

You don't too much attention to today's exchange rate when you're looking for a 3 or 4 year contract. You're looking at the future.

There's also the potential work permit issue to be considered.

Work permits appear to be the main potential issue. The exchange rate will of course impact the price but in the grand scheme of the PL cash cow, it’s not such a problem.

[claretspice]

But what probably happens DCWat (although I'm speculating) is that players start demanding that their contract is paid in Euros, not Sterling.

Which creates its own range of problems associated with currency fluctuation - potentially breaking the wage structure, how they get treated for bonus pot purposes, etc.

But yes, the work permit issue is problematic at the minute unless you're willing to take the punt it will all be fine.

[burnleymik]

I think that this has been pointed out to you before, but, you really don't understand how democracy works.
You don't just stick by a decision forever. If people change their minds about something then - if it's possible, you try to change policy. That's why we have regular elections, and the option of interim elections if desirable.
As a country we tend not to have referenda, but once we go down this route then there's no logical reason why we can't have another, IF, (and this is important) the majority of the population want one.

The first result hasn't been implemented. Overturning a democratic decision before it has even happened is not acceptable. It clearly undermines democracy.

I mean why should the result of a second referendum be respected? Things are always changing and the situations are quite fluent, so as soon as the second referendum result comes in, we would have to go again.

I have no issue with changing our minds and voting again etc, but only once the first result is carried out. Give Brexit a try, if it doesn't work out, then fair play, let's have another vote on it, but doing it so soon it's undermining what people voted for and I think it's terrible for democracy in the UK.

[Clarets4me]

As a country we tend not to have referenda, but once we go down this route then there's no logical reason why we can't have another, IF, (and this is important) the majority of the population want one.

We were denied a Referendum prior to joining by the Heath Government, and the Wilson Referendum in 1975 was the same trick Cameron tried, a figleaf of re-negotiation followed by a campaign of dis-information and lies, far worse than anything Vote Leave did.

We waited 41 years to have a Referendum on Europe, the Remainers just want us to keep voting until we arrive at the right answer !!

[cricketfieldclarets]

But what probably happens DCWat (although I'm speculating) is that players start demanding that their contract is paid in Euros, not Sterling.

Which creates its own range of problems associated with currency fluctuation - potentially breaking the wage structure, how they get treated for bonus pot purposes, etc.

But yes, the work permit issue is problematic at the minute unless you're willing to take the punt it will all be fine.

They are employed in and live in England. Its simple. Pay them in pounds.

[claretspice]

They are employed in and live in England. Its simple. Pay them in pounds.

It's not that simple though, is it?

They don't have to sign for us if they don't like the currency we want to pay them in. We can't force them.

[John Gayles Shoulder]

Disappointing. Using this as an excuse to push his political agenda is poor form.

I have no issue with a vote on the type of deal, as long as there is not an option included to remain in the EU. That referendum has been done and not yet implemented. Overturning the voters choice before it has even happened, is to nullify and therefore an affront to democracy.

What if all the deals on offer are awful for Britain?


I would love to retire, and be free from the shackles of employment. In fact, I have decided – based purely on preference, that I am going to retire.

After looking into it for a bit, and speaking with my wife, financial advisor, mortgage provider, etc, they are all telling me that I am not in a financial position to retire. To push ahead with these plans would mean financial difficulties for both me and others around me.

But **** it. I AM retiring, because the will of the people (me) has decided before I considered any of this, retirement was the best option.

At this specific point, this makes me a wally, no?

With a bit more planning and organisation, and with a more realistic timescale, there will be no problem with me retiring. Maybe I can review my choices based on better information – so what if my pride takes a hit because I laughed at all my mates and told them I was retiring immediately. Better to look a goon for a moment than proceed with half-cocked plans and look a tit for the rest of time surely?

The whole ‘Brexit is Brexit’ argument without any constructive thought on how to apply it is so frustrating

[aggi]

Yes, I'm not denying that the exchange rate makes it harder to sign players now than it has been for 2 of the last 10 years. But from mid-2008 to mid-2014 it didn't leave the 1.05 - 1.25 range (apart from literally a few days) and so conditions now are similar to conditions then.

The other issue, of course, is that it's the same for all English clubs, and the money received has increased so vastly that it makes the exchange rate issue pale into insignificance. If income rises from £60m to £100m, and most of that income is to be spent in Sterling as well, 20% on the Euro rate matters less.

I think your range is a bit disingenuous, 1.11 - 1.31 is a more accurate range for mid-2008 to mid-2014 so the 1.12 at the moment is right at the lower end of the range.

In terms of it being the same for all English clubs, that's true to an extent. However, we're not just competing with English clubs to sign players, we're also competing with teams throughout the rest of the world.

[nil_desperandum]

The first result hasn't been implemented. Overturning a democratic decision before it has even happened is not acceptable. It clearly undermines democracy.

It happens all the time. Decisions are taken, then in the light of consultation, or changing circumstances, the decision is reversed or modified. In this particular instance the government has taken steps to implement the referendum result by triggering Article 50, and it has even sought to sideline Parliament in an undemocratic bid to grab power.
It also sought to strengthen its hand by calling a snap-election, but lost. Things are not going well - as many predicted.
After a significant period (i.e. 2 and a half years), the public have begun to realise that "leaving" the EU won't be "one of the easiest things ever" as the likes of Davis and Fox claimed, that (contrary to what it said on the side of a bus), there will be no benefit to the NHS, and that in a few months time there is a strong chance of a "no deal" brexit for which we are not prepared.
What's the logic for implementing something if the majority are opposed to it?
I don't know what age group you fall into, but when I was young, I was always taught: "Measure twice - cut once". It saved a lot of costly mistakes.

[SGr]

Bull **** !

I have no political axe to grind and, as a Burnley supporter, I have a lot of time for our Board but this is twaddle and bull **** !

Well that’s it then. Astute businessman says its harmful, leading economists say its harmful. But RalphCoatesComb on uptheclarets.com disagrees because the Wetherspoons magazine says it’s a good thing, so therefore it must be.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Well that’s it then. Astute businessman says its harmful, leading economists say its harmful. But RalphCoatesComb on uptheclarets.com disagrees because the Wetherspoons magazine says it’s a good thing, so therefore it must be.

[SGr]

The whole point of democracy is that people can change their minds.

If Brexit is the will of the people then surely a second referendum should yield the same result. People who disagree with the idea disagree because they’re scared the result will change.

[burnleymik]

The whole point of democracy is that people can change their minds.

If Brexit is the will of the people then surely a second referendum should yield the same result. People who disagree with the idea disagree because they’re scared the result will change.

Of course people can change their minds, but they should do so on experience. We cannot do that with Brexit because the result has not been implemented.

What is the point of having a democratic vote if the result is going to be ignored?

[burnleymik]

What if all the deals on offer are awful for Britain?

Then we leave with no deal. There has been over 2 years to get deals sorted. We voted ina government to carry out that task. If they fail it's on them. You shouldn;t change our vote because they failed. Instead we leave with no deal.

I would love to retire, and be free from the shackles of employment. In fact, I have decided – based purely on preference, that I am going to retire



That is an incredibly poor analogy. You are trying to compare apples with potatoes! Britain is a strong, successful economy and a very resourceful nation. We have lots to offer different economies all around the world. How many successful entrepreneurs do you see whose teachers told them they would amount to nothing, but actually ended up doing incredibly well? Imagine if they took the advice of the expert literally... they would have achieved nothing.

Just because you choose not to see something, does not mean it is not there.

[dsr]

I think your range is a bit disingenuous, 1.11 - 1.31 is a more accurate range for mid-2008 to mid-2014 so the 1.12 at the moment is right at the lower end of the range.

In terms of it being the same for all English clubs, that's true to an extent. However, we're not just competing with English clubs to sign players, we're also competing with teams throughout the rest of the world.

From 1st November 2008 to 12th June 2014, the maximum was 1.2848, the minimum was 1.0200, the average was 1.1737. That's Bank of England spot rate. In that time it spent 64 days over 1.25 and 4 days below 1.05. Even if you want to add in July to October 2008, you never reach 1.3 - maybe you're using a different exchange rate?

[John Gayles Shoulder]

Of course people can change their minds, but they should do so on experience. We cannot do that with Brexit because the result has not been implemented.

What is the point of having a democratic vote if the result is going to be ignored?

Because the result of the democratic vote was clearly not implementable at this time/by this government. Why the hell would you NOT want a second vote/rethink based on this info. Cutting your nose to spite your face springs to mind...

[burnleymik]

It happens all the time. Decisions are taken, then in the light of consultation, or changing circumstances, the decision is reversed or modified. In this particular instance the government has taken steps to implement the referendum result by triggering Article 50, and it has even sought to sideline Parliament in an undemocratic bid to grab power.
It also sought to strengthen its hand by calling a snap-election, but lost. Things are not going well - as many predicted.
After a significant period (i.e. 2 and a half years), the public have begun to realise that "leaving" the EU won't be "one of the easiest things ever" as the likes of Davis and Fox claimed, that (contrary to what it said on the side of a bus), there will be no benefit to the NHS, and that in a few months time there is a strong chance of a "no deal" brexit for which we are not prepared.
What's the logic for implementing something if the majority are opposed to it?
I don't know what age group you fall into, but when I was young, I was always taught: "Measure twice - cut once". It saved a lot of costly mistakes.

If it was so important to remain in the Eu, why didn't all remainers just vote for the Lib Dems in that snap election? I mean they were the only party who committed to actually stopping Brexit.

Like I have said numerous times, I have no issue with another vote, but only once Brexit has been tried. To judge it before it has even been given a fair chance is not acceptable. How do we know what kind of trade deals we could have struck? How do we know how much money we could have saved on the essential imports such as food and clothing, without EU tariff barriers? My issue is we are trying to change a democratic choice that has not even been tried because the establishment didn't like the answer they got. If you overturn Brexit I fear it will do huger damage to democracy in this country.

[John Gayles Shoulder]

Then we leave with no deal. There has been over 2 years to get deals sorted. We voted ina government to carry out that task. If they fail it's on them. You shouldn;t change our vote because they failed. Instead we leave with no deal.




Just because you choose not to see something, does not mean it is not there.

I can't argue with this post. It is self flagellating nonsense.

So even if we know we are going to suffer as a country we should proceed with it anyway?

I genuinely can;t get my head around that train of thought

[Imploding Turtle]

there isn't a dedicated thread on this news item,some of this uncertainty may explain Burnley's reluctance to shop abroad for the time being.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45206066

Project fear.

How could a devalued Sterling as a result of Brexit possibly mean we don't buy foreign players. He only plays well for City anyway so isn't worth anything abroad.

[burnleymik]

Because the result of the democratic vote was clearly not implementable at this time/by this government. Why the hell would you NOT want a second vote/rethink based on this info. Cutting your nose to spite your face springs to mind...

Okay, how about we vote to remain, but the goverment forgets to revoke article 50, drags it out until the last second and then says.. oops it's too late now, we are going to have to leave despite what you voted for? Would you accept that because essentially this is what has happened to Brexit.

[Imploding Turtle]

I can't argue with this post. It is self flagellating nonsense.

So even if we know we are going to suffer as a country we should proceed with it anyway?

I genuinely can;t get my head around that train of thought

Because keeping foreigners out of our country matters more to them than the well-being of themselves or their families.

[burnleymik]

I can't argue with this post. It is self flagellating nonsense.

So even if we know we are going to suffer as a country we should proceed with it anyway?

I genuinely can;t get my head around that train of thought

That is the point.. we don't KNOW. Unless you have a crystal ball that I am unaware of? There are plenty of predictions that we will be fine after Brexit, but all you seem to see are the negative outcomes. How can I debate that?

[burnleymik]

Because keeping foreigners out of our country matters more to them than the well-being of themselves or their families.

This is turtle's level of debate. Cries that I misrepresent him and then makes a comment like this.

[Imploding Turtle]

This is turtle's level of debate. Cries that I misrepresent him and then makes a comment like this.

Feel free to correct me by explaining why leaving the EU is worth the harm it will inflict. I'm more than prepared to change my opinion.

[burnleymik]

Feel free to correct me by explaining why leaving the EU is worth the harm it will inflict. I'm more than prepared to change my opinion.

Feel free to explain what any of this debate has to do with "foreigners". It seems to be your own obsessions coming to the forefront once again.

[John Gayles Shoulder]

That is the point.. we don't KNOW. Unless you have a crystal ball that I am unaware of? There are plenty of predictions that we will be fine after Brexit, but all you seem to see are the negative outcomes. How can I debate that?

As it stands, I have not seen one argument that provides a positive for implementing Brexit, particularly by way of a No Deal. Have you got anything I can read on this front?

[Jakubclaret]

The first result hasn't been implemented. Overturning a democratic decision before it has even happened is not acceptable. It clearly undermines democracy.

I mean why should the result of a second referendum be respected? Things are always changing and the situations are quite fluent, so as soon as the second referendum result comes in, we would have to go again.

I have no issue with changing our minds and voting again etc, but only once the first result is carried out. Give Brexit a try, if it doesn't work out, then fair play, let's have another vote on it, but doing it so soon it's undermining what people voted for and I think it's terrible for democracy in the UK.

Agree, you have to at least go through with something to establish if it’s going to work if you don’t it’s impossible to know, it needs to be implemented on fair & even terms initially with conviction & then pending reevaluate if it doesn’t work out, but imperative to leave first.

[Imploding Turtle]

Feel free to explain what any of this debate has to do with "foreigners". It seems to be your own obsessions coming to the forefront once again.

Are you suggesting that leaving the EU had nothing to do with foreigners?

[nil_desperandum]

If it was so important to remain in the Eu, why didn't all remainers just vote for the Lib Dems in that snap election? I mean they were the only party who committed to actually stopping Brexit.

This shows just how unaware of the realities of the political landscape you are.
In the last election there was a lot of tactical voting, with the Lib Dems being "squeezed out".
There were a lot of Pro-EU "Lib Dem" supporters and even Conservatives who voted Labour in order to try to reduce the governments majority and therefore send a signal to Theresa May. (it worked).
There were also some traditional Labour supporters who voted Tory in order to signal their support for Brexit. (It worked in the sense that the Tories gained a couple of unexpected seats, e.g. Mansfield, and it gave them enough - just - to do a deal with the DUP).
Libs only tended to do well when they were already 2nd to a Pro-Brexit Tory, (e.g. Vince Cable). (i.e. Pro - EU Lab and Tory voters were prepared to back the candidate who had the best chance of winning).

[SGr]

Of course people can change their minds, but they should do so on experience. We cannot do that with Brexit because the result has not been implemented.

What is the point of having a democratic vote if the result is going to be ignored?

It took less than an hour after the result was announced for Farage/Johnson to admit the £350m a week to the NHS was a virtual myth...

[SGr]

There are many ways Brexit will be carried out. Norway rules, Canada rules, no deal, etc etc.

And all of them are worse for our economy than the current deal. Brexit is founded on idealism, not on facts. People think “Churchillian spirit” will somehow have any relevance ffs

[Imploding Turtle]

It took less than an hour after the result was announced for Farage/Johnson to admit the £350m a week to the NHS was a virtual myth...

It's ok for them to lie though because Osbourne said something about an emergency budget.

[SGr]

It's ok for them to lie though because Osbourne said something about an emergency budget.

Whole thing is a joke. Only positive I’m taking from this is that my generation will overpower the baby-boomers within the next decade and reverse this. I dearly look forward to it.

[aggi]

From 1st November 2008 to 12th June 2014, the maximum was 1.2848, the minimum was 1.0200, the average was 1.1737. That's Bank of England spot rate. In that time it spent 64 days over 1.25 and 4 days below 1.05. Even if you want to add in July to October 2008, you never reach 1.3 - maybe you're using a different exchange rate?

True it didn't exceed 1.3, I was looking at July 2008 to June 2014 (mid 2008 to mid 2014) and it spent more days between 1.25 and 1.31 than 1.05 and 1.11 (I was just using your range of 0.2 for the upper end). A range of 1.10 - 1.30 would be better I guess (obviously your numbers are a little skewed as you have November as the middle of the year).

[Jakubclaret]

It took less than an hour after the result was announced for Farage/Johnson to admit the £350m a week to the NHS was a virtual myth...

The irony is though, spending 9m on a pro-eu leaflet funded by the taxpayers money which didn’t make much of a difference apart from angering the electorate & further alienating themselves away from the eu, backfired massively, at a time when financial priorities were needed elsewhere.

[SGr]

The irony is though, spending 9m on a pro-eu leaflet funded by the taxpayers money which didn’t make much of a difference apart from angering the electorate & further alienating themselves away from the eu, backfired massively, at a time when financial priorities were needed elsewhere.

£9m irrelevant next to the £1bn to the DUP.

[Jakubclaret]

£9m irrelevant next to the £1bn to the DUP.

Wasn’t disputing that, more focussed on the collapse of a campaign, what happened afterwards pales, the die has already been cast process in motion albeit comparable to a tortoise. No right or wrong with either campaigning sides in truth.

[burnleymik]

It's ok for them to lie though because Osbourne said something about an emergency budget.

Farage never once agreed to the 350m on the bus...

if you can't accept both sides lied, then there is no hope.

[burnleymik]

Whole thing is a joke. Only positive I’m taking from this is that my generation will overpower the baby-boomers within the next decade and reverse this. I dearly look forward to it.

"overpower"