Kompany: time to go

[boyyanno]

1) Of course it’s not. We might not even need it though (see point two)

2) Since we don’t know what the debt is, how do you know we have any? What about the £150m+ cash held by the organisations that own BFC? Nobody knows so tbf you have absolutely no idea how sustainable our finances or model is.

What we do know, factually, is that there were plenty panicking on here before relegation and our leadership managed it well and so I’d expect them to do the same again.

How do you know we have any

You've got to be on a wind up surely?

[RVclaret]

I can’t be bothered to debate all this.

The debt, number of loans taken out etc are well documented.

Of course there was concern, as there should be.

The non-deluded ones amongst us realise that in the grand scheme of things we have a relatively low supporter base and clubs far ‘bigger’ than ours have really struggled after over speculating.

Last season doesn’t give any indication that it can be magically done again

The next publishing of accounts will be interesting - I still can’t believe more aren’t concerned when we’re taking out loans for players, under an embargo for the first time I believe in our clubs history? I don’t care for the reasons they give it’s just not what clubs do that are on it.

We were under an embargo during the Coyle promotion season, just wasn’t required to make them public at the time. That was more finance related than slightly late filing of accounts though.

‘Magically done again’ is probably not giving the credit last season deserves or having faith in the manager who led us to 101 points & 3 defeats all season.

*If* we are relegated there is no doubt this squad would be stronger than the promoted one, give or take a transfer or two for key requirements (left back).

[Newcastleclaret93]

So you think Burnley FC made a loss last season do you?

Quite clearly referring to a sustained period of championship football

Not a one of relegation after 6 years in the prem where we had loads of assets.

Relegation this time round is considerably different

[RVclaret]

Quite clearly referring to a sustained period of championship football

Not a one of relegation after 6 years in the prem where we had loads of assets.

Relegation this time round is considerably different

Loads? We had 4 player sales? Not sure I consider that loads given, as you say, 6 years in the Prem.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Loads? We had 4 player sales? Not sure I consider that loads given, as you say, 6 years in the Prem.

4 players that all sold for good money. Loads.

[Jamesy]

I think a better title for the OP would be Kompany, time to wise up?
For anyone to suggest Kompany should go after just ten games of the season is madness and a tad disrespectful after what he achieved last season.
He does however need to lose some of his naivety when selecting his starting line up and formation. Teams are just playing through us so easily now.
Last season in the Championship for the first six to eight games we were playing all of the tippy tappy possession football with no real end product, then it all clicked into place and we were beating teams for fun.
This season we are not able or good enough to play that sort of football because we are now facing better quality teams with better tactics and his current formations and style of play is clearly not going to just suddenly click into place. There are threads about Trafford v Muric and O’Shea not being good enough but it is blindingly obvious where we are weakest and that is in midfield. Additionally we appear to lack any leaders within the side and we are the youngest squad in the Premier League.
Vincent may be correct when he says there could be a future one hundred million pound player within our ranks, however for the time being he needs to go back to basics and make us less easy to play through.
We were getting a little tired of Dyche’s attritional try not to lose football. However, some of that is certainly required now starting with shoring the midfield up with seasoned pros like Cork and Redmond.
We are still struggling in defence with Beyer and Ekdal out and Connor Roberts suspension, however if he can get a bit of steel in midfield with players not treating the ball like it’s a hot potato it’s a start.
I am still optimistic he will get it right but he does need to start learning, fast.

[CoolClaret]

We were under an embargo during the Coyle promotion season, just wasn’t required to make them public at the time. That was more finance related than slightly late filing of accounts though.

‘Magically done again’ is probably not giving the credit last season deserves or having faith in the manager who led us to 101 points & 3 defeats all season.

*If* we are relegated there is no doubt this squad would be stronger than the promoted one, give or take a transfer or two for key requirements (left back).

We were pushing it close back then yes undoubtedly. We’re also miles away from that period and have substantially built the club since then.

You will point to the wage bill rising but we were still had our own cash reserves and were more self sustainable; at the minute we are managing debt and leveraging players etc - I don’t particularly like it but I’ve had to accept it.

Norwich have had similar seasons and are now struggling - it is never a guarantee.

There’s no way of saying it. There’s a hell of a lot more that goes into a team than plonking individuals in and expecting it to work; half the reason that we had so much success last year is because of players like Barnes, Jay, Cork and Brownhill that kept some continuity and leadership down the spine of the team.

As it stands, we lost Barnes (fairly), we are going to lose Jay and Cork come the end of the season - so where are lads that are gonna galvanise when the going gets tough?

I can’t see one that has been brought in this year that has one iota of leadership in them.

[Big Vinny K]

4 players that all sold for good money. Loads.

Take any money spent or received on transfers then and do you still think we made a profit or a loss last season?

[NewClaret]

How do you know we have any

You've got to be on a wind up surely?

Nope. I imagine we probably do but I think it’s pretty well documented that we no longer have any insight in to any ongoing debts? Unless you know otherwise?

We also know that debt was circa halved in our relegation year from £65m to ~£33m+. Which is absolute proof we can reduce debt after being relegated.

So whilst it’s a quite reasonable to assume some exists, or it’s maybe even grown, nobody actually knows what it is and therefore can’t comment on its sustainability.

And if discussing debt you also need to discuss the other side of the coin, that being two entities above BFC in the corporate structure have recently registered receipts of £150m+ cash, with its purpose equally as unclear as the alleged existence of debt.

[ClaretPete001]

1) Of course it’s not. We might not even need it though (see point two)

2) Since we don’t know what the debt is, how do you know we have any? What about the £150m+ cash held by the organisations that own BFC? Nobody knows so tbf you have absolutely no idea how sustainable our finances or model is.

What we do know, factually, is that there were plenty panicking on here before relegation and our leadership managed it well and so I’d expect them to do the same again.

This is all fairly predictable New Claret.

We went down with a squad of established PL players including one of the best keepers in he country, a 23 year old with 130 PL appearances. A Full back with 8 PL goals, a centre forward with 1 in 2 in the Bundesliga, a centre back who had played for England.... and we made £75 million from selling some of them for a fee.

What was left was half a team of experienced but ageing PL quality players, which the club added 4 loanee PL squad players.

In addition, 2 outstanding signings from Belgium.

The problem was that at the end of the season the half that had been PL players had hit their mid 30s and the half on loan needed to be bought. As it turned out we bought a plethora of new players.

The problem for VK is that he has gone from having whole host of new players that are the best in the league to a whole host that are amongst the worst - quite naturally.

He's also operating within a model of buy young and sell on at a profit.

What you are seeing is the consequence of that....

The problem is if we go down the best of them will have to be sold: a) for money and/or b) because they have release clauses.

There is a reality to all this that a fanbase that had disappeared up its own orifice is waking up to the reality of an entirely predictable situation.

VK had to perform a miracle last season, this season and next season if we go down.

He's a Belgian professional manager not Father Christmas.

[CoolClaret]

Take any money spent or received on transfers then and do you still think we made a profit or a loss last season?

Probably be pushing it close to a loss - we did pay a significant portion of the initial loan used in the leveraged buyout, some ground updates it will be close I imagine.

[Big Vinny K]

Probably be pushing it close to a loss - we did pay a significant portion of the initial loan used in the leveraged buyout, some ground updates it will be close I imagine.

Possibly but if we did then there could be some taxation reasoning behind that. With our wage bill reduced to what I am told was in the region of £27m (before the January signings) then it could also be that any repayment of the loan was because of the inroads we made into our day to day operational costs and player wage bill.

All conjecture till we get the accounts of course but I am pretty sure that our wage bill saw the biggest reduction in a number of years.

[CoolClaret]

Possibly but if we did then there could be some taxation reasoning behind that. With our wage bill reduced to what I am told was in the region of £27m (before the January signings) then it could also be that any repayment of the loan was because of the inroads we made into our day to day operational costs and player wage bill.

All conjecture till we get the accounts of course but I am pretty sure that our wage bill saw the biggest reduction in a number of years.

On wages - there’s a mandatory reduction right that’s inserted to all PL wages now around 25% or so?

Wages were naturally gonna drop - Mee and Tarks OOC, probably two of our highest earners, Weghorst loan, Pope /Cornet / McNeil sold that’s immediately sorted out the wages.

Be interesting to see what it is this year - I imagine there’s been a significant increase (just like there was during Garlick’s tenure) after promotion due to bonuses/mandatory rises etc

[NewClaret]

I can’t be bothered to debate all this.

The debt, number of loans taken out etc are well documented.

Of course there was concern, as there should be.

The non-deluded ones amongst us realise that in the grand scheme of things we have a relatively low supporter base and clubs far ‘bigger’ than ours have really struggled after over speculating.

Last season doesn’t give any indication that it can be magically done again

The next publishing of accounts will be interesting - I still can’t believe more aren’t concerned when we’re taking out loans for players, under an embargo for the first time I believe in our clubs history? I don’t care for the reasons they give it’s just not what clubs do that are on it.

Okay, I won’t debate it with you then.

But with regards to debts, to be clear, nobody actually knows what they are or how much we owe. It may be a lot, it may be nothing. Whilst we do know that two companies that own BFC have recently received large cash injections. Which should at least give the anxious a shred of comfort that our owners have some access to cash if needed.

My perspective is that when we got promoted we had two choices: 1. take the money and get relegated or 2. invest and try to compete. If the club did 1 the fans would be up in arms and complaining of the greedy American owners taking us for all we’re worth and running the club in to the ground. But when they do 2 we seem to have a load of fans anxious about the sustainability of it all despite recent success in managing a relegation scenario well.

It’s all a bit weird to me but if fans want to worry about such scenarios that’s up to them, but it’s not something I can bring myself to be concerned about.

[Big Vinny K]

On wages - there’s a mandatory reduction right that’s inserted to all PL wages now around 25% or so?

Wages were naturally gonna drop - Mee and Tarks OOC, probably two of our highest earners, Weghorst loan, Pope /Cornet / McNeil sold that’s immediately sorted out the wages.

Be interesting to see what it is this year - I imagine there’s been a significant increase (just like there was during Garlick’s tenure) after promotion due to bonuses/mandatory rises etc

I don’t know about the mandatory reduction and whether this is correct. I’ve never heard of it (sounds like a good idea though !)
Our wage bill was pushing on £90m though and I do not know of many clubs who have been relegated that achieved the kind of reduction we did in such a short space of time. You look at that Leicester team and I doubt very much they did.

I know there is understandably a lot of negativity about now around the team, the performances and the players we have bought. But I don’t think that should undermine what VK and the owners achieved last season on and off the pitch. I can’t remember a team with such a turnaround of players after being relegated from the Premier League and such a reduction in their wage bill (not to mention the significant positive net transfer spend last season) and win the league like we did.

And yes I know it all feels a long time ago now.

[CoolClaret]

But with regards to debts, to be clear, nobody actually knows what they are or how much we owe. It may be a lot, it may be nothing. Whilst we do know that two companies that own BFC have recently received large cash injections.

Cash injections from investors isn’t the clubs money, that’s money that is now indebted to investors - they want a return on it eventually.

My perspective is that when we got promoted we had two choices: 1. take the money and get relegated or 2. invest and try to compete. If the club did 1 the fans would be up in arms and complaining of the greedy American owners taking us for all we’re worth and running the club in to the ground. But when they do 2 we seem to have a load of fans anxious about the sustainability of it all despite recent success in managing a relegation scenario well.

Like most things in life it isn’t a binary choice between two extremes; there is a third way.

I like Luton’s approach with their signings - I think they’ve been very sensible and to be commended

It’s all a bit weird to me but if fans want to worry about such scenarios that’s up to them, but it’s not something I can bring myself to be concerned about.

Fair enough - been plenty of clubs that have gone properly tits up though from being to gung ho, that’s a fact.

I’m more bothered about the long term sustainability of the club than speculating to the extent that we have.

[boyyanno]

This thread has gone mental.

We now have no debt and even our B team is better than last year. What a time to be a Burnley fan.

[alwaysaclaret]

Thanks for your support

Apologies, didn't mean to come across that way

[CoolClaret]

I don’t know about the mandatory reduction and whether this is correct. I’ve never heard of it (sounds like a good idea though !)
Our wage bill was pushing on £90m though and I do not know of many clubs who have been relegated that achieved the kind of reduction we did in such a short space of time. You look at that Leicester team and I doubt very much they did.

I know there is understandably a lot of negativity about now around the team, the performances and the players we have bought. But I don’t think that should undermine what VK and the owners achieved last season on and off the pitch. I can’t remember a team with such a turnaround of players after being relegated from the Premier League and such a reduction in their wage bill (not to mention the significant positive net transfer spend last season) and win the league like we did.

And yes I know it all feels a long time ago now.

If my memory serves me correctly (from the last time I looked at the books) the wages hit that level once before reducing again whilst still in the PL to around 75 ish mill (yes I’m well aware that’s still very high) but it’s still to be remembered that it was under our overall operating costs - we weren’t operating at a loss although I do concede that we had an imbalanced squad in terms of age…

I think this is in large part because of the pandemic/club sale re no investment, I also imagine that wages were heavily incentivised with bonuses upon staying up.

Last season was brilliant - no doubt about it and I respect Pace for taking a punt on VK - all I’m saying is that it isn’t something that can be repeated every relegation with ease… I think some posters are a bit deluded in that aspect that it’s just a nailed on given.

If we were to be relegated this season we’d have to sell some players no doubt but we also haven’t actually paid for the players with our own money… it’s not like we have a McNeil type that was more or less pure profit - I don’t think we’d have the same cash to spend as we did last season for example, though I could be wrong.

I’m pretty certain there’s mandatory reductions in wages to help avoid catastrophes yeah.

[CoolClaret]

This thread has gone mental.

We now have no debt and even our B team is better than last year. What a time to be a Burnley fan.

I’m all for positivity but I can’t do with delusion.

We have to be realists about our situation.

[Paul Waine]

Cash injections from investors isn’t the clubs money, that’s money that is now indebted to investors - they want a return on it eventually.

If I may, CoolC, equity paid in by investors is always "the club's money." That's what equity is. Equity isn't debt, they are two very different things. Yes, the investors will hope for a return on their investment. They may get some dividends paid out if the club makes profits and has distributable reserves to pay the dividends. (All the club's shareholders will get the same dividend per share, if this happens). The investors may also make money by selling their shares to new investors who want to take a share in Burnley Football Club. If new investors buy shares from old investors that isn't the club's money, simply a transfer from one (or more) shareholder(s) to other new shareholder(s).

[NewClaret]

Cash injections from investors isn’t the clubs money, that’s money that is now indebted to investors - they want a return on it eventually.

Like most things in life it isn’t a binary choice between two extremes; there is a third way.

I like Luton’s approach with their signings - I think they’ve been very sensible and to be commended

Fair enough - been plenty of clubs that have gone properly tits up though from being to gung ho, that’s a fact.

I’m more bothered about the long term sustainability of the club than speculating to the extent that we have.

We actually don’t know it has come from investors, or its intended purpose. So all things said, we’re in the dark about that as much as we are about the debt. My point being: you can’t assume there’s a load of debt without acknowledging there’s a load of cash floating around for some purpose too (which should offer some comfort).

Re: Luton, I’d agree but it’s secured them one more point than us currently. At the end of the season we might be able to debate the relative success of either strategy.

Re: consequences. In the main, many have overstretched themselves and suffered as a result. But the clubs have survived and will rise again. You see, if you think of the debt as a mortgage secured on a property, if the owner over stretches themselves there are two people that lose out: the owner and the bank that lent them the money. The house still exists.

Now I realise that is a very simple analogy and the burden on our football club could be huge but the reality is not many/any get wiped from existence. So then you have to ask do you want the club to accept our natural position as a mid-sized Championship club, cut our cloth accordingly and bob along in our natural order? Or try and be ambitious and push on to the next level? If it’s the latter it’ll inevitably involve risk because of the financial discrepancy between the PL/Champ - and ultimately some fans will always question the sustainability of it. But I’d rather support a team trying to push on, grow, get better, etc that one that’s risk averse and content with existing in our natural order or taking very limited risk.

[Paul Waine]

I’m pretty certain there’s mandatory reductions in wages to help avoid catastrophes yeah.

The club's accounts include reference to relegation clauses in player contracts. These relegation clauses appear to be common with a number of clubs. Peter Crouch in one of his podcasts showed the relegation in one of his contracts - not Burnley - from memory I think it was 40% of somewhere around that level.

I don't think Premier League/EFL rules have mandated relegation clauses. So far as I'm aware, they've steered away from any wage cost control - since the maximum wage was abolished in early 1960s.

[CoolClaret]

If I may, CoolC, equity paid in by investors is always "the club's money." That's what equity is. Equity isn't debt, they are two very different things. Yes, the investors will hope for a return on their investment. They may get some dividends paid out if the club makes profits and has distributable reserves to pay the dividends. (All the club's shareholders will get the same dividend per share, if this happens). The investors may also make money by selling their shares to new investors who want to take a share in Burnley Football Club. If new investors buy shares from old investors that isn't the club's money, simply a transfer from one (or more) shareholder(s) to other new shareholder(s).

I’ll concede that - I’m just saying it’s not like it has been naturally generated by the club.

When profit margins get reduced and we have investors wanting a return/dividend payout… well that’s when it gets ‘interesting’.

Now I realise that is a very simple analogy and the burden on our football club could be huge but the reality is not many/any get wiped from existence. So then you have to ask do you want the club to accept our natural position as a mid-sized Championship club, cut our cloth accordingly and bob along in our natural order? Or try and be ambitious and push on to the next level? If it’s the latter it’ll inevitably involve risk because of the financial discrepancy between the PL/Champ - and ultimately some fans will always question the sustainability of it. But I’d rather support a team trying to push on, grow, get better, etc that one that’s risk averse and content with existing in our natural order or taking very limited risk.

Of course I want the club to be a bit part ambitious - just want a better balance….. I feel like we massively missed a trick when we didn’t try and speculate a touch more after qualifying for Europe; that was the time.

Think the signings have been very naive and to me look like they’re more focused on trying to maximise potential profit vs actually being players that are going to immediately improve the team. I feel like we have the balance wrong.

The club's accounts include reference to relegation clauses in player contracts. These relegation clauses appear to be common with a number of clubs. Peter Crouch in one of his podcasts showed the relegation in one of his contracts - not Burnley - from memory I think it was 40% of somewhere around that level.

I don't think Premier League/EFL rules have mandated relegation clauses. So far as I'm aware, they've steered away from any wage cost control - since the maximum wage was abolished in early 1960s.

Interesting - 40% is massive I thought it was around 25%.

I can’t really comment on it any more as I don’t know the exact breakdowns of the deals; if them clauses were put in before then that is very sensible by Garlick and co (perhaps a reason why we sometimes struggled to attract players) - I’d like to see the type of clauses (if any) put in by Pace & co.

Again, it will be interesting to see the next set of books.

[Paul Waine]

OK, I'm on this thread. I've not read most of it.

My thoughts: No, no, no, it is not time for Vincent Kompany to go. Far from it.

Yesterday I watched ManU v ManC on tv. I was struck by how similar City's style of play is to the style that (from what I've seen) Burnley are trying to play. The big, big difference is, of course, that City very rarely lose the ball and give the opposition the opportunity to break away and score. On Saturday, Charlie Taylor lost the ball for the first goal and Vitinho loss the ball for the second. (Yes, there were others when Bournemouth didn't score). Last season Vincent Kompany spoke about introducing a new style to Burnley. He also spoke about how quickly the team adapted to that new style. Of course, it took a number of weeks, but the team and players all got there - and some weeks before the end of the season Burnley were promoted and started planning for this season back in the Premier League. We had a busy summer transfer window this summer, just like the club did in 2022. Again, lots of new players added to the squad. So, again, the players and the team are asked to adapt to the new style - but, this time, they are playing week in and week out against Premier League players. For me it's natural that embedding everything in a new team in the Premier League will take longer than achieving the same with a (mainly different) new team in the Championship where opposition standards are, for the most part, lower. It was great to see Charlie Taylor get his first goal for Burnley on Saturday. It's a pity he took some gloss of his achievement by, in my view, holding onto the ball too long rather than finding the quick pass so that a team mate could help keep position. To be fair, I've not analysed it enough, to know if they pass was easily available. Maybe another team member was slow at getting to where they were supposed to be? The same can be said for Vitinho. He should have been quickly playing the ball back to James Trafford, that's why the goalie was showing himself for the pass several yards outside his penalty area.

Yes, injuries don't help settle the team. Neither do suspensions. Those are always the challenges.

UTC

[Big Vinny K]

If my memory serves me correctly (from the last time I looked at the books) the wages hit that level once before reducing again whilst still in the PL to around 75 ish mill (yes I’m well aware that’s still very high) but it’s still to be remembered that it was under our overall operating costs - we weren’t operating at a loss although I do concede that we had an imbalanced squad in terms of age…

Don’t think they have been at £75m for a few years.

[CoolClaret]

Don’t think they have been at £75m for a few years.

Knock yourself out : https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Even when they increased, they never crept up levels where the wage:turnover ratio was more than 75% or so...

Factoring that in with madatory reductions, it was always 'sustainable' - imo

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

OK, I'm on this thread. I've not read most of it.

My thoughts: No, no, no, it is not time for Vincent Kompany to go. Far from it.

Yesterday I watched ManU v ManC on tv. I was struck by how similar City's style of play is to the style that (from what I've seen) Burnley are trying to play. The big, big difference is, of course, that City very rarely lose the ball and give the opposition the opportunity to break away and score. On Saturday, Charlie Taylor lost the ball for the first goal and Vitinho loss the ball for the second. (Yes, there were others when Bournemouth didn't score). Last season Vincent Kompany spoke about introducing a new style to Burnley. He also spoke about how quickly the team adapted to that new style. Of course, it took a number of weeks, but the team and players all got there - and some weeks before the end of the season Burnley were promoted and started planning for this season back in the Premier League. We had a busy summer transfer window this summer, just like the club did in 2022. Again, lots of new players added to the squad. So, again, the players and the team are asked to adapt to the new style - but, this time, they are playing week in and week out against Premier League players. For me it's natural that embedding everything in a new team in the Premier League will take longer than achieving the same with a (mainly different) new team in the Championship where opposition standards are, for the most part, lower. It was great to see Charlie Taylor get his first goal for Burnley on Saturday. It's a pity he took some gloss of his achievement by, in my view, holding onto the ball too long rather than finding the quick pass so that a team mate could help keep position. To be fair, I've not analysed it enough, to know if they pass was easily available. Maybe another team member was slow at getting to where they were supposed to be? The same can be said for Vitinho. He should have been quickly playing the ball back to James Trafford, that's why the goalie was showing himself for the pass several yards outside his penalty area.

Yes, injuries don't help settle the team. Neither do suspensions. Those are always the challenges.

UTC

The majority of goals we have conceded have come from our players getting caught on the ball in the middle of the pitch.

[warksclaret]

Reading some of the comments you would assume the club went gunho and blew money badly in the last window. However we were not held to ransom by selling clubs, the most noteworthy being Sunderland (wanting £15m plus for Clarke);Man City (£20m for THB), Chelsea (wanting £31m for Maatsen), and Saints (wanting £20-£25m) for Tella). Personally I would have bought Tella but none of the others . Having said that all four would have been over £85m. In contrast we did several loans with a commitment to buy next season (maybe we dont need to commit if we go down), and as I understand the players we did buy will be installment payments so nothing like the £100m for which several cycnics are saying "what did we get for that" .And of course Vigoroux and Redmond were free agents, and Koleosho and Odobert look very shrewd signings for peanuts.

I suspect the Board when refusing to spend on the above players have not ruled out the possibility that we could go back down he first season

[Swizzlestick]

Reading some of the comments you would assume the club went gunho and blew money badly in the last window. However we were not held to ransom by selling clubs, the most noteworthy being Sunderland (wanting £15m plus for Clarke);Man City (£20m for THB), Chelsea (wanting £31m for Maatsen), and Saints (wanting £20-£25m) for Tella). Personally I would have bought Tella but none of the others . Having said that all four would have been over £85m. In contrast we did several loans with a commitment to buy next season (maybe we dont need to commit if we go down), and as I understand the players we did buy will be installment payments so nothing like the £100m for which several cycnics are saying "what did we get for that" .And of course Vigoroux and Redmond were free agents, and Koleosho and Odobert look very shrewd signings for peanuts.

I suspect the Board when refusing to spend on the above players have not ruled out the possibility that we could go back down he first season

I don't think Odobert was peanuts!

We did go pretty gung-ho - we offered what Chelsea wanted for Maatsen, the player turned it down. Pretty hefty sums signed off for Trafford, Odobert, Amdouni and, eventually, Tresor, instalments or not.

[CoolClaret]

Reading some of the comments you would assume the club went gunho and blew money badly in the last window. However we were not held to ransom by selling clubs, the most noteworthy being Sunderland (wanting £15m plus for Clarke);Man City (£20m for THB), Chelsea (wanting £31m for Maatsen), and Saints (wanting £20-£25m) for Tella). Personally I would have bought Tella but none of the others . Having said that all four would have been over £85m. In contrast we did several loans with a commitment to buy next season (maybe we dont need to commit if we go down), and as I understand the players we did buy will be installment payments so nothing like the £100m for which several cycnics are saying "what did we get for that" .And of course Vigoroux and Redmond were free agents, and Koleosho and Odobert look very shrewd signings for peanuts.

I suspect the Board when refusing to spend on the above players have not ruled out the possibility that we could go back down he first season

Why do people just make stuff up?

We were happy to pay that for Maatsen.

City didn't want that for THB.

It's reported that Tella was available for cheaper than what he went to Leverkusen for earlier in the window but that's just reports. We will never truly know.

Odobert wasn't 'peanuts' either, looks like he has talent but we need more than potential.

[Big Vinny K]

Knock yourself out : https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Even when they increased, they never crept up levels where the wage:turnover ratio was more than 75% or so...

Factoring that in with madatory reductions, it was always 'sustainable' - imo

Very quick check of last published accounts shows wages at £92m.
I’ve never referenced the % to turnover or said this was an issue.
I’m taking about the reduction in wage bill achieved by VK which has got to be one of the biggest transformations in our history.

[CoolClaret]

Very quick check of last published accounts shows wages at £92m.
I’ve never referenced the % to turnover or said this was an issue.
I’m taking about the reduction in wage bill achieved by VK which has got to be one of the biggest transformations in our history.

It’s all relative though right? % of turnover much more meaningful metric for me at least - especially factoring in any wage reductions/bonuses

Say that 40% is true, or 25% is true that’s already a significant decrease - take away Mee/tarky OOC, Pope, McNeil and Cornet leaving, Weghorst loan and it’s pretty much there.

The signings from Belgium last season for a relative small fee were brilliant - that’s what Impressed me the most

[Big Vinny K]

Knock yourself out : https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Even when they increased, they never crept up levels where the wage:turnover ratio was more than 75% or so...

Factoring that in with madatory reductions, it was always 'sustainable' - imo

Do you have a link for this mandatory reduction of 25% ?
I would be surprised if this was the case to be honest.
Happy to be proved wrong as I am not as close to this now as I was when I worked in the sector.

As said it sounds like a good prudent idea but I also think there would be a legal challenge around this. Plus looking at the clubs that have been relegated in recent years there seems to be a few cases where it would be hard to see some of the players staying at their clubs with a 25% reduction (eg Mitrovic)

[Big Vinny K]

It’s all relative though right? % of turnover much more meaningful metric for me at least - especially factoring in any wage reductions/bonuses

Say that 40% is true, or 25% is true that’s already a significant decrease - take away Mee/tarky OOC, Pope, McNeil and Cornet leaving, Weghorst loan and it’s pretty much there.

The signings from Belgium last season for a relative small fee were brilliant - that’s what Impressed me the most

As said I am not saying there was an issue with our wage to turnover ratio. Though there would be now with our debt.
The point was that it was not the £75m you quoted and that it was a massive reduction in the wage bill.

[ClaretPete001]

OK, I'm on this thread. I've not read most of it.

My thoughts: No, no, no, it is not time for Vincent Kompany to go. Far from it.

Yesterday I watched ManU v ManC on tv. I was struck by how similar City's style of play is to the style that (from what I've seen) Burnley are trying to play. The big, big difference is, of course, that City very rarely lose the ball and give the opposition the opportunity to break away and score. On Saturday, Charlie Taylor lost the ball for the first goal and Vitinho loss the ball for the second. (Yes, there were others when Bournemouth didn't score). Last season Vincent Kompany spoke about introducing a new style to Burnley. He also spoke about how quickly the team adapted to that new style. Of course, it took a number of weeks, but the team and players all got there - and some weeks before the end of the season Burnley were promoted and started planning for this season back in the Premier League. We had a busy summer transfer window this summer, just like the club did in 2022. Again, lots of new players added to the squad. So, again, the players and the team are asked to adapt to the new style - but, this time, they are playing week in and week out against Premier League players. For me it's natural that embedding everything in a new team in the Premier League will take longer than achieving the same with a (mainly different) new team in the Championship where opposition standards are, for the most part, lower. It was great to see Charlie Taylor get his first goal for Burnley on Saturday. It's a pity he took some gloss of his achievement by, in my view, holding onto the ball too long rather than finding the quick pass so that a team mate could help keep position. To be fair, I've not analysed it enough, to know if they pass was easily available. Maybe another team member was slow at getting to where they were supposed to be? The same can be said for Vitinho. He should have been quickly playing the ball back to James Trafford, that's why the goalie was showing himself for the pass several yards outside his penalty area.

Yes, injuries don't help settle the team. Neither do suspensions. Those are always the challenges.

UTC

The problem is that Charlie Taylor and Vitinho are not Man City players nor is Cullen or any of the others.

Vincent Kompany is not going to coach them to be Man City players.

We lost on Saturday because the coach put out a team playing 4-3-3 with 3 wingers and no centre forward.

Players are making mistakes because they do not have the time and space in the PL they did in the Championship and because a high press 4-3-3 with a single pivot is leaving the back four and the likes of Cullen exposed to PL runners.

The manager is trying to play like Man City but only the best players in the world can play without a Centre Forward or any attacking players as City did a couple of years ago. Of course, it wasn't ideal so they bought the best Centre forward in the Universe to play in front of the best midfielder in the Universe and world class midfielders, defenders, ball boys and no doubt world grass blades of grass at the Etihad.

There is a reality to football as there is a reality to finance.

[Paul Waine]

Do you have a link for this mandatory reduction of 25% ?
I would be surprised if this was the case to be honest.
Happy to be proved wrong as I am not as close to this now as I was when I worked in the sector.

As said it sounds like a good prudent idea but I also think there would be a legal challenge around this. Plus looking at the clubs that have been relegated in recent years there seems to be a few cases where it would be hard to see some of the players staying at their clubs with a 25% reduction (eg Mitrovic)

I've just googled "peter crouch relegation clauses." In June 2022, Crouch showed the relegation clause in one of his contracts. The reduction was 45%.

No results when googling "mandatory relegation clauses."

[CoolClaret]

Do you have a link for this mandatory reduction of 25% ?
I would be surprised if this was the case to be honest.
Happy to be proved wrong as I am not as close to this now as I was when I worked in the sector.

As said it sounds like a good prudent idea but I also think there would be a legal challenge around this. Plus looking at the clubs that have been relegated in recent years there seems to be a few cases where it would be hard to see some of the players staying at their clubs with a 25% reduction (eg Mitrovic)

I think that I’m wrong on mandatory PL reductions - I’ve heard it before but on further inspection I believe it’s just common practice for a lot of clubs… I can only presume that we did it at Burnley (as I believe we are normally quite sensible).

I don’t have an exact link to anything but there’s anecdotes about - I’m sure there’s stuff on the internet somewhere (see poster above talking about Crouch’s example, plenty elsewhere as wel)… the massive drop in wages also shows that there has to have been a reduction in some wages - I do presume that we were smart enough to include them.

Mitrovic was probably on a massive bag even if he did have a potential reduction - more than some would probably be willing to pay him. Worth nothing that we are also not Fulham - our owners are someway off the wealth of Shahid Khan.

Again, looking at it to slash to that degree there must have been some contingency inserted on contracts in case of relegation… there’s no other way to describe such a massive reduction unless we’re saying that the total sum of wages of players that left off sets sort of 60/70 ish million of wages.

- I did think this was pretty common knowledge no? It’s a good way to incentivise the team to not get relegated for a start.

[CoolClaret]

Some quick links:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... racts.html

(not PL mandated but substantial - even in 'bigger' clubs)

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/pr ... -wage-cuts

^ from 2014, PL 'looking at enforcing relegation based wage cuts'

I do think it's a widely common practice now though to try and prevent disaster - from countless examples like your Portsmouths etc

[Big Vinny K]

I've just googled "peter crouch relegation clauses." In June 2022, Crouch showed the relegation clause in one of his contracts. The reduction was 45%.

No results when googling "mandatory relegation clauses."

Hi Paul.
Yes did not think there was.
Will guess the relegation clauses vary massively from player to player and club to club.
Players like Crouch, Defoe and even the likes of Joey Barton were on salaries of £75k to £100k a week for sustained periods. As they get older and contracts are coming to an end then it would be madness for a club to sign someone like this without a big relegation clause. Unfortunately for clubs like Sunderland as you saw on their fly on the wall documentary we know that they did not include this in all of their contracts and paid the price for this for years.

[Nori1958]

The problem is that Charlie Taylor and Vitinho are not Man City players nor is Cullen or any of the others.

Vincent Kompany is not going to coach them to be Man City players.

We lost on Saturday because the coach put out a team playing 4-3-3 with 3 wingers and no centre forward.

Players are making mistakes because they do not have the time and space in the PL they did in the Championship and because a high press 4-3-3 with a single pivot is leaving the back four and the likes of Cullen exposed to PL runners.

The manager is trying to play like Man City but only the best players in the world can play without a Centre Forward or any attacking players as City did a couple of years ago. Of course, it wasn't ideal so they bought the best Centre forward in the Universe to play in front of the best midfielder in the Universe and world class midfielders, defenders, ball boys and no doubt world grass blades of grass at the Etihad.

There is a reality to football as there is a reality to finance.

He would have played a centre forward had he not been ill

What we don't know is when he fell ill, and how close to the game the team, tactics and formation had to be changed.

[vinrogue]

Subject:Kompany: time to go? No,

Beyer and Ekdal who I believe are huge losses at the back would have influenced our play more, Cullen, Ramsey, Berge and Brownhill have not yet convinced the manager the best way forward. Many of the new signings are finding it tough. I for one am willing to cut the chap who managed us to 101 points last year a fair bit of slack.

[NewClaret]

I’ll concede that - I’m just saying it’s not like it has been naturally generated by the club.

When profit margins get reduced and we have investors wanting a return/dividend payout… well that’s when it gets ‘interesting’.



Of course I want the club to be a bit part ambitious - just want a better balance….. I feel like we massively missed a trick when we didn’t try and speculate a touch more after qualifying for Europe; that was the time.

Think the signings have been very naive and to me look like they’re more focused on trying to maximise potential profit vs actually being players that are going to immediately improve the team. I feel like we have the balance wrong.



Interesting - 40% is massive I thought it was around 25%.

I can’t really comment on it any more as I don’t know the exact breakdowns of the deals; if them clauses were put in before then that is very sensible by Garlick and co (perhaps a reason why we sometimes struggled to attract players) - I’d like to see the type of clauses (if any) put in by Pace & co.

Again, it will be interesting to see the next set of books.

I agree about Europe. The frustrating thing about this whole debate for me is that we once had £50-80m in the bank and could’ve invested heavily without any real risk to the club. Especially after Europe and maybe then the outcome would’ve been different.

But my simple point is that none of us know just how much we have been stretching things. If our debt is the £33m (last known amount) and we’ve had significant investment since (with funds expected to be diverted, or available to, the club), we’re arguably in a better position than we were with £80m cash in the bank. Unlikely and fanciful, yes, but without the facts we simply don’t know.

What I will say is, with failed bids for a CH and Maatsen reported close to the window closing, I sense they were willing to take more risk. Not sure whether that reassures you or makes you more nervous

The point about relegation clauses is an interesting one. I remembered Crouch saying the reductions are substantial. I recalled it as 50% but 45% is close enough. I also understand that they continue to reduce as parachute payments tail off but so that doesn’t expose players to be locked in contracts where they’re earning way less than they might be worth, they get more control over their exits in return (I.e. ability to accept loan offers, leave if certain offers are made, etc).

The way Cornet & Weghorst left should give you some confidence that ALK are installing such clauses in contracts. As others point out, for them to get any return they need to be in the Prem and bankrupting themselves in the even of relegation is not a good way to achieve that, or entice buyers, so you could argue they’ll be more cautious.

[Spijed]

I agree about Europe. The frustrating thing about this whole debate for me is that we once had £50-80m in the bank and could’ve invested heavily without any real risk to the club. Especially after Europe and maybe then the outcome would’ve been different.

We had four more seasons in the Prem after qualifying for Europe.

Clubs with far bigger budgets got relegated in the time and it's inevitable that every club, bar a few will eventually get relegated so it's unlikely that things would have been that different.

[NewClaret]

We had four more seasons in the Prem after qualifying for Europe.

Clubs with far bigger budgets got relegated in the time and it's inevitable that every club, bar a few will eventually get relegated so it's unlikely that things would have been that different.

Maybe not, but I take CoolClarets point that that was the time to dial up the investment in a less risky way than we maybe are having to now.

[boatshed bill]

I don't think VK should go but why he's destroyed the team spirit from last season I'll never understand.

So you know he has done that?

[Sgt. Pepper]

I think Kompany should be given the chance to turn it round, and possibly another season if we go down.
I'm not sure Pace is so patient.
Just remember he said Dyche had a job for as long as he wanted, not long before sacking him.

[helmclaret]

It’s ridiculous to suggest he should go.

The players obviously can’t carry out his instructions at the moment.

A bit of fight and entertainment would be nice
though.

[CoolClaret]

Nope.

Another shite showing but still keep him.

[burnleymik]

Getting very worrying now with how rudderless we look. It doesn't even feel as if we have a plan A, never mind plan B. The players don't have belief and are making so many silly mistakes. VK is an awesome leader and he has to do something drastic to turn this around because he built this team, these are his players and now he has to find a way to make it work.

I certainly wouldn't sack him, but he absolutely HAS to get us looking capable of getting into games. At the moment we look utterly hopeless.

Why did he mess so much with what got us this far last season?