"We budget to finish fourth bottom every year, to be around the bottom end, but to survive," said Garlick who said the club had not received a single enquiry for Dyche's services during his Turf tenure.

“That’s what we do our plan on. Anything above survival is a fantastic bonus for us .."
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... hPU9xfzI9g

So no new information then. Great.

It’s about time the journalists grew some balls and began asking some real questions. It’s as thought they planned out the questions and answers together. Boden is the same in the express; too busy trying to get on with the club which means they don’t want to upset anyone with pressure questions.

Seriously. They actually aim for 17th? Wow.

Obviously staying up is relatively succesful. For now at least. But to actually say they aim for 17th seems barmy.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Seriously. They actually aim for 17th? Wow.

Obviously staying up is relatively succesful. For now at least. But to actually say they aim for 17th seems barmy.

Not said that at all. He’s said we budget for that which is sensible and not anything like your interpretation.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Seriously. They actually aim for 17th? Wow.

Obviously staying up is relatively succesful. For now at least. But to actually say they aim for 17th seems barmy.

The quote says they budget for not aim for 17th - they are two very distinct unrelated things - so we budgeted for 17th and finished 15th, 7th and 15th - if we aimed for 17th then we failed every year - by budgeting we overachieved while still being sustainable

What does budgeting for 17th actually mean?

Dyched wrote:What does budgeting for 17th actually mean?

Tony will have the Answer...failing that possibly Frank

It means that we budget for the income we would receive should we finish 17th. Finishing 18th gets you relegated and finished higher than 17th puts extra money in the kitty

I thought we budgeted for 18th-20th to make sure we were financially prepared for relegation and just hoped Dyche could keep working his miracles season after season to keep us up

Devils_Advocate wrote:I thought we budgeted for 18th-20th to make sure we were financially prepared for relegation and just hoped Dyche could keep working his miracles season after season to keep us up

Did a little bit of wee come out when you posted that?

bfcmik wrote:It means that we budget for the income we would receive should we finish 17th. Finishing 18th gets you relegated and finished higher than 17th puts extra money in the kitty

I thought the players get the money in bonuses? Doesn’t exactly go in the “kitty”.

Dyched wrote:I thought the players get the money in bonuses? Doesn’t exactly go in the “kitty”.

Please ignore Mik, he's just black cloud chasing.

Budgeting for 17th just means that if we finish lower than that then we aren't initially crippled in the Championship.

He's hardly likely to say that we budget for 18th, 19th or 20th place. The black cloud chasers would have a field day if he did.

Ohh, too late.

Dyched wrote:I thought the players get the money in bonuses? Doesn’t exactly go in the “kitty”.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Please ignore Mik, he's just black cloud chasing.

Budgeting for 17th just means that if we finish lower than that then we aren't initially crippled in the Championship.

He's hardly likely to say that we budget for 18th, 19th or 20th place. The black cloud chasers would have a field day if he did.

Ohh, too late.

The kitty is available to spend on what the board decide to spend it on. The Chairman states explicitly that we have the most aggressive bonus payments in the top 2 divisions so, yes, much, if not all, additional prize monies are doled out as bonus payments. However, having a successful season will probably also raise the income receiving from merchandising, advertising, TV appearance money and, quite possibly, the sponsorship deal and that wouldn't go into the players and management bonus pool.

let the other clubs chase the top 6, clubs like Brighton, Villa and Wolves could be screwed when their owners leave, utterly reliant on a further sale to a wealthy donor. We all want the club to spend a touch more on players to support the manager more than anything, but we don't want to be a Bury. I'd rather us be in League 2 in 20 years than have another 5 years in the PL before going bust because we decided to ridiculously overspend

Dyched wrote:What does budgeting for 17th actually mean?

Hi Dyched, it means that we plan our finances based on our income being the level received by the club that finishes 17th in the Premier League - and therefore our spending, transfers, wages etc, are also based on the assumption that that is our income.

Anything over and above finishing 17th we will have more money to spend..... and, I assume some of that will go to the playing staff in bonuses as a reward for finishing higher and bringing in extra money.

This is the "correct" business model for any club - alongside wage cuts if the team get relegated.

Anyone who doubts this, I recommend takes a look at the Bury thread, or the Bolton thread, or.....the magic money tree thread.

Mike Garlick, John B and Sean Dyche have worked out how to run a Premier League football club. (I'm sure there must be some others in the 92...., but not many).

If the EFL need any guidance on what "fit and proper" should mean, Mike G and John B are at the very top.

UTC

Claretforever wrote:So no new information then. Great.

It’s about time the journalists grew some balls and began asking some real questions. It’s as thought they planned out the questions and answers together. Boden is the same in the express; too busy trying to get on with the club which means they don’t want to upset anyone with pressure questions.

The thing is, no club has been more successful than us in recent times. You only have to look at the financial mess similar sized clubs, like Swansea, are in to realise that staying in the Premier league forever is impossible. What have Bournemouth ever achieved that we should be proud of, for example?

Claretforever wrote:So no new information then. Great.

It’s about time the journalists grew some balls and began asking some real questions. It’s as thought they planned out the questions and answers together. Boden is the same in the express; too busy trying to get on with the club which means they don’t want to upset anyone with pressure questions.

" Hi, Chris Boden from the Burnley Express. Can you micro detail your tactics from Saturday and give us a pointer on why you failed"

... Silence...

"Hi Chris, Bill Owner-Editor from the Burnley Express here. I'm afraid we've lost our major news source / community partner because of your forthright questioning. Will 1 weeks severance be enough?"

Anyone know who the player was that we bid £20m for, outbiding others clubs.

beddie wrote:Anyone know who the player was that we bid £20m for, outbiding others clubs.

Wasn't it the player from Leeds?

Kalvin Phillips was the player. Don’t think Garlick has gone on record before about the Cricketfield and that is significant. Whilst there is no timeline it’s clearly on the agenda.

Read the interview and cannot see any reason whatsoever to criticize the chairman for what he said. Makes perfect sense to me.

Dyched wrote:What does budgeting for 17th actually mean?

Keeping head above water while hoping we survive.

All future interviews will no doubt mention Bury or Bolton from now on though im sure.

BOYSIE31 wrote:Keeping head above water while hoping we survive.

All future interviews will no doubt mention Bury or Bolton from now on though im sure.

and, so they should, Boysie. It's remarkable how quickly some people forget, isn't it.

UTC

CharlieinNewMexico wrote:" Hi, Chris Boden from the Burnley Express. Can you micro detail your tactics from Saturday and give us a pointer on why you failed"

... Silence...

"Hi Chris, Bill Owner-Editor from the Burnley Express here. I'm afraid we've lost our major news source / community partner because of your forthright questioning. Will 1 weeks severance be enough?"

Exactly. Not daring to ask the questions that give people a real insight, so stick to getting the same answers we’ve had for years. The club think that’s what the fans want to hear. Fans with a little bit of intellect see through it because they’ve heard the same lines trotted out before.

Take the mention of the Cricket Field for example; how many times does Garlick have to mention improvements/development before someone asks the pertinent question of when? Even a 2-3, 3-5, 5-10 year answer is more than we’re getting currently. Why the CF and not the BL....Mike then explains why etc to stop people going on about it every week until he does his next interview in February.

They may as well just put a statement out saying ‘see last interview’.

Claretforever wrote:Exactly. Not daring to ask the questions that give people a real insight, so stick to getting the same answers we’ve had for years. The club think that’s what the fans want to hear. Fans with a little bit of intellect see through it because they’ve heard the same lines trotted out before.

Take the mention of the Cricket Field for example; how many times does Garlick have to mention improvements/development before someone asks the pertinent question of when? Even a 2-3, 3-5, 5-10 year answer is more than we’re getting currently. Why the CF and not the BL....Mike then explains why etc to stop people going on about it every week until he does his next interview in February.

They may as well just put a statement out saying ‘see last interview’.

The Cricket Field won’t be done. There is no way the club would knock it down and go a season or maybe longer in the PL without the revenue from that stand. If we go down then they wouldn’t do it. Not to mention moving the away fans would put the local police force into meltdown.

If there were solid plans we’d know. There is so much to do before the bulldozers move in. Where will the changing rooms be during the building work? Away fans?

a lot of these articles are just adding bits picked up from other articles rather than the original source.
unfair to pick snippets out of a sensible conversation that the Chairman is given.

But we all know those that prefer doom to boom

beddie wrote:Anyone know who the player was that we bid £20m for, outbiding others clubs.

We bid 20m, when the asking price was 30m, low balling offer again.

AndyClaret wrote:We bid 20m, when the asking price was 30m, low balling offer again.

yet outbid everyone else who wanted him - the market value is not what you ask but what you pay

AndyClaret wrote:We bid 20m, when the asking price was 30m, low balling offer again.

If Leeds valued Phillips at £30m and we didn’t then I’m perfectly happy with that. Would you have wanted us to sign him for £30m and make him presumably our highest earner bar Hart?

Rileybobs wrote:If Leeds valued Phillips at £30m and we didn’t then I’m perfectly happy with that. Would you have wanted us to sign him for £30m and make him presumably our highest earner bar Hart?

Why bother bidding 10m LESS than what they are asking ? similar to the Che Adams bid in January.

AndyClaret wrote:Why bother bidding 10m LESS than what they are asking ? similar to the Che Adams bid in January.

We could always have bid 10m MORE to make sure we get him I suppose

AndyClaret wrote:Why bother bidding 10m LESS than what they are asking ? similar to the Che Adams bid in January.

Would you rather we didn’t bid for players at all? We (by some accounts) valued him at £20m, Leeds supposedly valued him higher. We bid what we thought he was worth, which anything north of £20m seems ridiculous, in the hope that they would be tempted. They weren’t tempted so we didn’t buy him. What’s the problem?

Should we have paid more for Adams too? Early days, but from what I’ve seen so far I’d say our valuation of him was reasonable.

Not sure if Phillips signed a new contract in summer, maybe worth another bid in January ?
Rather we went for a creative midfielder myself than a defensive one.

Anyone seeing any problems with anything said in that article needs to give their head a wobble.

Our squad is a distance away from where it was when we came up the 2nd time. The facilities are way better. We've net spent $90M on players and we are competing on wages. We're looking at other ground improvements. At the same time we're not over committing to end up like a B******* or Bolton.
We are in a much better place than we were 10 years ago and we have a plan in place that sees us slowly improving year over year. Keep executing like that and we'll be alright.

Rileybobs wrote:Would you rather we didn’t bid for players at all? We (by some accounts) valued him at £20m, Leeds supposedly valued him higher. We bid what we thought he was worth, which anything north of £20m seems ridiculous, in the hope that they would be tempted. They weren’t tempted so we didn’t buy him. What’s the problem?

Should we have paid more for Adams too? Early days, but from what I’ve seen so far I’d say our valuation of him was reasonable.

We bid for Adams because we thought he was a good player, regardless of the fee involved. If we valued Phillips at 20, but Leeds wanted 30, then why bother bidding ? I can understand a bid of 20 if they wanted 25, but not 30.

Leeds didn't necessarily want £30m. Leeds asked for £30m, but were almost certainly willing to take less. How much less? Not enough less, obviously. If we had bid £29,999,999, we'd have got him.

How do you know whether Leeds would take £20m or a touch more? You offer it. No other way to find out. When a club asks £30m, can you be sure that they want £30m and won't settle for less? No, because sometimes clubs ask silly prices and drop the price when they aren't taken seriously.

Remember when we sold Wayne Thomas for £1.4m? That wasn't because we wouldn't take less, it was because someone was stupid enough to bid more. Leeds could have been asking silly money on spec; as it happens they really meant it. But there is only one way to find out.

AndyClaret wrote:We bid for Adams because we thought he was a good player, regardless of the fee involved. If we valued Phillips at 20, but Leeds wanted 30, then why bother bidding ? I can understand a bid of 20 if they wanted 25, but not 30.

What dsr said. Would you rather we walked away from any potential deals when the selling team want more money?

There's some soft arse whiners on here make no mistake.

Ask the tough questions..... on why the club are where they are, in the consistently best league positions for how many years?

THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS - might be time to appreciate what you're seeing, not complaining about what you haven't got.

It seems unbelievable that Leeds would turn down 20m and want 30m, just saying

Never had an enquiry for our Sean’s services....well that’s proof if anyone needed it that Simon Jordan is full of you know what.....

Dyched wrote:What does budgeting for 17th actually mean?

It means they are not assuming we get the near £2m per place for finishing higher than 17th.

But it is a total irrelevance. We know for a fact (the accounts prove it) that the club budgets EXPENDITURE to be way below income, even if we finished 20th. They plan for a profit and to keep the kitty building up.

The key is what the budget is for expenditure, and what considerations are being made, such as whether the surplus we are piling up each year will be spent on the fans (e.g. a rebuilt stadium), kept for a rainy day (e.g. to fund us for 10 years in the Championship) or if it is intended to be withdrawn by the directors in dividends (or as a lure for new investors to buy them out).

I genuinely do not know which of the three it is, but if it is not the stadium then we will have nothing but a crumbling ruin for our kids and grandkids to go to see in years to come, and that would be a terrible waste.

ClaretTony wrote:Not said that at all. He’s said we budget for that which is sensible and not anything like your interpretation.

Well said. Annoying, unnecessary thread.