Swiss Ramble

[joey13]

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble?ref_src ... r%5Eauthor

[taio]

Some really interesting analysis - thanks for posting. Further demonstration that the previous owners operated a very strong and sensible financial strategy.

[Ric_C]

Overall very good figures. Still think our wage bill is much higher than it should be, but I guess this is driven by bonuses, so can't complain that much.

[NewClaret]

Overall very good figures. Still think our wage bill is much higher than it should be, but I guess this is driven by bonuses, so can't complain that much.

Yes and 65% of revenue of Covid were removed, which is very good for a prem club. Clearly the numbers next year will be far worse but that’ll be the same for every club and we’ll presumably have much lower bonus payments next year too.

[NewClaret]

A great read. A few things stood out to me:

- We have a £0 net transfer fee debt. Presumably that has improved with the Gibson loan/sale. Nobody can tell me that we couldn’t have signed someone in summer with £55-80m cash and no transfer debt. On the plus side, it leaves a “clean slate” for ALK.

- They say its £3m TV increment per place in the place in the Prem. I assume that’s increased under the new TV deal? A lot is said about needing a sustainable business model but if that is correct, a £30m player that helps you finish 5 places higher repays themselves in 2 seasons and hopefully has a resale value. You can see why players are valued like they are.

- Without Covid, it predicts our income as £144m. That’d certainly put us in the top 30 highest earning clubs in Europe, possibly top 25 (hard to say since presumably the other clubs in the list have also been negatively impacted). It does bring home that the little old Burnley mantra is no longer true.

- Attendances were second lowest in the Prem & 10 championship clubs had higher averages. Whilst accepting we can’t change our catchment area, as the only Prem club in Lancashire we should really be trying to widen the appeal of the club to pull in more neutral fans wanting to watch Prem live football.

[Chester Perry]

please merge with the annual accounts thread

still some wild takes from posters on here as to what the numbers meant in reality and could be used for

for purposes of reference this is SwissRambles detailed thread on Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

and this is his 2 page summary sheet of Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

[dibraidio]

14th highest wage bill in the league. That's interesting. The wage bill is now 20m more than it was when we finished 7th. 40m more than it was when we stayed up for the first time. We paid out more in wages than both Wolves and Newcastle.

Is the team better than it was 3 seasons ago? Do we really have more strength in depth? Dyche still tells us that the squad isn't big enough to take a cup seriously but I can't see another 20-30 million making a difference. Another 30 million on the wage bill would put us as the 9th biggest wage budget in the Premier league.

Unless something exceptional happens in the last 8 games we're likely to have our lowest goals scored during our current 5 season Premier League stay. Our goal difference could be the worst too. We could be very close to the same goals for and against as the 14/15 relegation season but hopefully with 6 or 7 points more to show for it.

Dyche might not work to a budget but with a 100m wage bill and a 134m turnover people expecting us to spend 30 million on a player is just not going to happen unless we sell players. From the point we are in the only way I can see us improving the side is via player trading. Cash in on Pope, Tarky and Dwight and bring in a new generation of assets to take their place.

[claretonthecoast1882]

14th highest wage bill in the league. That's interesting. The wage bill is now 20m more than it was when we finished 7th. 40m more than it was when we stayed up for the first time. We paid out more in wages than both Wolves and Newcastle.

Is the team better than it was 3 seasons ago? Do we really have more strength in depth? Dyche still tells us that the squad isn't big enough to take a cup seriously but I can't see another 20-30 million making a difference. Another 30 million on the wage bill would put us as the 9th biggest wage budget in the Premier league.

Unless something exceptional happens in the last 8 games we're likely to have our lowest goals scored during our current 5 season Premier League stay. Our goal difference could be the worst too. We could be very close to the same goals for and against as the 14/15 relegation season but hopefully with 6 or 7 points more to show for it.

Dyche might not work to a budget but with a 100m wage bill and a 134m turnover people expecting us to spend 30 million on a player is just not going to happen unless we sell players. From the point we are in the only way I can see us improving the side is via player trading. Cash in on Pope, Tarky and Dwight and bring in a new generation of assets to take their place.

The only ones expecting a 30m signing are the ones who think the only expense in football is the transfer fee.

[NewClaret]

14th highest wage bill in the league. That's interesting. The wage bill is now 20m more than it was when we finished 7th. 40m more than it was when we stayed up for the first time. We paid out more in wages than both Wolves and Newcastle.

Is the team better than it was 3 seasons ago? Do we really have more strength in depth? Dyche still tells us that the squad isn't big enough to take a cup seriously but I can't see another 20-30 million making a difference. Another 30 million on the wage bill would put us as the 9th biggest wage budget in the Premier league.

Unless something exceptional happens in the last 8 games we're likely to have our lowest goals scored during our current 5 season Premier League stay. Our goal difference could be the worst too. We could be very close to the same goals for and against as the 14/15 relegation season but hopefully with 6 or 7 points more to show for it.

Dyche might not work to a budget but with a 100m wage bill and a 134m turnover people expecting us to spend 30 million on a player is just not going to happen unless we sell players. From the point we are in the only way I can see us improving the side is via player trading. Cash in on Pope, Tarky and Dwight and bring in a new generation of assets to take their place.

On the wage bill, I think it’s worth remembering that we have lost Gibson (partly), Lennon, Hart and Hendricks from these numbers. They were some of our highest paid players, so the wage bill is already £6-£8m lower than it was this season.

A fair proportion is paid in bonus’ so given our league position will be much lower this year, you’d imagine this years wage bill could be £15m-£20m lower.

I think Dyche has commented recently that, with bonus’, we’re now competitive from a wage perspective. As you point out though, then the onus rests on Dyche finding/paying the right players, given how favourably we now compare to other clubs around us.

[Chester Perry]

On the wage bill, I think it’s worth remembering that we have lost Gibson (partly), Lennon, Hart and Hendricks from these numbers. They were some of our highest paid players, so the wage bill is already £6-£8m lower than it was this season.

A fair proportion is paid in bonus’ so given our league position will be much lower this year, you’d imagine this years wage bill could be £15m-£20m lower.

I think Dyche has commented recently that, with bonus’, we’re now competitive from a wage perspective. As you point out though, then the onus rests on Dyche finding/paying the right players, given how favourably we now compare to other clubs around us.

And how much lower do you think our revenues are going to be this season? - there is also the debt to service and potential wages for our new board

[ClaretLoup]

To me one of the most interesting stats is £95 million net spend since Burnley re-gained their EPL place.

You would have thought that a club like Burnley would be picking up players, bringing them on and moving them on to richer clubs but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Dyche's love of stability may well clash with the ALK need to make money on this one.

Exciting times.

[NewClaret]

The only ones expecting a 30m signing are the ones who think the only expense in football is the transfer fee.

It was my post that mentioned “ a £30m player”, although was referencing total investment vs fee, which is spread over the contract in any event.

My point was more that if the increments are now £3m under the new TV contract, and accepting that they’ll likely reduce regardless due to Covid, you can easily make an investment case for such transfer fee’s if the player(s) you buy help lift your final league position.

Of course many don’t - Brewster, not sure Benrahma has really been effective for WHU, I’m not a big fan of Watkins at Villa, etc, etc. - but you can see how the valuations come about.

[NewClaret]

And how much lower do you think our revenues are going to be this season? - there is also the debt to service and potential wages for our new board

Think your assessment of £105m - £115m will prove to be there or thereabouts. Obviously lots of factors still to play out and I’m not suggesting the revenue reduction will outweigh the cost reduction. We are fortunate that we had the opportunity to reduce the wage bill so significantly during Covid though.

[aggi]

14th highest wage bill in the league. That's interesting. The wage bill is now 20m more than it was when we finished 7th. 40m more than it was when we stayed up for the first time. We paid out more in wages than both Wolves and Newcastle.

...

Adjusted for 12 months it would be the 16th lowest, with 3 of the teams with lower wage bills being relegated. It's also likely that Newcastle's will be higher, that figure is a year older than most of the others.

[claretonthecoast1882]

It was my post that mentioned “ a £30m player”, although was referencing total investment vs fee, which is spread over the contract in any event.

My point was more that if the increments are now £3m under the new TV contract, and accepting that they’ll likely reduce regardless due to Covid, you can easily make an investment case for such transfer fee’s if the player(s) you buy help lift your final league position.

Of course many don’t - Brewster, not sure Benrahma has really been effective for WHU, I’m not a big fan of Watkins at Villa, etc, etc. - but you can see how the valuations come about.

If you signed 2 players with those sort of costs how many league places would you need to finish to make it cost effective at 2m a place ? Working on us finishing 15th this season and 10th last season how many places higher is it realistically possible to finish than 10th ?

Agree about Benrahma his fee was 25m upfront with a further payment on top and he has yet to score, featuring in 22 of the 30 league games played. Those who have this thing for Brentford seem to gloss over the fact he has scored less goals than Lowton this season.

[joey13]

please merge with the annual accounts thread

still some wild takes from posters on here as to what the numbers meant in reality and could be used for

for purposes of reference this is SwissRambles detailed thread on Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

and this is his 2 page summary sheet of Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0373689346

Thought it warranted it’s own thread , but if the powers that be need to merge ,do so

[NewClaret]

If you signed 2 players with those sort of costs how many league places would you need to finish to make it cost effective at 2m a place ? Working on us finishing 15th this season and 10th last season how many places higher is it realistically possible to finish than 10th ?

Agree about Benrahma his fee was 25m upfront with a further payment on top and he has yet to score, featuring in 22 of the 30 league games played. Those who have this thing for Brentford seem to gloss over the fact he has scored less goals than Lowton this season.

My point was more that SwissRamble said it’s £3m per place. I thought it was £2m but one of CP’s other posts supports that it it should have been £3m but Covid made it £2m.

I look at it that we’ve finished in a variety of positions from 17th to 7th. Taking the lower £2m figure and assuming a 5 place improvement (6-8pts), it’d take 3 years to repay the investment. Plus you still own the asset you can sell on, assuming you get the right age profile/contract structure. A bit like buying a house to let and the mortgage being repaid by the tenants in three years - you’d be laughing.

A lot of ifs, and of course, not that linear because our bonus structure means we’d pay out a lot more in wages to other players too, but you can see how the investment case is made at other clubs.

My view is we have to be smarter, looking at contract end dates & making better use of that market. Also, as much as I hate the idea of helping to develop other clubs players, there’s a case for us using the loan market when you see how it’s benefited Fulham (Lookman, Andersen) and at the impact of Willock/Gallagher at their respective clubs. But at some point we’ll have to start paying the going rate for quality players if the plan is to stay in the PL... we can’t avoid it forever.

[Chester Perry]

Thought it warranted it’s own thread , but if the powers that be need to merge ,do so

The subject matter is the same and much of the detail has already been drawn out in that first thread, when it comes to referencing in the future ans searching it is much easier to find in a single thread and with the metadata - which brings me to the subject of thread titles - something which are constantly poor on this site

This thread title would be much more explicit and useful if it said that Swiss Ramble looks at Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

from what we are given it the OP could have easily started RIP - which has been a common failing on here too

[Paul Waine]

Thought it warranted it’s own thread , but if the powers that be need to merge ,do so

Hi Joey, I've just spent time looking at all the Swiss Ramble stuff on the "Accounts" thread. I now find it is repeated here. We've recently seen examples of CT locking threads so that the subject matter can be kept in one place. Two other threads, to my knowledge, have already been locked and discussion re-directed to "Accounts" released thread - though I'm not sure if the threads were merged so everything is in one place.

My vote is for keeping topics together.

PS: I hope "Swiss Ramble" recovers soon - with reference to CP's "thread title" comment.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

My point was more that SwissRamble said it’s £3m per place. I thought it was £2m but one of CP’s other posts supports that it it should have been £3m but Covid made it £2m.

I look at it that we’ve finished in a variety of positions from 17th to 7th. Taking the lower £2m figure and assuming a 5 place improvement (6-8pts), it’d take 3 years to repay the investment. Plus you still own the asset you can sell on, assuming you get the right age profile/contract structure. A bit like buying a house to let and the mortgage being repaid by the tenants in three years - you’d be laughing.

A lot of ifs, and of course, not that linear because our bonus structure means we’d pay out a lot more in wages to other players too, but you can see how the investment case is made at other clubs.

My view is we have to be smarter, looking at contract end dates & making better use of that market. Also, as much as I hate the idea of helping to develop other clubs players, there’s a case for us using the loan market when you see how it’s benefited Fulham (Lookman, Andersen) and at the impact of Willock/Gallagher at their respective clubs. But at some point we’ll have to start paying the going rate for quality players if the plan is to stay in the PL... we can’t avoid it forever.

Fulham have 7 players in on loan and don't appear to be any better off for it

[Dark Cloud]

Fulham have 7 players in on loan and don't appear to be any better off for it

Having 7 players on loan really shouldn't be allowed. What's to stop them going the whole hog and getting an entire team!?? (And whether it's doing them any good or not points wise really isn't the issue for me!!)

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Having 7 players on loan really shouldn't be allowed. What's to stop them going the whole hog and getting an entire team!?? (And whether it's doing them any good or not points wise really isn't the issue for me!!)

I think it was Tranmere a few years ago who had 11 or more players in on loan.

[NewClaret]

Fulham have 7 players in on loan and don't appear to be any better off for it

Suppose it depends on your perspective on where they’d be without those players. There’s certainly some good players amongst them.

If they keep them up, they’ll consider it well worthwhile, but probably won’t be able to afford to buy them all having proved themselves in the Prem. If they go down, they’ll be able to let them go back to their clubs.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Suppose it depends on your perspective on where they’d be without those players. There’s certainly some good players amongst them.

If they keep them up, they’ll consider it well worthwhile, but probably won’t be able to afford to buy them all having proved themselves in the Prem. If they go down, they’ll be able to let them go back to their clubs.

So either way they're disadvantaged for next season.
That's potentially 7 players to replace which is a lot of shopping.

I'm not against loaning players, just think anymore than a couple is overkill and causes problems.

[dsr]

To me one of the most interesting stats is £95 million net spend since Burnley re-gained their EPL place.

You would have thought that a club like Burnley would be picking up players, bringing them on and moving them on to richer clubs but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Dyche's love of stability may well clash with the ALK need to make money on this one.

Exciting times.

It's pretty simple - Dyche likes to keep his best players. We could have sold Pope, Tarkowski, Mee, Wood, and McNeil, for fat profits I dare say. But we would need to replace them - and signing those five players wasn't such an easy job that we could have signed five more like them.

History tells us that a policy of selling your best players will end in tears.

[NewClaret]

So either way they're disadvantaged for next season.
That's potentially 7 players to replace which is a lot of shopping.

I'm not against loaning players, just think anymore than a couple is overkill and causes problems.

Fully agree on that point.

I wouldn’t be happy with their strategy if I supported Fulham.

My post was more suggesting that we may have to accept one here or there given our financial restraints. I would gladly take Andersen, Lookman, Gallagher or Willock here next year, assuming we stay up.

[TheFamilyCat]

It's pretty simple - Dyche likes to keep his best players. We could have sold Pope, Tarkowski, Mee, Wood, and McNeil, for fat profits I dare say. But we would need to replace them - and signing those five players wasn't such an easy job that we could have signed five more like them.

History tells us that a policy of selling your best players will end in tears.

We were spoilt by having Pope and Tarks to replace Heaton and Keane.

I'm not against selling our better players when we have sourced suitable (cheaper) replacements but there's not a lot on the "production line" at the moment.

[NewClaret]

We were spoilt by having Pope and Tarks to replace Heaton and Keane.

I'm not against selling our better players when we have sourced suitable (cheaper) replacements but there's not a lot on the "production line" at the moment.

Agreed. It’s hard to look at the U23’s at the moment and see many ready to step in. That will come with greater investment and time though.

A shame we’ve not had strong wingers coming through in resent years as you have to think they’d have had a look in given we’re so low on numbers in that area.

[TheFamilyCat]

Agreed. It’s hard to look at the U23’s at the moment and see many ready to step in. That will come with greater investment and time though.

A shame we’ve not had strong wingers coming through in resent years as you have to think they’d have had a look in given we’re so low on numbers in that area.

It's not just about bringing them through ourselves. Brownhill aside, we just haven't made any Tarks/Pope type signings for a few years now.

[NewClaret]

It's not just about bringing them through ourselves. Brownhill aside, we just haven't made any Tarks/Pope type signings for a few years now.

Yep, no arguments from me there either.

Hindered by the fact we’ve hardly made any signings at all

[TheFamilyCat]

I did think that as I typed it.

[joey13]

The subject matter is the same and much of the detail has already been drawn out in that first thread, when it comes to referencing in the future ans searching it is much easier to find in a single thread and with the metadata - which brings me to the subject of thread titles - something which are constantly poor on this site

This thread title would be much more explicit and useful if it said that Swiss Ramble looks at Burnley FC's 2019/20 financial results

from what we are given it the OP could have easily started RIP - which has been a common failing on here too

Don’t why I bothered , if the thread title upset you so much why comment on it , not everyone has the time to trawl through different threads .

[Burnley1989]

Don’t why I bothered , if the thread title upset you so much why comment on it , not everyone has the time to trawl through different threads .

Some folk are like school kids, same when it comes to ‘starting the match thread’

[Spijed]

It's not just about bringing them through ourselves. Brownhill aside, we just haven't made any Tarks/Pope type signings for a few years now.

TBF, no-one knows how good BPF will turn out to be when he replaces Pope.

[Chester Perry]

not everyone has the time to trawl through different threads .

precisely my point on the ambiguity of the thread title

[Chester Perry]

Next time I’ll add “not suitable for sanctimonious *****”

I would much rather that you OP actually said what the purpose of the post was and that the link was specific to the topic in hand yours just links to the most recent post of Swiss Ramble's twitter account, which today is about Burnley FC's 2019/20 Financial results, tomorrow will likely be about the same for Leeds United

Of course this may have been your intention, but is is more likely, given you earlier responses, that your intent was to share his posts about our club, in which case my points remain valid and illustrate ways in being both more helpful to fellow board members and more constructive in continuing discussions on a specific subject matter

[tim_noone]

Next time I’ll add “not suitable for sanctimonious *****”

[joey13]

I would much rather that you OP actually said what the purpose of the post was and that the link was specific to the topic in hand yours just links to the most recent post of Swiss Ramble's twitter account, which today is about Burnley FC's 2019/20 Financial results, tomorrow will likely be about the same for Leeds United

Of course this may have been your intention, but is is more likely, given you earlier responses, that your intent was to share his posts about our club, in which case my points remain valid and illustrate ways in being both more helpful to fellow board members and more constructive in continuing discussions on a specific subject matter

I suggest you keep away from the next new topic I start as it could well tip you over the edge

[claretonthecoast1882]

Opened this thinking it was about popular walks in Switzerland

[Chester Perry]

I suggest you keep away from the next new topic I start as it could well tip you over the edge

all comes down to whether or not you want to be community minded, this is a community after all.