The club, in the past year, has had over £100m available funds. These funds could have been committed to paying transfer fees and player wages. Instead they have been committed to paying the owners.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 12:03 pmI am still waiting for someone to give a reasoned explanation of how the club (with it's budget policy and adversity to debt, both much admired) could have been more effective in the more recent transfer windows.
FAO Mr Garlick
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
These 3 users liked this post: Elizabeth IanMcL tarkys_ears
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
genuine question - do you think Dyche wanted to offer the likes of Lennon an extension because he knew there would be laughable investment levels in the summer ?Rileybobs wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:38 pmWasn’t it rumoured that Dyche wanted to offer new contracts to the likes of Lennon when the season was extended last season due to covid? It lead to us fielding some pretty weak teams after project restart but we already looked like we would comfortably avoid relegation.
-
- Posts: 16896
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6964 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I would say that top half premier league finishes are very much the height of any realistic ambition. How much do you think we would need to spend to achieve beyond that, ie regular European qualification? And where do you suggest we get this money from?Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pmah the height of ambition
I enjoy people who strive to be better, on the one hand people acknowledge that Tarkowski wants to play at a higher level and admire his ambition but don't apply the same outlook to the club - I'm with Tarkowski
-
- Posts: 16896
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6964 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Possibly.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 pmgenuine question - do you think Dyche wanted to offer the likes of Lennon an extension because he knew there would be laughable investment levels in the summer ?
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I think it comes down to what you think the cash holding was for - I think much of it was to continue the club's off field developments (which includes the Academy) whether we were relegated or not - many seem to assume that it was purely for rainy days or to ensure Garlick got his payday when the club was soldConroy92 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pmA good debate and I thank you for it. I agree with a lot of what you say but would question the money reduction in wages covering covid, surely that is what some of the money at bank should be used for. I'm not sure why we would have a rainy day fund to then say, it's raining but let's not use the money set aside for that, let's let some of the squad walk away and not replace them to lower wages.
It seems we only really differ on the opinion of being able to sign one or two players (I'm not an advocate of signing loads of costly players).
I understand your argument and hope you understand mine.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
If Dyche wants a player to have a contract extension its nothing to do with what funds are available for transfers, it's because HE believes the player has something to offer.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:43 pmgenuine question - do you think Dyche wanted to offer the likes of Lennon an extension because he knew there would be laughable investment levels in the summer ?
I'm not aware of Brady being offered a new deal for example, which if that's the case would suggest Dyche thinks his time here is up.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
No, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign themGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pmNo, I'm saying Dyche and the club took the time to find players that suited Dyche's ethos / needs and were signed for a price that suited the club.
We were never held to ransom as far as I'm aware, they fitted our budget or we walked away.
You're belittling the time and effort its taken the club to find and sign said players, inc spotting potential and then improving them whilst they're here.
Let's take Pope - more than a few of us were apprehensive when Heaton got injured.
Turns out we had nothing to worry about.
That isn't working a miracle, that's talent spotting, then having one of the best goalkeeping coaches in the PL work hard with Pope everyday in training, or Pope watching video clips of the best goalies in the game, both current and retired, so he can learn how to improve.
Dyche uses the same dressing room mantra as the All-Blacks - No D/heads allowed.
Every one of our players works hard to be better than they were when we signed them, hence the mantra.
It isn't miracles that have kept us in the PL, its having a sound transfer strategy that has been well funded.
I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
-
- Posts: 15260
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3164 times
- Has Liked: 6759 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I've no intention of reading through this lot, but just explain what hook MG has got off?
Was he about to receive some form of retribution had we been relegated?
Was he about to receive some form of retribution had we been relegated?
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
maybe because he knows funds will be available and we can do better with Brady's wage (just conjecture)GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:46 pmIf Dyche wants a player to have a contract extension its nothing to do with what funds are available for transfers, it's because HE believes the player has something to offer.
I'm not aware of Brady being offered a new deal for example, which if that's the case would suggest Dyche thinks his time here is up.
-
- Posts: 3563
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2604 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Our true rainy day is the inevitible relegation isn't it? And leaving enough cash to keep the squad together, in order to give the best chance of coming back. Parachute payments would only be around 40% of our wage bill from memory, whilst matchday income would be about 10%..... if wage cuts averaged at 25%, then they're still £20 - £25m a year short on an £80 - £100m wage bill. They're rounded figures, but I suspect they won't be a mile off. £45m gives you 2 seasons to get back to the big league, before you have to have a fire sale and cost cut dramatically.Conroy92 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:40 pmA good debate and I thank you for it. I agree with a lot of what you say but would question the money reduction in wages covering covid, surely that is what some of the money at bank should be used for. I'm not sure why we would have a rainy day fund to then say, it's raining but let's not use the money set aside for that, let's let some of the squad walk away and not replace them to lower wages.
It seems we only really differ on the opinion of being able to sign one or two players (I'm not an advocate of signing loads of costly players).
I understand your argument and hope you understand mine.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
None of those externally sourced funds would have been realised by the previous board, those have been utilised by the new owners for their own benefit. Were the old board in some way complicit to that process - yes - but I have already been though my thinking on that on this thread
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 2:46 amDid Garlick and the outgoing Directors sell with the knowledge that those monies were going to be used to help pay for the shares?
- quite probably
Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors sell with the knowledge that the new owners were going to leverage the the club's assets to raise the required funds?
- quite probably
Would Garlick and the outgoing directors have preferred to sell the club for cash and have new owners with appropriate funds and good intentions to drive the club forwards rather than just great plans, knowledge, connections and expertise?
- quite probably
Did Garlick sell/relinquish control with the knowledge that it was the only way to keep Sean Dyche at the club?
- quite probably
Did the sale of Garlick's shares force the sale of the shares of the other Directors, even if they were uncomfortable about the idea?
- quite probably
Did those same Directors share with Garlick the belief that if he did not relinquish control they would not keep Dyche at the club?
- quite probably
Did Garlick and the outgoing directors believe that there was finite time in which to sell the club in order for it to retain Dyche?
- quite probably
Did Garlick and the outgoing directors believe that Dyche being at the club enhanced the saleability of the club?
- quite probably
Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors believe the bid they finally took for the club was the best on the table for the club?
- quite probably
Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors believe the bid they finally took for the club was the best for themselves?
- possibly, though we cannot be so certain as we have been in the previous answers, it is not something I would think Barry Kilby in particular would consider, and I suspect it is the same for many if not all the other Directors.
This is why for me the sale was all about keeping Dyche at the club and it is the circumstantial constraints around that that drove the nature of the transaction, and whatever many feel about the the financial details it appears that the vast majority believe retaining Dyche is essential, and it is in that sense that I talk about the club being subject to his whim - something I warned about several years ago. and again when the new owners spoke of him being central to their plans when they took-over, Pace waited too long to say they could find replacements if need be, the power had already been given to Dyche and he wasted little time in exercising it with those contract renewals in January.
None of this absolves the relationship breakdown between Garlick and Dyche which appears to be a result of failures in both communication, understanding and empathy.
-
- Posts: 15260
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3164 times
- Has Liked: 6759 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
£im for an experienced bench filler, cheap option.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:48 pmNo, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them
I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
or £7m for a bench filler, because that's about all we would have got for £7m
This user liked this post: Leisure
-
- Posts: 10915
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5560 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I agree with both your points. Still doesn't define "underfunded". If anything it strengthens the case that we are sufficiently funded to buy those players to work for that manager. If we had a poorer manager then yes, we'd likely be underfunded for that manager's capability.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:25 pmWe've achieved those things because we have a phenomenal manager and players that give every last ounce of sweat.
Do I think the managers of Arsenal, Villa, Wolves, Palace, Newcastle, Brighton, Southampton would do a similar job, no I don't.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I would agree with that completely, mid table and a cup run. I don't think anyone is asking for us to be chasing a place in Europe. Investing 5-10 million quid on a player in a transfer window shouldn't be beyond our means especially given Dyche tends to get the best out of and improve every single player he works with for any decent amount of time
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Covid leading to a disrupted season, a shortened end of and pre season.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:48 pmNo, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them
I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
Players catching it.
Games moved around.
Playing a large number of games in a short period of time.
Injuries.
Yes, carry on blaming just the transfer window by all means, its definitely the root of all evil.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Brownhill has played how many games this season ? Hardly a bench fillerboatshed bill wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:53 pm£im for an experienced bench filler, cheap option.
or £7m for a bench filler, because that's about all we would have got for £7m
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
as mentioned at least 3 times on this thread alone, covid explains 1 transfer window not the vast majority of the last 8 seasons. With that I'm done for the time being, game to watchGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:55 pmCovid leading to a disrupted season, a shortened end of and pre season.
Players catching it.
Games moved around.
Playing a large number of games in a short period of time.
Injuries.
Yes, carry on blaming just the transfer window by all means, its definitely the root of all evil.
-
- Posts: 16896
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6964 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
So you want us to spend more money to get the same result?Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:55 pmI would agree with that completely, mid table and a cup run. I don't think anyone is asking for us to be chasing a place in Europe. Investing 5-10 million quid on a player in a transfer window shouldn't be beyond our means especially given Dyche tends to get the best out of and improve every single player he works with for any decent amount of time
-
- Posts: 15260
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3164 times
- Has Liked: 6759 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Brownhill was signed a long time before Stephens.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:56 pmBrownhill has played how many games this season ? Hardly a bench filler
Stephens, I imagine, was signed because Cork wasn't ready to start the season.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Brady was given an extra season last summer and that was to see if he'd gotten over his injury issues and could reclaim his form, because we know he's got the ability.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:49 pmmaybe because he knows funds will be available and we can do better with Brady's wage (just conjecture)
Brady has failed this season to justify another contract extension and no one could argue in favour of giving him another.
We can and will look at this from opposite positions.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I've gone over the other windows, the issue is your perception of what constitutes underfunding and what I see as astute spending.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pmas mentioned at least 3 times on this thread alone, covid explains 1 transfer window not the vast majority of the last 8 seasons. With that I'm done for the time being, game to watch
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
I can confirm it wasn't me as I have never met the two principal protagonistsDevils_Advocate wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:42 pmThere's usually a third person involved with these kind of fallouts. I've been watching this thread closely for clues and I have my suspicions
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
When you are selling an asset for £150m, you don't "quite probably" know where the purchaser is getting his funds from. You know for certain. Would you sell a house to anyone who hasn't shown you where the money is coming from? Of course not. Nor would you sell £150m of shares.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:52 pmNone of those externally sourced funds would have been realised by the previous board, those have been utilised by the new owners for their own benefit. Were the old board in some way complicit to that process - yes - but I have already been though my thinking on that on this thread
Besides, he is still a director. Do you think he would be still a director if the club's funds had been so thoroughly denuded without his knowledge or consent?
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
so it's not an issue it's an opinionGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:01 pmI've gone over the other windows, the issue is your perception of what constitutes underfunding and what I see as astute spending.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
and I will repeat, had Dyche been given 7 million to spend we wouldn't have signed Stephensboatshed bill wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pmBrownhill was signed a long time before Stephens.
Stephens, I imagine, was signed because Cork wasn't ready to start the season.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
If Cork had been fit, we may not have signed anyone...Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:05 pmand I will repeat, had Dyche been given 7 million to spend we wouldn't have signed Stephens
This user liked this post: boatshed bill
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
possibly, or was he given an extension because it was the cheaper option instead of singing another player ? Or was he given an extension in the hope we could sell him rather than releasing him ? I'm not saying that is the case btw but they are both completely plausible reasons for his extensionGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:00 pmBrady was given an extra season last summer and that was to see if he'd gotten over his injury issues and could reclaim his form, because we know he's got the ability.
Brady has failed this season to justify another contract extension and no one could argue in favour of giving him another.
We can and will look at this from opposite positions.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
doubt itGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:06 pmIf Cork had been fit, we may not have signed anyone...
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
you are assuming that Dyche had found a player he wanted in that role we could have acquired for that price bracket and that the club also believed the total cost made sense to the club over the period of the deal - my understanding is that we can let Stephens go in the summer with n additional costs so that is another spot available in the squad, alternatively we have to cough up another million if he stays - he was a stop gap measure not unlike we saw other clubs take, though for them it was usually a loan - the fees and wages for which would likely be higher for a player with less experience and we know how Dyche treats loan playersVegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:48 pmNo, i'm not belittling our players nor the efforts to sign them
I'm saying had Dyche been given 7 million to spend in the summer we wouldn't have signed a Dale Stephens type player for 1 million and maybe this season wouldn't have been as much of a struggle. It ain't rocket science to acknowledge that given our prowess in identifying said players (we totally agree on that) that we could have got far more for 7 million on another Brownhill type player than wasting 1 million on a squad filler
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 boatshed bill
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Whatever suits the agenda.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:08 pmpossibly, or was he given an extension because it was the cheaper option instead of singing another player ? Or was he given an extension in the hope we could sell him rather than releasing him ? I'm not saying that is the case btw but they are both completely plausible reasons for his extension
-
- Posts: 15260
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3164 times
- Has Liked: 6759 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
And I will repeat "bench-filler", what sort of player should we have bought for that kind of money?Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:05 pmand I will repeat, had Dyche been given 7 million to spend we wouldn't have signed Stephens
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
it happens at every club, guess you think ours is different
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Quite probably - to the greatest extent that we can ascertain (not having been party to the discussions or the contract) this happeneddsr wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:03 pmWhen you are selling an asset for £150m, you don't "quite probably" know where the purchaser is getting his funds from. You know for certain. Would you sell a house to anyone who hasn't shown you where the money is coming from? Of course not. Nor would you sell £150m of shares.
Besides, he is still a director. Do you think he would be still a director if the club's funds had been so thoroughly denuded without his knowledge or consent?
as for your second point
and I will addChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 2:46 am
..... Would Garlick and the outgoing directors have preferred to sell the club for cash and have new owners with appropriate funds and good intentions to drive the club forwards rather than just great plans, knowledge, connections and expertise?
- quite probably
..... Did Garlick and the outgoing Directors believe the bid they finally took for the club was the best on the table for the club?
- quite probably
would Garlick and the outgoing Directors have preferred a complete sale for cash and absolute faith that the club was in good hands so they could stand aside completely?
- quite probably
Did Garlick (and John B) believe that given the structure of the sale and the method of financing it that it was in his interests to remain abreast of boardroom decisions and thought processes, in case the club fell back into their hands as a result of default, even though they have no effective boardroom power?
- quite probably
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 11, 2021 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Nope, but then again I'm not the one making bizarre claims about underfunding.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:20 pmit happens at every club, guess you think ours is different
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
You are not on my suspect listChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:01 pmI can confirm it wasn't me as I have never met the two principal protagonists
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
how very kind of you to say
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Where have you come to that understanding from? It was reported at the time that it was 2 year deal for Stephens with a £1m upfront fee and a further £1m if we stayed up.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:09 pmyou are assuming that Dyche had found a player he wanted in that role we could have acquired for that price bracket and that the club also believed the total cost made sense to the club over the period of the deal - my understanding is that we can let Stephens go in the summer with n additional costs so that is another spot available in the squad, alternatively we have to cough up another million if he stays - he was a stop gap measure not unlike we saw other clubs take, though for them it was usually a loan - the fees and wages for which would likely be higher for a player with less experience and we know how Dyche treats loan players
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Assuming Garlick wanted out, which we can presume he did, he had two realistic choices.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:25 pmQuite probably - to the greatest extent that we can ascertain (not having been party to the discussions or the contract) this happened
as for your second point
and I will add
would Garlick and the outgoing Directors have preferred a complete sale for cash and absolute faith that the club was in good hands so they could stand aside completely?
- quite probably
Did Garlick (and John B) believe that given the structure of the sale and the method of financing it that it was in his interests to remain abreast of boardroom decisions and thought processes, in case the club fell back into their hands as a result of default, even though they have no effective boardroom power?
- quite probably
1. Sell his shares to ALK as per what happened, and receive the pot of cash from club funds.
2. Not sell to ALK, wait for a true cash buyer, and step back from the Board of Directors appointing a replacement temporary chairman (eg. perhaps Barry Kilby might have done it short term). He may have had to take less money.
"Quite probably" he would have preferred an option that wasn't there, ie. sell to a true cash buyer straight away, but that option apparently wasn't available. So he chose to take the money.
Of course he would like the club back if ALK get out. It's no skin off his nose - he won't have to give his share sale proceeds back.
This user liked this post: levraiclaret
-
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1259 times
- Has Liked: 1368 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Let’s not get relegated then, parachute payments used by Pace to repay the loans and Garlick gets the club back
-
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
- Been Liked: 1131 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
- Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
That’ll be the last 8 seasons of what have been our best period in our lifetime. 6 premier league seasons, a 7th place finish resulting in European football. Yeah pretty shabby really.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:58 pmas mentioned at least 3 times on this thread alone, covid explains 1 transfer window not the vast majority of the last 8 seasons. With that I'm done for the time being, game to watch
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Are you serious there?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:04 amwe see different things differently and there is nothing wrong with that, but some of Dyche's public pronouncements on the financial situation last summer were farcical, the club had to plan for the worst case, and now we should be grateful they did because no club in the league was better prepared for the financial hit that the season has given than us.
-
- Posts: 5793
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Probably the same understanding as every other fan complete guesswork which he posts on a football forum.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5661 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
read the threadRammyClaret61 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:44 pmThat’ll be the last 8 seasons of what have been our best period in our lifetime. 6 premier league seasons, a 7th place finish resulting in European football. Yeah pretty shabby really.
-
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:11 pm
- Been Liked: 118 times
- Has Liked: 307 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Dyche says: “At the very first board meeting I attended, I asked where the Premier League money had gone from that season [2009/10]. They said: ‘What do you mean?’ I told them that I had played at Turf Moor loads of times and the changing rooms were still the same. They didn’t have a training ground, really. Yet the money had been spent. I told them: ‘You can’t do that again.’ There had to be a bigger picture, a bigger future than that.”
Doesn't quite fit the Chester narrative.
Doesn't quite fit the Chester narrative.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
someone has not been paying attention to what I have been saying on the subject - This quote serves only to support my reasoning - thank youcblantfanclub wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:14 pmDyche says: “At the very first board meeting I attended, I asked where the Premier League money had gone from that season [2009/10]. They said: ‘What do you mean?’ I told them that I had played at Turf Moor loads of times and the changing rooms were still the same. They didn’t have a training ground, really. Yet the money had been spent. I told them: ‘You can’t do that again.’ There had to be a bigger picture, a bigger future than that.”
Doesn't quite fit the Chester narrative.
-
- Posts: 9474
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1185 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
An alternative slant could be that the “complete guesswork” is reinforced by some posters studiously researching information before posting, regarding DS acquisition I think every media outlet were singing the same tune with the size of the transfer fee & contract length so it’s guesswork from the media sources, which is simply believed & repeated as fact.Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 11:00 pmProbably the same understanding as every other fan complete guesswork which he posts on a football forum.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Mr Garlick was allegedly saving for a new Cricket field stand, whenever windows came and went. Really just ensuring his own funds were safe.
Pity.
Pity.
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
But as has been said, he was a business man first and foremost, fan a distant second. He wasn't what you'd call a die hard supporter in any way.
This user liked this post: Rumpelstiltskin
-
- Posts: 7217
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:11 pm
- Been Liked: 2379 times
- Has Liked: 3807 times
- Location: Padiham
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
Too many fans are of the impression owners are there to tip unlimited amounts of cash into a business out of their own pocket.
Why?
The recent Boards of the Football Club have stated on many occasions they were guardians of the club and wanted to ensure it didn't disappear into obscurity. They did that very well and maintained stability in an environment that only rewards the super rich who use their playthings to move their money (often dubious at best) around the global board.
I shudder to think were we would be now if someone with a more cavalier approach to finance had been in charge.
Why?
The recent Boards of the Football Club have stated on many occasions they were guardians of the club and wanted to ensure it didn't disappear into obscurity. They did that very well and maintained stability in an environment that only rewards the super rich who use their playthings to move their money (often dubious at best) around the global board.
I shudder to think were we would be now if someone with a more cavalier approach to finance had been in charge.
-
- Posts: 6975
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1490 times
- Has Liked: 1848 times
Re: FAO Mr Garlick
We have made £500m in our 5 yrs in the Premier league
We have invested wisely in the training facility and had to raise our players wages still despite our running costs I personally feel Sean had a raw deal re funds for players
from the previous board
We have invested wisely in the training facility and had to raise our players wages still despite our running costs I personally feel Sean had a raw deal re funds for players
from the previous board