From Turf Moor to dreams of creating the Burnley of La Liga

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football ... -jpjcnm9dg

Good article that.
Still clearly a fan of us.

He chose to sell the club for his own reasons. Whilst he refers to the billionaire owners thing I’m not sure that is why he sold but it was his choice and right to do so.

Ran the club in a great way - made an inspired choice with Dyche which transformed the club and gave us our most successful period by a distance in 50 years. Amazes me that Garlick and Dyche do not get the credit they deserve from some of our supporters.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:43 am

Good article that.
Still clearly a fan of us.

He chose to sell the club for his own reasons. Whilst he refers to the billionaire owners thing I’m not sure that is why he sold but it was his choice and right to do so.

Ran the club in a great way - made an inspired choice with Dyche which transformed the club and gave us our most successful period by a distance in 50 years. Amazes me that Garlick and Dyche do not get the credit they deserve from some of our supporters.

Because it wasn’t just Garlick who was in charge when he was appointed. That and the summer of 2018 onwards was diabolical in terms of transfer business, or lack of. Where we got to was down to Dyche. The only credit i would give Garlick for is the training ground (although was that at the request of Dyche? Who knows?) and sticking with Dyche on our first relegation under him.

I certainly give them both a huge amount of credit. I think what's soured some people's view of Garlick is who he sold to.

That's nothing personal from my perspective. The ALK people I've spoken to at games seem genuine people, but their debt strategy is massively risky for a club of our size. It's a difficult mindset to go from the sensible, safe hands of Garlick, to one where it could go very wrong, very quickly.

gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:51 am

Because it wasn’t just Garlick who was in charge when he was appointed. That and the summer of 2018 onwards was diabolical in terms of transfer business, or lack of. Where we got to was down to Dyche. The only credit i would give Garlick for is the training ground (although was that at the request of Dyche? Who knows?) and sticking with Dyche on our first relegation under him.

I'd agree with this. He should have spent more towards the end but he was clearly fattening the balance up for his own gain. Overall though I think he did well.

We had joint chairmen when Sean Dyche was appointed and a lot of the credit for the appointment, apart from the two joint chairmen and directors, should also go to Lee Hoos.

By his own admission Garlick believed he'd taken the club as far as he could and that in a world of the super rich he was rich, but nowhere near rich enough. He said that more serious money and investment was needed to actually sustain our position as a club, never mind move it up to the next level (whatever that might be). Of course when he sold up he'd made a very tidy sum for himself because the value of the club had risen so much under his tenure and I guess some people aren't comfortable with that. Plus he'd obviously been reluctant to spend cash on players in the last 12 months or so in order that we looked a more sound financial proposition to potential buyers and that frustrated the hell out of just about all of us. A lot depends on whether you take Garlick and things he's said at face value and I know a lot don't.
As an aside, I never see appointing SD as a "masterstroke" because at the time it was a steady Eddy, ultra safe, extremely conservative, pretty unimaginative option and at the end of his first season, after watching some utterly awful stuff, he must have been extremely lucky not to get fired. Of course it actually turned into a masterstroke (thank God!) and I think the board got very, very lucky in a way they couldn't ever have perceived.

Garlick ran the club in his own interest rather than that of the club in my opinion. Complete lack of investment to refresh the team in favour of looking at a big pile of cash sat in a bank account. You cannot stand still in the Premier League as the other clubs are continually moving forwards and they will pass you by, and the result was what you saw in 2022. He claims to be a fan of BFC but I believe he is more of a fan of the ££££ being chairman of our club brought him.

I think the relationship was such that one of Garlick or Dyche had to go, and there weren't many Burnley fans who thought it should be Dyche. The way Garlick ran the club in order to facilitate the sale, and who he sold it to, are knocks against him sure, but it seems (at least from the outside) that that was the only way to sell the club.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:27 am

I think the relationship was such that one of Garlick or Dyche had to go, and there weren't many Burnley fans who thought it should be Dyche. The way Garlick ran the club in order to facilitate the sale, and who he sold it to, are knocks against him sure, but it seems (at least from the outside) that that was the only way to sell the club.

He badly wanted to sell it, and there was only one serious bidder. He had no option who to sell it to.

Garlick starved Sean of funds needed to improve the team in his latter years.The manner of who he sold to is irrelevant. Directors and their money is a constant topic of debate at all clubs
Personally, I do think Mike Garkick jumped too soon but he is a successful businessman and saw a chance to get a big return on his investment that he saw as a very good opportunity .Whether it was good for BFC and our development is a matter for conjecture

Dark Cloud wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:08 am

As an aside, I never see appointing SD as a "masterstroke" because at the time it was a steady Eddy, ultra safe, extremely conservative, pretty unimaginative option and at the end of his first season, after watching some utterly awful stuff, he must have been extremely lucky not to get fired. Of course it actually turned into a masterstroke (thank God!) and I think the board got very, very lucky in a way they couldn't ever have perceived.

Unless a club our size somehow manages to bring in peak-era Ancelotti, I don’t think you can see any appointment as a ‘masterstroke’ when they walk in the door. As you allude to later that kind of judgement only comes once you’re looking at their time as manager once they’ve gone.

As to whether it was lucky or not, we may never know. That awful first season (and those four consecutive midweek games in particular were utterly honking) may just have been a factored-in period of pain that he and the board knew full well we’d have to endure while he got his ideas across and worked out who he needed rid of.

Herts Clarets wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:08 am

Garlick ran the club in his own interest rather than that of the club in my opinion. Complete lack of investment to refresh the team in favour of looking at a big pile of cash sat in a bank account. You cannot stand still in the Premier League as the other clubs are continually moving forwards and they will pass you by, and the result was what you saw in 2022. He claims to be a fan of BFC but I believe he is more of a fan of the ££££ being chairman of our club brought him.

Lucky coincidence that it coincided with our most succesful period in the last 50 years I guess

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:01 am

We had joint chairmen when Sean Dyche was appointed and a lot of the credit for the appointment, apart from the two joint chairmen and directors, should also go to Lee Hoos.

He may well deserve a lot of credit but it’s a fairly safe bet he won’t get it.

A lot of the anti-American sentiment the current owners have experienced since arriving could possibly be traced back to fans’ perceptions of Hoos’s time here.

Enola Gay wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:00 am

He may well deserve a lot of credit but it’s a fairly safe bet he won’t get it.

A lot of the anti-American sentiment the current owners have experienced since arriving could possibly be traced back to fans’ perceptions of Hoos’s time here.

Can't agree with that at all, not sure anyone would even have thought of Hoos at all.

I have no problem with Dyche. Wonderful period in our history, and very proud that he was a man of integrity and in charge of our club for as long as he was. What he achieved with the resources at his disposal was nothing short of miraculous. Absolute LEGEND.

Garlick? Well, that’s a different story for me. He’s the Chris Wood of the boardroom. Very good when he was interested, but sadly his tenure is marked down because of the tail end.

I’ve no problem with who he “sold” to. I know some do, and they are entitled to their opinion. Trouble is, quite a lot in here treated Pace and his board (some still do) like absolute pariahs even before a decision was made. Reminiscent of the Laws appointment, in that they haven’t been given a chance from the word “go”.
I have a problem with the lack of investment and the lack of support for Dyche in the build up to Garlick handing over the keys. Seems to me that everything he did in the last 12-18 months was done to maximise his return, and most certainly NOT for the good and benefit of the club he “loves”. His money, his choice, and that’s fair enough, but don’t **** down my back and tell me it’s raining.

aggi wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:56 am

Lucky coincidence that it coincided with our most succesful period in the last 50 years I guess

Which I am convinced would have lasted much longer had there been some investment into the squad.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:02 am

Can't agree with that at all, not sure anyone would even have thought of Hoos at all.

I’d be surprised if there wasn’t at least a thread of it in there.

There’s long been a suspicion among a lot of Burnley fans that anyone born outside a 10-mile radius of Smacks isn’t to be fully trusted with the running of the club and there was absolutely a lot of “Americans don’t get British football” stuff going around that only grew stronger during his time here; I certainly don’t remember any tears when he left.

Given that and how it’s still within a lot of fans’ memories I think there’s a very good chance that maybe if even only subconsciously, our previous experience with an American ‘in charge’ coloured people’s thinking on the new ones.

I don't have any real problem with the current owners (yet!!), but in terms of what Mike Garlick was saying when he was looking to sell, as in the club being in the position of needing owners with much deeper pockets than his, I don't think we've found that. They're businessmen and the club is being run in a very business like way, but there's no huge personal wealth going into the club because they haven't got it any more than Garlick had and that's not what they're about. Ultimately the sale hasn't achieved what Garlick said he was looking for, except we now have debts to service which might one day bite us in the rump!

gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:51 am

Because it wasn’t just Garlick who was in charge when he was appointed. That and the summer of 2018 onwards was diabolical in terms of transfer business, or lack of. Where we got to was down to Dyche. The only credit i would give Garlick for is the training ground (although was that at the request of Dyche? Who knows?) and sticking with Dyche on our first relegation under him.

It says in the article that he was the only one of those making the decision who wanted Dyche so he definitely deserves credit for that.
The training ground was something that Dyche wanted and Garlick agreed to it. No doubt the money spent on this meant that it reduced Dyche’s transfer budget at that time - so again massive credit to both for recognising how important that was for the long term benefit of the club.

Nothing lasts for ever - Dyche said that from the outset that at some point the only thing that was guaranteed was that he would leave the club.

The same could be said about Garlick. For whatever reason personal to himself there was a point that he decided he wanted to sell the club. And like pretty much anybody else in his position would he prepared the ground ready for the sale and to maximise what he would get. Of course that impacted Dyche and the club at the time and the knock on impact was for us as fans.

I don’t like the structure of the sale and the buy out and I’ve always said that Garlick is just as responsible for that transaction as Pace was. But again there was hardly a long queue of potential buyers or alternatives for him to consider. In a perfect world I am 100% sure that Garlick would have preferred to sell the club to a Mike Garlick mark 2 version and for the club to be debt free under the new owners etc.

Of course a lot of the success is down to Dyche - that’s the same at most clubs…the manager is the key person to success. But it’s simply a fact that without Garlick we would not have had Dyche. And whilst it’s not a fact but an opinion I think a lot of fans and observers would agree the relationship between Dyche and Garlick and the way the club was run was fundamental to the most successful period for 50 years on and off the field.

I haven't read the article as its behind a paywall, so can't comment on what MG says in that article.
He is undoubtedly an astute business man but his path to being very successful was somewhat fortunate along the way.
Choosing Dyche was good but not many managers and clubs have had a successful relationship like we had in his early tenure. In fact the opposite is the norm.
MGs path to being chairman and majority shareholder was also fortunate, It coincided with Brenden Floods financial problems. BF was undoubtedly the driving force at the time.
Once MG was the majority shareholder and he had fallen out with Dyche the path to selling was easy.

If anyone wants to understand your money not being enough like Garlick.
Go and donate 500 quid to your local cricket/football club. It will be a lot of money to you and a grand gesture but they would probably pay a few months electric bill with it, when you were hoping for lasting improvements.

As with Dyche I think it is fine to recognise that Garlick was a brilliant chairman for most of his tenure.

I think that it is also important to recognise that towards the end of Garlick's reign, by stifling investment into the club he was acting in his own self interest and not the club's.

It could be argued that this wasn't always the case and Garlick never knew whether he would receive a return from the millions that he initially invested in the club. There was no guarantee that we would have the success that we had so he could have easily ended up losing several million pounds of his own money. Although it did leave a little bitter taste the way that he sold the club, I can forgive him because he initially took a big financial risk, which against the odds brought him and the club success several years further down the line.

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:39 am

I haven't read the article as its behind a paywall, so can't comment on what MG says in that article.
He is undoubtedly an astute business man but his path to being very successful was somewhat fortunate along the way.
Choosing Dyche was good but not many managers and clubs have had a successful relationship like we had in his early tenure. In fact the opposite is the norm.
MGs path to being chairman and majority shareholder was also fortunate, It coincided with Brenden Floods financial problems. BF was undoubtedly the driving force at the time.
Once MG was the majority shareholder and he had fallen out with Dyche the path to selling was easy.

Not sure taking over a loss making football club would be classed as fortunate.
Most would have thought him stupid and throwing his money away at the time.

Enola Gay wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:10 am

I’d be surprised if there wasn’t at least a thread of it in there.

There’s long been a suspicion among a lot of Burnley fans that anyone born outside a 10-mile radius of Smacks isn’t to be fully trusted with the running of the club and there was absolutely a lot of “Americans don’t get British football” stuff going around that only grew stronger during his time here; I certainly don’t remember any tears when he left.

Given that and how it’s still within a lot of fans’ memories I think there’s a very good chance that maybe if even only subconsciously, our previous experience with an American ‘in charge’ coloured people’s thinking on the new ones.

Sorry but 100% disagree with you and I cannot recall any point in time when there was any negativity towards Lee Hoos because of his nationality. He's also been gone almost ten years.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:03 am

Which I am convinced would have lasted much longer had there been some investment into the squad.

You will know more than me but I got the impression Garlick lost trust in Dyche's signings.
Signing the likes of Brady and Hendrick for over 10m each, who left on frees, were mistakes the club couldn't afford to make.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:49 am

You will know more than me but I got the impression Garlick lost trust in Dyche's signings.
Signing the likes of Brady and Hendrick for over 10m each, who left on frees, were mistakes the club couldn't afford to make.

Can't agree with you at all on that - Garlick wasn't funding the team so he could sell the club, nothing to do with Dyche. And I don't think Hendrick or Brady were mistakes. You cannot legislate for injuries as suffered by Brady.

Dyche perhaps made the mistake of mistreating the Europa.
Garlick perhaps made the mistake of not funding a rebuild of sorts.

But it’s okay thinking everything could have gone great eg Qualify fully for the Europa and funding great signings.

It also could have gone the other way too, people ignore that part of it.

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:39 am

I haven't read the article as its behind a paywall, so can't comment on what MG says in that article.
He is undoubtedly an astute business man but his path to being very successful was somewhat fortunate along the way.
Choosing Dyche was good but not many managers and clubs have had a successful relationship like we had in his early tenure. In fact the opposite is the norm.
MGs path to being chairman and majority shareholder was also fortunate, It coincided with Brenden Floods financial problems. BF was undoubtedly the driving force at the time.
Once MG was the majority shareholder and he had fallen out with Dyche the path to selling was easy.

Not sure BF was the driving force behind anything but his own ego. Barry Kilby was the driving force and we are very fortunate that he was the custodian of the club and not Flood.
BF’s investment in the club came with conditions that meant that we could have easily gone into administration when we had to repay him. Fortunately what we did on the field avoided that.

You could say that Garlick was lucky or you could say that we were lucky that Garlick was a supporter of the club and decided to put several million of his own own money into the club. It’s hardly like his investment was a guaranteed success - there are not many more riskier sectors to put your money into than football and especially into a club like Burnley.

A lot of the same entrenched opinions we have seen over the last four years being repeated again.

I will say in all that time I have never seen anyone take mine seriously, the one thing I will add to it is that, we are led to believe that the takeover was originally planned for the summer of 2020, which in non-Covid circumstances would have provided the new owners with opportunity to rebuild the squad from a contract and available cash scenario and make their own mark. Equally, in non Covid, non takeover circumstances that opportunity would, given the record of practice under Garlick would have facilitated a significant squad refresh and still keep the club in it's established self sustaining model.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:49 am

You will know more than me but I got the impression Garlick lost trust in Dyche's signings.
Signing the likes of Brady and Hendrick for over 10m each, who left on frees, were mistakes the club couldn't afford to make.

Brady would have been a star for years if he hadn't got injured.

Him and Hendrick were both first teamers when we got up to fourth in the PL, finishing 7th.

If it weren't for the injuries to Defour and Brady that team might have gone even further.

Getting back to Garlick -

I'm sure I heard Mike Garlick on the Dave Berry Breakfast show on Absolute radio not long ago. It was a skit where people with names that are also food phone in.

There might even have been another poster from here who also phoned in.

This link should bypass the paywall...

https://archive.is/qOZKX

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 11:12 am

A lot of the same entrenched opinions we have seen over the last four years being repeated again.

I will say in all that time I have never seen anyone take mine seriously, the one thing I will add to it is that, we are led to believe that the takeover was originally planned for the summer of 2020, which in non-Covid circumstances would have provided the new owners with opportunity to rebuild the squad from a contract and available cash scenario and make their own mark. Equally, in non Covid, non takeover circumstances that opportunity would, given the record of practice under Garlick would have facilitated a significant squad refresh and still keep the club in it's established self sustaining model.

Not sure what your opinion was that nobody took seriously - but i do agree that COVID changed things massively. If the takeover was planned for mid 2020 then it’s very likely that MG had already decided that he wanted to sell the club before COVID. I don’t know whether he has ever talked about the specifics as to why he wanted to sell the club and what brought this about. As said the billionaires versus millionaire thing seems a bit too vague for me as he had been happy to do operate like this previously and he had done it very successfully. Throughout his tenure MG will always have been one of the least wealthy owners in the EPL and there were a few billionaire owners back then too.

The specifics of why he decided it was time to sell are his business so guess we might never find out the exact detail.

I’m just glad that he chose to put his money in the club and it worked out brilliantly for us as supporters. For so many clubs it does not work out like it did for us and for many of these they have far richer owners than MG at the helm.

The Times Article wrote:....
Garlick, who made his millions in recruitment, reflects with pride on having appointed the man who brought seven seasons of Premier League football to Turf Moor. “When we hired Sean, in a board of five I was the only member that wanted him,” he says. “The rest wanted Ian Holloway. But I was the only one putting money in at that point so thankfully I won the day.
“Seven years out of eight in the Premier League for a club like Burnley is amazing. Our budget was often the lowest, if not the lowest, in the bottom three for all that time. In the end it started to catch up with us. Qualifying for Europe [in 2018] was a massive highlight although looking back, that was a tricky point because it came too soon. We probably didn’t sign as many players as we’d have hoped that summer and from then on, the relationship [with both Dyche and supporters] became a bit strained.”
Garlick admits he and Dyche “haven’t spoken for quite a while” but he “sang his praises” to Bill Kenwright before his appointment as Everton manager. “Out of nine years with him, I’d say seven and a half were good years and maybe a year and a half a bit tricky,” Garlick says.

Some interesting assertions there.

The fact that he put the club in a position which someone wanted to pay for says enough to me.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:13 am

It says in the article that he was the only one of those making the decision who wanted Dyche so he definitely deserves credit for that.
The training ground was something that Dyche wanted and Garlick agreed to it. No doubt the money spent on this meant that it reduced Dyche’s transfer budget at that time - so again massive credit to both for recognising how important that was for the long term benefit of the club.

Nothing lasts for ever - Dyche said that from the outset that at some point the only thing that was guaranteed was that he would leave the club.

The same could be said about Garlick. For whatever reason personal to himself there was a point that he decided he wanted to sell the club. And like pretty much anybody else in his position would he prepared the ground ready for the sale and to maximise what he would get. Of course that impacted Dyche and the club at the time and the knock on impact was for us as fans.

I don’t like the structure of the sale and the buy out and I’ve always said that Garlick is just as responsible for that transaction as Pace was. But again there was hardly a long queue of potential buyers or alternatives for him to consider. In a perfect world I am 100% sure that Garlick would have preferred to sell the club to a Mike Garlick mark 2 version and for the club to be debt free under the new owners etc.

Of course a lot of the success is down to Dyche - that’s the same at most clubs…the manager is the key person to success. But it’s simply a fact that without Garlick we would not have had Dyche. And whilst it’s not a fact but an opinion I think a lot of fans and observers would agree the relationship between Dyche and Garlick and the way the club was run was fundamental to the most successful period for 50 years on and off the field.

I'm with you on every word above BVK (and the views of Dark Cloud above).

I appreciate many people have different views which creates their own agenda.

To all those being critical of MG where was the 'Mike Garlick MKII'?

Great read, he is still a Claret admits he made mistakes etc, and obviously the main one was not allowing the clubs money to rebuild the team.

Did a great job but the nature of the sale will always leave a sour taste i think.

Personally i feel like we didn’t back Dyche as he was fattening the pig for sale, and obviously the way the sale was done & him walking away with the clubs money isnt how you’d want a “local man done good” to leave it.

The fact that Sheff United refused to sell to them this way before us should have been taken as a warning sign really.

Anyway, obviously wish him well, he did a good job for us and had us punching above our weight with possibly our greatest ever manager.

About 4?ish years ago there was a really telling stat shared on here showing the personal wealth of the chairmen/majority shareholders at the PL clubs that particular season. They were ranked like a league table and it's always stuck in my mind. I know these things can be wildly inaccurate, because much of it is guesswork, but Mike Garlick was quoted as having personally something like £62 million and was listed as 19th out of the 20 clubs. Only Delia at Norwich (£32 million?) was ranked below him. Most of the others were hundreds of millions ahead of him and that in itself showed why eventually he desperately needed to sell the club on. We were clearly in danger of stagnating and needed new ideas and new investment, although yes indeed, it did result in him making a good few bob on the side.

Lots of people on here think that Garlick should either have spent his own personal money or put the club into debt in order to fund transfers which is the easiest thing in the world to say when it ain't your money.

Yes, he made money from selling the club. In the same way that you make money from owning your house and looking after it. Football clubs are/were appreciating assets. But again, the same people criticising him for not putting money in are expecting him - when offered £100m or whatever - to say "Nah, I only paid £2m, so just give me that instead".

That period, the Board did a lot of good things, some by luck, some by judgement. They made some bad decisions, some by luck, some by judgement. But because football is always black and white and can never be shades of grey, that simply isn't something to be allowed.

"Garlick should have done this. Garlick should have done that." Words that mean nothing from people who will never be in the situation he was in.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 11:12 am

A lot of the same entrenched opinions we have seen over the last four years being repeated again.

I will say in all that time I have never seen anyone take mine seriously, the one thing I will add to it is that, we are led to believe that the takeover was originally planned for the summer of 2020, which in non-Covid circumstances would have provided the new owners with opportunity to rebuild the squad from a contract and available cash scenario and make their own mark. Equally, in non Covid, non takeover circumstances that opportunity would, given the record of practice under Garlick would have facilitated a significant squad refresh and still keep the club in it's established self sustaining model.

Why do you think nobody takes your opinions seriously?

Some seem to, so not sure what you are referring to

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:01 pm

Did a great job but the nature of the sale will always leave a sour taste i think.

Personally i feel like we didn’t back Dyche as he was fattening the pig for sale, and obviously the way the sale was done & him walking away with the clubs money isnt how you’d want a “local man done good” to leave it.

The fact that Sheff United refused to sell to them this way before us should have been taken as a warning sign really.

Anyway, obviously wish him well, he did a good job for us and had us punching above our weight with possibly our greatest ever manager.

This wasn't the case at all. The owner who was planning to sell to ALK lost a court case and had to give up control of the club to the Saudi co-owner.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 11:30 am

Some interesting assertions there.

It actually improved my opinion on Garlick. It was common knowledge that him and Dyche weren't on speaking terms by the end so it's good to see him still being so complimentary and even referencing him for a job.

Lots would have been too petty for that.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:03 am

Which I am convinced would have lasted much longer had there been some investment into the squad.

Possibly. It certainly wouldn't have harmed our chances but it was always a case of when, not if, we got relegated.

I think for many though Garlick was the bad owner as they wanted (maybe without realising it) him to give the club cash rather than run it as sustainable business.

aggi wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:13 pm

Possibly. It certainly wouldn't have harmed our chances but it was always a case of when, not if, we got relegated.

I think for many though Garlick was the bad owner as they wanted (maybe without realising it) him to give the club cash rather than run it as sustainable business.

I think all of our chairmen up to Garlick have tried to run it as a sustainable business and that's how it was going for a lot of the time he was joint chair and chair. We've never really had anyone who was just giving the club cash with Barry Kilby probably the closest to that.

aggi wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:13 pm

Possibly. It certainly wouldn't have harmed our chances but it was always a case of when, not if, we got relegated.

I think for many though Garlick was the bad owner as they wanted (maybe without realising it) him to give the club cash rather than run it as sustainable business.

I didn’t want him to give the club anything, just invest some of the circa 50m that was in the bank on the playing squad, rather than just signing Dale Stephens & expecting Dychey to work more miracles. Of course at the time we didn’t realise that he was planning on leaving with that money in his back pocket.

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:19 pm

I didn’t want him to give the club anything, just invest some of the circa 50m that was in the bank on the playing squad, rather than just signing Dale Stephens & expecting Dychey to work more miracles. Of course at the time we didn’t realise that he was planning on leaving with that money in his back pocket.

Just Dale Stephens? I seem to recall Danny Drinkwater stumbling through the door aswell. Whilst he was a short-term loan signing, I'm thinking that was more down to MG. I don't think Dyche would have been keen on that type of signing.

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:39 am

I haven't read the article as its behind a paywall, so can't comment on what MG says in that article.
He is undoubtedly an astute business man but his path to being very successful was somewhat fortunate along the way.
Choosing Dyche was good but not many managers and clubs have had a successful relationship like we had in his early tenure. In fact the opposite is the norm.
MGs path to being chairman and majority shareholder was also fortunate, It coincided with Brenden Floods financial problems. BF was undoubtedly the driving force at the time.
Once MG was the majority shareholder and he had fallen out with Dyche the path to selling was easy.

BF drove us to near administration.

helmclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:53 pm

BF drove us to near administration.

And to the premier league