BFC TRANSFER NEWS (MUST CONTAIN LINK)

[HunterST_BFC]

you mean the Daily Mail called it?

Mine is the most accurate post on this thread

[ClaretTony]

you mean the Daily Mail called it?

Matt Law from the Daily Telegraph was the first I think

[tim_noone]

Matt Law from the Daily Telegraph was the first I think

Nah ....cricketfield

[AlargeClaret]

What a load of ********.

Why do people revel in thinking we are some form of third world esque football club. They love to think we are slit and fighting against all odds.

We are among the highest income clubs in world football but we choose a model that the board feel best suits us. Whilst we can’t compete with the absolute elite, we are a club that has prospects and a pull for the right players.

Perhaps the message hasn’t got through to you why we struggle desperately in the market .
WE CANT AFFORD THE WAGES so the vast majority of players look elsewhere . Personally I think our policy is excellent but the endless lip quivering over transfers is infinite

[Sproggy]

We can afford to pay higher wages - we bank 30 million quid a year - we just choose not to.

I'm sure our wage ceiling compares favourably with average salaries in other leagues worldwide.

[Down_Rover]

We can afford to pay higher wages - we bank 30 million quid a year - we just choose not to.

I'm sure our wage ceiling compares favourably with average salaries in other leagues worldwide.

Would you like to set out a calculation of how you calculate that

[Midmoorclaret]

DD Seeing his initials, how many remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TGCrBE3JvY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aggi]

Would you like to set out a calculation of how you calculate that

We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.

[TVC15]

We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.

We made £36m profit
Plus a big chunk of that was from one off player sales profit. You don’t increase operational / running costs based on “one-off” financial gains that you can’t guarantee every year....our wage bill and player contracts will no doubt factor in the impact of relegation / parachute payments and the build up of profit reserves will support this together with funds to back a manager to help us get back up (as we supported Dyche last time)

[Hibsclaret]

We made £36m profit
Plus a big chunk of that was from one off player sales profit. You don’t increase operational / running costs based on “one-off” financial gains that you can’t guarantee every year....our wage bill and player contracts will no doubt factor in the impact of relegation / parachute payments and the build up of profit reserves will support this together with funds to back a manager to help us get back up (as we supported Dyche last time)

Spot on.

Some of the brains on here adhere to the Peter Ridsdale school of accountancy.....there’s a reason why the biggest club in the world have been playing in the lower divisions for nearly 2 decades

[Down_Rover]

We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.

Ok. Ignoring the facts again.

In 2018 we made £37m, but that included profit on player sales of £31m. Our operating profit was just under £15m compared to £26m the previous year, which is the accurate comparison. The bonuses paid for achieving 7th actually outweighed the extra income..fair enough because 7th place was probably not anticipated.

As we all know profit is not cash. At June 2018 we had £34m cash. Shortly after we bought Gibson Hart and Vydra, we had little or no income until the season started and there were wage increases to keep Ben Mee and consequently to keep the rest of the squad happy...one always has most cash in the Bank immediately after payday.

Moving onto 2019 my guess is that turnover fell to 2017 levels and wages had increased. Ignoring player sales I guess our profits will be around £10m
( not cash)

We have been prudent in this window because I doubt we would have generated substantial cash in 2019 and I would not be surprised to hear that selling Vokes was entirely necessary

This is likely to be the case while we remain in the bottom third of the table, which must be assumed, and future cash can only come from sales of improving players aka McNeil

[Sproggy]

Would you like to set out a calculation of how you calculate that

Sure. Revenue - Costs = Profit. Three levers for you to work with.

[aggi]

We made £36m profit
Plus a big chunk of that was from one off player sales profit. You don’t increase operational / running costs based on “one-off” financial gains that you can’t guarantee every year....our wage bill and player contracts will no doubt factor in the impact of relegation / parachute payments and the build up of profit reserves will support this together with funds to back a manager to help us get back up (as we supported Dyche last time)

Definitely £45m. If we're talking about increasing spending then it's the profit before tax that is relevant. We wouldn't be paying £8.5m of tax on zero profit.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I fully agree that we should be building up reserves for when we are relegated, etc. Just that we probably can afford it.

[Down_Rover]

Definitely £45m. If we're talking about increasing spending then it's the profit before tax that is relevant. We wouldn't be paying £8.5m of tax on zero profit.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I fully agree that we should be building up reserves for when we are relegated, etc. Just that we probably can afford it.

Interesting. Please inform us how you get away without paying tax

[dpinsussex]

Sure. Revenue - Costs = Profit. Three levers for you to work with.

Which does not equal cash banked

[Sproggy]

Interesting. Please inform us how you get away without paying tax

Simple - Don't make any taxable profit.

[Tricky Trevor]

Alan Smiths review of our transfer window. a C.

“I thought they would have done more this summer, while Jay Rodriguez returns to his old haunt. If he can link up with Ashley Barnes and Chris Wood in attack, it will give them a launching pad. But it does not seem to me that they will be a significantly better outfit after the window, although they will be pleased to get the Danny Drinkwater loan done.l

[Sproggy]

Which does not equal cash banked

Indeed not. But we could increase revenue (on wages) and make less money if we wanted to. I'm not arguing that we should, I'm arguing that we could if we wanted to.

[aggi]

Interesting. Please inform us how you get away without paying tax

If you don't make any taxable profit you don't pay corporation tax on it.

Are you saying that we would still have had an £8.5m tax bill if we'd bumped up our salaries and made a zero profit?

[dpinsussex]

Indeed not. But we could increase revenue (on wages) and make less money if we wanted to. I'm not arguing that we should, I'm arguing that we could if we wanted to.

Not sure we would want to though. We have a business model that is prudent (sensible) and protects the longevity of our club.

[jtv]

Simple - Don't make any taxable profit.

So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?

[aggi]

Spice has referred to the lack of interest in Mooy and it was the same with Billing, no one other than Bournemouth.

There were quite a few rumours going around but who knows how many of them were actually serious interest. I imagine his second half of the season and the falling out with the manager put a few clubs off. He suits Bournemouth's transfer strategy of buying young, promising players who may develop but it's probably a riskier signing than many.

I would have liked us to sign him but understand why we didn't.

[Sproggy]

So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?

Depends what we spend the money on.

[tim_noone]

So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?

To qualify for dhss I'd say the second has it's benefits...

[ClaretTony]

There were quite a few rumours going around but who knows how many of them were actually serious interest. I imagine his second half of the season and the falling out with the manager put a few clubs off. He suits Bournemouth's transfer strategy of buying young, promising players who may develop but it's probably a riskier signing than many.

I would have liked us to sign him but understand why we didn't.

Billing was clearly at the centre of a lot of the problems at Huddersfield. Not necessarily his doing though.

[Down_Rover]

If you don't make any taxable profit you don't pay corporation tax on it.

Are you saying that we would still have had an £8.5m tax bill if we'd bumped up our salaries and made a zero profit?

Do you spend all the money you get straight away?

[jtv]

Depends what we spend the money on.

Not spending the money means that it is there for a rainy day. So what do you suggest spending the money on - umbrellas?

[Devils_Advocate]

If you managed to spend the money on players like Tarks, David Brookes, Harry Maguire, Callum Wilson, then you'd potentially have a lot better team and assets worth far more than the cash in the bank.

Like others not suggesting this should be done or that it is easy just to spot players who are gonna excel and grow in value but spending money on players and their wages doesn't automatically equate to being skint and in debt.

[TVC15]

If you managed to spend the money on players like Tarks, David Brookes, Harry Maguire, Callum Wilson, then you'd potentially have a lot better team and assets worth far more than the cash in the bank.

Like others not suggesting this should be done or that it is easy just to spot players who are gonna excel and grow in value but spending money on players and their wages doesn't automatically equate to being skint and in debt.

So just buy the good players where their value will increase and you can sell them for several millions more than you bought them ?
Right got it...easy peasy.
Nice one Captain Obvious

[Devils_Advocate]

So just buy the good players where their value will increase and you can sell them for several millions more than you bought them ?
Right got it...easy peasy.
Nice one Captain Obvious

Kinda feels you really didn't understand the gist of my post captain dimwit but dont you worry

[Paul Waine]

We made ~ £45m profit last year. That's roughly equivalent to an extra eight players earning £100k a week.

We'd end up like Bury if we pay wages based on one or two (net) transfer windfalls. I'm with other posters, budget for wages needs to reflect "steady state" repeatable revenues and not gamble on repeating any one off gains.

Report in The Times suggests we negotiated brilliantly to get Danny Drinkwater on loan: £110k per week wages, Chelsea pay half, no mention of a loan fee.

That's maybe why we've only got DD for half a season. Something like: "you are paying this guy £110k and not using him." "We will pay half his wage and put him in the window... if he does well, maybe someone will buy him in Jan... now, isn't that a great deal for you, Frank/Chelsea?"

Maybe if we'd paid full wages, we'd have got DD for full season - and also had to pay Chelsea a fee...

UTC - especially if this proves half true!

[Paul Waine]

So:
profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 36m

profit before tax = 0m, profit after tax = 0m

Which is the better option?

I've got another thought on this, vote Boris and we may end up with profit before tax = 45m, profit after tax = 45m.... - plans to reduce the rate of CT (corporation tax, not one of our fellow posters) to 17% is a step in that direction....

Apologies for bringing politics into this transfer thread.

[TVC15]

Kinda feels you really didn't understand the gist of my post captain dimwit but dont you worry

Kinda feel you were trying to be clever about a balance sheet when the issue is around operating costs.
Kinda a feel you ain’t got a clue what the difference would be anyway.

But yep you still did basically say buy good players cheap and their increase in value will mean you have got saleable assets and a strong balance sheet when their value goes up - eh go figure
....that’s the same level of wisdom as score more goals than the opposition and you should be fine.

Carry on Captain Pr-ick.

[Devils_Advocate]

Kinda feel you were trying to be clever about a balance sheet when the issue is around operating costs.
Kinda a feel you ain’t got a clue what the difference would be anyway.

But yep you still did basically say buy good players cheap and their increase in value will mean you have got saleable assets and a strong balance sheet when their value goes up - eh go figure
....that’s the same level of wisdom as score more goals than the opposition and you should be fine.

Carry on Captain Pr-ick.

I was right you didn't understand the gist of my post at all.

Also im sorry if my little jibe about your silly post earlier today got under your skin a bit.

You shouldn't take things quite so personally but I really didn't mean any harm so no hard feelings Captain Snowflake

[TVC15]

I was right you didn't understand the gist of my post at all.

Also im sorry if my little jibe about your silly post earlier today got under your skin a bit.

You shouldn't take things quite so personally but I really didn't mean any harm so no hard feelings Captain Snowflake

Aye because saying Michael Keane wasn’t a bad loan signing on a thread set up to discuss the success of our loan signings constitutes a “silly post” and your pathetic comment about it being obvious.
Eh but if you feel the need to be an obnoxious pr-ick on every thread and live up to your ridiculous username you fill your boots.

Getting back to the point were you being “devils advocate” in your lack of understanding of how finances work ? Or was that you just being a dumb f-uck ?

[Devils_Advocate]

Aye because saying Michael Keane wasn’t a bad loan signing on a thread set up to discuss the success of our loan signings constitutes a “silly post” and your pathetic comment about it being obvious.
Eh but if you feel the need to be an obnoxious pr-ick on every thread and live up to your ridiculous username you fill your boots.

Getting back to the point were you being “devils advocate” in your lack of understanding of how finances work ? Or was that you just being a dumb f-uck ?

There's only one person being obnoxious and thats the angry man who bickers with everyone on here.

I'll give you a simple summary of what my post was about and then I'll leave you to carry on with your name calling until your next squabble comes along

Page105

Post 21 JVT posed a question
Post 23 Sproggy responded
Post 27 JVT didn't seem to understand Post 23 and made some ludicrous point about umbrellas

My post was just in support of Post 23 that which is preferable out of spending money or keeping it in the bank depends on how you spend the money - simple as that.

My post gave no opinion on what I thought was best and made no suggestion on how easy or difficult something was to do which I purposely included to hopefully stop people misinterpreting my post like you have done

Well done you've got several posts out of me but you can go argue with yourself now till the next sucker comes along

[LaLigaClaret]

So JayRod was a great signing for us. Pieters very solid so no concerns there. Heaton going a massive blow but in the circumstances he had to go but the amount was a little too low. Bailey PF however makes me nervous as he made a number of significant howlers last year but hey Sean Dyche is happy enough. DD might be really great for us but then again he might struggle to play regularly and he is only hear for 6 months. I didn't understand why we loaned out Wells when he will leave next year on a free when Swansea allegedly made a cash bid for him. Vydra being unhappy and requesting a transfer means we will need to get shot and replace him but will likely make a loss on him. Defour is another issue. Hendrick may not get or sign another contract.

We did get the Heaton money, the Ings sell on bonus and didn't spend the Vokes money. Given we were allegedly making bids on Kalvin Phillips we must have had money we didn't spend that we could have. All in all the club probably did enough in this window but there is another issue no-one else seems to have considered. Tarks remains with us but what if there is a selling clause in his contract and a foreign teams meets it as their windows aren't closed yet ? We will have a lot of cash but a possible problem at CB if he goes. is this why we didn't sell Kevin Long as he is also clearly wanting a move. January will be very interesting for the club.

[Burnleyareback2]

Can this thread just be deleted now?

[TVC15]

There's only one person being obnoxious and thats the angry man who bickers with everyone on here.

I'll give you a simple summary of what my post was about and then I'll leave you to carry on with your name calling until your next squabble comes along

Page105

Post 21 JVT posed a question
Post 23 Sproggy responded
Post 27 JVT didn't seem to understand Post 23 and made some ludicrous point about umbrellas

My post was just in support of Post 23 that which is preferable out of spending money or keeping it in the bank depends on how you spend the money - simple as that.

My post gave no opinion on what I thought was best and made no suggestion on how easy or difficult something was to do which I purposely included to hopefully stop people misinterpreting my post like you have done

Well done you've got several posts out of me but you can go argue with yourself now till the next sucker comes along

Hilarious - you sound like Wrongo...well done

So just to check - spend your cash on players who are going to soar in value ? - that really is a super alternative to keeping it in the bank...genius in fact.
I’m gonna adopt a similar strategy and spend my cash on winning the lottery.
And you called me Captain Obvious !

Just to explain it to you so you understand.
We are not keeping money in the bank to improve the assets on our balance sheet per se. It’s a risk mitigation strategy against what might happen in the future. It’s not an alternative strategy to mitigate that risk to spend money on players in the hope that they increase in value - because you don’t know that they will - so no it doesn’t depend on how you spend that money. Burnley are choosing to build up their reserves ana maintain cash in the bank because they know the outcome.
They won’t know the outcome if they spend it on players - you listing players who have increased in value and saying it depends on what you spend the money on is irrelevant - but actually quite funny.
You trying to defend it and saying I don’t understand your point is even funnier

[Blyclaret]

Window closed
And still the childish bickering goes on
What does that tell you.

[bobinho]

I’m quite interested in hearing how and why Kevin Long wants to leave. Seems like I missed summat here. Entirely possible, I miss loads these days.

Anyway, Tarks off to foreign lands means the very capable Ben Gibson plays. Hey! That must be what all this “strength in depth” means....

So. We go again. Buzzin.

[jdrobbo]

Why is it often the default setting of humans to always try and have the last say, and with it, more often than not purposely use insults to make them feel better (because someone didn’t agree with them)?

This is a thread merely about transfers in and out of the club, where people are asked to provide evidence for the news they report.

Reading grown adults resort to childish bickering and quite literally, over countless pages, just go round in circles, is not a good sight. Please just stop it: it’s not healthy discussion and it genuinely puts many good posters off from contributing to what are good and well-established threads.

Thank you.

UTC

[MACCA]

Why is it often the default setting of humans to always try and have the last say

Not sure but it isn't half annoying, often making a nothing point, just so they've had the last word...