Q and A with Alan Pace tonight

[SalisburyClaret]

Surely it's pretty damn obvious to everyone now why Dyche was sacked..... to give the club the best chance at PL survival.

Sorry but if that was true then it would have been sometime before or immediately after the Norwich game and then they’d have put their contingency plan into place - unfortunately they didn’t have one.

[KRBFC]

The easy decision would've been to accept Dyche and accept relegation, just out of sentiment alone.

I'm glad Mr Pace didn't just accept defeat and go with the easy popular decision (I'm not sure how keeping Dyche and accepting relegation was even popular amongst the fan base either, proper lack of ambition from the fans)

[ClaretPete001]

So you think Pace should've waited to sack Dyche until he had a plan in place? we couldn't afford to wait and let Dyche waste further games.

It's not what I think - I didn't make the comment.

The point was, in most organisations a plan would be in place but you can address that to the original poster if you don't think that is the case.

[bfcmatt]

The thought crossed my mind that the club ringing supporters and asking why they haven't renewed their season tickets, as to what reasons they got. Did fans bemoan the style of football and use it as a reason for not re-newing. Would loosing fan revenue be reason enough to sack Sean and his team?

[RVclaret]

Again you've cherry picked what you want to respond to and not made not much sense.

So, he decided that based on one game? His risk assessment and approach to due diligence "cooled" on an away defeat to Norwich?

And question 2 because question 1 is also dependent upon question 2. What is your view on that...?

The OP made reference to Pace suggesting interested cooled until the summer. I mean, it makes sense really. We were utterly awful at Norwich, losing to the bottom of the league and that entire weekend all our rivals won. So it wouldn’t really be a surprise for any interest to cool and wait until they see what league we are in.

Also Palace received an investment of near £100m last summer for a club which is probably ‘valued’ not too far away from ours.

[claretandy]

A £100m business deal, cooled on 1 result.

Seems legit. Seems like the type of people you want to be working with.

Thoughts and prayers with you at this difficult time...

[SalisburyClaret]

The level of performance from Dyche over the last 2 years would have seen him sacked in most companies. I would be genuinely intrigued as to how many fans who consistently backed Dyche over the last 2 years, would back an employee, as an owner of a business, who hadn’t performed in his role for 2 years and was unwilling to adapt when questioned?

Wouldn’t disagree. The knowledge that he’d been so good previously obviously bought him a lot of goodwill.

[Sleeping Cat]

"Said he is looking at buying a club abroad to help with youth development within the club and talks are ongoing"

Maybe focus on completing the buyout of this club first before going to buy another one.

[KRBFC]

Sorry but if that was true then it would have been sometime before or immediately after the Norwich game and then they’d have put their contingency plan into place - unfortunately they didn’t have one.

He was sacked after the Norwich game and we've seen a bounce that's given us a real shot in the arm, not sure what you're complaining about. Pace said himself he didn't expect to have to sack Dyche so why would he have a long term plan? He's had to formulate a long term plan since the decision to fire Dyche was made, his plan has likely changed given the results under MJ, he'll probably allow MJ to take the Wolves game now and see if we can continue riding this wave. Quick decisive decisions often have a vision in football, typically a vision to improve results, then the interview process starts.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thoughts and prayers with you at this difficult time...

I mean, its ******** that someone cooled on a £100 million investment because of one football match

I assume the most charitable way of looking at it is that is is conditional on us remaining in the premier league, and the Norwich result made that look fairly unlikely

[SalisburyClaret]

He was sacked after the Norwich game and we've seen a bounce that's given us a real shot in the arm, not sure what you're complaining about. Pace said himself he didn't expect to have to sack Dyche so why would he have a long term plan? He's had to formulate a long term plan since the decision to fire Dyche was made, his plan has likely changed given the results under MJ, he'll probably allow MJ to take the Wolves game now and see if we can continue riding this wave. Quick decisive decisions often have a vision in football, typically a vision to improve results, then the interview process starts.

‘Why would he have a long term plan?’

Really?

[ClaretPete001]

The OP made reference to Pace suggesting interested cooled until the summer. I mean, it makes sense really. We were utterly awful at Norwich, losing to the bottom of the league and that entire weekend all our rivals won. So it wouldn’t really be a surprise for any interest to cool and wait until they see what league we are in.

Also Palace received an investment of near £100m last summer for a club which is probably ‘valued’ not too far away from ours.

That's the difference in how we think: I don't believe any investor "cools" a £100 million investment decision based upon one result.

And as far as I understand it the £80 - £90 million pound purchased almost 20 per cent of Palace close to a controlling stake, which values the club much higher than Burnley because it is a London club and the money is going to be used to increase the capacity of the stadium, which grows the value of the business.

It makes sense.

On the other hand I have to believe that Mr Pace has been in China trying to sell a 50 per cent stake in our club, which all fell apart because we lost away to Norwich.

Come on RV. I offer a consistent perspective and you offer a different one. I don't question your right to have a view.

[Sleeping Cat]

Totally agree with this. The alternative was to head back down the leagues anyway and just accept that we can’t compete, we are Burnley, without even wanting to try to compete. Sorry, that’s not what i support Burnley to do. I support Burnley because I dream that one day my hometown team can win something. Is it unlikely? Yes. Am I more likely to be disappointed? Yes. But I’d rather have a proactive board who want to try to broaden our horizons than one who is just happy to sit on the small town club little Burnley and operate within that comfort zone.

Interesting to suggest we were heading back down the leagues with previous board when in reality we had just achieved our 5th consecutive season in the top flight for the first time in over 40 years.

Also interesting to suggest the previous board operated in a comfort zone when we finished 7th and qualified for European competition for the first time in over 50 year.

Nothing against ALK personally, couldn't care where they are from or what religion they are, but I don't like the way ALK bought the club, a deal that could prove financially catastrophic if we are relegated and could result in us actually heading back down the leagues.

[Burnley1989]

Sorry, it's nonsense this. Those of us who have problems with Pace/ALK would love to be wrong and only want the best for the football club. I enjoyed last night as much as anyone who thinks Pace is great.

Someone said above, we have no control over it so why not give them a chance? By the same token, we have no control over it so why does it matter if we don't trust them?

But there’s a saying “Don’t worry about things you can’t control”

[RVclaret]

That's the difference in how we think: I don't believe any investor "cools" a £100 million investment decision based upon one result.

And as far as I understand it the £80 - £90 million pound purchased almost 20 per cent of Palace close to a controlling stake, which values the club much higher than Burnley because it is a London club and the money is going to be used to increase the capacity of the stadium, which grows the value of the business.

It makes sense.

On the other hand I have to believe that Mr Pace has been in China trying to sell a 50 per cent stake in our club, which all fell apart because we lost away to Norwich.

Come on RV. I offer a consistent perspective and you offer a different one. I don't question your right to have a view.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tball-club

This recent Bloomberg article suggests he has a 40% stake in Palace.

Again, your wording is key - making it sound like there was a deal literally ready to process and one bad result meant it’s not happening. Obviously that would be incredibly naive to believe. But what I could believe is there is ‘interest’ from a known associate of AP and perhaps a deal was always more likely in the summer, should we stay up. Perhaps after the Norwich game looked to have us almost down the potential investor said ‘let’s leave it till the summer’.

Who knows, but it’s a step in the right direction if it’s true.

[clarethomer]

Indeed but you are contributing to the toxic nature of the debate.

According to the OP it was Mr Pace himself who mentioned China and linked it to the Dyche sacking.

You would have to be financially illiterate not to question the truth of a businessman willing to invest a £100 million and then "cooling" after one game. Coincidentally, the game after which the manager was sacked.

Either the OP is talking nonsense or Mr Pace is...!

It's not my intention to be contribution to the toxicity and I appreciate that the way we all read others comments can be mis-understood in tone etc.

You won't see me on here calling the owners out but I accept by the nature of me calling those out that are would probably suggest that I am therefore on the other side of the fence which I am not.

I don't see things in a black and white nature by my character and I deal with complexity and ambiguity a lot in my job so have an appreciation that when things happen - things rarely happen because of one specific thing and/or the reason people think. There are usually lots of contributing factors and events that happen and lead to where you are at.

So as an example - you can quote all the things that you believe has led to the decision to sack. You can be factual as you have said above in that Alan has said certain things about an investment from China in a Q&A based on what we have been told etc. That may have been a contributing factor and part of his decision - it doesn't make his reason of results not being good enough wrong though. It is ultimately the reason for it and a nice simple way to explain it in a statement.

It is therefore not as contradictory as people may try to make out.

He wouldn't come out in a press release and say - I have got rid because SD has specifically cost us £100m with his performances on the field and you know what, I am also not happy with the fact that I am getting players coming to me about the situation either. The performance SD has delivered is meaning that these things have happened as a result.

For the record, I don't know if, or what the detail behind the reason he has sacked him but ultimately if we were sat comfortably higher up the table, had won more games etc - I don't think he would have been sacked is my guess. So his performance being a reason for sacking makes perfect sense if you can accept that Alan wouldn't have made this decision without good reason and that he is trying to make us a successful club by making the decisions that many on here couldn't and wouldn't make.

You also have to remember that this information about China has come out of a conversation that was done verbally. What people say isn't always what people hear.

You therefore have something that is paraphrased and an example of someone who was recalling additional detail after the initial post. Not a criticism or a question on the validity of what has been said but you need to be very careful that what has been heard, wasn't exactly what was said or could be missing some context of the wider conversation.

I think whilst it is insightful to read what has been said - its like a feeding frenzy of trying to pick apart things that have come second hand. It really is bizarre.

I accept some people have to see things in black and white and will naturally draw conclusions as we all do but sometimes we just need to remember and keep the context that;

- Garlic wanted out and wasn't spending any money.
- SD hasn't performed this year - and this doesn't mean anyone is ignorant of the fact of what he has delivered for the club.
- ALK haven't done anything since coming in that has really had any impact on us a fans that I can see that would be viewed as negative/adversely affecting me as a fan.

Everything that frustrates me are where we talk about things that are simply opinion and assumptions - which is fine but if you are going to get to the point of anger over our ownership where we are calling people out by their religion, nationality etc I think that goes too far at times and the desire to prove an unprovable point between posters brings the quality and enjoyment of this message board down at times.

I don't post that often these days in comparison as I genuinely feel at times that it's not useful, helpful or worth engaging with. I accept message boards can be like this and it's probably me not taking them for what they are but it would be good if we tone down the extremes in conversations at times. In the main this board works well and good conversations/challenge/discussion takes place - its awful though when it becomes to the level of personal attacks.

[KRBFC]

‘Why would he have a long term plan?’

Really?

Why would he? if he didn't anticipate having to sack Dyche? Why would he actively plan to replace a man who he gave a 4 year contract to? He's had to sack Dyche and be reactive.

[ClaretPete001]

It's not my intention to be contribution to the toxicity and I appreciate that the way we all read others comments can be mis-understood in tone etc.

You won't see me on here calling the owners out but I accept by the nature of me calling those out that are would probably suggest that I am therefore on the other side of the fence which I am not.

I don't see things in a black and white nature by my character and I deal with complexity and ambiguity a lot in my job so have an appreciation that when things happen - things rarely happen because of one specific thing and/or the reason people think. There are usually lots of contributing factors and events that happen and lead to where you are at.

So as an example - you can quote all the things that you believe has led to the decision to sack. You can be factual as you have said above in that Alan has said certain things about an investment from China in a Q&A based on what we have been told etc. That may have been a contributing factor and part of his decision - it doesn't make his reason of results not being good enough wrong though. It is ultimately the reason for it and a nice simple way to explain it in a statement.

It is therefore not as contradictory as people may try to make out.

He wouldn't come out in a press release and say - I have got rid because SD has specifically cost us £100m with his performances on the field and you know what, I am also not happy with the fact that I am getting players coming to me about the situation either. The performance SD has delivered is meaning that these things have happened as a result.

For the record, I don't know if, or what the detail behind the reason he has sacked him but ultimately if we were sat comfortably higher up the table, had won more games etc - I don't think he would have been sacked is my guess. So his performance being a reason for sacking makes perfect sense if you can accept that Alan wouldn't have made this decision without good reason and that he is trying to make us a successful club by making the decisions that many on here couldn't and wouldn't make.

You also have to remember that this information about China has come out of a conversation that was done verbally. What people say isn't always what people hear.

You therefore have something that is paraphrased and an example of someone who was recalling additional detail after the initial post. Not a criticism or a question on the validity of what has been said but you need to be very careful that what has been heard, wasn't exactly what was said or could be missing some context of the wider conversation.

I think whilst it is insightful to read what has been said - its like a feeding frenzy of trying to pick apart things that have come second hand. It really is bizarre.

I accept some people have to see things in black and white and will naturally draw conclusions as we all do but sometimes we just need to remember and keep the context that;

- Garlic wanted out and wasn't spending any money.
- SD hasn't performed this year - and this doesn't mean anyone is ignorant of the fact of what he has delivered for the club.
- ALK haven't done anything since coming in that has really had any impact on us a fans that I can see that would be viewed as negative/adversely affecting me as a fan.

Everything that frustrates me are where we talk about things that are simply opinion and assumptions - which is fine but if you are going to get to the point of anger over our ownership where we are calling people out by their religion, nationality etc I think that goes too far at times and the desire to prove an unprovable point between posters brings the quality and enjoyment of this message board down at times.

I don't post that often these days in comparison as I genuinely feel at times that it's not useful, helpful or worth engaging with. I accept message boards can be like this and it's probably me not taking them for what they are but it would be good if we tone down the extremes in conversations at times. In the main this board works well and good conversations/challenge/discussion takes place - its awful though when it becomes to the level of personal attacks.

Firstly, let me say I agree with your comments about religion etc.; however, the point is most comments of the comments are aimed at people who are from Burnley: "Royston Vasey", "little Burnley", "Burnley General hospital" etc.

The OP has recounted what he heard on the night and what are we supposed to do as Burnley fans? He has literally been reported as saying that he has been in China trying to sell a huge stake in the club, which fell apart because we lost at Norwich. Oh and by the way that's not why I sacked Sean Dyche.

I accept the OP may have misheard and I accept it may have been a throwaway comment. I also think others have to respect the right of Burnley fans to wonder whether that was entirely respectful to our former manager and what to make of Mr Pace's comments.

And that's my point. What Mr Pace said my have huge implications for the club and all we get is "Royston Vasey", "Burnley General Hospital" even "Crown Point" gets mentioned and you see that as somehow being about Mr Pace.

Anyway no point falling out I agree with the broader sentiment of your point...

[KRBFC]

Indeed but you are contributing to the toxic nature of the debate.

According to the OP it was Mr Pace himself who mentioned China and linked it to the Dyche sacking.

You would have to be financially illiterate not to question the truth of a businessman willing to invest a £100 million and then "cooling" after one game. Coincidentally, the game after which the manager was sacked.

Either the OP is talking nonsense or Mr Pace is...!

toxic debate is surely making stuff up and putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5. The OP never suggested the decision to sack Dyche was anything to do with a mystery investor.

I think it's pretty obvious why investor talks may have cooled based on a sole result that looked like it was the death of us. The investor isn't gonna be interested in investing £100M if we're in the Championship, is he? common sense.

[Burnley87]

Funniest bit of this thread is someone having a benny on the OP because they didn't post this at half 7. Last thing I'd be thinking about doing if I was at such an event and about to watch a vital Burnley game would be thinking "the only way anyone will believe me is if I post on UTC right now."

Anyway, obvs best to take everything with a pinch of salt. Not sure what's unbelievable about the alleged Chinese interest cooling after Norwich. You only have to look at the reactions of plenty of our own fans who decided we were staying up after Everton but definitely down after Norwich.

Especially when I was being plied with free Peronis, I enjoy being a burnley fan and my enjoyment isn’t typing on a message board while enjoying a return for my substantial investment in the club in advertisement. We all love football but the guy came across well and was really impressed with the team he has assembled to drive the club forward commercially. Who have worked for the biggest clubs in Europe.

[KRBFC]

For reference Pete, here's what the OP said....

''
Went to China to speak about a 100 million pound deal with a business friend who were keen after Everton game but cooled interest after Norwich game and the performance. Said will re assess at the end of the season however he did say this wasn’t related to Dyche sacking''


Your response is..... ''According to the OP it was Mr Pace himself who mentioned China and linked it to the Dyche sacking.''

[Burnley87]

For reference Pete, here's what the OP said....

''
Went to China to speak about a 100 million pound deal with a business friend who were keen after Everton game but cooled interest after Norwich game and the performance. Said will re assess at the end of the season however he did say this wasn’t related to Dyche sacking''


Your response is..... ''According to the OP it was Mr Pace himself who mentioned China and linked it to the Dyche sacking.''

Just to clarify AP did say this had nothing to do with the decision after mentioning the China deal

[ClaretPete001]

For reference Pete, here's what the OP said....

''
Went to China to speak about a 100 million pound deal with a business friend who were keen after Everton game but cooled interest after Norwich game and the performance. Said will re assess at the end of the season however he did say this wasn’t related to Dyche sacking''


Your response is..... ''According to the OP it was Mr Pace himself who mentioned China and linked it to the Dyche sacking.''

He did link the two but he is not stupid.

I have more respect for him than he has for you.

[KRBFC]

He did link the two but he is not stupid.

I have more respect for him than he has for you.

I don't like the finances behind the takeover either, putting words into his mouth and slagging him off for it is just weird though.

[ClaretPete001]

I don't like the finances behind the takeover either, putting words into his mouth and slagging him off for it is just weird though.

I didn't put words into his mouth nor do I slag him off. You are very careless with your arguments as I've already pointed out, with reference to someone else, and very close to trolling.

He linked the two - it's quite clear in the statement. Denying that the Chinese meeting was the reason he sacked Sean Dyche does not preclude the fact that he linked the two. He had to make the denial precisely because the inference was there.

He sacked Sean Dyche because of poor performances that is very clear.

[Quickenthetempo]

I can't believe they give you free Peroni while everyone else has to sup dishwater on the Turf.

[arise_sir_charge]

Those people scoffing that “a £100m deal cooled after one poor result” are totally missing the point. As it happens they are those that are most vociferous about Alan Pace and ALK.

It’s not one result is it, it’s the 30th result of the league season, the majority of which had been negative and saw us staring relegation in the face.

It’s not dissimilar to the betting odds for relegation offered by bookies…..our odds would have tumbled after that game at Norwich.

[daveisaclaret]

But there’s a saying “Don’t worry about things you can’t control”

So nobody needs to worry about other people not liking ALK/Pace then...

[NewClaret]

I assume the most charitable way of looking at it is that is is conditional on us remaining in the premier league, and the Norwich result made that look fairly unlikely

The way I read the OP was exactly that way - that any such deal was dependent on survival and our result/performance cooled the momentum of those conversations. Quite expected really.

But people see what they want to see.

[spt_claret]

I am not so sure on that point Billy

The way people are calling them out and making up stories/conspiracy theories about the sacking. We had won 4 games all season - he was sacked for poor performance. Nope -that can't be it, we are now calling out the owners for being linked to the Chinese state and that its some how China that caused SD to be sacked.

Why can't we just say ALK, Alan, Pace, Owner etc when we refer to them - why is their mormon religion, or the fact that he is American brought into it?

Why would they be so vociferous about them if they didn't have an agenda to want them out, or in reality really wanted to support the success of our club?

Why do fans talk about all of this stuff with absolute certainty that SD would have turned it around or that the decision was wrong. Nobody knows. They are the owners and they have the ultimate responsibility of the club success. There has been nothing that ALK have done that warrants the level of animosity towards them that I can see.

I get some people don't agree, or are cautious towards their approach but that's no reason for some of the things we see written on here.

It's toxic on here at times.

I fully agree that unsubstantiated rumourmonging and as hominem attacks on our owners' religion or nationality are out of order and toxic.
What is also toxic is the attitude from many defending the owners- and going back further, the contingent who pathologically hated Dyche. I've seen people say they'd be glad to see us relegated if it means we play nicer football or pot him, and the bizarre gloating towards people who didn't want him sacked, and the almost damnatio memoriae approach to playing down his achievements and rewriting his tenure as that of a miserable dictator hated by his own team (not to mention the enormous revisionism going on regarding transfer windows and policy) is also toxic.

There's people who attack the owners unfairly and don't give them a chance. There's also people who voice concerns, criticisms or disagreement, put reasoning and evidence forward, set clear criteria and expectations for what would change their mind...and get shouted down by a handful of posters (they know who they are) who refuse to engage with those points and just demand people "give them a chance" and take everything on faith. And if those chances are given and expectations not met, they ask for a do over and to move the goalposts again. There's some people who can't say a positive about ALK. There's some who cannot say even the mildest criticism and defend their every decision zealously or outright aggressively.

As for rumours and conspiracy theories- there are FAR more of those coming from a perspective supporting the decision than not, often from the same posters incapable of criticising ALK. We've had a player mutiny, secret plots to join Everton, Watford and Derby, a punchup on the training ground, and a hooligan pub crawl with Duncan Ferguson, all in a week. And the absence of evidence is treated as proof by some- the idea that because an NDA may be in place it must be to cover up wrongdoing by Dyche to protect his reputation. For what it's worth I'm not inclined to believe the unsubstantiated negative rumours either- "the owners don't get the club says anonymous", dodgy Chinese investment etc. Again I've been consistent on this. Lots of others are believing things when it suits.

Everything is exceptionally toxic and people are believing what they want to believe and more invested in being right, one-upping each other, or cultishly taking one side or the other. We're all supposed to be Burnley fans ffs.

I've made my stance clear and consistent- I didn't want us to chuck Dyche, not out of loyalty but genuine belief he was the best positioned person to keep us up or bounce us back, my (continued) belief that our transfer spend since summer 2020 has put the team on this course, and that the probability of us finding someone better who we could get, was so low versus the probability of a backwards step, that at this time it wouldn't be the right call. But that if we had retained him, been relegated, and he continued to struggle it would be time to go. Likewise, it's too early days to say if the sacking was wise and we'll never know what happened if he'd stayed but if we continue this rally and stay up I will concede that even if it may not have been "the right" decision it was a good one that paid off. I'm not the only one setting such views and concessions out.

As for the board I've been consistent there in not being comfortable with the club being put in significant debt especially versus its liquidity, without that debt going to serve any tangible investment (players, youth setup, scouting or analytics, brand development) that can retain or progress our club's position. I've also been consistent in not being willing to just trust on faith an ownership who have been gutting longterm staff for personal loyalists, and whose prior careers are at high levels of finance in companies with a patchy record at best on ethics, integrity and successfully managing others' money, with little information about their roles beyond the titles. I've never accused or believed there is any wrongdoing,it's simply that if they're coming from an industry environment like Wall Street which anybody can tell you has major issues, they need to earn my trust, they're not afforded it automatically. And given so far many trust earning activities- transfer investment promises, outside funding promises, shareholder buyout promises, purchase repayment schedules- have not been met, my trust level remains low. This can change if they start to deliver on these pledges of funding,on the intention for a Brentford style analytics based transfer setup, on the more unconventional cryptocurrency ideas- and deliver in a way which doesn't compromise the club's identity, endanger stability, or put us in bed with questionable partners. Again, others have said the same.

Meanwhile there are people who make no such concessions, no such willingness to give ground, and no such room for argument, when they defend the owners. You either need to trust their brilliance and be quiet, or you're not worth listening to.

I very much want to be wrong in my concerns. I want us to stay up, improve, grow as a club, fight for Europe again, play better football, and enjoy a successful Premier League team for as long as possible. I want to be able to look back on the Dyche Era and think "that was good, but this is better." Maybe there's some detractors who are just a bit too dug in and would rather be proved right, I think they are the minority. Meanwhile, many of the defenders seem to be so forceful without actually engaging, that it feels like either desperately wishful thinking or like they have no interest in hearing concerns. And if you won't hear concerns you're in for trouble.

This place is toxic. I've been registered for ages and never posted much until January because I often found this a poor forum for communication. The last few months have made me think I should return to non-posting. Also, I think I accidentally liked my own post trying to edit, which furthers that I should probably step away.

[Burnleyareback2]

I could well be wrong but I thought there was a 14 day quarantine period when arriving in China…

[KRBFC]

I've made my stance clear and consistent- I didn't want us to chuck Dyche, not out of loyalty but genuine belief he was the best positioned person to keep us up or bounce us back, my (continued) belief that our transfer spend since summer 2020 has put the team on this course, and that the probability of us finding someone better who we could get, was so low versus the probability of a backwards step, that at this time it wouldn't be the right call. But that if we had retained him, been relegated, and he continued to struggle it would be time to go. Likewise, it's too early days to say if the sacking was wise and we'll never know what happened if he'd stayed but if we continue this rally and stay up I will concede that even if it may not have been "the right" decision it was a good one that paid off. I'm not the only one setting such views and concessions out.

A very good post in the whole, it's become very political like, people can't be objective. I personally never liked the financial model behind the takeover and still don't, I worry where it may lead us too however that doesn't stop me from being objective and being able to offer praise and support for ALK when I believe they've done well/made a correct call.

Same with Dyche, I can recognise his achievements throughout his entire spell here whilst holding the belief we were absolutely toast and sleep walking into probably mid table Championship mediocrity under his watch. I think the Norwich game was enough evidence of that, things weren't suddenly gonna improve after 18 months of poor poor performances. The rumours like a hooligan pub crawl does nothing but attempt to smear his legacy.

I don't agree we need to find someone better than Dyche to be a better side though, I don't think MJ is a better manager than Dyche, he's produced far far better performances in a short spell so far. Seems like anyone but Dyche was required to turn the ship, just a new voice for the players and that's fine without slagging off Dyche.

[spt_claret]

A very good post in the whole, it's become very political like, people can't be objective. I personally never liked the financial model behind the takeover and still don't, I worry where it may lead us too however that doesn't stop me from being objective and being able to offer praise and support for ALK when I believe they've done well/made a correct call.

Same with Dyche, I can recognise his achievements throughout his entire spell here whilst holding the belief we were absolutely toast and sleep walking into probably mid table Championship mediocrity under his watch. I think the Norwich game was enough evidence of that, things weren't suddenly gonna improve after 18 months of poor poor performances. The rumours like a hooligan pub crawl does nothing but attempt to smear his legacy.

I don't agree we need to find someone better than Dyche to be a better side though, I don't think MJ is a better manager than Dyche, he's produced far far better performances in a short spell so far. Seems like anyone but Dyche was required to turn the ship, just a new voice for the players and that's fine without slagging off Dyche.

All very fair points and for what it's worth you aren't on my list of "they know who they are"- I definitely disagree with your conclusions on Dyche (and take your point on righting the ship but ultimately it needs to be as good or better a manager going forward long term) but you're not like some on here and always put your case forward and listen back, if I've ever come across as more than good natured disagreement to you I apologise!

[KRBFC]

All very fair points and for what it's worth you aren't on my list of "they know who they are"- I definitely disagree with your conclusions on Dyche (and take your point on righting the ship but ultimately it needs to be as good or better a manager going forward long term) but you're not like some on here and always put your case forward and listen back, if I've ever come across as more than good natured disagreement to you I apologise!

It's more of a political point scoring forum than football, people would rather make up daft rumours and push agendas rather than healthily debate and talk football objectively.

[Billy Balfour]

I am not so sure on that point Billy

Why can't we just say ALK, Alan, Pace, Owner etc when we refer to them - why is their mormon religion, or the fact that he is American brought into it?

Fair enough, Clarethomer. Their religion and nationality shouldn't come into it.

[Paul Waine]

[quote=spt_claret post_id=1795764

I want to be able to look back on the Dyche Era and think "that was good, but this is better."
[/quote]

Hi spt, I like the way you express it. Shows great respect to Sean Dyche. Gives us all something to look forward to in the "post-SD" years.

UTC

[dsr]

Nationality does come into it. Essentially, in the USA, sports club owners expect to make a profit, and everywhere in the world, investment companies expect to make a profit, and as Pace represents both, then it seems pretty clear that he expects to make a profit. If that's by growing the business and selling it on at a profit, fine. If it's by taking out large fees, salaries and dividends, less fine. But being American is relevant.

[BurnleyPaul]

I'll answer this by asking you three questions:

Question 1: Do you believe there is a business man in China who is prepared to invest a £100 million into the club who then "cools" because we lose away to Norwich?

Question 2: Explain to me how someone could invest a £100 million in a club just bought for £200 million without materially changing the ownership structure of the club?

Question 3: Why is it me asking these questions and not you?

Of course, I'm presuming the OP didn't make this up

1. Think of it as “Am I willing to invest £100 million into a Premier League club which could soon become an EFL Championship Club and thereby lose £100million+ of it’s value?” In this context it makes perfect sense to “cool off” interest after losing to the worst team in the division and looking unlikely to escape the drop. Much more sensible to come back to the table in the summer when the season is finished and we know where we’re playing next season. Think MACRO and not MICRO…

2. Who’s to say that this £100 million investment is a one-off immediate payment? If it was over a much longer period (e.g. 5-10 years) then that makes it more likely that it wouldn’t materially affect the ownership structure as it currently stands.

[Lancasterclaret]

Nationality does come into it. Essentially, in the USA, sports club owners expect to make a profit, and everywhere in the world, investment companies expect to make a profit, and as Pace represents both, then it seems pretty clear that he expects to make a profit. If that's by growing the business and selling it on at a profit, fine. If it's by taking out large fees, salaries and dividends, less fine. But being American is relevant.

Every business does, regardless of nationality

Bringing nationality and religion into it should be a big no no, for very obvious reasons

No arguments

[randomclaret2]

Every business does, regardless of nationality

Bringing nationality and religion into it should be a big no no, for very obvious reasons

No arguments

What if they were Russian ?

[Lancasterclaret]

What if they were Russian ?

If they were Russian, they'd be using the football clubs so that the money that comes out is whiter than white, so essentially that is different from every other nationality, who are in it to make money

Actually, now I think about it, that is still a way of making (clean) money so I don't think it matters

[spt_claret]

Nationality does come into it. Essentially, in the USA, sports club owners expect to make a profit, and everywhere in the world, investment companies expect to make a profit, and as Pace represents both, then it seems pretty clear that he expects to make a profit. If that's by growing the business and selling it on at a profit, fine. If it's by taking out large fees, salaries and dividends, less fine. But being American is relevant.

I would still attribute this more to Wall Street than American status. Wall Street billionaires (or oil billionaires) own lots of American sports clubs, and have an attitude and culture very distinct to pretty much everywhere else in America.
For example, if the owners were old industry billionaires from Detroit, or Silicon Valley disruptive tech gurus, or even some celebrity pulling a Ryan Reynolds buying us for novelty, there would likely be a very different approach beyond pure profit.

[superdimitri]

Can we please eject those that make the moronic prejudice comments from the board?

Nothing wrong with being against the owners but the amount of dross some people come out with blaming their nationality is horrendous.

[Burnley1989]

So nobody needs to worry about other people not liking ALK/Pace then...

I doubt you’d understand to be honest

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Can we please eject those that make the moronic prejudice comments from the board?

Nothing wrong with being against the owners but the amount of dross some people come out with blaming their nationality is horrendous.

Posted before some of the comments both on here and those posted directly to Pace on Twitter about his nationality and religion are a disgrace.

[randomclaret2]

If they were Russian, they'd be using the football clubs so that the money that comes out is whiter than white, so essentially that is different from every other nationality, who are in it to make money

Actually, now I think about it, that is still a way of making (clean) money so I don't think it matters

Does that apply to all Russians ? ...the chap at Bournemouth ?

[dsr]

Every business does, regardless of nationality

Bringing nationality and religion into it should be a big no no, for very obvious reasons

No arguments

That's not true. At least not as far as nationality goes. Bringing religion into it in a reply to me is a complete non-starter because I never mentioned religion.

Do you think Manchester City's owners are in it because they want profits? Newcastle's? Chelsea's? Brighton's? Crystal Palace's? Accrington Stanley's? There are very few professional football clubs who owners are in it for the money, and those owners that are in it for the money tend to be American.

I happen to believe that that's because that is the culture of sports club ownership over there. Do you believe it's coincidence that the owners most in it for profit (Man U, Liverpool, and probably Burnley) tend to be American? I don't think there are many clubs with a loan account where the club owes money to its owners, except in an American-style business model.

[Paul Waine]

That's not true. At least not as far as nationality goes. Bringing religion into it in a reply to me is a complete non-starter because I never mentioned religion.

Do you think Manchester City's owners are in it because they want profits? Newcastle's? Chelsea's? Brighton's? Crystal Palace's? Accrington Stanley's? There are very few professional football clubs who owners are in it for the money, and those owners that are in it for the money tend to be American.

I happen to believe that that's because that is the culture of sports club ownership over there. Do you believe it's coincidence that the owners most in it for profit (Man U, Liverpool, and probably Burnley) tend to be American? I don't think there are many clubs with a loan account where the club owes money to its owners, except in an American-style business model.

Sorry, dar, that's nonsense. Chelsea's sanctioned owner has always been in it for profit. A few years ago, before any mention of sanctions, he was turning down offers to buy the club for £X billion. Burnley's previous owners sold for £X million more than they'd paid for the club. There's nothing about the nationality of a football club's owner that make some more likely to run the club for profit rather than others.

[dsr]

Sorry, dar, that's nonsense. Chelsea's sanctioned owner has always been in it for profit. A few years ago, before any mention of sanctions, he was turning down offers to buy the club for £X billion. Burnley's previous owners sold for £X million more than they'd paid for the club. There's nothing about the nationality of a football club's owner that make some more likely to run the club for profit rather than others.

I'm not sure the fact that Abramovitch has paid £2bn into Chelsea and has turned down profitable offers to sell, really proves that he is in it for the money. Quite the reverse, I would have thought.

But you may be right. It may be just coincidence that the American owners in UK football are the ones most likely to run it on the American profit-for-the-owners model. Or it may not - it may be that American owners (especially American investment companies) are genuinely more iikely to use the American model simply because Americans know the American model best and don't see any reason why they shouldn't use the American model in the UK as well.

[Lancasterclaret]

That's not true. At least not as far as nationality goes. Bringing religion into it in a reply to me is a complete non-starter because I never mentioned religion.

Do you think Manchester City's owners are in it because they want profits? Newcastle's? Chelsea's? Brighton's? Crystal Palace's? Accrington Stanley's? There are very few professional football clubs who owners are in it for the money, and those owners that are in it for the money tend to be American.

I happen to believe that that's because that is the culture of sports club ownership over there. Do you believe it's coincidence that the owners most in it for profit (Man U, Liverpool, and probably Burnley) tend to be American? I don't think there are many clubs with a loan account where the club owes money to its owners, except in an American-style business model.

Hmm, I guess that depends on where the "profit" is and how you define it

Those clubs that are now essentially sports washing projects for various Middle East dictatorships are doing this is showcase their countries, stimulating investment and tourism. That counts surely?

I have to be really careful what I say about clubs run by Russians, but if you put £3 billion of money that has dubious origins in to a club to make £1.5 billion of clean as a whistle money, then I reckon they work out it is worth it.

Don't you?