The team we have sold

[BleedingClaret]

Yes I understand your concerns. Ultimately the point I’m making is that really we don’t belong in the Premier League. We are just not big enough.

Agreed that we don’t
But we only avoid a financial disaster by getting back there and either repeating the up and down a few more times or by staying in there for a 2 or 3 year block
We’ll head for League 1 and beyond if not because we can’t handle the current debt in the Championship

[BleedingClaret]

Yes I understand your concerns. Ultimately the point I’m making is that really we don’t belong in the Premier League. We are just not big enough.

We’re not a big enough club or town for their financial model to work
They’re trying to do a Glazier

[CoolClaret]

Agreed that we don’t
But we only avoid a financial disaster by getting back there and either repeating the up and down a few more times or by staying in there for a 2 or 3 year block
We’ll head for League 1 and beyond if not because we can’t handle the current debt in the Championship

Literally this is it.

I don't think any Claret is expecting to be a perennial PL competitor but with our recent success, we simply have to be able to spend consecutive seasons in there once in a while or we will return to midtable champ fodder, waiting for another minor miracle (Coyle promo, Dyche).

[aggi]

It's in the accounts. £70 million of bank loans and £ 70 million of trade creditors, various factoring and then a sum of £50 million, which is probably TV broadcast revenue taken early probably to fund some of the the £100 million spend last summer so it's possible that we have paid off that figure with broadcast revenue subsequently received.

To repeat, I am not saying there is an issue if we get back into the PL but the board have to be cautious and with a loss of broadcast revenue of £50 million they need to sell players both to reduce the debt and to get the salary figure down.

It is always going to be a challenging balancing act if you get relegated because the consequences of relegation are so severe.

You've got that bit backwards. That's TV money, season tickets, etc where we've received the money early but it relates to the next season. The club effectively owes that money to itself in the future.

[criminalclaret]

And we went straight back up after all the Dyche relegations once under Kompany
If we don’t go up now then we go into financial meltdown
The way we turned out on Saturday doesn’t get us back up
I understand that
And I say it again
We have made money on player sales
Simple buying and selling
Besides Odobert
The others after the buying loan interest
Refinancing loans to pay loans interest on interest Wages money back to the original selling club Factoring (Bridging loans) incurring interest on the selling fee for liquidity
Players bought not good enough to stay in the EPL purpose they were bought for and paid
So loss of EPL revenue 60mil first year?
TV revenue 40m compared to EFL
That’s 100m
We are not making money
What don’t you understand
Some loans are secured on the Turf
What don’t you understand
I understand we had no choice to sell
But at this level for immediate survival
Avoidance of FFP fines and points deduction but in the mid to long term it looks like disaster
Do you understand my concerns

A poor's man John Cooper Clarke

[BleedingClaret]

A poor's man John Cooper Clarke

It’s being a rich man’s play thing that I’m struggling with

[criminalclaret]

Plenty of protests every seasons against your Oystens, Venkys, Glazers. You'll more than likely find fans who object against their board than support them.

Do I agree with everything ALK do? No. Do I think they are doing a decent enough job in comparison to other club boards? Absolutely`

If you want to go back to the days of bucket waving outside the turf to pay wages, be my guest. I certainly don't

[BleedingClaret]

Plenty of protests every seasons against your Oystens, Venkys, Glazers. You'll more than likely find fans who object against their board than support them.

Do I agree with everything ALK do? No. Do I think they are doing a decent enough job in comparison to other club boards? Absolutely`

If you want to go back to the days of bucket waving outside the turf to pay wages, be my guest. I certainly don't

They are, ironically, basically just gambling

If it goes wrong, we won’t have a ground to hold collection buckets outside

[CoolClaret]

Plenty of protests every seasons against your Oystens, Venkys, Glazers. You'll more than likely find fans who object against their board than support them.

Do I agree with everything ALK do? No. Do I think they are doing a decent enough job in comparison to other club boards? Absolutely`

If you want to go back to the days of bucket waving outside the turf to pay wages, be my guest. I certainly don't

I can't work out why people reduce things to a false dichotomy of two choices.

[dsr]

Plenty of protests every seasons against your Oystens, Venkys, Glazers. You'll more than likely find fans who object against their board than support them.

Do I agree with everything ALK do? No. Do I think they are doing a decent enough job in comparison to other club boards? Absolutely`

If you want to go back to the days of bucket waving outside the turf to pay wages, be my guest. I certainly don't

You certainly didn't catch the Oystons taking £125m out of Blackpool. In that sense, ALK have done ten times the job the Oystons did.

If the question is "have ALK done as bad a job as the Oystons", my answer would be "not yet".

[criminalclaret]

If the profits of the players sold get reinvested into the club for future prospects, then what is the issue?

[criminalclaret]

I can't work out why people reduce things to a false dichotomy of two choices.

I can't work out why people are shocked that in order to survive as a football club you either

a) need to be in the PL earning the mullah
b) have a rich benefactor

Failing that, you need

c) buy players, develop them, sell them for a profit and repeat the circle.

We don't have a or b, we are doing the sustainable thing which is c.

[CoolClaret]

I can't work out why people are shocked that in order to survive as a football club you either

a) need to be in the PL earning the mullah
b) have a rich benefactor

Failing that, you need

c) buy players, develop them, sell them for a profit and repeat the circle.

We don't have a or b, we are doing the sustainable thing which is c.

I think taking (relatively high-interest) loans out to buy players using the club and its infrastructure as collateral and refreshing large swathes of the starting XI every year is anything but sustainable.

Again, there are more options than you're suggesting.

[criminalclaret]

Again, there are more options than you're suggesting.

Which are?

Every promotion and relegation team will require a squad change in any football club in the world. This season has been no different to ourselves in 22 or other clubs experiencing relegation (Southampton 23)

[dsr]

I can't work out why people are shocked that in order to survive as a football club you either

a) need to be in the PL earning the mullah
b) have a rich benefactor

Failing that, you need

c) buy players, develop them, sell them for a profit and repeat the circle.

We don't have a or b, we are doing the sustainable thing which is c.

If you are obliged to pay in the region of £10m to the owners direct or to service loans taken out for the owners' benefit, then you need PL money now and then. There is no way a Championhip side can be competitive with tens of millions of loans to service @ 10%+ interest.

[CoolClaret]

Which are?

Every promotion and relegation team will require a squad change in any football club in the world. This season has been no different to ourselves in 22 or other clubs experiencing relegation (Southampton 23)

22 is entirely different given the amount of players we had OOC and how we didn't have the same levels of outstanding fees on transfers - the only debt we had was from the leveraged buyout.

Why did Southampton have to go through such a drastic change? Is it because they too tried to outsmart the market with their criticised transfer strategy?

No clubs in world football have had (relative) success with constant upheaval. At times novel ideas or looking outside the box can be great, but often what you find is that in certain industries, there are basically unwritten rules for a reason.

[criminalclaret]

Why did Southampton have to go through such a drastic change? Is it because they too tried to outsmart the market with their criticised transfer strategy?

Upon relegation, they sold their 3 best players for just over €130m and bought in replacements.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-sout ... on_id/2023

[criminalclaret]

We have likewise sold 3 of our best, two squad players (Zaroury and Muric) as well a from a fringe player (Twine) all for profit, and rid of either OOC or youth that will never make the current squad this season.

We are following the path of every other relegated team

[CoolClaret]

Upon relegation, they sold their 3 best players for just over €130m and bought in replacements.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-sout ... on_id/2023

Ok and before they turned their transfer strategy to basically buy any good young talent in Europe and try and sell on for big money, they were a top 14 PL side and even had a finish as high as sixth one season!

As with most things, a balance is key.

[taio]

22 is entirely different given the amount of players we had OOC and how we didn't have the same levels of outstanding fees on transfers - the only debt we had was from the leveraged buyout.

Why did Southampton have to go through such a drastic change? Is it because they too tried to outsmart the market with their criticised transfer strategy?

No clubs in world football have had (relative) success with constant upheaval. At times novel ideas or looking outside the box can be great, but often what you find is that in certain industries, there are basically unwritten rules for a reason.

You are correctly referring to the root cause of the club's challenges i.e. the leveraged buy-out, which is profoundly different from many other relegated clubs and was a major concern of many supporters from day one.

[Longsidejono]

Only annoying thing is that it comes so late even if we gain another 5 players getting them to gel together is a different story and they are coming in as players to ‘rescue’ us so they already have more pressure

Kinda feel like tresor has the right style doesn’t want to be here waiting for a move so don’t be involved muric straight out

On a positive side hopefully we can go back to having a solid side with a couple of good impact subs not having wasted talent on the bench or not involved…benson fully committed is like a new signing if it can happen don’t see how going to Leeds would benefit him especially behind gnonto and James

[scouseclaret]

We have likewise sold 3 of our best, two squad players (Zaroury and Muric) as well a from a fringe player (Twine) all for profit, and rid of either OOC or youth that will never make the current squad this season.

We are following the path of every other relegated team

Fine if it stops there but if we sell any of Koleosho, Amdouni or Brownhill it becomes ever more worrying

[criminalclaret]

Fine if it stops there but if we sell any of Koleosho, Amdouni or Brownhill it becomes ever more worrying

I'll agree with you there.

I said in the other thread where some posters we're talking all "Billy Big Balls" about who was going to "stop the burnley machine" that we needed to get to the other side of the international break to see what the transfer window had unfolded and the new team had settled. Others laughed at me.

I'd like to extend that to October now. This window was always going to have some serious outgoings and bar O'Shea to Ipswich rather than a "bigger" club, all of the big players are expected and we have made profit from.

[ClaretPete001]

You've got that bit backwards. That's TV money, season tickets, etc where we've received the money early but it relates to the next season. The club effectively owes that money to itself in the future.

I don't think so. I may have written it badly but....!

'That's TV money, season tickets, etc where we've received the money early' - that is what I intended to say!

'The club effectively owes that money to itself in the future. ' - I don't think the club literally owes money to itself so you'd need to clarify that point.

[aggi]

.

[aggi]

I don't think so. I may have written it badly but....!

'That's TV money, season tickets, etc where we've received the money early' - that is what I intended to say!

'The club effectively owes that money to itself in the future. ' - I don't think the club literally owes money to itself so you'd need to clarify that point.

Maybe just different phrasing.

It isn't money that has been taken early by factoring or anything, it is just by how timing works out (e.g. season tickets are sold before the season starts).

The creditor isn't owed to any third party, it's an accounting adjustment moving money from one year to another. It doesn't need to be "paid off".