Brightons rise to establish a very good team

[Woodleyclaret]

Well done to any side we beat Manure but let's have context. The various managers have has Blooms millions at their disposal and Potter aside have used money wisely not least in realising Danny Welbeck is still a force in the Premier league.They have a very strong recruitment team with money from sales good.The bottom line is that to even exist at Premier league
standard you need serious cash every year .We need new investors when we go up in May to avoid the mistakes of underfunding again.

[Dark Cloud]

Brighton are traditionally pretty unpopular amongst many of our fans for a variety of reasons, but you can't deny the fact that a while back they were in a similar position to us in 1987. They had no ground, no "history", no money and no future and some people down there wouldn't let the club die. Fair play to those people and the work they put in and yes people like Bloom came along later and seriously boosted everything, but for quite some time the club were staring into the abyss.

[Plissken]

They owe their owner £300mn. Which is an improvement on last year, where they owed him £400mn.

They've been smart and done well, absolutely. They went through a phase of making big money on excellent transfers that seems to have ended (as it always does - asked Southampton, or... us.) But let's not pretend that they've done it on a shoestring. They are the model for other clubs to follow.. if your owner has half a billion quid to spare.

Same with Bournemouth. First a Russian billionaire, now owned by a pretty ruthless US billionaire who will spend anything to win.

This isn't jealousy or moaning. It's the reality of the Premier League. As I said in the vlog, if Clarets sold every seat in every stand at the Turf for every Championship game this season at a price of £50 each, that would still be less than Haalands new yearly salary.

[GetIntoEm]

Brighton get a lot of attention, but as pointed out above they've been massively bank rolled. Not many clubs or owners can afford to run a club like that.

[LincsWoldsClaret]

All about money - successful but soulless and without a stadium in Brighton

[Papabendi]

They owe their owner £300mn. Which is an improvement on last year, where they owed him £400mn.

They've been smart and done well, absolutely. They went through a phase of making big money on excellent transfers that seems to have ended (as it always does - asked Southampton, or... us.) But let's not pretend that they've done it on a shoestring. They are the model for other clubs to follow.. if your owner has half a billion quid to spare.

Same with Bournemouth. First a Russian billionaire, now owned by a pretty ruthless US billionaire who will spend anything to win.

This isn't jealousy or moaning. It's the reality of the Premier League. As I said in the vlog, if Clarets sold every seat in every stand at the Turf for every Championship game this season at a price of £50 each, that would still be less than Haalands new yearly salary.

Yet this is the model Pace is working towards. So either its the wrong model or we have the wrong owners.

[Dyched]

They owe their owner £300mn. Which is an improvement on last year, where they owed him £400mn.

They've been smart and done well, absolutely. They went through a phase of making big money on excellent transfers that seems to have ended (as it always does - asked Southampton, or... us.) But let's not pretend that they've done it on a shoestring. They are the model for other clubs to follow.. if your owner has half a billion quid to spare.

Same with Bournemouth. First a Russian billionaire, now owned by a pretty ruthless US billionaire who will spend anything to win.

This isn't jealousy or moaning. It's the reality of the Premier League. As I said in the vlog, if Clarets sold every seat in every stand at the Turf for every Championship game this season at a price of £50 each, that would still be less than Haalands new yearly salary.

What Haaland to do with it?!?

We don’t need to compete with Man City

There’s 78 points available outside of the Top 6 clubs.

[quoonbeatz]

Plastic club.

[NottsClaret]

Being a 'well run club' these days means having someone who'll underwrite a few hundred million in losses. I don't think there's much more to it than that.

[Plissken]

What Haaland to do with it?!?

We don’t need to compete with Man City

There’s 78 points available outside of the Top 6 clubs.

The phrase “it’s the reality of the Premier League” was sitting right there, fella.

[Dark Cloud]

Whilst all of the above is clearly correct, none of it refutes the fact that it's not THAT long ago they were without a ground, without the proverbial pot to urinate in, a basket case of a club and very close for several years to ceasing to exist. At that point some people must have refused to accept the inevitable, wouldn't roll over and battled against the odds to save their club. Those people weren't millionaires or billionaires, but yes, that bit came later!!

[Swizzlestick]

Brentford perhaps a more realistic example of a sustainable club, but Matthew Benham has still put in about £100m.

[NottsClaret]

There's not one well run club in the Prem in a business sense, they all lose fortunes every year.

Accrington Stanley are a well run club, but there's not many fans aspiring to be them. Anyway, fans don't really care if they're 'well run', they just want to win.

[Swizzlestick]

Brentford have been profitable for the last few years which suggests they are well run, but I haven't delved into the accounts in any great detail.

[Spijed]

But as is the case with Leicester City it can go wrong very quickly.

Win the League & F.A. Cup but the new owner doesn't want to put money into the club, likewise with Bolton when they reached their peak under Big Sam.

If the next owners of Brighton, Brentford & Bournemouth feel the same then it's highly unlikely they'd survive in the Prem as they aren't big enough to have a sustainable fan base like the big clubs who help to bring in extra finances through global income.

[Big Vinny K]

Yet this is the model Pace is working towards. So either its the wrong model or we have the wrong owners.

Is it ?
If he’s working towards the Bloom model of running Brighton then he’s going to have to increase his personal stake from around the £10m he’s reported to have put into Burnley to the £500m Bloom subsidised Brighton with.

Brighton doing great now - on and off the field and they have had some unreal successes with the player sales fees recently. Wasn’t always like that though when they’ve been in EPL. For years they were losing minimum £50m a season which Bloom was bankrolling and they were finishing below Burnley under Dyche when we were making a profit every season and had zero debt

[NottsClaret]

I think Brentford are only about £60m in debt at the moment, which is probably the best in that league. Brighton are around £370m in debt.

All good until your generous owner gets bored, needs cash or dies.

[dsr]

Is it ?
If he’s working towards the Bloom model of running Brighton then he’s going to have to increase his personal stake from around the £10m he’s reported to have put into Burnley to the £500m Bloom subsidised Brighton with.

Brighton doing great now - on and off the field and they have had some unreal successes with the player sales fees recently. Wasn’t always like that though when they’ve been in EPL. For years they were losing minimum £50m a season which Bloom was bankrolling and they were finishing below Burnley under Dyche when we were making a profit every season and had zero debt

Pace has put nothing at all into Burnley FC. The £10m or £15m or whatever it was, went to Garlick & friends, not to BFC.

Remember the first £125m he puts in to the club (ha ha) will be repayment of what he has taken out. Only then can he start working towards Bloom's £300m!

[Terrier]

I once put money in a bucket for them outside the turf, after meeting some of their jumped up fans outside their ground I would like my money back.

[ChorltonCharlie]

Always think Brighton aren't the success fairy-tale that's made out because the money Bloom has put in. On the other hand, we showed last year how easy it is to get that spectacularly wrong. It isn't just about money though. Behind the scenes they are very smart and it's that way of working that is behind the progress the club have made. Brentford are very similar, and both do a lot of data driven work to identify players. The problem is everyone is at it now, but they're still the leading clubs at it and the success of Brighton & Brentford alongside Fulham, Bournemouth and Forest (this season) is making it incredibly difficult for the promoted clubs. The basket cases are now some of the biggest clubs, who'll still have enough about them to keep clear of the relegation zone.

[Plissken]

There's not one well run club in the Prem in a business sense, they all lose fortunes every year.

Accrington Stanley are a well run club, but there's not many fans aspiring to be them. Anyway, fans don't really care if they're 'well run', they just want to win.

It was Very Carefully Not Noticed by people in football that after winning just about everything possible and hoovering up as much prize and TV money that they could, as well as increasing sponsorships, hospitality and other revenues by multiples of what came before - Chelsea under Abramovich lost on average £80m every year for 20 years.

The irony is that it's largely the clubs are the top of the game in the major European leagues, winning most of the trophies, taking most of the TV money etc that are the actual financial basket cases whereas the mid-table clubs are (generally) well run.

[jlup1980]

I've nothing against Brighton. They've built over a relatively long period and are reaping the rewards. They bought some flops in the first few years, but they've got a strategy now of investing in good young players, moving them on if offers are too good to refuse, and back-filling from within. It doesn't always work but at least there's a plan!

We blew our chance to establish ourselves after finishing 7th. I don't think Garlick or Dyche really knew what to do next. It was our chance to throw caution to the wind for one season and improve our squad for future years. As it was, we signed Gibson, Vydra and Hart (only out of necessity), and didn't improve any area of the team. Looking back it was a huge missed opportunity.

[Chester Perry]

Pace has put nothing at all into Burnley FC. The £10m or £15m or whatever it was, went to Garlick & friends, not to BFC.

Remember the first £125m he puts in to the club (ha ha) will be repayment of what he has taken out. Only then can he start working towards Bloom's £300m!

It could be argued that ALK/VSL have taken out around £145m - £150m just to fund the takeover

£124.3m in direct loans (that they get interest free)
while the club has now paid probably £20m - £25m in interest to directly fund that loan to ALk/VSL and that is still ongoing at likely 12.7% a year (8% + SONIA appears to be the going rate on the club's loans)

we do not know how the club credit element of the share purchase agreement with the small shareholders has been funded

not forgetting that the club made repayments (including penalties) of around £34m )including penalties to MSD (balance reduction of £32.7m) and a suggested £6m (according to MtB 1) to the unknown lender that replaces MSD that actually left us with a greater debt to that lender in April/May 2023 than we had to MSD at the beginning of Nov 2022. There were player sales around the time of the early repayments to MSD and it is reasonable to assume that the monies earned (including the factoring of future inward fee payments) enabled at least some of the repayments - factoring comes at an additional interest cost. we do not have the information to apportion that cost to the loan servicing comments the club had been obliged with.

The November 2022 loan (£39.7m) was replaced by a much larger loan (£70m) in June 2023 with Macquarie. We do not know if there was a penalty clause for early redemption. We do know that the additional monies were to fund football activities as well, that allowed ALK/VSL to hide the cost of their own true cost of borrowing from the club. In Jan 2024 that Macquarie loan was replaced with a new (possibly larger loan - there may have been penalty payments for early redemption with Macquarie - they are not known as the Vampire Kangaroo for nothing) by MGG via Luxembourg.

So we are left with no knowledge of the true balance and interest cost to support it of the monies the club was made responsible for so that ALK/VSL could acquire it. This is likely to be the situation in perpetuity now. Though we can reasonably suggest the balance ranges being between £33m and £45m depending on the truth of MtB1 and the size of penalty clauses (if applied) and around £4.2m to £5.7m in annual interest costs to service it at the assumed rate.

[Spijed]

We blew our chance to establish ourselves after finishing 7th.

How did we when all we were relying on is PL money?

What about Southampton, or Leicester, or even Leeds?

Surely they have a better chance of a secure future than we have because they are bigger clubs.

[Papabendi]

It was Very Carefully Not Noticed by people in football that after winning just about everything possible and hoovering up as much prize and TV money that they could, as well as increasing sponsorships, hospitality and other revenues by multiples of what came before - Chelsea under Abramovich lost on average £80m every year for 20 years.

The irony is that it's largely the clubs are the top of the game in the major European leagues, winning most of the trophies, taking most of the TV money etc that are the actual financial basket cases whereas the mid-table clubs are (generally) well run.

Yes, but Chelsea are not a particularly big club, which somewhat limits potential.

[Chester Perry]

What is often overlooked is Brighton's use of Starlizard - they pay £3m annually for their data service two Brighton Holding Company directors sit on the Board of Starlizard (not Bloom - though he was known as the Lizard in Professional Poker circles). Starlizard have been working the data in football longer than anyone - Ipswich used their services during their rise though since joining the Premier League that has stopped - Starlizard only work with 1 team in a division - other star Lizard clients include USG in Belgium and now Grimsby - it is not known if Hearts in the SPL have used them also.

Mathew Benham was part of the Starlizard team before leaving and setting up his own similar service

[dsr]

Also worth noting that Brighton's cheapest season ticket is £610 and the majority are £900+. Currently 25% for pensioners, soon to drop to 20%.

[Big Vinny K]

Pace has put nothing at all into Burnley FC. The £10m or £15m or whatever it was, went to Garlick & friends, not to BFC.

Remember the first £125m he puts in to the club (ha ha) will be repayment of what he has taken out. Only then can he start working towards Bloom's £300m!

Maybe so - point I was responding to though was that our ownership model and the investment put into Burnley by the owners bears little or no resemblance to Brighton’s model and there is also no prospect that it will ever be either.

[Stonehouse]

Plastic club.

I don’t think you be thinking that about us he we were regularly beating the top sides.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The media love in is vomit inducing

They bang on about them being a well run club and all that utter sodding guff when the reality is very diff

I don't think the club owns the ground and pays rent for it and their training facilities

Hey ho, it's expected that clubs are bankrolled now and we must all see it as some sort of fairytale story

[Stonehouse]

The media love in is vomit inducing

They bang on about them being a well run club and all that utter sodding guff when the reality is very diff

I don't think the club owns the ground and pays rent for it and their training facilities

Hey ho, it's expected that clubs are bankrolled now and we must all see it as some sort of fairytale story

A lot of fans were saying that when VK was the media darling ,however imagine for a minute that we were Man City and the **** down the road were Ipswich we wouldn’t half be giving them some grief and wouldn’t be bothered that we’d broken fair play rules and spent squillions .

[scamander]

Grew up not far from Brighton and one of my mates is a diehard fan and was there against Hereford and used to travel to Gillingham when they didn't have a ground.

They've been through a lot as a club and are doing very well now. True, Bloom has helped a lot but look at their transfer policy - it's very good interms of turning a profit. The stadium is very nice and much needed (given that they didn't have one). Bloom is an ardent fan comes across as very genuine.

My mate's a realist and knows that they are at their peak as any of the bigger clubs can buy anyone (just ask Chelsea). He's just enjoying it. I'm sure sime of their fans are a bit silly, all clubs have them, but they are at least a club who, as someone pointed out, have looked in the abyss. The core fans know this and have that sense of realism.

[Tufty]

It could be argued that ALK/VSL have taken out around £145m - £150m just to fund the takeover

£124.3m in direct loans (that they get interest free)
while the club has now paid probably £20m - £25m in interest to directly fund that loan to ALk/VSL and that is still ongoing at likely 12.7% a year (8% + SONIA appears to be the going rate on the club's loans)

we do not know how the club credit element of the share purchase agreement with the small shareholders has been funded

not forgetting that the club made repayments (including penalties) of around £34m )including penalties to MSD (balance reduction of £32.7m) and a suggested £6m (according to MtB 1) to the unknown lender that replaces MSD that actually left us with a greater debt to that lender in April/May 2023 than we had to MSD at the beginning of Nov 2022. There were player sales around the time of the early repayments to MSD and it is reasonable to assume that the monies earned (including the factoring of future inward fee payments) enabled at least some of the repayments - factoring comes at an additional interest cost. we do not have the information to apportion that cost to the loan servicing comments the club had been obliged with.

The November 2022 loan (£39.7m) was replaced by a much larger loan (£70m) in June 2023 with Macquarie. We do not know if there was a penalty clause for early redemption. We do know that the additional monies were to fund football activities as well, that allowed ALK/VSL to hide the cost of their own true cost of borrowing from the club. In Jan 2024 that Macquarie loan was replaced with a new (possibly larger loan - there may have been penalty payments for early redemption with Macquarie - they are not known as the Vampire Kangaroo for nothing) by MGG via Luxembourg.

So we are left with no knowledge of the true balance and interest cost to support it of the monies the club was made responsible for so that ALK/VSL could acquire it. This is likely to be the situation in perpetuity now. Though we can reasonably suggest the balance ranges being between £33m and £45m depending on the truth of MtB1 and the size of penalty clauses (if applied) and around £4.2m to £5.7m in annual interest costs to service it at the assumed rate.

Wow ..... I read all of that.... and didn't understand a word of it ! Fair play Chester Perry.....you certainly seem to know your stuff. I know as much about football finances as I do about rocket science.

[Stonehouse]

It could be argued that ALK/VSL have taken out around £145m - £150m just to fund the takeover

£124.3m in direct loans (that they get interest free)
while the club has now paid probably £20m - £25m in interest to directly fund that loan to ALk/VSL and that is still ongoing at likely 12.7% a year (8% + SONIA appears to be the going rate on the club's loans)

we do not know how the club credit element of the share purchase agreement with the small shareholders has been funded

not forgetting that the club made repayments (including penalties) of around £34m )including penalties to MSD (balance reduction of £32.7m) and a suggested £6m (according to MtB 1) to the unknown lender that replaces MSD that actually left us with a greater debt to that lender in April/May 2023 than we had to MSD at the beginning of Nov 2022. There were player sales around the time of the early repayments to MSD and it is reasonable to assume that the monies earned (including the factoring of future inward fee payments) enabled at least some of the repayments - factoring comes at an additional interest cost. we do not have the information to apportion that cost to the loan servicing comments the club had been obliged with.

The November 2022 loan (£39.7m) was replaced by a much larger loan (£70m) in June 2023 with Macquarie. We do not know if there was a penalty clause for early redemption. We do know that the additional monies were to fund football activities as well, that allowed ALK/VSL to hide the cost of their own true cost of borrowing from the club. In Jan 2024 that Macquarie loan was replaced with a new (possibly larger loan - there may have been penalty payments for early redemption with Macquarie - they are not known as the Vampire Kangaroo for nothing) by MGG via Luxembourg.

So we are left with no knowledge of the true balance and interest cost to support it of the monies the club was made responsible for so that ALK/VSL could acquire it. This is likely to be the situation in perpetuity now. Though we can reasonably suggest the balance ranges being between £33m and £45m depending on the truth of MtB1 and the size of penalty clauses (if applied) and around £4.2m to £5.7m in annual interest costs to service it at the assumed rate.

The more I read about Pace et al the more I despise them because in the long run it’s a 90% certainty that they’ll pick up sticks and sod off back to the US and leave BFC in a state that we’ll never recover from ,they’ve had their day in the sun and when they realise that it’s not sustainable to keep buying low and selling high we won’t see them for dust.

[Big Vinny K]

It could be argued that ALK/VSL have taken out around £145m - £150m just to fund the takeover

£124.3m in direct loans (that they get interest free)
while the club has now paid probably £20m - £25m in interest to directly fund that loan to ALk/VSL and that is still ongoing at likely 12.7% a year (8% + SONIA appears to be the going rate on the club's loans)

we do not know how the club credit element of the share purchase agreement with the small shareholders has been funded

not forgetting that the club made repayments (including penalties) of around £34m )including penalties to MSD (balance reduction of £32.7m) and a suggested £6m (according to MtB 1) to the unknown lender that replaces MSD that actually left us with a greater debt to that lender in April/May 2023 than we had to MSD at the beginning of Nov 2022. There were player sales around the time of the early repayments to MSD and it is reasonable to assume that the monies earned (including the factoring of future inward fee payments) enabled at least some of the repayments - factoring comes at an additional interest cost. we do not have the information to apportion that cost to the loan servicing comments the club had been obliged with.

The November 2022 loan (£39.7m) was replaced by a much larger loan (£70m) in June 2023 with Macquarie. We do not know if there was a penalty clause for early redemption. We do know that the additional monies were to fund football activities as well, that allowed ALK/VSL to hide the cost of their own true cost of borrowing from the club. In Jan 2024 that Macquarie loan was replaced with a new (possibly larger loan - there may have been penalty payments for early redemption with Macquarie - they are not known as the Vampire Kangaroo for nothing) by MGG via Luxembourg.

So we are left with no knowledge of the true balance and interest cost to support it of the monies the club was made responsible for so that ALK/VSL could acquire it. This is likely to be the situation in perpetuity now. Though we can reasonably suggest the balance ranges being between £33m and £45m depending on the truth of MtB1 and the size of penalty clauses (if applied) and around £4.2m to £5.7m in annual interest costs to service it at the assumed rate.

And let’s not forget :

1. The amount of factoring deals they have done since the takeover. I do not know a more expensive method of commercial financing than this. We have gone from a club with say £50m in the bank at any one time to a club factoring its debtor book - that’s some transformation (and not in a good way)

2. The management fee we are seeing on the accounts - can’t be bothered checking the last accounts but wasn’t it £1.5m ?

3. The inevitable increase in agents fees from buying how many players since they took over ?

People refer to the “model”. I have no idea what this is really. And I’m not sure the owners do either. It’s 3 years now and I do not see any material change in commercial income from these useless partnerships, or advertising / sponsorship revenues either. Essentially the only material increase we have seen in revenues has come from increasing season ticket and hospitality prices. Hardly the kind of innovation you expect from so called Wall Street financiers. Barry Fry could have thought have that strategy !!

[quoonbeatz]

I don’t think you be thinking that about us he we were regularly beating the top sides.

I would if we’d got there the same way Brighton have. When we were in the PL occasionally beating the top teams we’d done it entirely under our own steam, all the way from the 4th division. In fact, I can’t be arsed to think of any others but I’d wager we’re the only club to do it properly and have a sustained run in the top flight. Very much something to be proud of.

Brighton can be filed with the likes of Reading, Wigan, Leicester, City, Bournemouth etc. Rovers, obviously. Clubs who had a sugar daddy inflating them way beyond their natural level. Plastics.

[dsr]

And let’s not forget :

1. The amount of factoring deals they have done since the takeover. I do not know a more expensive method of commercial financing than this. We have gone from a club with say £50m in the bank at any one time to a club factoring its debtor book - that’s some transformation (and not in a good way)

2. The management fee we are seeing on the accounts - can’t be bothered checking the last accounts but wasn’t it £1.5m ?

3. The inevitable increase in agents fees from buying how many players since they took over ?

People refer to the “model”. I have no idea what this is really. And I’m not sure the owners do either. It’s 3 years now and I do not see any material change in commercial income from these useless partnerships, or advertising / sponsorship revenues either. Essentially the only material increase we have seen in revenues has come from increasing season ticket and hospitality prices. Hardly the kind of innovation you expect from so called Wall Street financiers. Barry Fry could have thought have that strategy !!

2. £1.5m in 21-22, £2.5m in 22-23. Figures for 23-24 not out yet, but I doubt it would have gone down in the PL.

[Chester Perry]

2. £1.5m in 21-22, £2.5m in 22-23. Figures for 23-24 not out yet, but I doubt it would have gone down in the PL.

It was probably £2.5m in 2021/22 as well there was a debt owed to ALK/VSL of £1m which was cleared by the next accounts - delayed payment recovered from Premier League monies, perhaps

[Chester Perry]

And let’s not forget :

1. The amount of factoring deals they have done since the takeover. I do not know a more expensive method of commercial financing than this. We have gone from a club with say £50m in the bank at any one time to a club factoring its debtor book - that’s some transformation (and not in a good way)

2. The management fee we are seeing on the accounts - can’t be bothered checking the last accounts but wasn’t it £1.5m ?

3. The inevitable increase in agents fees from buying how many players since they took over ?

People refer to the “model”. I have no idea what this is really. And I’m not sure the owners do either. It’s 3 years now and I do not see any material change in commercial income from these useless partnerships, or advertising / sponsorship revenues either. Essentially the only material increase we have seen in revenues has come from increasing season ticket and hospitality prices. Hardly the kind of innovation you expect from so called Wall Street financiers. Barry Fry could have thought have that strategy !!

you missed the factoring of TV income as well - from 3 years of payments. Except MGG being what they are, refinancing our loan with them also meant that the club had to borrow from them to buy out of the factoring deal for years 2 and 3 with Macquarie. It looks like we did that with a second loan from MGG - so not only the factoring cost but then the interest on the new loan, presumably at the assumed rate.

Perhaps more depressing is that it is highly likely that the monies borrowed and factored from Macquarie in June 2023 were used to pay promotion bonuses and possibly wages - that is unless you think the club paid out around £70m or more in transfer fee commitments that summer

[Jakubclaret]

I would if we’d got there the same way Brighton have. When we were in the PL occasionally beating the top teams we’d done it entirely under our own steam, all the way from the 4th division. In fact, I can’t be arsed to think of any others but I’d wager we’re the only club to do it properly and have a sustained run in the top flight. Very much something to be proud of.

Brighton can be filed with the likes of Reading, Wigan, Leicester, City, Bournemouth etc. Rovers, obviously. Clubs who had a sugar daddy inflating them way beyond their natural level. Plastics.

I doubt many of us would complain if somebody rich rolled into town bankrolling the whole shebang.

[willsclarets]

I will never understand how it's legal to buy a club using a combination of its own cash reserves, and loans payable by the club's revenues

[Big Vinny K]

you missed the factoring of TV income as well - from 3 years of payments. Except MGG being what they are, refinancing our loan with them also meant that the club had to borrow from them to buy out of the factoring deal for years 2 and 3 with Macquarie. It looks like we did that with a second loan from MGG - so not only the factoring cost but then the interest on the new loan, presumably at the assumed rate.

Perhaps more depressing is that it is highly likely that the monies borrowed and factored from Macquarie in June 2023 were used to pay promotion bonuses and possibly wages - that is unless you think the club paid out around £70m or more in transfer fee commitments that summer

I was referring to all the factoring we have been doing since the take over including the TV income and player sales.

The factoring fees, loan interest, management fees, arrangement fees, early closure fees, legal fees linked to the financing etc etc…..would be interesting to see the true total annual cost of the new owner model. Not sure there would be much left out of £20m a year in total costs relating to finance.

[jlup1980]

How did we when all we were relying on is PL money?

What about Southampton, or Leicester, or even Leeds?

Surely they have a better chance of a secure future than we have because they are bigger clubs.

We relied on PL money, but we had the chance to attract better players over that summer as we were in the Europa League.

We still managed to spend about £25m on three players who were nothing more than squad players. We got it totally wrong. We should have upgraded at least one position. Gibson started one PL game, Vydra 3. They were utterly pointless signings.

I know it's easy with hindsight, but one or two genuine upgrades would have made a big difference and helped to establish us further. Look at the difference Defour made when he was fit. If we'd spent £25m on one more player in his class we would have pushed on.

[Spijed]

We relied on PL money, but we had the chance to attract better players over that summer as we were in the Europa League.

We still managed to spend about £25m on three players who were nothing more than squad players. We got it totally wrong. We should have upgraded at least one position. Gibson started one PL game, Vydra 3. They were utterly pointless signings.

I know it's easy with hindsight, but one or two genuine upgrades would have made a big difference and helped to establish us further. Look at the difference Defour made when he was fit. If we'd spent £25m on one more player in his class we would have pushed on.

Look at Leicester & Southampton, far more established than us.

Unless you have unlimited funds it'll come to an end.

[superdimitri]

Proper Brighton fans that supported the club when they played at Withdean and Priestfield deserve the success.
It's the new fans that suddenly became Brighton supporters after they became Falmer FC that generally are idiots.

They have a lot of fans of other Premier League teams that suddenly support their local team. Many that watch the team class Brighton as their second team which tells you a lot about certain fans.

But for those fans that saw the good and the bad you can't help he happy for them.

[jlup1980]

Look at Leicester & Southampton, far more established than us.

Unless you have unlimited funds it'll come to an end.

This I agree with. I've been saying for a while that Bournemouth fans should enjoy the ride as their squad will be pulled apart in the summer! They could well find themselves back in the bottom 6 next season.

[aggi]

There's not one well run club in the Prem in a business sense, they all lose fortunes every year.

Accrington Stanley are a well run club, but there's not many fans aspiring to be them. Anyway, fans don't really care if they're 'well run', they just want to win.

Plenty of premier league clubs do well financially. The real basket cases are in the championship.