Premier League - Transfer Window Vote

[Vegas Claret]

Only had 18 months to get a deal across the line for a centre back and failed now hasn't got the balls to make a decision on something as important as the transfer window .You keep sucking up if it makes you feel better.

You do realise Everton spent 130 million in the transfer window, have bucket loads of money and yet even they couldn't bring in the striker that Koeman wanted - you might want to have a re-think as to how easy it is

[tybfc]

edit ……….

[boatshed bill]

It's the common sense decision, although I would have preferred a two/three week delay for the start of the season.
All transfer business completed before a ball is kicked.

[Vegas Claret]

I think we should have the transfer window open from August until May and the football season in between for a couple of months

[Goody1975]

Maybe the club didn't agree with either scenario, if that was the case a vote for either yes or no is voting for something you don't agree with.

Just a thought.

[South West Claret.]

Maybe the club didn't agree with either scenario, if that was the case a vote for either yes or no is voting for something you don't agree with.

Just a thought.

Whatever the reason it will be interesting to know why from the Diectors.

[Sidney1st]

Maybe the club didn't agree with either scenario, if that was the case a vote for either yes or no is voting for something you don't agree with.

Just a thought.

On this board you're expected to vote even if you don't agree with any option...

[Longside4evr]

On Football Forcus the other week Dyche was so into this, that it came across that the Club was well in favour of the deadline closing earlier
I myself would very much like to know the fact on why Garlick abstained our vote and the reason behind it doesn't go the way in which Dyche was hitting out about.
As going off his interview it was nailed on to go against.

[Pidgeon]

I still can't understand how you can conclude the best thing to do is abstain when Sean clearly made his views public. What a waste of a vote and lack of support. I see the usual punters on here standing by Garlick regardless. Must be related. Ha ha.

[dsr]

I still can't understand how you can conclude the best thing to do is abstain when Sean clearly made his views public. What a waste of a vote and lack of support. I see the usual punters on here standing by Garlick regardless. Must be related. Ha ha.

On balance, I think Burnley are doing well and therefore the Chairman is doing a good job. You may of course disagree on both counts, but it's hard to disagree on just one.

[Sidney1st]

Sean won't be here forever.

The decision isn't made by the managers because in the grand scheme of things very few managers are at clubs for more than 5-6yrs.
Some are lucky to last 5-6 months.

Dyche would've been asked his opinion but ultimately it's the board who make the decision.

If you can't get your head around that then you've got issues.

[Sleeping Cat]

What difference does it really make other than you have your incoming players completed for the first 3 games? The window will still be open for the rest of the leagues in the world so players could still leave. I don't see what all the fuss is about & I certainly don't think it matters that we abstained from a vote.

There's a massive difference in not voting and abstaining as someone says earlier in the thread, especially in organizational bodies.

It's also worth noting, no one died for our right to vote in an sporting organization based on membership, so all those who are going on about "you have a vote you should use it etc etc" can just calm down.

[Chester Perry]

the tradition of abstaining from a vote is usually down to

having a neutral position - which in this case could mean that the board of the club does not have a majority view one way or the other
or
believing that you do not have a complete set of facts to determine the full impact of the decision

I sense the board were split on the issue (could be wrong of course) and personally would have voted against at this time - though for if it was for all European leagues

[Royboyclaret]

".....having a neutral position - which in this case could mean that the board of the club does not have a majority view one way or the other.... "


Our Board comprises seven directors, so that even with a three/three split the Chairman would then have the casting vote.

Makes absolutely no sense to me and probably fortunate for us that the vote was 14-5 and not 13-6 in which case the window would have remained the same. Just makes us appear weak and unable to make a decision when the manager was totally in favour of the proposed change.

Were we even represented at the meeting?.......Could that have been the problem?

[Chester Perry]

Royboy - do we know whether voting on the board requires a majority of 4 -3 to carry a motion or as in the case of the Premier League is it 5 - 2 or even based on the shares attached to the voter perspective (bearing in mind that those 7 individuals carry the vast majority of shares)

[Royboyclaret]

Certainly in a vote of this nature a majority of 4 to 3 will carry the motion.

Still something not stacking up for me (which may or may not ultimately be revealed) but I'm thinking Burnley will be somewhat surprised and even shocked that details behind the outcome of the PL vote were in the public domain so quickly.

[dsr]

They needed a two third majority to bring it in, which they got. But we don't know whether it's two thirds of the clubs, which means 14 out of 20, or two thirds of the voters, which would mean 13 out of 19.

[jojomk1]

Certainly in a vote of this nature a majority of 4 to 3 will carry the motion.

Still something not stacking up for me (which may or may not ultimately be revealed) but I'm thinking Burnley will be somewhat surprised and even shocked that details behind the outcome of the PL vote were in the public domain so quickly.

To abstain on such an emotive issue is quite simply a cop out from the chairman, and I am sure he will be suitably embarrassed that our "non vote" has been made public

Another reason for the media and other clubs/supporters being given the chance to have a go at us

[Royboyclaret]

To answer dsr, the requirement for change was 14 out of the 20 clubs to vote for the amendment, which of course happened, if only just.

However, with the likes of Guardiola and Mourinho stating they are happy with the outcome whilst their respective clubs' voted against the amendment, it suggests there's still plenty of debate left in this one yet.

[ClaretTony]

Only had 18 months to get a deal across the line for a centre back and failed now hasn't got the balls to make a decision on something as important as the transfer window .You keep sucking up if it makes you feel better.

It was clear to everyone that the reason we didn't bring in a centre back was because the manager, not the chairman or anyone else, did not see it as a priority.

[ClaretTony]

Certainly in a vote of this nature a majority of 4 to 3 will carry the motion.

Still something not stacking up for me (which may or may not ultimately be revealed) but I'm thinking Burnley will be somewhat surprised and even shocked that details behind the outcome of the PL vote were in the public domain so quickly.

If anyone at our club is shocked then they are being naive. It's certainly good that we've got to know which five clubs voted against it too.

Interestingly, Sean Dyche has said he's in favour of the change but it's slightly different from the club's viewpoint.

[SonofPog]

Pretty obvious why Abstain is a valid option.

If say, 15 voted No, it's pretty clear the motion is unpopular and there's not point pursuing anything like that agenda in the future.
But if 15 Abstain, it's clear there's some interest in the proposal, but that perhaps they would like more information or consultation of the affects.

In this case, not aligning with the major leagues seams to be a problem,

and we have a club haven't tried, or perhaps have found it hard enough already to get deals from abroad over the line that we decided the benefits (having a squad in place) vs the negatives, (harder foreign recruitment due to not aligning windows) balance themselves out.

Well, we don't know, I'm sure the chairman will release a statement why, but I'm not going to use it as a branch to hit the board with in the meantime.

[Vegas Claret]

Gaffers opinion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQPBa8anzaE

[No Ney Never]

the tradition of abstaining from a vote is usually down to

having a neutral position - which in this case could mean that the board of the club does not have a majority view one way or the other
or
believing that you do not have a complete set of facts to determine the full impact of the decision

I sense the board were split on the issue (could be wrong of course) and personally would have voted against at this time - though for if it was for all European leagues

My guess is pretty much as you've posted. Possibly that we're in favour of the change but not that the premier league should do it unilaterally, it ought to be on a European wide basis. It could be this that means we've abstained from casting a vote.

[joey13]

My guess is pretty much as you've posted. Possibly that we're in favour of the change but not that the premier league should do it unilaterally, it ought to be on a European wide basis. It could be this that means we've abstained from casting a vote.

It will never be unilateral as European leagues start on different dates .

[Sidney1st]

To abstain on such an emotive issue is quite simply a cop out from the chairman, and I am sure he will be suitably embarrassed that our "non vote" has been made public

Another reason for the media and other clubs/supporters being given the chance to have a go at us

Emotive?
It isn't really is it?

As for worrying about people having a go a us, you clearly worry about that stuff too much.

[Paul Waine]

Crystal Palace Chairman, Steve Parish explains why he voted against the change to the window in today's Times.

Window closure will give Europe an advantage

"I opposed closing the transfer window before the start of the season because I was worried that it would be a dangerous move, and that to go it alone without the rest of Europe following suit could be an act of self-harm.

"It seemed to be a solution looking for a problem. But it is not the biggest issue in the world and everybody will now be prepared to give it a go and if we feel it has not worked then there is the possibility of changing it back.

"I am worried that it will give more power to the agents — what if you haven’t got good information on a player and you now have less time to look into the deal? It means you will have to rely more on agents.

"The World Cup will end four weeks before the start of the new season so that is a very short time to get your squad sorted out.

"I also like being able to make decisions after watching the team play in a couple of matches, because it allows you to identify gaps and weaknesses.

"If you are Manchester United then you can sign who you want early, and they can afford to pay over the odds to go early.

"But if I want to get value then it can take time. If I bid for a striker from a French club, they will hold on to him and let it be known in order to generate other interest and drive up the price. It can take time to get a deal done for a player at a fair value.
It could also put us at a disadvantage to the rest of Europe. If I was France I would deliberately make my window close a week later because I’d know we would have a week where we can buy players but the clubs in England can’t.

"People also say that having the transfer window open after the season has started can destabilise a club, but maybe I have not had the problems other people have had. For example when Tottenham came in with a bid for Wilfried Zaha at the end of August last year I just publicly said: “No”. If you make the statement then everyone gets the message.

"But the Premier League is a collective and 14 votes is a decent majority. It may be that in a year I say it’s a million times better, but if it doesn’t work then we’ll raise it again."

[Paul Waine]

Burnley FC Club News (email newsletter - rec'd 3pm today):

Dyche On Transfer Window Change
Boss prefers early close but sees benefit of unified approach

Sean Dyche remains a supporter of the transfer window closing before the Premier League season kicks off.
But the Burnley boss understands the club’s stance in abstaining from the vote to bring the move in before the start of next season.
Premier League clubs agreed that the domestic window will close on 9 August – two days before the start of the 2018/19 season.
But overseas sides will still be able to buy from British clubs until the end of the month.
And the Clarets took the view that they would like to see whether a more widespread agreement – involving European Leagues and potentially the English Football League ­– could be reached before going ahead.
Dyche said: “For me as manager, I’ve always made my views clear; you want to get on with the football, so get it done before the season starts and once it’s done, that’s your group, you focus on the football.
“From a business point of view and the club’s point of view as a business, it can be tricky, because that extra little period gives you more time to recruit, more options possibly with what might arise.
“I think the big thing, from the club’s point of view, is if the whole of Europe comes into line, and all different windows, that would be favourable.
“Really, it’s just combining the two. I think generally the club backs the idea, it’s just the idea was if others come into line, of course, it makes it a lot, lot easier.
“Everyone wanted change, but there’s always going to be something you’re not quite sure on.
“If all the other main markets in Europe come into line that will be helpful for all."
The amendment to move the deadline forward from 31 August was carried at a meeting of the Premier League clubs on Thursday, with the necessary 14 clubs giving their backing to the proposal."