Bournemouth - finances

[claretonthecoast1882]

You may have missed the fact we’ve lost the last 4 , a bit like missing the point he’s 38

Not like you to be negative

[dsr]

You may have missed the fact we’ve lost the last 4 , a bit like missing the point he’s 38

And in the last 13 games Vokes played, we won two, in which he played a combined 4 minutes. I've nothing against Vokes, I just don't get that he was the man who would save us from relegation while Crouch is a spare part.

[TVC15]

And in the last 13 games Vokes played, we won two, in which he played a combined 4 minutes. I've nothing against Vokes, I just don't get that he was the man who would save us from relegation while Crouch is a spare part.

Who is saying he would have saved us from relegation ?
The debate is whether selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch weakened our squad and limited our options.
I’ve provided reasons why I think it 100% did whilst all you are doing is providing statistics about Vokes’ leanest spell at the club in many seasons.
As I said what happens if Wood or Barnes gets sent off or injured ? As when Vokes was here he would have started before Vydra but now we have crouch he would have to start his 4th choice striker who clearly he does not fancy as good enough.
Plus Wood has been awful the last 4 games (and for most of the season prior our good run) yet with the current squad there seems little prospect of either him or Barnes not starting irrespective of how poorly they maybe playing.
As said I have no idea why the club have put itself under the pressure of this risk crystallising when it didn’t have to. We could easily have brought in Crouch till the end of the season and not sold Vokes if he thinks Crouch was a better or different option for the 15 minutes his legs can last at the end of the game.

[jrgbfc]

Who is saying he would have saved us from relegation ?
The debate is whether selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch weakened our squad and limited our options.
I’ve provided reasons why I think it 100% did whilst all you are doing is providing statistics about Vokes’ leanest spell at the club in many seasons.
As I said what happens if Wood or Barnes gets sent off or injured ? As when Vokes was here he would have started before Vydra but now we have crouch he would have to start his 4th choice striker who clearly he does not fancy as good enough.
Plus Wood has been awful the last 4 games (and for most of the season prior our good run) yet with the current squad there seems little prospect of either him or Barnes not starting irrespective of how poorly they maybe playing.
As said I have no idea why the club have put itself under the pressure of this risk crystallising when it didn’t have to. We could easily have brought in Crouch till the end of the season and not sold Vokes if he thinks Crouch was a better or different option for the 15 minutes his legs can last at the end of the game.

We must be the only club in the country who would choose to weaken their squad whilst in the thick of a relegation battle. As for Barnes and Wood against Leicester they played like 2 men who know they are guaranteed to start every game no matter what.

[joey13]

Not like you to be negative

Or stating fact

[alf_resco]

Hands up anyone who thinks letting Vokes go and getting Crouch in has improved our chances of avoiding relegation.

[IanMcL]

Any, Bourbemouth are building a new stadium and investing in their team, by incurring massive, unpayable, debt.

Glad I am a Burnley fan.

[Damo]

I liked Sam Vokes. He was a great guy. A grafter and popped up with the occasional goal. But anyone who thinks we seriously weakened the squad when we replaced him with crouch needs their heads looking at

[boatshed bill]

I liked Sam Vokes. He was a great guy. A grafter and popped up with the occasional goal. But anyone who thinks we seriously weakened the squad when we replaced him with crouch needs their heads looking at

Best I get myself off to the psychiatric ward ASAP then.

[TVC15]

I liked Sam Vokes. He was a great guy. A grafter and popped up with the occasional goal. But anyone who thinks we seriously weakened the squad when we replaced him with crouch needs their heads looking at

So your view is that a 38 year old striker who could not get a game for a struggling championship side is a better option than Sam Vokes ?
Do you think Crouch could start a game ?
Do you think he could last more than 20 minutes ?

There was a reason why one of these players cost nearly £10m and the other was given away.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So your view is that a 38 year old striker who could not get a game for a struggling championship side is a better option than Sam Vokes ?
Do you think Crouch could start a game ?
Do you think he could last more than 20 minutes ?

There was a reason why one of these players cost nearly £10m and the other was given away.

Yeah one was on a contract with a number of years left on it and wanted more regular starts.

The other is at the end of his career and happy to be a bit part player.

Did I miss anything?

[TVC15]

Yeah one was on a contract with a number of years left on it and wanted more regular starts.

The other is at the end of his career and happy to be a bit part player.

Did I miss anything?

Yep - you missed why one was at the end of his contract with no prospect of a new contract being offered to him by Stoke or any other club.
Nothing against Crouch - I would have been ok with us signing him as an addition to the squad on a short term deal....it’s the selling of Vokes at that point in our season when we are in big trouble that I do not agree with or understand.
Do you think we would have been stronger with both Vokes and Crouch than we are now ?

Anyhoo at least there is no chance of Wood getting injured or Barnes sent off eh !

[cricketfieldclarets]

I thought we had signed him as a centre forward, not a media manager. And in terms of goals scored to pounds spent ratio, how does Defoe rate v Jonathan Walter's? Or Matej Vydra? Or Rouwen Hennings? Or Jelle Vossen? Or Lucas Jutkiewicz?

I can tell you that. Posted elsewhere.

Under Dyche we have signed:

Wells 5m
Walters 3m
Juke - 1.5m
Sordell - 600k
Vossen - 3m
Hennings - 2.25m
Vydra - 8m
Crouch - free


That's 8 strikers. Just shy of £25m in fees. Never mind wages and signing on fees and other costs.

Between them they have 2 TWO league goals. Between 8 EIGHT strikers. Only one of them goals was at this level (Vydra) and the other was in the championship (Hennings). That really is shocking. Every manager is entitled to bad signings. And of course Dyche in the main has done a great job here.

But for a so called frugal club, who operate with an apparent small budget that is abysmal. And most of them most fans could see coming!!!! Wells was the most disastrous of the lot. 5m for a soon to be out of contract player at a rival club who didn't want him, never played at this level and was injured!!!! Madness. Utter madness.


Yet people question Defoe who has a pheonomenal record.

didnt work out fair enough. But it was more logical than any of those signings with the exception of perhaps Vydra. Which with hindsight and knowing how dyche is with new signings, strikers and foreigners it was equally illogical.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I think the debate you got on the matter was that a cost of £20m over a 3 year period wasn't quite as ridiculously high as you made out. When you think our deals for Wells and Walters combined would have cost around £16m over 3 years it just adds a bit of perspective

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and Defoe turned out to be a poor signing just like Wells and Walters did but again as we've seen with Vydra this year when you are in the Premier League it is easy to p*ss £10m plus down the drain on not a lot so the actual deal for Defoe at the time was speculative but not outrageous.

From memory I think what you went on and on arguing about was how Defoe was not that top class and even when lots of posters schooled you on all his stats over his career you still true to form persisted to not accept you were wrong and painfully argued on

Pretty much exactly how it went that.

[KippaxFifaHD]

Look at it this way:
We've sold a player who is nearly 30 and didn't want to be here for good money and replaced him short term with a player that will do the exact same thing as Vokes would've done for the rest of the season: be thrown on with 10-15 mins to go if we're chasing a goal. Starting Crouch is irrelevant, as even if one striker does get injured we can start Vydra, who with Barnes/Wood might form a decent partnership, or we could potentially play with Hendrick and JBG out wide with McNeil behind the striker. It's not like we don't have options, and I don't think we've weakened the squad in the slightest.

[boatshed bill]

Look at it this way:
We've sold a player who is nearly 30 and didn't want to be here for good money and replaced him short term with a player that will do the exact same thing as Vokes would've done for the rest of the season: be thrown on with 10-15 mins to go if we're chasing a goal. Starting Crouch is irrelevant, as even if one striker does get injured we can start Vydra, who with Barnes/Wood might form a decent partnership, or we could potentially play with Hendrick and JBG out wide with McNeil behind the striker. It's not like we don't have options, and I don't think we've weakened the squad in the slightest.

So we may as well have not signed Crouch at all? Oops, I forgot his morale boosting contribution

[TVC15]

But if Vokes was here Dyche would (based on his previous record) start with Vokes before Vydra....so how can you say that is not weakening the side / options in Dyche’s eyes (rather than yours) ?

[KippaxFifaHD]

But if Vokes was here Dyche would (based on his previous record) start with Vokes before Vydra....so how can you say that is not weakening the side / options in Dyche’s eyes (rather than yours) ?

Because Dyche has swapped a big target man for an even bigger target man with better movement off the ball, AND £7m.
Why so negative?

[KippaxFifaHD]

So we may as well have not signed Crouch at all? Oops, I forgot his morale boosting contribution

As mentioned before, Crouch is a good option off the bench, which realistically is all Vokes was/would've been being used for

[boatshed bill]

As mentioned before, Crouch is a good option off the bench,

you seem very sure of that. I'm not

[NL Claret]

Typical UTC thread, starts about Bournemouth finances and becomes one about Peter Crouch / Burnley's recruitment.

Some posters are exceptional at spinning any topic around to be critical of the club.

Would you prefer Bournemouth ' s finances or Burnley's? I don't know the answer btw.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Because Dyche has swapped a big target man for an even bigger target man with better movement off the ball, AND £7m.
Why so negative?

Some people thrive off being negative all the time.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Typical UTC thread, starts about Bournemouth finances and becomes one about Peter Crouch / Burnley's recruitment.

Some posters are exceptional at spinning any topic around to be critical of the club.

Would you prefer Bournemouth ' s finances or Burnley's? I don't know the answer btw.

The second paragraph of the opening post is using the opening post as a stick to beat fans with who think we could and should be more ambitious.

[KippaxFifaHD]

you seem very sure of that. I'm not

Was Vokes? They do the same job...

[boatshed bill]

Typical UTC thread, starts about Bournemouth finances and becomes one about Peter Crouch / Burnley's recruitment.

Some posters are exceptional at spinning any topic around to be critical of the club.

Would you prefer Bournemouth ' s finances or Burnley's? I don't know the answer btw.

I suppose people are comparing the financial differences between the two clubs, and given our frugal approach the signing of a very expensive non-starter seems a bit odd.

[boatshed bill]

Was Vokes? They do the same job...

That's not strictly true, is it? Sam Vokes can (could) play a full 90+ minutes if needed.

[TVC15]

Because Dyche has swapped a big target man for an even bigger target man with better movement off the ball, AND £7m.
Why so negative?

So you think Dyche would rather have one player and £7m “in the Bank” than 2 players at his disposal ? How would that bigger bank balance help if Wood and / or Barnes can’t play or deserve to be dropped ?
It’s ok saying we have other options like Hendrick or McNeil but is it not obvious the 4-4-2 formation Dyche prefers to play ?

Why is it being negative to think we have made a poor decision that we did not need to make ?

I’d say you were being blinkered but for the fact that i’m assuming you are actually blind if you believe Crouch has better movement than Vokes !

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I think the debate you got on the matter was that a cost of £20m over a 3 year period wasn't quite as ridiculously high as you made out. When you think our deals for Wells and Walters combined would have cost around £16m over 3 years it just adds a bit of perspective

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and Defoe turned out to be a poor signing just like Wells and Walters did but again as we've seen with Vydra this year when you are in the Premier League it is easy to p*ss £10m plus down the drain on not a lot so the actual deal for Defoe at the time was speculative but not outrageous.

From memory I think what you went on and on arguing about was how Defoe was not that top class and even when lots of posters schooled you on all his stats over his career you still true to form persisted to not accept you were wrong and painfully argued on

I said he wasn't worth the money and wouldn't be that good when Bournemouth signed him and I was proven correct.

As for being schooled in facts etc, I was proven right despite all those facts people were spanking one off about.

It's all about opinion at the end of the day, just some people don't like mine about certain players, Defoe, Wilshere and Lennon being the main and to date I've been correct about all 3 of them amusingly.

[joey13]

I said he wasn't worth the money and wouldn't be that good when Bournemouth signed him and I was proven correct.

As for being schooled in facts etc, I was proven right despite all those facts people were spanking one off about.

It's all about opinion at the end of the day, just some people don't like mine about certain players, Defoe, Wilshere and Lennon being the main and to date I've been correct about all 3 of them amusingly.

Thats rather negative

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thats rather negative

Rare for me, common for you

[Damo]

So your view is that a 38 year old striker who could not get a game for a struggling championship side is a better option than Sam Vokes ?
Do you think Crouch could start a game ?
Do you think he could last more than 20 minutes ?

There was a reason why one of these players cost nearly £10m and the other was given away.

I'm not sure crouch is a better option, and I certainly didnt claim he was. Swapping him for vokes hasn't seriously weakened the squad though has it? Crouch has started as many games as I would have expected vokes to start (considering we are out of Europe and the league cup)
Without wanting to slate Vokes, who was a fantastic servant to the club. He wasnt good enough to be starting games in the premier league. Neither, I'll admit, is Crouch

[SGr]

Nothing wrong with getting money for Vokes really. What did he offer that Barnes and Wood don’t? 3 very similar strikers.

Like I said, the annoying thing about January is that deal was the ONLY deal that got done.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Nothing wrong with getting money for Vokes really. What did he offer that Barnes and Wood don’t? 3 very similar strikers.

Like I said, the annoying thing about January is that deal was the ONLY deal that got done.

The problem is if Wood gets injured, Vokes was the obvious and natural alternative. We no longer have that option.

Plus Vokes always a better option coming on than 38 year old Crouch ever will be.

[Herts Clarets]

I can tell you that. Posted elsewhere.

Under Dyche we have signed:

Wells 5m
Walters 3m
Juke - 1.5m
Sordell - 600k
Vossen - 3m
Hennings - 2.25m
Vydra - 8m
Crouch - free


That's 8 strikers. Just shy of £25m in fees. Never mind wages and signing on fees and other costs.

Between them they have 2 TWO league goals. Between 8 EIGHT strikers. Only one of them goals was at this level (Vydra) and the other was in the championship (Hennings). That really is shocking. Every manager is entitled to bad signings. And of course Dyche in the main has done a great job here.

But for a so called frugal club, who operate with an apparent small budget that is abysmal. And most of them most fans could see coming!!!! Wells was the most disastrous of the lot. 5m for a soon to be out of contract player at a rival club who didn't want him, never played at this level and was injured!!!! Madness. Utter madness.


Yet people question Defoe who has a pheonomenal record.

didnt work out fair enough. But it was more logical than any of those signings with the exception of perhaps Vydra. Which with hindsight and knowing how dyche is with new signings, strikers and foreigners it was equally illogical.

So quite a valid question I asked. Well answered by cricket field, though not quite as well constructed and succinct as the original reply from the site editor. To save you scrolling back, I will post it below. In full and unedited.

'Ha ha'

[Claretforever]

You may have missed the fact we’ve lost the last 4 , a bit like missing the point he’s 38

I didn’t miss the point you made about him being 38, in fact I covered it right there. I think you have a hang up about age which is making you miss the wider picture.

[tim_noone]

£10 million for Sam Vokes that's got to be a fine bit of business by anyone's standards.£10million!!! Be Happy.

[IanMcL]

Vokes wanted to play, so needed to leave.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I like Vokes but the myth about missing him so much is puzzling.

He scored 7 premier league goals in the last season and half and wasn't a first pick, he has also managed 1 so far at a lower level. He also asked to leave and after the service he had given the club I am glad we have a board / manager who take everything into consideration. If we go down this season and you think the reason is either Vokes or Crouch then you are way off.

[MACCA]

Do you think Crouch could start a game ?
How many games did Vokes start this season ? How many has he scored ? Has Sam not assisted with any goals when he came on as sub ?
Crouch couldn’t get a game for a side struggling in the Championship.
Main point here is that selling Vokes reduced our options significantly. If Wood or Barnes got sent off or injured (never mind their loss of form) Dyche is forced into starting a player he was reluctant to bring on against 10 men until the last 2 mins.
Why put yourself in that position as a club when we were already bang in trouble ?

Because it banked us 8m, a fee that we may not have got if we waited until summer and Sam went to 5th choice.

If we stay up ( or crouch bags and important winner ) it will look a master stroke and a great bit if business, for when we look to ( hopefully ) reinvent the squad with a few first teamers and better quality players brought In.

We probably won't be able to judge January's business, or lack of it until mid May, and then the 8th of August.

I make it 4 players minimum we need, and realistically 4 first team starters.

[TVC15]

Because it banked us 8m, a fee that we may not have got if we waited until summer and Sam went to 5th choice.

If we stay up ( or crouch bags and important winner ) it will look a master stroke and a great bit if business, for when we look to ( hopefully ) reinvent the squad with a few first teamers and better quality players brought In.

We probably won't be able to judge January's business, or lack of it until mid May, and then the 8th of August.

I make it 4 players minimum we need, and realistically 4 first team starters.

His value in the summer would have been little if any different.
The point is why put yourself in a riskier position when you don’t have to financially ?
It’s ok saying Vokes wasn’t playing or would not make a difference but that would be impossible to predict and I still don’t believe that this decision was what the manager wanted as it has limited his options...when I am pretty sure what he was looking for in January was more options.
Even if we stay up it’s not a master stroke for me - it will have been dodging a bullet.

[MACCA]

His value in the summer would have been little if any different.
The point is why put yourself in a riskier position when you don’t have to financially ?
It’s ok saying Vokes wasn’t playing or would not make a difference but that would be impossible to predict and I still don’t believe that this decision was what the manager wanted as it has limited his options...when I am pretty sure what he was looking for in January was more options.
Even if we stay up it’s not a master stroke for me - it will have been dodging a bullet.

I agree, it will have been dodging a bullet for me also, but how many times have we left ourselves in similar situations and got lucky? The money men might see it as a masterstroke, I'm sure SD and the rest of us can see it's another one we've got away with.

But it's become alarmingly obvious we can't/don't quite get these windows right ( SD/Mr Garlick/fans ) have all said so at various stages, so maybe it's an all eggs In 1 basket scenario, where we just want to limp through this season, before a major switch in the way we approach, work and use these transfer windows.

We missed a trick big time last summer, I can't see SD allowing that to happen again, sadly we will have taken 2 steps backwards, I'm not sure we can say we can get both them steps back in 1 summer with our past record of wundows/spending power/financial structures of deals

[GodIsADeeJay81]

How many clubs actually get the transfer windows right?

Most clubs get it partially right (Bournemouth), some clubs don't even buy anyone (Spurs), others struggle to shift players out to free up money to get others in (Arsenal in the future by all accounts).
Some clubs just through ridiculous amounts of money around with no guarantee its going to get them anywhere (Fulham/Everton)


So many variables, yet you're saying we just can't seem to get it right....

[MACCA]

I think if you don't improve your starting 11 in 3 consecutive windows, and go from 7th, Europe , looking solid, players touted for England, and playing some good stuff, to fighting a relegation battle, shipping goals for fun, looking out if ideas, tired, ageing squad, lack of options and clinging on to the hope you may scrape your way to 35 points and safety.

I'd say it's not been the greatest few windows.

Our inability to land targets ( and I agree there's lots of variables ) even those from the championship doesn't look good moving forwards.

Now we can argue about rich benefactors and big city clubs etc, but whilst we continue to post profits year on year, we can't have it both ways.

We seem to be split in 2 camps, those that say we can't and shouldn't 100m in transfers and 60k a week at it, and should save, save save. Whilst some want us to bet the ranch and go for broke.

Why can't there be an inbetween?
Maybe there is, maybe this is it, but if it is, it isn't good as there's no long term plan with buying ageing pros after 1 last pay day.

It's seems we keep saying the next window is huge, and the longer you keep saying it the more endangered you become.

[summitclaret]

Yeah one was on a contract with a number of years left on it and wanted more regular starts.

The other is at the end of his career and happy to be a bit part player.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah we don't need a bit parter

[Herts Clarets]

I make it 4 players minimum we need, and realistically 4 first team starters.

Expect Operation Lower Expectations to swing into action just as soon as we know which division we will be playing in next season. And if we sign 4 players who strengthen the starting 11, I suspect there will be lots of backsides being shown in Burtons window......

[ClaretTony]

it’s the selling of Vokes at that point in our season when we are in big trouble that I do not agree with or understand

He made it clear he didn't want to be on the bench and when an offer came in from a club that were offering him better prospects of starting games he wanted to go. We could have said no, after all he signed a new contract not long ago, but why keep an unhappy player.

We lost a player who didn't want to be on the bench and signed a player who was prepared to take that role.


I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Bournemouth's finances though.

[MACCA]

Expect Operation Lower Expectations to swing into action just as soon as we know which division we will be playing in next season. And if we sign 4 players who strengthen the starting 11, I suspect there will be lots of backsides being shown in Burtons window......

I'm not so sure, think the renewals period might make a few sit up and take note, and if they don't sit up and take notice it'll be a long old 2019/20 season which could end up a disastrous one on the field and a toxic one off it.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yeah we don't need a bit parter

That's why we sold Vokes because that's all he was going to be for the foreseeable.

Crouch won't be here next season, at a guess, so we are then in a better position to replace Vokes with someone else.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I think if you don't improve your starting 11 in 3 consecutive windows, and go from 7th, Europe , looking solid, players touted for England, and playing some good stuff, to fighting a relegation battle, shipping goals for fun, looking out if ideas, tired, ageing squad, lack of options and clinging on to the hope you may scrape your way to 35 points and safety.

I'd say it's not been the greatest few windows.

Our inability to land targets ( and I agree there's lots of variables ) even those from the championship doesn't look good moving forwards.

Now we can argue about rich benefactors and big city clubs etc, but whilst we continue to post profits year on year, we can't have it both ways.

We seem to be split in 2 camps, those that say we can't and shouldn't 100m in transfers and 60k a week at it, and should save, save save. Whilst some want us to bet the ranch and go for broke.

Why can't there be an inbetween?
Maybe there is, maybe this is it, but if it is, it isn't good as there's no long term plan with buying ageing pros after 1 last pay day.

It's seems we keep saying the next window is huge, and the longer you keep saying it the more endangered you become.

I fully agree there is a middle ground but the continuous foot stamping by some on here would suggest it's tough to find.
We are pretty unique in the PL, and probably most of the championship, in that we try to stay out of debt.

This is going to mean balancing the books, selling off a wantaway squad player and getting in a temp happy to be squad player etc
I don't understand why Kevin Long is still happy to be a squad player and there have been many a time when I'd rather we got rid of him so we can find someone to really challenge our CB's for their starting spots, but I've just learnt to accept that he's happy to be here as a bit part player.

There is a thread on this very forum about football finances that should really be required reading for everyone on here, but for whatever reason most appear to ignore it.

As for going from 7th to a relegation battle, we aren't the first and nor will we be the last to do such a thing but reading this place you'd think it's the first time a club has done such a thing....

Also the continuous suggestions on this forum that the board are pocketing the clubs money is shocking but also highlights how pig ignorant some are about running a business.

[TVC15]

He made it clear he didn't want to be on the bench and when an offer came in from a club that were offering him better prospects of starting games he wanted to go. We could have said no, after all he signed a new contract not long ago, but why keep an unhappy player.

We lost a player who didn't want to be on the bench and signed a player who was prepared to take that role.


I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Bournemouth's finances though.

I agree - it’s got nothing to do with Bournemouth’s finances...it’s very unusual for a thread to go off at a tangent on this board !
Btw - Vokes being unhappy on the bench is no different to Vydra and plenty of others who have to sit on the bench. The priority is the club / team not any individual. Yes it would have been tough on Sam to deny him a big move but it’s not like he was crying poverty or could not have waited till the summer. Stoke had little or no chance of promotion or relegation either...whatever way you look at it losing Vokes made us weaker. If Dyche did not think that we would not have given him a new contract last year and he would not be bringing him on or starting him as much as he has done this season.