Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sgncfc

Top 26

Recommended Posts

Burnley expenditure since 16/17 season is £55m. Between £13 / £14m a season (in one season they spent £40m changing the squad. They are not following our model, they are following the same model as the rest but spending less. No club is spending as little as us in the premier league and surviving. It's just a fact.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Next season then...

Well we'd be more attractive to a potential investor in the Championship than in the Premier League, certainly. But with a self-sustaining policy that is three years in and has already led to us being debt-free with huge amounts of saleable assets on the playing staff, that still doesn't sound like the ideal recipe for a takeover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Burnley expenditure since 16/17 season is £55m. Between £13 / £14m a season (in one season they spent £40m changing the squad. They are not following our model, they are following the same model as the rest but spending less. No club is spending as little as us in the premier league and surviving. It's just a fact.

Sorry Kenny, they are following a fugal financial model - that is simply a fact. They are doing what we are trying to do - and doing it very well atm. we have advantages over Burnley and if we are similarly financial prudent should be able to do as well or better. It's perfectly clear in their accounts. If you want the evidence:

1. Guardian article June 2018 for y/e 2017 - profit for season 27 million. No debt; no directors loans and 20 million cash in the bank. This was after they had just been promoted back into the PL, like us this year! See link below

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17

2. Guardian Article June 2019 for y/e 2018 - profit for season 45 million. No debt; no directors loans and 34 million cash in the bank.

Link below

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

Perhaps you don't like the Guardian. Here's an article from the Burnley express quoting a study into football finance "a new study into football finances, with the Clarets described as the "most sensibly run club" financially in the division."

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/football/burnley-fc-seventh-most-valuable-club-premier-league-978229

Or an article in the Lancashire telegraph about the 2018 profit and Burnley's approach.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17553226.sean-dyche-burnleys-financial-balance-36m-profit/

Here is a detailed breakdown of their accounts from Swiss Ramble football finance expert. Link below

https://twitter.com/search?q=Burnley %2B "price of football"&src=typed_query

Image

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Burnley expenditure since 16/17 season is £55m. Between £13 / £14m a season (in one season they spent £40m changing the squad. They are not following our model, they are following the same model as the rest but spending less. No club is spending as little as us in the premier league and surviving. It's just a fact.

The argument is that if we are following any model it is Burnley’s rather than the other way round. And the facts do certainly support the idea that Burnley had a plan very similar to ours now -  not to overspend in the first season in the PL, accepting relegation as a probability but gradually improving so that sooner or later they would stay up and then start to consolidate.

So Burnley twice got relegated straight back down before managing to stay up at the third attempt. If we go down this season it will be the first time under the new plan.

If you are including 2016-17 then your transfer spending figures are for the four seasons in the PL. You didn’t specify which season it was that they spent 40m (did they really in one season, because that only leaves 15m for the other three seasons?) but my guess is if that figure is right it wasn’t for their first season back. Added to which, what matters is net spending. Did Burnley sell players to find this splurge?

Burnley may have started to spend more on transfers and  on wages, but almost certainly not straight away. Only once they’re had stayed up into the second season, and the third and fourth. You can not compare what Burnley might be spending now to our spending this season.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The argument is that if we are following any model it is Burnley’s rather than the other way round.

Agreed. Burnley have shown a discipline following promotion that is enviable and have enjoyed the benefits. We didn't do too badly because we were fortunately limited by our owner's lack of wealth. So whilst we spent more than was wise in our last season in the PL, the fact that our owners were not in a position to spend tens of millions more meant that we were able to recover more quickly than others. What is seen by some as a weakness, could be regarded as a strength in the longer term.

On the point re transfer fees and Burnley, we do not yet have the 18-19 accounts but both previous years the accounts show that Burnley made a profit on transfer activity 1 million 16-17 and 31 million in 17-18 and were broadly neutral in all other transactions. This is the reason why they finished the season with no debt and over 34 million pounds in cash in the bank! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Badger said:

We didn't do too badly because we were fortunately limited by our owner's lack of wealth

Lolz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2020 at 14:41, king canary said:

A dozen teams

Apologies, KC, I will go through them all, as I think that it is illustrative (and, to me at least, interesting). 

Middlesborough, Wigan and Stoke. All have owners who are true fans and have done their very best for their respective clubs. As far as I can see, they have lent their clubs "shed loads" of money and have not charged interest on it - you could not hope for more! It is a slightly "cheap point" I agree, but still worth pointing out, that all three are in the bottom quarter of the Championship and the money spent does not seem to have been, a first look anyway, transformative.

You might well respond, that we should look over a longer time period and I would agree. In this respect, the case for the benefits of Whelan's ownership of Wigan are unarguable - they had the time of their lives and in future years may have their own TWTD website! Whelan's ownership of Wigan was great for the club and they experienced success that would not have without him - no argument from me on that. I consider it unlikely however, that they will continue to be able to defy football gravity though and fear that their good times are now behind them Wheelan is worth "only" about £200 million - this would have been great "in the old days," but in modern football it is not enough to be transformative. 

As you know, part of my case is that those who look to the model of rich owners subsidising their clubs are largely living in the past. This was of course, the traditional ownership model for football clubs - "local lads made good" owners buying their local clubs and giving them some money. However, this is a very much more difficult possibility nowadays because of the sums of money involved - even a billionaire is likely to "smart" at the levels of losses that are quickly accruable in modern football!

Stoke don't fit entirely into this category. They are local lads (and women) and fans. They have lent (at zero interest) over £140 million to the club. Moreover - they are not "ordinary billionaires" - the family are worth about £7 billion! Their situation is worth examining further and is, perhaps illustrative...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The argument is that if we are following any model it is Burnley’s rather than the other way round. And the facts do certainly support the idea that Burnley had a plan very similar to ours now -  not to overspend in the first season in the PL, accepting relegation as a probability but gradually improving so that sooner or later they would stay up and then start to consolidate.

So Burnley twice got relegated straight back down before managing to stay up at the third attempt. If we go down this season it will be the first time under the new plan.

If you are including 2016-17 then your transfer spending figures are for the four seasons in the PL. You didn’t specify which season it was that they spent 40m (did they really in one season, because that only leaves 15m for the other three seasons?) but my guess is if that figure is right it wasn’t for their first season back. Added to which, what matters is net spending. Did Burnley sell players to find this splurge?

Burnley may have started to spend more on transfers and  on wages, but almost certainly not straight away. Only once they’re had stayed up into the second season, and the third and fourth. You can not compare what Burnley might be spending now to our spending this season.

Having had time to do some research it looks as if Burnley did spend tens of millions on transfers in that 2015-17 season, although I don't know what the net spend was. However, more significantly in terms of the frugal model, their wage bill of £61m was joint lowest, and the following season , at £81m, it was 18th out of 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Having had time to do some research it looks as if Burnley did spend tens of millions on transfers in that 2015-17 season, although I don't know what the net spend was. However, more significantly in terms of the frugal model, their wage bill of £61m was joint lowest, and the following season , at £81m, it was 18th out of 20.

I think what teams such as Burnley and Sheffield United this season have shown is that you can get good players within a sensible wage budget at this level- but you'll still have to pay a decent-sized fee for them.

What you're highly unlikely to find is Premier League ready players who'll take a lower than average wage without paying a decent price for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRANSFER RECORD 16/17
Income/Expenditure Arrivals/Departures Fee
Overall balance

£-39.96m

Income 21 £1.08m
Expenditure 22 £41.04m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

I think what teams such as Burnley and Sheffield United this season have shown is that you can get good players within a sensible wage budget at this level- but you'll still have to pay a decent-sized fee for them.

What you're highly unlikely to find is Premier League ready players who'll take a lower than average wage without paying a decent price for them.

Their bill compared to ours is much larger. People are sticking their heads in the sand if they think spending as little as we did will allow you to escape relegation in the top flight. No one has ever done it. If you are happy with our spending fair play but at least recognise that means you will be plying most of your trade in the 2nd tier. Again if you are happy with that fair play. I have bigger hopes for my club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The argument is that if we are following any model it is Burnley’s rather than the other way round. And the facts do certainly support the idea that Burnley had a plan very similar to ours now -  not to overspend in the first season in the PL, accepting relegation as a probability but gradually improving so that sooner or later they would stay up and then start to consolidate.

So Burnley twice got relegated straight back down before managing to stay up at the third attempt. If we go down this season it will be the first time under the new plan.

If you are including 2016-17 then your transfer spending figures are for the four seasons in the PL. You didn’t specify which season it was that they spent 40m (did they really in one season, because that only leaves 15m for the other three seasons?) but my guess is if that figure is right it wasn’t for their first season back. Added to which, what matters is net spending. Did Burnley sell players to find this splurge?

Burnley may have started to spend more on transfers and  on wages, but almost certainly not straight away. Only once they’re had stayed up into the second season, and the third and fourth. You can not compare what Burnley might be spending now to our spending this season.

Burnley are interesting for a few points...

1) They actually spent significant sums post relegation- Andre Grey being the big signing. This was partly financed by sales but they had a net positive transfer spend which is quite unusual for a team that has just been relegated. 

2) Their wages are complemented by what they describe as a very aggressive bonus scheme. Is this something we also do? It would be interesting to know.

3) Their chairman seemed to suggest recently that where the wage budget is this season is probably the maximum they can stretch it to. Will this catch up to them and will they have to look at external investment at some point?

4) According to their chairman they have had a net spend of £87.5m since they got promoted. 

Link here- https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/mike-garlick-interview-burnley-chairman-16869360

Edited by king canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, king canary said:

Burnley are interesting for a few points...

1) They actually spent significant sums post relegation- Andre Grey being the big signing. This was partly financed by sales but they had a net positive transfer spend which is quite unusual for a team that has just been relegated. 

2) Their wages are complemented by what they describe as a very aggressive bonus scheme. Is this something we also do? It would be interesting to know.

3) Their chairman seemed to suggest recently that where the wage budget is this season is probably the maximum they can stretch it to. Will this catch up to them and will they have to look at external investment at some point?

4) According to their chairman they have had a net spend of £87.5m since they got promoted. 

Link here- https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/mike-garlick-interview-burnley-chairman-16869360

And the point being is that their Chairman acknowledges that you have to spend wisely and they have a cash flow that allows them to do that rather than not. If the chairman of Burnley is saying they have a net spend of £87.5m then that shows you what is needed to play with the big boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

And the point being is that their Chairman acknowledges that you have to spend wisely and they have a cash flow that allows them to do that rather than not. If the chairman of Burnley is saying they have a net spend of £87.5m then that shows you what is needed to play with the big boys.

Can’t you just spend £750,000 on your major signing and cross your fingers that you stay up ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, king canary said:

Burnley are interesting for a few points...

1) They actually spent significant sums post relegation- Andre Grey being the big signing. This was partly financed by sales but they had a net positive transfer spend which is quite unusual for a team that has just been relegated. 

2) Their wages are complemented by what they describe as a very aggressive bonus scheme. Is this something we also do? It would be interesting to know.

3) Their chairman seemed to suggest recently that where the wage budget is this season is probably the maximum they can stretch it to. Will this catch up to them and will they have to look at external investment at some point?

4) According to their chairman they have had a net spend of £87.5m since they got promoted. 

Link here- https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/mike-garlick-interview-burnley-chairman-16869360

Thanks. It is an interesting interview. Not sure, though, that the net spend figure is so surprising. It is since they had their first season back in the PL in 2014-15,  so takes in five full seasons, including four in the PL, and this season so far, again in the PL, with presumably the summer window taken into account, since the piece is dated September 2019. That works out at a net spend of about £15m a season.

As it happens our net spend that disastrous summer of 2013 our net spend was among the highest in Europe...🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Thanks. It is an interesting interview. Not sure, though, that the net spend figure is so surprising. It is since they had their first season back in the PL in 2014-15,  so takes in five full seasons, including four in the PL, and this season so far, again in the PL, with presumably the summer window taken into account, since the piece is dated September 2019. That works out at a net spend of about £15m a season.

As it happens our net spend that disastrous summer of 2013 our net spend was among the highest in Europe...🤪

Yes I agree our current owners spend money disastrously in 2013.... 

It's still zero argument for spending wisely. They just do not invest enough for us to be a successful premiership club. Time for a change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all very well studying Burnley as a model to follow. But this is just a small window in time and very soon nobody will want to be Burnley. They will move seamlessly on to the next club who happen to sit there. There's been 36 different teams in the PL in the past 10 years. 7 of them have been there for all 10 years. So 13 places have been divided among the other 29. No wonder the go to "wannabe club" has changed so often.

It's difficult to see how a club like Burnley or like Norwich can be established in the PL with such a turnover of clubs. And that's without Leeds, Forest, Derby and Wednesday who will surely eventually get a turn on the gravy train. All things considered it's difficult to see how Norwich and Burnley have spent half the last 10 years in the premier league. It's a hell of an achievement by our owners and theirs. But ours get scant credit from those who covet other people's money on here.

Those with long memories will remember the time when the binners were a wannabe. "How could they get someone like Evans while our owners didn't even try". Of course when it all unravelled for them, and folk realised, Evans became the type of owner we didn't want. But if we'd done what was suggested it would have been too late after we found out...

 

Edited by nutty nigel
can't do sums...
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very coherent and valiant attempts here by Badgero and Nuttyo, but lads , you will never persuade someone who  believes  that on order for the club to grow,  we must receive  external investment . I can see both sides but err towards sticking with the current plan and trying to build our Club  through sound recruitment , prudent sales and in club fundraising. I dont mind if this process  is slow. That's just me, I realise some want success now, or preferably  yesterday. No one is wrong,  just some feel that having  a gamble would increase  our chances of ' success', it could but it could also increase  our chances of failure.  I'm not prepared to take that risk after the Club stabilising itself. Maybe I'm unambitious,  I don't think so, as my ambition is to retain  the core  stability  of the club while steadily improving on the pitch.  My experience in football is mainly on the coaching/ player development  side not the admin/ financial side , maybe that has skewed my opinion.

Edited by wcorkcanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Fact is Burnley have spent far more than we have.. ITS A FACT. 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/burnley-fc/transfers/verein/1132/plus/0?saison_id=2016&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=

from 16/17 to 19/20 seasons a net spend of £55m.

Sorry Kenny, but that's the trouble of using a website like Transfermarket. They may act as a useful guide and as an objective site and have their uses but of course, they are essentially guesses and rumour of limited accuracy. The figures I gave you are from Burnley's published accounts - if they were inaccurate, they would be committing fraud.

What the accounts show is that Burnley have been very frugal with their money. The limitation that they have is that they are not up-to-date. We do do not yet have figures for 18-19, let alone 19-20, however, there is no reason to assume that they have abandoned previous frugality.

It is precisely because they have  made a profit from transfers in previous years they were sitting with a big cash pile and may have felt able to spend more subsequently. They made a before tax profit of £27.3 million in 2016-17 and £45.1 million 2017-2018 - this is simply fact, unless they are committing fraud for the perverse reason that they wish to pay more tax!! 😀 A large part of this profit came from player trading (about £32 million) but it is also because they kept good control of wages.

I would be very happy if we were able to emulate Burnley's frugality, because you have seen the benefits that it can bring if we look to the medium term rather than the short term.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, king canary said:

Burnley are interesting for a few points...

1) They actually spent significant sums post relegation- Andre Grey being the big signing. This was partly financed by sales but they had a net positive transfer spend which is quite unusual for a team that has just been relegated. 

2) Their wages are complemented by what they describe as a very aggressive bonus scheme. Is this something we also do? It would be interesting to know.

3) Their chairman seemed to suggest recently that where the wage budget is this season is probably the maximum they can stretch it to. Will this catch up to them and will they have to look at external investment at some point?

4) According to their chairman they have had a net spend of £87.5m since they got promoted. 

Link here- https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/mike-garlick-interview-burnley-chairman-16869360

Thanks for the link KC. 

I would point out in response to your point about the purchases after relegation that they managed this because they had been careful in the past and had not exploited a "margin of error" that you are so keen on. I would also certainly hope that we have an aggressive bonus scheme - the costs of our promotion suggest that this might well be the case - perhaps one to ask at an AGM?

As I understand the article, Burnley are open to extra investment but insist that it would have to be "sustainable" he goes on to say that they would consider it "but have never had a knock on the door." He also pointed to the danger of a new owner "losing interest" and leaving the club in trouble. What is clear is their determination to make a profit and to remain in the black.

I also liked their attitudes to transfers, and suspect that ours was similar (we go back to ACM😀😞

“We have a pot of money and might spend it if the right opportunities arise. We’re looking for value on players, and if we can find that, we spend it, if we don’t, we leave it."

So KC - a convert to the Burnley way* now?

(* It's not really "the Burnley way," it is simple common sense that has helped other teams like Swansea and West Brom, do OK, until changes in ownership (aka "bringing in external investment knocked, Swansea in particular of course).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

It's all very well studying Burnley as a model to follow. But this is just a small window in time and very soon nobody will want to be Burnley.

I agree - but it's not just Burnley - there is no "model" really to follow - its just financial prudence. Other teams have done it, West Brom, Swansea for a while, us for a while (McNally mark one) + many others. 

As you point out, nobody outside the top 6 to 10 are "permanently guaranteed PL football. A very simple statistical model is quite useful I think, although it is very approximate. If you assume that in any given year 10 teams are almost certainly not going to be relegated, it means that 3 relegated teams must come from the other 10. This gives a 30% chance of being relegated. 

Of course, this is a bit simple, I am aware of the model's limitations. Some teams, particularly newly promoted, are probably greater than 30% others probably less so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2020 at 14:41, king canary said:

Stoke

I don't think that there is any doubt that they are decent owners. They are owned by the Coates family (owners of Bet 365) - all local and all fans. the club currently owes them about 141 million on which they charge no interest. (Their net debt is reported at £174 million.) They also have very deep pockets and the family (who are all involved with Stoke FC - it's not just one person) are said to be worth about 7 billion. they are not "ordinary billionaires," I think that they can stand the loss of a c£150 million. You couldn't really ask for much more from an owner.

Despite this they languish in the lower parts of the Championship. I am not going to overplay this - it can happen to any club and they may well rise from their current plight. However, I would point out a couple of things:

1. The huge wealth and generosity of the family do not seem to have insulated Stoke from the realities of football gravity. They had what you refer to as a margin of safety in spades, but I'm not sure that it has worked to their advantage. 

2. You could, correctly, point to 10 consistent years in the premier league, which is more than we have achieved, but equally, I would point out that Stoke had a better record in the old Division One than we did as well. (+ I wouldn't pay the price of Pulis as manager in any case). Stoke have a long history (perhaps most famously as one of Stanley Matthews clubs) and through it have been more frequently in the top tier than we have - has their money really changed the course of history all that much and are they in a much stronger position than us at present? 

3. As it currently stands, Stoke have lost over 45 million in the last two seasons and are at risk of FFP intervention and a points loss, The "margin of error" that they have has meant that they have had to hack back at costs in a way a more financially independent club does not have to do.

4. They are now very dependent upon the Coates family. If they escape relegation and FFP intervention it will be interesting to see what happens. My best guess is that the Coates family will stick with it - they can afford it and they seem genuinely committed. I wonder what an investor owner would do in the same circumstances? What do you think KC?

5. Assuming that the Coates stick with Stoke, it will be interesting to see what model they adopt going forwards. Whether they continue to pump prime the club through the Championship into the PL and onwards. Given the rising costs of football, this is likely to cost them more than the £150 million than the club already owes them. It may be that they decide to run the club on a more sustainable basis going forwards - like QPR seem to have decided after their financial splurge. Watch this space.

There is a lot of interesting detail below including their gamble on a quick return with "proven Championship talent.".

http://financialfootballnews.com/stoke-citys-2019-finances-cold-wet-and-windy/

 

Edited by Badger
Link inserted
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great posts, especially some of the research done by Badger, it's really appreciated because i'm too lazy to go and do it myself half the time! 😄

There was a topic of conversation on the radio the other day about the 'modern football fan' and this entire thread is perhaps a case in point. It's certainly different even from when I started supporting about 18 years ago. At the time, you could take a football match in isolation and simply enjoy it or be annoyed about it, but still experience it.

I feel the same now.

There's a lot on this thread though who have basically said there's no point in football because our owners won't spend enough money, or don't have enough of it. 

Maybe i'm just too relaxed about it but if i'm watching good football, if i'm watching young players from our academy prove themselves, and if i'm experiencing the kind of ride we've had for the last 10 years then I think i've done pretty well as a fan. I've definitely got my money's worth.

There's such a long, long list of clubs bigger and similarly sized to us that haven't been able to experience even a quarter of what we have, yet for some it's still not enough. I get the whole 'always look to do better' approach, but who can tell me that doesn't seem to be what Farke, Webber and everyone at the club wants too? They certainly proved you all wrong when you wanted Farke sacked after his first season. They then proved you wrong again when you said we "cant compete in the championship with all these rich clubs". You were definitely proved wrong when you said "we're no better than Ipswich". *

 

*you applies to a general group of posters who will know who they are and likely react badly. Soz.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Some great posts, especially some of the research done by Badger, it's really appreciated because i'm too lazy to go and do it myself half the time! 😄

There was a topic of conversation on the radio the other day about the 'modern football fan' and this entire thread is perhaps a case in point. It's certainly different even from when I started supporting about 18 years ago. At the time, you could take a football match in isolation and simply enjoy it or be annoyed about it, but still experience it.

I feel the same now.

There's a lot on this thread though who have basically said there's no point in football because our owners won't spend enough money, or don't have enough of it. 

Maybe i'm just too relaxed about it but if i'm watching good football, if i'm watching young players from our academy prove themselves, and if i'm experiencing the kind of ride we've had for the last 10 years then I think i've done pretty well as a fan. I've definitely got my money's worth.

There's such a long, long list of clubs bigger and similarly sized to us that haven't been able to experience even a quarter of what we have, yet for some it's still not enough. I get the whole 'always look to do better' approach, but who can tell me that doesn't seem to be what Farke, Webber and everyone at the club wants too? They certainly proved you all wrong when you wanted Farke sacked after his first season. They then proved you wrong again when you said we "cant compete in the championship with all these rich clubs". You were definitely proved wrong when you said "we're no better than Ipswich". *

 

*you applies to a general group of posters who will know who they are and likely react badly. Soz.

Reading this I kept thinking 'I'll highlight that bit as something I agree with', turns out I just agree with the lot, well said.

Also, did you just drop a microphone after posting this? 

If you didn't, it's an opportunity wasted.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Some great posts, especially some of the research done by Badger, it's really appreciated because i'm too lazy to go and do it myself half the time! 😄

There was a topic of conversation on the radio the other day about the 'modern football fan' and this entire thread is perhaps a case in point. It's certainly different even from when I started supporting about 18 years ago. At the time, you could take a football match in isolation and simply enjoy it or be annoyed about it, but still experience it.

I feel the same now.

There's a lot on this thread though who have basically said there's no point in football because our owners won't spend enough money, or don't have enough of it. 

Maybe i'm just too relaxed about it but if i'm watching good football, if i'm watching young players from our academy prove themselves, and if i'm experiencing the kind of ride we've had for the last 10 years then I think i've done pretty well as a fan. I've definitely got my money's worth.

There's such a long, long list of clubs bigger and similarly sized to us that haven't been able to experience even a quarter of what we have, yet for some it's still not enough. I get the whole 'always look to do better' approach, but who can tell me that doesn't seem to be what Farke, Webber and everyone at the club wants too? They certainly proved you all wrong when you wanted Farke sacked after his first season. They then proved you wrong again when you said we "cant compete in the championship with all these rich clubs". You were definitely proved wrong when you said "we're no better than Ipswich". *

 

*you applies to a general group of posters who will know who they are and likely react badly. Soz.

In general I agree. I think the state of modern football is such that you have to take games/seasons in isolation. If you think too much about the bigger picture it all gets a bit depressing as the competition is now so warped that really the most we can hope for is finishing 7th and winning a cup.

I also don't really have any problem with our current owners. They bought the club back when being owned by someone worth £20m was potentially a slight advantage. It is not their fault that the insane inflation in football has rendered them one of the poorest owners in the top two divisions. 

Where is do have an issue is the decision that this ceiling imposed by this lack of funding must continue in order to keep the club owned by someone with the surname Smith.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always admired Burnley as a club. They were, when I was a youngster, European Cup quarter finalists and regularly after trophies.

The town is small, less than 75K, and is surrounded by other football clubs. Yet they manage to keep in and around the top divison.

I don't want us to be Burnley but as I say, I do admire them. But I would love to see us bury them in the turf in our last home game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have always admired Burnley as a club. They were, when I was a youngster, European Cup quarter finalists and regularly after trophies.

The town is small, less than 75K, and is surrounded by other football clubs. Yet they manage to keep in and around the top divison.

I don't want us to be Burnley but as I say, I do admire them. But I would love to see us bury them in the turf in our last home game.

In fact they were a classic case of industrial decline, as one of the Lancashire mill towns, affecting the local football club. They got relegated from the top flight in 1975-76 and didn't get back until 2009-10, and in 1986-67 were one game away from being relegated from the fourth tier into non-league football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, king canary said:

Where is do have an issue is the decision that this ceiling imposed by this lack of funding must continue in order to keep the club owned by someone with the surname Smith.

Perhaps the problem is that you see it as a "ceiling," when it should really be seen as a "safety net?"

You probably didn't notice, but I  asked you a question about what you thought an investor owner would do in Stoke's current position - I'd be interested in your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoke are sooooooo yesterday's wannabe club.

I haven't researched this but in my mind it appears harder to bounce back after longer stays in the PL. Stoke, Swansea and Sunderland come to mind for having a few years up there. West Brom too but they seem to be handling things better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...