Time to go, but who's next ?

If the debt's not the problem, Sluff (and I'm not contradicting you in saying that), why didn't we snap up Jutkiewicz when we had the chance?

And why are we closing in on the end of the transfer window with precious little to show for our "efforts" to bring in new players?

Freedman went on record as saying that all his transfer business would be concluded "in the first couple of weeks of the window" and the way things are looking, he was right.

We're scratching round for loan deals that all appear to be getting hijacked as soon as our interest becomes public knowledge and it's not looking good.

All the signs are that we have absolutely no money to bring in (desperately needed) new players and if it's not the debt, what is it?

 

terenceanne wrote:Any foreign manager will do....preferably one that doesn't speak a word of English.  No way he could ever understand what fat Phil is talking about. Just stick to what's happening on the pitch.
Of course strictly speaking the last two don't speak English either   

Terence- if being a foreigner and not speaking English are the two prime criteria- we should go for Neil Lennon as he fits the bill.
He would shake this lot up as well

I addressed that at the start of my second paragraph in the above post - namely the debt does now constrains us on our current and future transfer policy.

What I meant in saying the debt is not a problem is more that it wont lead us to administration, points deductions, fire sale of players and stuff like that. It wont mean that all our income goes towards servicing the debt at the cost of everything else - for instance we are looking to bring people in on loan, or unatteached like the Crewe lad, and we are paying people to do those graffiti drawings of players on the walls - neither of which we would be doing if we really were in the financial shit.

I tend to think those putting money into the club are still happy enough to keep us afloat but for now and probably for a long time after, we have to live within a realistic budget, even though we will still be running at a loss for years to come.

As for the Juke, it is my understanding we did put a bid in contraty to what many of our fans believe but the Burnley bid was accepted due to the monies being paid up front, whilst we offered to pay in instalments.

Hope this helps clarify my initial point.

Breadman wrote:If the debt's not the problem, Sluff (and I'm not contradicting you in saying that), why didn't we snap up Jutkiewicz when we had the chance?

And why are we closing in on the end of the transfer window with precious little to show for our "efforts" to bring in new players?

Freedman went on record as saying that all his transfer business would be concluded "in the first couple of weeks of the window" and the way things are looking, he was right.

We're scratching round for loan deals that all appear to be getting hijacked as soon as our interest becomes public knowledge and it's not looking good.

All the signs are that we have absolutely no money to bring in (desperately needed) new players and if it's not the debt, what is it?

 

I'd imagine it's because of FFP and public scrutiny. As I understand it, FFP means that clubs can only spend on transfers the amount they have made in trading profit.

With BWFC having invested in land and infrastructure etc there is no profit "on paper" and therefore the money available to spend on transfers is zero under FFP regulations.
However in future years it may be possible to declare a paper profit providing the ROI on the land/infrastructure outstrips the loan repayments which at 0% interest would be £16.3 million p.a. if it was a straight line repayment agreement.
Also depends on how much further investment is required to develop the assets.

The conundrum is this:

If a club doesn't invest in a diverse range of income streams (property development, retail, hotels, facilities etc) the profit it makes will be entirely dependent on football-related trading activities and therefore it will have to spend heavily on the team to generate that profit. All good but it means all their eggs are in one basket AND they have to be successful as a team every year despite only spending the profit they make on players .
If a club diversifies it's investments it is hamstrung in the early years as any profit goes into investments rather than on the pitch, but in the long term the risk is spread and there is a much more secure base to the business meaning more to spend on players in the future.

We have chosen short term pain for long term gain it would seem.

Cheers Sluff and Lusty.

The more this plays out, the more credence I'm giving to the comments made by the bloke who used to collect my Goldline quid once a week that I've previously referred to on here.

When we first went down, he told me that the club had a five year plan to re-establish itself financially and they would not be targeting promotion during that time.


I know people often quote "club insiders" on sites like Nuts, but this guy had always been spot on with his info previously (he told me Megson had gone nearly a week before it was announced and even mentioned "a protracted period of gardening leave" would follow) and I now fully believe what he told me.

At the time it didn't seem to make much sense, with me thinking that 99% or any revenue generated by the club would have to come from matters related to what actually went on on the pitch, but it all makes sense now.

Maybe there is a long-term plan, after all.......

I'm certain there is a long term plan, those who believe Davies simply put £150 million of his own money into a hobby of his - BWFC, are simply living in cloud cuckcoo land.

It's fairly clear too that the focus of the plan is much broader than just on the football side itself and that's the bit why many fans can't grasp as to why things like Gartside remaining in post, or not going out and paying what it takes to get Juke or any other player, when we need them, etc.

The people behind BWFC, Moonshift, etc, run them as business towards their own personal ends and not just as a stand alone football club for the fans.

wanderlust wrote:

Breadman wrote:If the debt's not the problem, Sluff (and I'm not contradicting you in saying that), why didn't we snap up Jutkiewicz when we had the chance?

And why are we closing in on the end of the transfer window with precious little to show for our "efforts" to bring in new players?

Freedman went on record as saying that all his transfer business would be concluded "in the first couple of weeks of the window" and the way things are looking, he was right.

We're scratching round for loan deals that all appear to be getting hijacked as soon as our interest becomes public knowledge and it's not looking good.

All the signs are that we have absolutely no money to bring in (desperately needed) new players and if it's not the debt, what is it?

 

I'd imagine it's because of FFP and public scrutiny. As I understand it, FFP means that clubs can only spend on transfers the amount they have made in trading profit.

With BWFC having invested in land and infrastructure etc there is no profit "on paper" and therefore the money available to spend on transfers is zero under FFP regulations.
However in future years it may be possible to declare a paper profit providing the ROI on the land/infrastructure outstrips the loan repayments which at 0% interest would be £16.3 million p.a. if it was a straight line repayment agreement.
Also depends on how much further investment is required to develop the assets.

The conundrum is this:

If a club doesn't invest in a diverse range of income streams (property development, retail, hotels, facilities etc) the profit it makes will be entirely dependent on football-related trading activities and therefore it will have to spend heavily on the team to generate that profit. All good but it means all their eggs are in one basket AND they have to be successful as a team every year despite only spending the profit they make on players .
If a club diversifies it's investments it is hamstrung in the early years as any profit goes into investments rather than on the pitch, but in the long term the risk is spread and there is a much more secure base to the business meaning more to spend on players in the future.

We have chosen short term pain for long term gain it would seem.

Which is even more baffling that the club don't appear to be too bothered about attendances dropping. You would think that them upstairs would want the football side to be as profitable as possible.

I've heard this mentioned a number of times in passing, but there seems to be breakdown between the football side of the business and the business itself. The supporters are paramount to the survival of the football club, but the business men seem to have lost touch with that. No supporters = no football club.

When big Nat was here he was the conduit between the business and the football club, but since his passing that appears to be broken. On the face of it is obvious what needs to happen.

The football side of the business needs to be refocused and more effort has to be done to make it run to capacity (i.e. maximising turnover from developed players, turnover from the stadium, merchandise turnover etc).

On the subject of capacity We have a 25k person stadium that we are barely half filling. Get bums on seats whatever it takes. I'm not going to go into change of managerial personnel etc again, but that should also be a consideration, even to the point of style of football should be a considered. Drop ticket prices (refund some of the season ticket holders the difference if that keeps us regular supporters happy) as long as we start filling the stadium. More bums on seats = more paying for drinks and pies and more money spent in the store. When we have the capacity of the stadium up the football side of the business will also be working at an increased capacity and we'll have a greater turnover.

I can't for the life of me think of a reason why this is not being done.

Breadman wrote:Cheers Sluff and Lusty.

The more this plays out, the more credence I'm giving to the comments made by the bloke who used to collect my Goldline quid once a week that I've previously referred to on here.

When we first went down, he told me that the club had a five year plan to re-establish itself financially and they would not be targeting promotion during that time.


I know people often quote "club insiders" on sites like Nuts, but this guy had always been spot on with his info previously (he told me Megson had gone nearly a week before it was announced and even mentioned "a protracted period of gardening leave" would follow) and I now fully believe what he told me.

At the time it didn't seem to make much sense, with me thinking that 99% or any revenue generated by the club would have to come from matters related to what actually went on on the pitch, but it all makes sense now.

Maybe there is a long-term plan, after all.......

I'm not saying there is mate. I'm a business strategist and having seen the accounts and looked at what little info comes out of the club this would be my guess - or at least with the arrival of FFP diversification of income streams is what I'd look into.
I suspect we are behind the curve as FFP favours clubs who have no debt and have not made cash consuming investments so your bloke could be on the right track as it is likely to take several years before ROI outstrips costs to free up cash for transfers - and clubs that we might have considered to be less affluent than ours will hold the advantage when it comes to transfers so we're in for a rough ride.

That's entirely dependent on the theory being correct of course.

JAH wrote:Get seats on bums

Sounds painful.

Your theory comes as close to explaining what's going on as anything else I've heard / read on the subject, Lusty, so it'll do for me!

And, interestingly enough, "my bloke" suddenly stopped collecting my pound shortly after he told me about what was going on and was replaced by a spotty kid.

I'm now thinking I wasn't the only one he was telling and this expedited his sudden disappearance.

Wonder how many contributors the Lifeline has on the Gulag Archipelago......

JAH wrote:I can't for the life of me think of a reason why this is not being done.

I think the technical term for why it probably isn't being done is 'opportunity costs'.

In an ideal world the owners would be maximising profit from the club, as well as all their other business ventures but if they don't have enough funds to do both, then they will invest in the areas where they consider they will get the best return on their money from.

The fact that the owners have consentrated so much of their time recently in developing plans for land around the club and obtaining planning permission, seems to suggest this is a higher priority to them, than maximising revenue at the Reebok.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

JAH wrote:Get seats on bums

Sounds painful.

Thanks Nat. Now edited

Breadman wrote:Your theory comes as close to explaining what's going on as anything else I've heard / read on the subject, Lusty, so it'll do for me!

And, interestingly enough, "my bloke" suddenly stopped collecting my pound shortly after he told me about what was going on and was replaced by a spotty kid.

I'm now thinking I wasn't the only one he was telling and this expedited his sudden disappearance.

Wonder how many contributors the Lifeline has on the Gulag Archipelago......

Shame a similar arrangement couldn't be made for the twat that keeps leaking our transfer targets to the press. As soon as the word is out, Chorley FC or Afan Lido step in and muscle us out with their fancy offers of tea, hobnobs AND wages.

Boggers......?

The problem with a long term plan is that you'll eventually lose your main source of income, which is parachute payments.

Copper Dragon wrote:The problem with a long term plan is that you'll eventually lose your main source of income, which is parachute payments.

Somewhere a Burnley forum is missing its ScottJames.

I preferred you when you'd fecked off in a huff.

Breadman wrote:Boggers......?

Yes?

It wasn't a huff my little swamp duck, I was forcibly sent to a gulag by Joseph.

I then fancied tuning in to another channel for a while.

You will soon get to 20,000 posts with me back Nastase.

Malky Mackay might be desperate for a job by the end of the week. We can't be too fussy.

Copper Dragon wrote:It wasn't a huff my little swamp duck, I was forcibly sent to a gulag by Joseph.

I then fancied tuning in to another channel for a while.

You will soon get to 20,000 posts with me back Nastase.

Well this 'Joseph Vissarionovich' asked you very nicely multiple times that evening to pack in the abuse you were giving (which you continually ignored to do) before I had no option left but to turn your tap off for the night, it was way past midnight by this time and which I turned back on again only a few hours later before I set out for work.

It's a free world and you can post where you like, when you like - and it is very good to see you on here again - but there are two sides to every story.

Anyway water under the bridge now as far as I'm concerned.