|
Post by Will_75 on Aug 9, 2017 18:01:20 GMT
I don't care, as long as we never do anything as horrible as this link
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 9, 2017 19:26:16 GMT
There were 3m worth of add odds which he achieved on goals scored, promotion and premiership survival taking the total fee to 12m. What is the £11.5? What you think Watford have bought him for? Burnley paid 9m + 3m in add ons and the fee that Watford were paying for him was originally reported on SSN as 11.5m hence why I queried the quality of the deal. Turns out they've got 18m for a player going into the final year of his contract and who refused an extension in the summer which means somehow, Burnley have secured yet another fantastic transfer fee for a player who didn't actually achieve an awful lot last season...He spent most of the season sitting on the bench and in the 32 games he featured in, he failed to score in 24 of them.
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Aug 9, 2017 19:48:14 GMT
What do you think of Burnley's business approach? When they came up they only spent something like £8 million, and they went straight back down. Then they came straight back up and aren't net spending again.
Their wage cap is £35k a week, albeit with performance based bonuses. Supposedly the staying up bonus pushed the very top earners over £50k last season which is still not a lot these days. This all but ensures they will never compete for truly good players.
Their philosophy is, if we survive with Championship level players that's great, if not that's okay too.
The most important things for them are to avoid debt and avoid depending on the largesse of one entity.
I know some of their fans are proud of their financially responsible and sustainable approach, some of them accept it as they don't want to go back to the days of near oblivion due to financial problems, and some of them are frustrated that the club has no higher ambitions than 17th and are sitting on something like £90 million with no debt but still won't spend.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 9, 2017 20:07:23 GMT
What do you think of Burnley's business approach? When they came up they only spent something like £8 million, and they went straight back down. Then they came straight back up and aren't net spending again. Their wage cap is £35k a week, albeit with performance based bonuses. Supposedly the staying up bonus pushed the very top earners over £50k last season which is still not a lot these days. This all but ensures they will never compete for truly good players. Their philosophy is, if we survive with Championship level players that's great, if not that's okay too. The most important things for them are to avoid debt and avoid depending on the largesse of one entity. I know some of their fans are proud of their financially responsible and sustainable approach, some of them accept it as they don't want to go back to the days of near oblivion due to financial problems, and some of them are frustrated that the club has no higher ambitions than 17th and are sitting on something like £90 million with no debt but still won't spend. Their owners aren't mega wealthy like ours and so many other clubs so they have to manage the club sensibly. They spend money that they can generate, they don't owe anyone a penny and they invested most of their last Premier League windfall in improving their facilities. Their ramshackle training facility has been transformed into something mightily impressive. Some of their fans do get frustrated as you mention but you have to bear in mind that this is a club that, in the Championship, got crowds of less than 10,000 if their home fixture clashed with a Champions League game. I know some genuine die hard Burnley fans who have watched them play us when we were lower than a snakes belly and I know a fair few "fair weather fans" who really only go to Burnley so they can watch their heroes from other clubs, namely Manure, Man City and Liverpool. Burnley are an even smaller provincial club than us and they don't have a billionaire owner to boot. What do I think of their approach? I think it is driven by the fact that their owners don't have the financial muscle to bail the club out should things go spectacularly tits up. They will, however, invest in a way that they believe is both sensible and sustainable. For example, they spent 12m on Gray on their last relegation and his goals ensured promotion back to the Premier League and they've now got 18m back for him. I speak from a position of knowing one of their owners particularly well, knowing the Facilities Director exceptionally well and being involved in Sponsorship deals at Burnley involving their playing staff. That is not to say that I'm right with what I'm posting but that is how I understand it based on what I am told when discussing football with various people at Burnley.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 9, 2017 20:33:01 GMT
What is the £11.5? What you think Watford have bought him for? Burnley paid 9m + 3m in add ons and the fee that Watford were paying for him was originally reported on SSN as 11.5m hence why I queried the quality of the deal. Turns out they've got 18m for a player going into the final year of his contract and who refused an extension in the summer which means somehow, Burnley have secured yet another fantastic transfer fee for a player who didn't actually achieve an awful lot last season...He spent most of the season sitting on the bench and in the 32 games he featured in, he failed to score in 24 of them. We're repeatedly told by people who think they know better that this can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Aug 9, 2017 20:44:02 GMT
Gray or Berahino?
At the moment I'd have to say Gray but hopefully Saido will have something to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 9, 2017 20:48:12 GMT
Another peer club spending money while we piss about with freebies and loans. As well as pissing about with a wage bill double theirs.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Aug 9, 2017 21:09:29 GMT
Hernandez £18 mill
|
|
|
Post by gonk on Aug 10, 2017 5:26:57 GMT
Burnley paid £9m for him then sold him for more than £18m. There were 3m worth of add odds which he achieved on goals scored, promotion and premiership survival taking the total fee to 12m. My Mate who supports Brentford says they will get 2 mill from the transfer.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Aug 10, 2017 6:13:02 GMT
What do you think of Burnley's business approach? When they came up they only spent something like £8 million, and they went straight back down. Then they came straight back up and aren't net spending again. Their wage cap is £35k a week, albeit with performance based bonuses. Supposedly the staying up bonus pushed the very top earners over £50k last season which is still not a lot these days. This all but ensures they will never compete for truly good players. Their philosophy is, if we survive with Championship level players that's great, if not that's okay too. The most important things for them are to avoid debt and avoid depending on the largesse of one entity. I know some of their fans are proud of their financially responsible and sustainable approach, some of them accept it as they don't want to go back to the days of near oblivion due to financial problems, and some of them are frustrated that the club has no higher ambitions than 17th and are sitting on something like £90 million with no debt but still won't spend. Their owners aren't mega wealthy like ours and so many other clubs so they have to manage the club sensibly. They spend money that they can generate, they don't owe anyone a penny and they invested most of their last Premier League windfall in improving their facilities. Their ramshackle training facility has been transformed into something mightily impressive. Some of their fans do get frustrated as you mention but you have to bear in mind that this is a club that, in the Championship, got crowds of less than 10,000 if their home fixture clashed with a Champions League game. I know some genuine die hard Burnley fans who have watched them play us when we were lower than a snakes belly and I know a fair few "fair weather fans" who really only go to Burnley so they can watch their heroes from other clubs, namely Manure, Man City and Liverpool. Burnley are an even smaller provincial club than us and they don't have a billionaire owner to boot. What do I think of their approach? I think it is driven by the fact that their owners don't have the financial muscle to bail the club out should things go spectacularly tits up. They will, however, invest in a way that they believe is both sensible and sustainable. For example, they spent 12m on Gray on their last relegation and his goals ensured promotion back to the Premier League and they've now got 18m back for him. I speak from a position of knowing one of their owners particularly well, knowing the Facilities Director exceptionally well and being involved in Sponsorship deals at Burnley involving their playing staff. That is not to say that I'm right with what I'm posting but that is how I understand it based on what I am told when discussing football with various people at Burnley. Any free tickets then for when we play at there place 😀
|
|
|
Post by Bick on Aug 10, 2017 6:13:15 GMT
Everytime I watched him last year, he stood out.
Full of work, strong and an eye for goal. With the right service, think he could be a big scorer.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 10, 2017 7:34:29 GMT
Their owners aren't mega wealthy like ours and so many other clubs so they have to manage the club sensibly. They spend money that they can generate, they don't owe anyone a penny and they invested most of their last Premier League windfall in improving their facilities. Their ramshackle training facility has been transformed into something mightily impressive. Some of their fans do get frustrated as you mention but you have to bear in mind that this is a club that, in the Championship, got crowds of less than 10,000 if their home fixture clashed with a Champions League game. I know some genuine die hard Burnley fans who have watched them play us when we were lower than a snakes belly and I know a fair few "fair weather fans" who really only go to Burnley so they can watch their heroes from other clubs, namely Manure, Man City and Liverpool. Burnley are an even smaller provincial club than us and they don't have a billionaire owner to boot. What do I think of their approach? I think it is driven by the fact that their owners don't have the financial muscle to bail the club out should things go spectacularly tits up. They will, however, invest in a way that they believe is both sensible and sustainable. For example, they spent 12m on Gray on their last relegation and his goals ensured promotion back to the Premier League and they've now got 18m back for him. I speak from a position of knowing one of their owners particularly well, knowing the Facilities Director exceptionally well and being involved in Sponsorship deals at Burnley involving their playing staff. That is not to say that I'm right with what I'm posting but that is how I understand it based on what I am told when discussing football with various people at Burnley. Any free tickets then for when we play at there place 😀 If you want to sit with Burnley fans yeah. I had 10 for a box last season but went in the away end instead
|
|
|
Post by PolPotter on Aug 10, 2017 8:18:24 GMT
What is the £11.5? What you think Watford have bought him for? Burnley paid 9m + 3m in add ons and the fee that Watford were paying for him was originally reported on SSN as 11.5m hence why I queried the quality of the deal. Turns out they've got 18m for a player going into the final year of his contract and who refused an extension in the summer which means somehow, Burnley have secured yet another fantastic transfer fee for a player who didn't actually achieve an awful lot last season...He spent most of the season sitting on the bench and in the 32 games he featured in, he failed to score in 24 of them. What were the 'add ons'?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 10, 2017 8:39:29 GMT
Burnley paid 9m + 3m in add ons and the fee that Watford were paying for him was originally reported on SSN as 11.5m hence why I queried the quality of the deal. Turns out they've got 18m for a player going into the final year of his contract and who refused an extension in the summer which means somehow, Burnley have secured yet another fantastic transfer fee for a player who didn't actually achieve an awful lot last season...He spent most of the season sitting on the bench and in the 32 games he featured in, he failed to score in 24 of them. What were the 'add ons'? Appearances, goals, promotion and survival.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Aug 10, 2017 9:05:40 GMT
Any free tickets then for when we play at there place 😀 If you want to sit with Burnley fans yeah. I had 10 for a box last season but went in the away end instead Wise move 😀
|
|
|
Post by turfite on Aug 10, 2017 9:31:54 GMT
Burnley paid £9m for him then sold him for more than £18m. There were 3m worth of add odds which he achieved on goals scored, promotion and premiership survival taking the total fee to 12m. Incorrect and PolPotter is correct. We paid just a shade over 6 million for him and the add ons took it to a shade over 9 million.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 10, 2017 9:39:27 GMT
There were 3m worth of add odds which he achieved on goals scored, promotion and premiership survival taking the total fee to 12m. Incorrect and PolPotter is correct. We paid just a shade over 6 million for him and the add ons took it to a shade over 9 million. Fair enough. You know your club better than me and I had no real links to Burnley at the time you signed him. I'm going purely from memory of being flabbergasted that you, of all clubs signed him for such a fee.
|
|
|
Post by turfite on Aug 10, 2017 9:45:26 GMT
I'll not move on to your hilarious Champions League reasoning as to why our crowds were around 10,000 for night matches in the Championship for a spell, as I don't have the time.
Funny though.
|
|
|
Post by DelapsWankingArm on Aug 10, 2017 10:33:13 GMT
He'll score more goals than Saido, he's a good player and would do well for us. No he won't
|
|
|
Post by morninbob on Aug 10, 2017 13:00:11 GMT
What is the £11.5? What you think Watford have bought him for? Burnley paid 9m + 3m in add ons and the fee that Watford were paying for him was originally reported on SSN as 11.5m hence why I queried the quality of the deal. Turns out they've got 18m for a player going into the final year of his contract and who refused an extension in the summer which means somehow, Burnley have secured yet another fantastic transfer fee for a player who didn't actually achieve an awful lot last season...He spent most of the season sitting on the bench and in the 32 games he featured in, he failed to score in 24 of them. Burnley fan here, just a quick correction, Gray was £6m upfront with 3m dependent on us stopping up, £9M total. With regards to his transfer to watford, they have said it is a record fee for them, previous record was the more than £13.5m they payed (undisclosed) for Peraya.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Aug 10, 2017 20:27:46 GMT
I like Gray. In today's market I think about £15m was fair an would've paid that for Stoke to get him. I think £12m plus add ons is good business. If they stay up then the add ons are nothing in the grand scheme of things.
What a sad state of affairs to say £6m is nothing!
|
|