so no benefit then, I agree with you. By the time it becomes detrimental (i.e. if we sell a player for a large amount and they decide it's time to take the interest) it will be too late. If there's never an intention of it becoming detrimental then why charge it, any ideas?
They are only putting short term loans in currently aren't they, they take the money out as soon as the cash is available. I want them to be here for the benefit of the club, so for a short term loan of less than a year I would say 0% would be fair. If they can grow the value of the club I'm happy that they can take their profit when they sell, they can earn it by making the club successful, not just by trading players and eventually taking the interest out.
Anyhow, my main concern was for Pete and not wanting him to believe all that he's being told. And I really don't mean that to be patronising.
What if the club get promoted or a big sale actually happens?
Its accumulated - money when taken out is against the capital
We do know we can’t afford not to sell or we have to take extra loans out
We also won’t know until the next series of accounts (we won’t even know then fully) the amount we actually get for the sold player
As stated the fee for McCallum was nothing like the quoted amount at all. Maddison and Wilson have kept the club going by the way the deals were constructed - Boddy is no Chris Anderson - he’s not even a Steve Waggott
And as day follows night, slight sign of negativity and Grendal offers his clueless, uneducated but seemingly “I know fucking everything” thoughts on the matter.
Wonder how many contradictions you’ll be making this evening that you seem to ignore when questioned on?
If, don't know, assume - I thought you only liked concrete facts?If the purpose of the initial advance was as investment then removing funds to the extent of it being detrimental hardly makes sense
I don't know where the shareholders raised their funds so can only assume it relates in someway to their borrowing rate plus risk
You are also basing (it seems) on SISU having lots of free cash - ever thought they don't?
this is where you are wrong. I’ll correct it for you though because I’m nice like that:I don't. But as he's still here it's a pretty fair assumption that currently there aren't clubs willing to meet the club's valuation for O'Hare or any of their current key assets.
I don't. But as he's still here it's a pretty fair assumption that currently there aren't clubs willing to meet the club's latest asking price for O'Hare or any of their current key assets.
Then why the fuck do you keep bleating about the fact boddy can’t get the price he wants for him thenNo one knows what the price was - as I said mccallum was nothing like the fee we claimed
Then why the fuck do you keep bleating about the fact boddy can’t get the price he wants for him then
Mate honestly it’s like you argue against yourself sometimes.
I think I’m going to start calling you Smeagol
I am sorry but I cannot follow your logic regarding the interest and SISU taking their money back
A nil net investment does not prove that. The accounts show a large accrual for interest
I keep meaning to do a year on year cash statement but never get the time. Perhaps instead of reading this lot?
But what will your excuse be when he’s sold for a good price before the end of the window?Unfortunately this thread is heading like the Bright one with the “show us the evidence” mantra and denial against the obvious
But what will your excuse be when he’s sold for a good price before the end of the window?
Because Burnley are fucked financially and we dont think they'd pay over installments, the same with Bayern selling to Barca and demanding it all upfront.Well I’m sure if he’s sold for £5 million Mr Boddy will say it’s a good price
It’s pretty obvious if you accept it or not that we have internally over valued the assets. The ITK guy has openly also said the club are seeking a cash upfront arrangement (I wonder why)
I wouldn’t worry though I’m sure we can insert an international cap clause and if he makes 50 premiership appearances to enhance the fee and further strengthen the belief we are the new Brentford
Then rather like McCallum when the accounts get published you are left scratching your head and wondering where’s that money gone.
Because Burnley are fucked financially and we dont think they'd pay over installments, the same with Bayern selling to Barca and demanding it all upfront.
We've spent years losing players for below market value, finally we're standing firm and you moan. Really mate?
Just Jonny Opposite on everythingBecause Burnley are fucked financially and we dont think they'd pay over installments, the same with Bayern selling to Barca and demanding it all upfront.
We've spent years losing players for below market value, finally we're standing firm and you moan. Really mate?
Well I’m sure if he’s sold for £5 million Mr Boddy will say it’s a good price
It’s pretty obvious if you accept it or not that we have internally over valued the assets. The ITK guy has openly also said the club are seeking a cash upfront arrangement (I wonder why)
I wouldn’t worry though I’m sure we can insert an international cap clause and if he makes 50 premiership appearances to enhance the fee and further strengthen the belief we are the new Brentford
Then rather like McCallum when the accounts get published you are left scratching your head and wondering where’s that money gone.
And how would that affect your approachThe cash statement YOY would be interesting
Do it with and without profit on players sales and see what it looks like without profit on those sales
Considerably negative I would assume?
The cash statement YOY would be interesting
Do it with and without profit on players sales and see what it looks like without profit on those sales
Considerably negative I would assume?
Because Burnley are fucked financially and we dont think they'd pay over installments, the same with Bayern selling to Barca and demanding it all upfront.
We've spent years losing players for below market value, finally we're standing firm and you moan. Really mate?
Because Burnley are fucked financially and we dont think they'd pay over installments, the same with Bayern selling to Barca and demanding it all upfront.
We've spent years losing players for below market value, finally we're standing firm and you moan. Really mate?
"We should have demanded the fees up front knowing Burnley are in financial trouble" - Grendel
"We should have sold him, we need the money" - Grendel
"Boddy will undersell him" - Grendel
"Boddy has put the price too high" - Grendel
"No one wants Hamer" - Grendel
"We don't know what offers are being made for players realistically" - Grendel
Have I mostly summed that up? Any way we can somehow make this about Biamou yet?
Typical Boddy sponsored drivel
this is where you are wrong. I’ll correct it for you though because I’m nice like that:
Why is that lazy. Do you honestly think Kompany no longer wants O’Hare ? I don’t … if they bring in more funds for Cornet, McNeil etc they will be back in for him I’m sure.Lazy journalism in the DT today with a throwaway comment that Kompany still wants to land O Hare - Kompany will become the new Wayne Rooney for the Daily Telegraph so can expect an article a day on Burnley ffs - will send another letter of complaint
So what’s the solution?
we sell someone to bridge the gap and if we can’t get the money for one then Moore I assume would be considered to make up the difference as we are failing to offload the likes of waghorn and Walker
we sell someone to bridge the gap and if we can’t get the money for one then Moore I assume would be considered to make up the difference as we are failing to offload the likes of waghorn and Walker
Surely whatever we received for Moore would be relatively nominal though.
No club is realistically paying anywhere near seven figures for a 32 year old mid-table ability GK who will be coming in as nothing more than a No.2.
Surely whatever we received for Moore would be relatively nominal though?
No club is realistically paying anywhere near seven figures for a 32 year old mid-table ability GK who will be coming in as nothing more than a No.2.
Typical Boddy sponsored drivel
I mean in the longer term
The only way the club can maintain its existence in the league with these owners is to sell players and buy others at a much smaller outlay
Easier in lower leagues but clearly they Hope a player is deemed good enough to attract a large premier league fee
So if Gyokeres can keep scoring and improve on his conversion rate I would think there’s the plan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?