O'Hare bids (10 Viewers)

Briles · Jul 23, 2022

I think with Kane it might be he wasn't happy being playing second fiddle to Dabo. Just a guess like. Nothing wrong with wanting to be 1st team, sometimes it motivates players and others get the hump. Maybe Robins couldn't guarantee him that. All conjecture of course

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
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.

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?

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Grendel said:
What if the club get promoted or a big sale actually happens?

No idea!

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Grendel said:
Its accumulated - money when taken out is against the capital

Capital or Accrued Interest it does not matter as debt reduction

Reducing the Capital should reduce the interest?

Perryccfc · Jul 23, 2022

Grendel said:
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?

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

Perryccfc said:
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?

What on earth are you droning on about? The post makes no sense Perry. Have you won a shandy bass at the school fete and downed it one?

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
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?

If, don't know, assume - I thought you only liked concrete facts?

I'm not suggesting they take funds out, my initial posts weren't even suggesting they should reduce the interest (although it happens that I think they should), it was the dubious reasons being stated for the high interest that I was questioning, but I think we agree that the stated reasons are nonsense.

If SISU are borrowing from others as they don't have lots of cash then that's even more worrying, and if the people they are borrowing from see the club as such a high risk then it also doesn't say a lot for their confidence in the owners stewardship of the club, but to be fair they would have a point there.

robbiekeane · Jul 24, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.

this is where you are wrong. I’ll correct it for you though because I’m nice like that:

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.

robbiekeane · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
No 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

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

robbiekeane said:
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

Unfortunately this thread is heading like the Bright one with the “show us the evidence” mantra and denial against the obvious

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

oldfiver said:
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?

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?

robbiekeane · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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?

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

robbiekeane said:
But what will your excuse be when he’s sold for a good price before the end of the window?

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.

Greggs · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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?

clint van damme · Jul 24, 2022

Greggs said:
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?

I like it when you go all serious.

Saddlebrains · Jul 24, 2022

Are we that skint?

I mean its not like we're going to go out of business is it its just that the owners dont want to put money in and it seems they will need too if we dont flog

I mean we dont actually need one of Waghorn/Walker, and Kanes seemingly on his way out.

If people are to be belived 2 of the 3 going would save us 20K a week. That could surely help us kick the can to Jan?

The longer it goes on with no sale, and now 1 week till season starts i wouldntbe surprised if MR has said to the owners lets see where we are in Jan, because theres no question he can have us comfortably top 6 then

robbiekeane · Jul 24, 2022

Greggs said:
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 everything

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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.

All this is leading to G is the conclusion that the owners aren’t able or willing to sustain the club in this division. Which most people know but none can do anything about. Unless you have any very well placed friends this is how things are until either a change of ownership or a surprise promotion.

But even then hardly any of our competitors run at a profit and that’s from the financial clusterfuck the English game has become. You know that though-so why press the point?

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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?

And how would that affect your approach

oldfiver · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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?

Apples and pears G

I keep saying don't mix cash and profit

The CF statement shows cash received and paid out that year. So the timing of sale and the receipt of funds will be in different periods

Mcbean · Jul 24, 2022

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

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

Greggs said:
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?

Didnt one of the ITK state we were looking for similar at Fulham?

Jamesimus · Jul 24, 2022

Greggs said:
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?

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

Jamesimus said:
"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

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
Typical Boddy sponsored drivel

So what’s the solution?

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

robbiekeane said:
this is where you are wrong. I’ll correct it for you though because I’m nice like that:

How am I wrong? So by your logic even if a club had met Boddy's valuation then O'Hare or any of the club's key assets for that matter would still be here then?

Make it make sense.

Deity · Jul 24, 2022

Mcbean said:
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

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.

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
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

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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

I mean in the longer term

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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.

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.

Wage saving is more the point so they can get a player on a free on his wages or save the monthly spend until January

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 24, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.

To be fair Forest got nearly £5 million for Samba. 20% of that for Moore? Unlikely but not impossible.

Jamesimus · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
Typical Boddy sponsored drivel

I'd personally rather you were in his position, then we'd make the right decision every time and even if we didn't, it wouldn't matter because it's you

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
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

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
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

Well exactly-so why the particular scrutiny on this window? If we can’t find anyone willing to bridge the gap what are we meant to do?

O'Hare bids (10 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency