Burnley in battle to sign Nottingham Forest's Henri Lansbury

Burnley in battle to sign Nottingham Forest's Henri Lansbury

Burnley in battle to sign Nottingham Forest's Henri Lansbury

First published in Sport This Is Lancashire: Photograph of the Author by , Sports reporter

NOTTINGHAM Forest remain determined to hang on to Henri Lansbury after insisting that the midfielder is no closer to joining Burnley.

The Clarets are thought to have maintained their interest in the 23-year-old despite recently seeing a bid rejected.

Burnley are able to bide their time a little in their chase, with Lansbury currently on the sidelines with a knee injury, but Forest manager Stuart Pearce has made it clear that he wants to keep the former Arsenal youngster.

Assistant boss Steve Wigley has now reiterated Pearce’s stance.

“Henri is still a Forest player and will be this Saturday,” Wigley said.

“Hopefully he will be the Saturday after. I hope he doesn’t go. Burnley have been keen on one or two players but at the end of the day they haven’t landed them yet.

“Henri starts joining in everything (in training) now and it will probably be about 10 days from there before he’s available to play.”

Lansbury still has two years left on his contract at the City Ground and Forest want the midfielder to sign an extended deal with the club, a request that has so far met with resistance.

Burnley have also suffered frustration in their attempts to land West Brom centre back Craig Dawson after seeing three bids rejected – the most recent said to be in the region of £2m.

Dawson is keen on a move to Turf Moor but West Brom do not want to sell the 24-year-old.

The former England under 21 international has grown unhappy at a lack of first-team opportunities at the Hawthorns but could yet start the Baggies’ Premier League opener at home to Sunderland on Saturday, with fellow centre backs Joleon Lescott and Gareth McAuley both injury doubts.

Meanwhile, Tamworth’s Kaiyne Woolery, a 19-year-old striker who recently trained with Burnley, is joining Bolton Wanderers for £10,000.

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:39am Thu 14 Aug 14

jack01 says...

So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement?

Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.
So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement? Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour. jack01
  • Score: 0

9:46am Thu 14 Aug 14

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse says...

Still think Lansbury and Dawson will come.

Another winger, and maybe another central midfielder and we are good to go.

Bring on Chelski.
Still think Lansbury and Dawson will come. Another winger, and maybe another central midfielder and we are good to go. Bring on Chelski. Chuck Norris' Roundhouse
  • Score: -2

10:16am Thu 14 Aug 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

Rerun of last week's telegraph. Rerun of last week's BFC press release. Rerun of last times premier league achievement. Rerun of boards backing. Rerun in underpants.
Rerun of last week's telegraph. Rerun of last week's BFC press release. Rerun of last times premier league achievement. Rerun of boards backing. Rerun in underpants. AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: -7

10:32am Thu 14 Aug 14

houseclaret says...

If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad. houseclaret
  • Score: 21

10:35am Thu 14 Aug 14

Its Only a game boy says...

the deadwoods need a whole new team, a whole new manager and judging the numbers that turned up against the mighty Iron, a whole new crowd....
the deadwoods need a whole new team, a whole new manager and judging the numbers that turned up against the mighty Iron, a whole new crowd.... Its Only a game boy
  • Score: 6

10:47am Thu 14 Aug 14

hasslem hasslem says...

houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
reasonable comments - but lineker himself is a mullah grabbing mercenary.

even going back to his playing days he kept everton on tenterhooks.

i believe from some chums in the media that he is not the st. gary that he loves to portray.

one of the problems is people talk about salary caps etc - but unless this is adopted across europe (including non eu countries - ie russia) players will always go elsewhere for more dosh.

its right what you say about players and agents - but this is the free market economy - it finds its own level (and probably will eventually burst) - see Mangala's agent trousering £14m for brokering the deal to sign him for Manchester City
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]reasonable comments - but lineker himself is a mullah grabbing mercenary. even going back to his playing days he kept everton on tenterhooks. i believe from some chums in the media that he is not the st. gary that he loves to portray. one of the problems is people talk about salary caps etc - but unless this is adopted across europe (including non eu countries - ie russia) players will always go elsewhere for more dosh. its right what you say about players and agents - but this is the free market economy - it finds its own level (and probably will eventually burst) - see Mangala's agent trousering £14m for brokering the deal to sign him for Manchester City hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 3

10:48am Thu 14 Aug 14

Scamp Kingsley says...

jack01 wrote:
So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement?

Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.
An expert on all things BURNLEY eh, jacktoff!

Jealous and obsessive, me thinks.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement? Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.[/p][/quote]An expert on all things BURNLEY eh, jacktoff! Jealous and obsessive, me thinks. Scamp Kingsley
  • Score: 6

10:50am Thu 14 Aug 14

tall in the saddle says...

jack01 wrote:
So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement?

Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.
Jack, they will only bid what they think a player is worth, which makes good economic sense, although they need them. But this is a good example of why British clubs go for foreign players. We are suffering from a lack of good English players in our top divisions and yet signing British players is very expensive and difficult. In these two cases as well both have new managers who will be making sweet promises to the players concerned.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement? Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.[/p][/quote]Jack, they will only bid what they think a player is worth, which makes good economic sense, although they need them. But this is a good example of why British clubs go for foreign players. We are suffering from a lack of good English players in our top divisions and yet signing British players is very expensive and difficult. In these two cases as well both have new managers who will be making sweet promises to the players concerned. tall in the saddle
  • Score: 5

10:55am Thu 14 Aug 14

Harwoodstblue says...

houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
The problem is houseclaret if a club knows you want their player they'll squeeze every penny they can out of you. Especially if they really don't want to sell him. The nearer transfer deadline day the more desperate the 'buying' club will get and the higher the price will go.
That's what happened when Venkys thought they were being clever by leaving their buys till the last minute and ended up arguably paying over the odds for Rhodes. The selling club were in the driving seat by that time.
Luckily Rhodes turned out to be an excellent buy but by more luck than good judgement from Venkys.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]The problem is houseclaret if a club knows you want their player they'll squeeze every penny they can out of you. Especially if they really don't want to sell him. The nearer transfer deadline day the more desperate the 'buying' club will get and the higher the price will go. That's what happened when Venkys thought they were being clever by leaving their buys till the last minute and ended up arguably paying over the odds for Rhodes. The selling club were in the driving seat by that time. Luckily Rhodes turned out to be an excellent buy but by more luck than good judgement from Venkys. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 9

11:15am Thu 14 Aug 14

McClaret says...

For me good posts by Jacko1 and Harwood and glad to see reasonable points being made on here.
Posted last week re Dawson and that if west Brom suffered centre half injuries then what happens then. If he is our key target, let's face it we need another centre half, then I think we should have paid the 2.5 they wanted for him. There is keeping prices down and then there is penny pinching which is what this looks like to me.
If Dawson plays the first game or first two matches for WBA and plays well then what happens - his value is upped or we have no chance of signing our key target.
On the other hand i would not pay 5m for Lansbury. Plenty of decent unproven prem players around for much less money. Cairney at Blackburn being an example.
For me good posts by Jacko1 and Harwood and glad to see reasonable points being made on here. Posted last week re Dawson and that if west Brom suffered centre half injuries then what happens then. If he is our key target, let's face it we need another centre half, then I think we should have paid the 2.5 they wanted for him. There is keeping prices down and then there is penny pinching which is what this looks like to me. If Dawson plays the first game or first two matches for WBA and plays well then what happens - his value is upped or we have no chance of signing our key target. On the other hand i would not pay 5m for Lansbury. Plenty of decent unproven prem players around for much less money. Cairney at Blackburn being an example. McClaret
  • Score: 7

11:18am Thu 14 Aug 14

jack01 says...

houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market?

This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market? This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion. jack01
  • Score: 2

11:28am Thu 14 Aug 14

RobH2O . says...

jack01 wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market?

This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.
Tough living on your own generated income or proportional lending for a club our size. That was the evidence.

You lot won nothing for 64 years in a row, when faced with the same dilemma's we've faced. In that time we won the title twice, the FA cup, spent more years in the top flight than you, stayed ahead in the win-count in the derby game, had more top 3 finishes in the top flight than you, won the Charity Shield twice and reached the quarter-finals of the European Cup.

Blackburn Rovers, the cash-injection junkies. Always running out of someone else's money.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market? This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.[/p][/quote]Tough living on your own generated income or proportional lending for a club our size. That was the evidence. You lot won nothing for 64 years in a row, when faced with the same dilemma's we've faced. In that time we won the title twice, the FA cup, spent more years in the top flight than you, stayed ahead in the win-count in the derby game, had more top 3 finishes in the top flight than you, won the Charity Shield twice and reached the quarter-finals of the European Cup. Blackburn Rovers, the cash-injection junkies. Always running out of someone else's money. RobH2O .
  • Score: 5

11:30am Thu 14 Aug 14

Tatts says...

houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere. Tatts
  • Score: 6

11:31am Thu 14 Aug 14

mjp 53 says...

jack01 wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market?

This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.
Yes the same embargo you will find yourself in come January, it happens to the best of us, we were fortunate that we got promotion. The cold hard facts are you are not going to get promoted so when FFP comes knocking, batten down the hatches because you are in for a rough ride.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market? This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.[/p][/quote]Yes the same embargo you will find yourself in come January, it happens to the best of us, we were fortunate that we got promotion. The cold hard facts are you are not going to get promoted so when FFP comes knocking, batten down the hatches because you are in for a rough ride. mjp 53
  • Score: 3

11:32am Thu 14 Aug 14

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse says...

jack01 wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market?

This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.
Blackburn fan in looking into the past shock.

He is talking about NOW. Unlike every other Premier League club we don't have wealthy multi-millionaire board members ready to fork out millions for transfer fees and wages etc so we have to be prudent and spend what we generate - that is why we backed out of offering 28 years old Bryson £25k a week on a FIVE YEAR deal which is what he subsequently signed at Derby.

We are playing the long game and I think we will get both players before the end of the window and for the price WE want to pay.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market? This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.[/p][/quote]Blackburn fan in looking into the past shock. He is talking about NOW. Unlike every other Premier League club we don't have wealthy multi-millionaire board members ready to fork out millions for transfer fees and wages etc so we have to be prudent and spend what we generate - that is why we backed out of offering 28 years old Bryson £25k a week on a FIVE YEAR deal which is what he subsequently signed at Derby. We are playing the long game and I think we will get both players before the end of the window and for the price WE want to pay. Chuck Norris' Roundhouse
  • Score: 1

11:47am Thu 14 Aug 14

Claretcert says...

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
jack01 wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market?

This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.
Blackburn fan in looking into the past shock.

He is talking about NOW. Unlike every other Premier League club we don't have wealthy multi-millionaire board members ready to fork out millions for transfer fees and wages etc so we have to be prudent and spend what we generate - that is why we backed out of offering 28 years old Bryson £25k a week on a FIVE YEAR deal which is what he subsequently signed at Derby.

We are playing the long game and I think we will get both players before the end of the window and for the price WE want to pay.
The problem the board has is getting people to buy into a model that's ahead of it's time. We were badly stung by the collapse of ITV digital and yes promotion helped avoid much worse but we weren't on our own, that hit all clubs and smaller clubs hardest. But did we do as Rovers do, in the championship remember, offer silly money and ridiculous wages to players like Rhodes and Gestede? We were never in the mess that club is in and other car crash clubs like Leeds and Portsmouth. When well regarded clubs like Boro and Ipswich have been cutting their cloth for the last 2 years what gets most Clarets is that Rovers until like last week thought they were immune and their scratter fans have the brass neck to comment - it's like you're saving carefully for the rent, putting in a bit of overtime for the holiday, working hard to pay your way, and the sad benefit cheats with their lights burned all night, in bed all day - question your lifestyle. These fools will only learn when they get evicted off easy street and join the real world. Deluded doesn't come anywhere near a description.
[quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market? This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.[/p][/quote]Blackburn fan in looking into the past shock. He is talking about NOW. Unlike every other Premier League club we don't have wealthy multi-millionaire board members ready to fork out millions for transfer fees and wages etc so we have to be prudent and spend what we generate - that is why we backed out of offering 28 years old Bryson £25k a week on a FIVE YEAR deal which is what he subsequently signed at Derby. We are playing the long game and I think we will get both players before the end of the window and for the price WE want to pay.[/p][/quote]The problem the board has is getting people to buy into a model that's ahead of it's time. We were badly stung by the collapse of ITV digital and yes promotion helped avoid much worse but we weren't on our own, that hit all clubs and smaller clubs hardest. But did we do as Rovers do, in the championship remember, offer silly money and ridiculous wages to players like Rhodes and Gestede? We were never in the mess that club is in and other car crash clubs like Leeds and Portsmouth. When well regarded clubs like Boro and Ipswich have been cutting their cloth for the last 2 years what gets most Clarets is that Rovers until like last week thought they were immune and their scratter fans have the brass neck to comment - it's like you're saving carefully for the rent, putting in a bit of overtime for the holiday, working hard to pay your way, and the sad benefit cheats with their lights burned all night, in bed all day - question your lifestyle. These fools will only learn when they get evicted off easy street and join the real world. Deluded doesn't come anywhere near a description. Claretcert
  • Score: 7

11:59am Thu 14 Aug 14

houseclaret says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
reasonable comments - but lineker himself is a mullah grabbing mercenary.

even going back to his playing days he kept everton on tenterhooks.

i believe from some chums in the media that he is not the st. gary that he loves to portray.

one of the problems is people talk about salary caps etc - but unless this is adopted across europe (including non eu countries - ie russia) players will always go elsewhere for more dosh.

its right what you say about players and agents - but this is the free market economy - it finds its own level (and probably will eventually burst) - see Mangala's agent trousering £14m for brokering the deal to sign him for Manchester City
Agree with you, it is the free market but Sky have everything so tied up and dependent on them, at least in this country, that if they pull the plug (and I think one day they will to some degree) then football really would see meltdown.
I'm also aware that Lineker is no saint financially but he is at least talking about a voluntary pay cut and he actually didn't make that much in his playing days, most of his money has come from "peripherals" (ads, MOD etc.).
I didn't know Mangala's agent made THAT much. Stupid money, just stupid.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]reasonable comments - but lineker himself is a mullah grabbing mercenary. even going back to his playing days he kept everton on tenterhooks. i believe from some chums in the media that he is not the st. gary that he loves to portray. one of the problems is people talk about salary caps etc - but unless this is adopted across europe (including non eu countries - ie russia) players will always go elsewhere for more dosh. its right what you say about players and agents - but this is the free market economy - it finds its own level (and probably will eventually burst) - see Mangala's agent trousering £14m for brokering the deal to sign him for Manchester City[/p][/quote]Agree with you, it is the free market but Sky have everything so tied up and dependent on them, at least in this country, that if they pull the plug (and I think one day they will to some degree) then football really would see meltdown. I'm also aware that Lineker is no saint financially but he is at least talking about a voluntary pay cut and he actually didn't make that much in his playing days, most of his money has come from "peripherals" (ads, MOD etc.). I didn't know Mangala's agent made THAT much. Stupid money, just stupid. houseclaret
  • Score: -2

12:05pm Thu 14 Aug 14

houseclaret says...

jack01 wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market?

This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.
Don't understand your point Jacko. IF Burnley were on the brink of an embargo it certainly wasn't for overpaying or paying too much for players. That is the point I was making. Yes we have been skint, but that's another matter. Burnley's financial problems come from the fact that we are a small club with limited resources, not from being big spenders in any way.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market? This being the same Burnley that were on the brink of a transfer embargo in 2009, which was only averted when Coyle delivered promotion.[/p][/quote]Don't understand your point Jacko. IF Burnley were on the brink of an embargo it certainly wasn't for overpaying or paying too much for players. That is the point I was making. Yes we have been skint, but that's another matter. Burnley's financial problems come from the fact that we are a small club with limited resources, not from being big spenders in any way. houseclaret
  • Score: 4

12:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

TurfMoor Tom says...

jack01 wrote:
So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement?

Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.
Blackburn Rovers 0 -1 Scunthorpe.

We should really keep our mouths shut as regards Premier League Burnley, especially when we get tubbed off League One sides.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement? Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.[/p][/quote]Blackburn Rovers 0 -1 Scunthorpe. We should really keep our mouths shut as regards Premier League Burnley, especially when we get tubbed off League One sides. TurfMoor Tom
  • Score: -4

12:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

houseclaret says...

Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing. houseclaret
  • Score: 3

12:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BelTower says...

AnotherPounding4Burn
ley
wrote:
Rerun of last week's telegraph. Rerun of last week's BFC press release. Rerun of last times premier league achievement. Rerun of boards backing. Rerun in underpants.
Rerun of same old bigoted, racist venom
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPounding4Burn ley[/bold] wrote: Rerun of last week's telegraph. Rerun of last week's BFC press release. Rerun of last times premier league achievement. Rerun of boards backing. Rerun in underpants.[/p][/quote]Rerun of same old bigoted, racist venom BelTower
  • Score: 4

1:03pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Its Only a game boy says...

how about his for a re-un.....b...ds 1 v 2 Burnley b....ds 1 v 2 Burnley
how about his for a re-un.....b...ds 1 v 2 Burnley b....ds 1 v 2 Burnley Its Only a game boy
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Thu 14 Aug 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

BelTower wrote:
AnotherPounding4Burn ley wrote: Rerun of last week's telegraph. Rerun of last week's BFC press release. Rerun of last times premier league achievement. Rerun of boards backing. Rerun in underpants.
Rerun of same old bigoted, racist venom
I suppose me pointing out the colour of the stains in your underwear is racist. Sorry, I won't do it again.
[quote][p][bold]BelTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPounding4Burn ley[/bold] wrote: Rerun of last week's telegraph. Rerun of last week's BFC press release. Rerun of last times premier league achievement. Rerun of boards backing. Rerun in underpants.[/p][/quote]Rerun of same old bigoted, racist venom[/p][/quote]I suppose me pointing out the colour of the stains in your underwear is racist. Sorry, I won't do it again. AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: -4

1:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

TurfMoor Tom says...

Its Only a game boy wrote:
how about his for a re-un.....b...ds 1 v 2 Burnley b....ds 1 v 2 Burnley
Please don't remind us of that. We're all trying to erase it from memory.
[quote][p][bold]Its Only a game boy[/bold] wrote: how about his for a re-un.....b...ds 1 v 2 Burnley b....ds 1 v 2 Burnley[/p][/quote]Please don't remind us of that. We're all trying to erase it from memory. TurfMoor Tom
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Its Only a game boy says...

it will never go away pal, never go away...
it will never go away pal, never go away... Its Only a game boy
  • Score: 3

2:42pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ZomZom@thePark says...

You will not get any joy out of arguing or trying to correct these morons. They are as blinkered as they are hard headed. Must be growing dark in our shadow.
You will not get any joy out of arguing or trying to correct these morons. They are as blinkered as they are hard headed. Must be growing dark in our shadow. ZomZom@thePark
  • Score: 3

2:45pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Tatts says...

houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team. Tatts
  • Score: 1

3:36pm Thu 14 Aug 14

hasslem hasslem says...

Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too. hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles. Chuck Norris' Roundhouse
  • Score: 2

3:58pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ant1882 says...

jack01 wrote:
So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement?

Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.
spot on mate --

this is dragging out, looks to me like all these player like Dawson, Lansbury etc want to come, but we just wont pay the fees these clubs want. still need 4 or 5 players but not convinced one will arrive before Monday.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: So what happened to Dawson handing in a transfer request to force through a move to Burnley as the Lancashire Telegraph suggested he would do several weeks ago? Same applies to Lansbury. If he was that keen on moving why hasn't he forced Forest to come to an agreement? Looks to me like Burnley are playing games here. Messing about making bids nowhere near good enough for those players whilst the transfer window slips away. Expect bargain basement alternatives to be signed at the eleventh hour.[/p][/quote]spot on mate -- this is dragging out, looks to me like all these player like Dawson, Lansbury etc want to come, but we just wont pay the fees these clubs want. still need 4 or 5 players but not convinced one will arrive before Monday. ant1882
  • Score: 2

4:17pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Tatts says...

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
It wasn't always the case though.

Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success.

The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition.

Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.
[quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.[/p][/quote]It wasn't always the case though. Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success. The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition. Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail. Tatts
  • Score: 3

4:35pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ZomZom@thePark says...

Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
It wasn't always the case though.

Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success.

The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition.

Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.
And that latest nail is the reason that I am glad that we are treating our new found wealth with great respect. We could, like many others before, spend £10-20m and be relegated and require an urgent fire sale to balance the books. Leeds, Pompey or Bradford anyone? Thought not.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.[/p][/quote]It wasn't always the case though. Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success. The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition. Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.[/p][/quote]And that latest nail is the reason that I am glad that we are treating our new found wealth with great respect. We could, like many others before, spend £10-20m and be relegated and require an urgent fire sale to balance the books. Leeds, Pompey or Bradford anyone? Thought not. ZomZom@thePark
  • Score: 2

4:43pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse says...

Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
It wasn't always the case though.

Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success.

The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition.

Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.
As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift.
I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc.
Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.[/p][/quote]It wasn't always the case though. Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success. The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition. Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.[/p][/quote]As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift. I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc. Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size. Chuck Norris' Roundhouse
  • Score: 3

4:56pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Its Only a game boy says...

the b....ds are heading the way of Portsmouth....
the b....ds are heading the way of Portsmouth.... Its Only a game boy
  • Score: 1

5:02pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Tatts says...

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
It wasn't always the case though.

Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success.

The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition.

Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.
As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift.
I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc.
Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.
It does of course mean that once your Premier League money runs out, benefactors like Kilby and Flood will no longer be able to provide you with a cash injection, like they did back in 2009.

At that point you will have to live off your gates of 10,000 or so.
[quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.[/p][/quote]It wasn't always the case though. Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success. The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition. Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.[/p][/quote]As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift. I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc. Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.[/p][/quote]It does of course mean that once your Premier League money runs out, benefactors like Kilby and Flood will no longer be able to provide you with a cash injection, like they did back in 2009. At that point you will have to live off your gates of 10,000 or so. Tatts
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ZomZom@thePark says...

That's true, but if spent and invested wisely it could secure our long term future. Besides, people will find loopholes and get around it.
That's true, but if spent and invested wisely it could secure our long term future. Besides, people will find loopholes and get around it. ZomZom@thePark
  • Score: 1

5:28pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse says...

Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
It wasn't always the case though.

Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success.

The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition.

Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.
As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift.
I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc.
Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.
It does of course mean that once your Premier League money runs out, benefactors like Kilby and Flood will no longer be able to provide you with a cash injection, like they did back in 2009.

At that point you will have to live off your gates of 10,000 or so.
You are correct, although we haven't had an average gate of 10000 since our Third Division days, so nice try with the putdown but as usual no cigar at the end for you.

It is obvious that all Blackburn fans are sulking about this FFP turn of events, because for the first time since before Senile Jack spunked his money on Blackburn and turned them from a middling Second Division going-nowhere club into Champions, you are now back where you used to be, having to scratch a living on low gates with no cash to throw around.

You definitely don't like it, hence why all your fans that you acquired in the Premier League seem to have disappeared, never to return.

Deal with it - you are simply back where you belong.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.[/p][/quote]It wasn't always the case though. Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success. The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition. Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.[/p][/quote]As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift. I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc. Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.[/p][/quote]It does of course mean that once your Premier League money runs out, benefactors like Kilby and Flood will no longer be able to provide you with a cash injection, like they did back in 2009. At that point you will have to live off your gates of 10,000 or so.[/p][/quote]You are correct, although we haven't had an average gate of 10000 since our Third Division days, so nice try with the putdown but as usual no cigar at the end for you. It is obvious that all Blackburn fans are sulking about this FFP turn of events, because for the first time since before Senile Jack spunked his money on Blackburn and turned them from a middling Second Division going-nowhere club into Champions, you are now back where you used to be, having to scratch a living on low gates with no cash to throw around. You definitely don't like it, hence why all your fans that you acquired in the Premier League seem to have disappeared, never to return. Deal with it - you are simply back where you belong. Chuck Norris' Roundhouse
  • Score: 4

6:23pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Harwoodstblue says...

Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Chuck Norris' Roundhouse wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Tatts wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in.

Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits.

If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money.

Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects.
I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.
Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it?

Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup.

I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs.

And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote.

I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.
would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house.

yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change.

in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.
All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking).

It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.
It wasn't always the case though.

Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success.

The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition.

Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.
As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift.
I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc.
Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.
It does of course mean that once your Premier League money runs out, benefactors like Kilby and Flood will no longer be able to provide you with a cash injection, like they did back in 2009.

At that point you will have to live off your gates of 10,000 or so.
You are correct, although we haven't had an average gate of 10000 since our Third Division days, so nice try with the putdown but as usual no cigar at the end for you.

It is obvious that all Blackburn fans are sulking about this FFP turn of events, because for the first time since before Senile Jack spunked his money on Blackburn and turned them from a middling Second Division going-nowhere club into Champions, you are now back where you used to be, having to scratch a living on low gates with no cash to throw around.

You definitely don't like it, hence why all your fans that you acquired in the Premier League seem to have disappeared, never to return.

Deal with it - you are simply back where you belong.
Well I was enjoying reading this excellent debate until the clown reverted to type. You just can't help it can you chuckie.
[quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck Norris' Roundhouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the unfortunate fact is that these players are worth it as plenty of clubs are prepared to pay it. And whilst the numbers of people willing to pay to watch footy, both at home and overseas, are on the rise, then the upward trend will continue. That's the reality of the market economy that we live in. Also, which Premier League clubs are in financial dire straits? Sure, a lot of them report making a loss, but the fact that transfer spending is set to reach £1 billion for the year tells me that they aren't in financial dire straits. If Burnley want to make the transition to becoming a Premier League club, for all but one or two seasons, then they will have to start paying big money. Trying to do things on the cheap and complaining about high prices won't get you anywhere.[/p][/quote]Actually, my point is that even premier league clubs couldn't afford what they pay without multi-millionaire backing. Very few clubs in the prem could live within their means without them (and of course Sky's money, which may not always be there). I work in the media and it's a very fickle beast. I love football but money is killing the game slowly but surely. Remember, as you now know at Rovers, football is NOT the prem, it's about everything beneath it, and the lower end is being strangled to death by it's knock-on effects. I am fully aware of the market place and I'm not a "those were the days" dreamer, I am simply someone who can see that all the money in the game is becoming concentrated in a very small handfull of clubs and that is not and can never be a good thing.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the point of money being concentrated in the hands of a few being bad for the game. How is the Premier League any sort of competition when even over the next ten years, only 5 teams have got a cat in hell's chance of winning it? Gone are the days when a great manager like Brian Clough can take a team from 2nd tier obscurity to winning the League title and European Cup. I blame the Champions League for widening the gulf, due to the extra revenue it generates, year after year, for the top clubs. And FFP will just add to the problem as it seeks to prevent wealthy investors taking a club from obscurity and into the top spots, which for clubs like ours is now the only chance, no matter how remote. I know it's not a patch on football but NFL, utilising their draft system, seems to be much better at maintaining competition between teams. Over there you occasionally get random teams like Baltimore Ravens winning the Super Bowl, thus giving hope to every other team.[/p][/quote]would you have said that man city had a chance of winning the premier league before the arabs racked up at the council house. yes it would seem logical that the same few teams have a chance of winning - - - but things do change. in the past (apart from rovers) you could have put newcastle, leeds into that mix too.[/p][/quote]All of whom spent BIG BIG money to challenge for the title (Relatively speaking). It is as it always was, the clubs that spend the most money will generally compete for the top titles.[/p][/quote]It wasn't always the case though. Back in the sixties, clubs of all sizes had a chance of achieving success. The abolition of the maximum wage was the first nail in the coffin of open competition. Sky was the next nail, the Champions League the one after and FFP is the latest nail.[/p][/quote]As a supporter of a small club in relative terms, I actually support FFP, because it prevents the clubs with rich benefactors from buying their way to success, you have to spend within your means and promotion gives you a massive lift. I would imagine that any clubs with a rich benefactor/company at the helm is not happy (Blackburn being an obvious example), because they no longer can offer players ridiculous amounts of money to sign for them unless they have an annual income that supports this. This in effect stops clubs racking up massive debts to their owners/companies which can result in them becoming bankrupt - a la Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton etc. Which is why clubs like Blackburn have been forced to have a fire sale because you have risked it all on getting promoted last season, it didn't pay off and now you are being forced to comply with this rule and rightly so - you cannot have a financial advantage like this over clubs of a similar size.[/p][/quote]It does of course mean that once your Premier League money runs out, benefactors like Kilby and Flood will no longer be able to provide you with a cash injection, like they did back in 2009. At that point you will have to live off your gates of 10,000 or so.[/p][/quote]You are correct, although we haven't had an average gate of 10000 since our Third Division days, so nice try with the putdown but as usual no cigar at the end for you. It is obvious that all Blackburn fans are sulking about this FFP turn of events, because for the first time since before Senile Jack spunked his money on Blackburn and turned them from a middling Second Division going-nowhere club into Champions, you are now back where you used to be, having to scratch a living on low gates with no cash to throw around. You definitely don't like it, hence why all your fans that you acquired in the Premier League seem to have disappeared, never to return. Deal with it - you are simply back where you belong.[/p][/quote]Well I was enjoying reading this excellent debate until the clown reverted to type. You just can't help it can you chuckie. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Thu 14 Aug 14

jim 2012 says...

Its Only a game boy wrote:
the deadwoods need a whole new team, a whole new manager and judging the numbers that turned up against the mighty Iron, a whole new crowd....
muppet
[quote][p][bold]Its Only a game boy[/bold] wrote: the deadwoods need a whole new team, a whole new manager and judging the numbers that turned up against the mighty Iron, a whole new crowd....[/p][/quote]muppet jim 2012
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Thu 14 Aug 14

goldfinger59 says...

Better to have spent money and lost than to never have spent money at all :)
Better to have spent money and lost than to never have spent money at all :) goldfinger59
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Fri 15 Aug 14

juanbbien says...

houseclaret wrote:
If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is.
Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.
Or what he earns on MOD or his stupid crisp adverts
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: If more clubs behaved like Burnley in the transfer market we would not now have clubs in the financial dire straights they are in. Sure, I want more decent players in, who wouldn't, but this stupid giving in to the demands of clubs and agents must end somewhere. It's a pity that the big clubs don't do the same, it's called financial sanity. Is any footballer really worth 100k plus per week? Are they really worth a transfer fee that would build a small hospital? It's a GAME for goodness sake, not a matter of life and death, even though we sometimes feel like it is. Gary Lineker's recent statement is absolutely spot on. There are people who save lives on a daily basis who earn a tiny fraction of what these guys earn. The world's gone mad.[/p][/quote]Or what he earns on MOD or his stupid crisp adverts juanbbien
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree