Corky Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 Money. That's what Pearson was on about. He thinks Leicester are a better club because they're a big city club with a very rich owner, and have spent lots of money; Burnley is a town team and hasn't. Ultimately, we're proud that we're competing with the big cities like Leicester, in spite of not having your advantages of vast wealth and huge catchment area; you're proud that you're a big city club with pots of money. Be content. If you bothered to look, we are the reverse, we are terrible when we have money to spend. Peter Taylor wasted millions on the back of O'Neill's brilliant work on much lower resources and we ended up relegated, Allen and Holloway had good money to spend and combined to get relegated to League One, whilst Sven spent millions to achieve mid-table in the Championship. That's the only thing we bought when outspending people. O'Neill achieved cup wins and top half Premier League football on comparatively low means, Pearson went from League One to the Championship play-offs in two years with free transfers and loan signings mainly and now won the league with signings under a million, free transfers whilst cutting costs and reducing debts. Frankly, our fans are far more comfortable when we are sensible and prudent (barring Ulloa but that wasn't so expensive given the extra revenue) because we tend to be a better club.
David Guiza Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 If you bothered to look, we are the reverse, we are terrible when we have money to spend. Peter Taylor wasted millions on the back of O'Neill's brilliant work on much lower resources and we ended up relegated, Allen and Holloway had good money to spend and combined to get relegated to League One, whilst Sven spent millions to achieve mid-table in the Championship. That's the only thing we bought when outspending people. O'Neill achieved cup wins and top half Premier League football on comparatively low means, Pearson went from League One to the Championship play-offs in two years with free transfers and loan signings mainly and now won the league with signings under a million, free transfers whilst cutting costs and reducing debts. Frankly, our fans are far more comfortable when we are sensible and prudent (barring Ulloa but that wasn't so epxensive given the extra revenue) because we tend to be a better club. Opposition fans seem to conveniently forget this when our budget has been mentioned over previous years. The same happens with Man City, people assume they've always had money - and Leeds' spending from the late 90's turn of the century will be associated them forever more. The fact of the matter is, as mentioned above, we've generally tended to be a club with a very limited budget compared to most.
RonnieTodger Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 Fancy signing up for an opposing teams forum, because they were being ignorant - only to be even more ignorant, yourself.
BlackburnClaret Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 Nobody is JUST including fees............ You were, in your last post.
Kitchandro Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 Money. That's what Pearson was on about. He thinks Leicester are a better club because they're a big city club with a very rich owner, and have spent lots of money; Burnley is a town team and hasn't. Ultimately, we're proud that we're competing with the big cities like Leicester, in spite of not having your advantages of vast wealth and huge catchment area; you're proud that you're a big city club with pots of money. Be content. Pearson was on about every department, that's what he said. He was on about what he fvcking said he was on about.
Babylon Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 You were, in your last post. And in previous posts I have already stated we are do have and always will have a bigger playing budget, because we bring in a lot more money. Make interesting reading don't they though, the fees. If the thread is boring you, stop looking in it.
BlackburnClaret Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 And in previous posts I have already stated we are do have and always will have a bigger playing budget, because we bring in a lot more money. Make interesting reading don't they though, the fees. To be fair, the transfer fees do make interesting reading, but if you take Cambiasso as a prime example. You'd argue he cost you nowt, but there's no way that we could compete to sign him. As you say, you have a bigger budget and bring in a lot more money, and that's what Dyche was saying back in March with his pound notes comment. Whether he was right to mention it is a different matter.
ScouseFox Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 To be fair, the transfer fees do make interesting reading, but if you take Cambiasso as a prime example. You'd argue he cost you nowt, but there's no way that we could compete to sign him. why not? it would have seemed an utterly ridiculous idea to suggest we would sign him either about 2 months ago.
Babylon Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 As you say, you have a bigger budget and bring in a lot more money, and that's what Dyche was saying back in March with his pound notes comment. Whether he was right to mention it is a different matter. I would say to Leicester fans it didn't come across like that, also I suppose you could say his comments were perhaps the tip of the iceberg with regards comments about our spending. Yes we had been spending shit loads of wages etc, we all know that and nobody can deny it... but it had failed. It was only when we started to try and do things properly that we had success, and it's frustrating when you just get labeld "big spending Leicester". Much of the big losses were down to the players Pearson had been trying to get rid of since he came back. I'm sure we might even still be paying some of them, my guess is we paid them all off last in the season before last seasons books, and that's why the wages were still high. Even though the names in the squad didn't quite match up to that.
burnleyfan Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 I like how you put Everton as one of the tough games so far this season - a team 4th from bottom! Kevin Keegan used to have the same mentality as your manager - you score three, we score four. It works up to a point but when the goals dry up your defence won't cope with the pressure!
Corky Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 I like how you put Everton as one of the tough games so far this season - a team 4th from bottom! Kevin Keegan used to have the same mentality as your manager - you score three, we score four. It works up to a point but when the goals dry up your defence won't cope with the pressure! Yeah, we played them on the first day of the season, and they had finished fifth three months earlier. I expect you to stroll past them now. Kevin Keegan's managerial career included goal differences of +54, +42, +38, +47 and +56. He won three divisional titles and managed three top six finishes in the Premier League. What a terrible manager, especially when the goals dried up. Bit in bold, not against Burnley- Fulham 4-0 Burnley, Burnley 2-4 Man City, Man City 5-1 Burnley
ScouseFox Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 I like how you put Everton as one of the tough games so far this season - a team 4th from bottom! Kevin Keegan used to have the same mentality as your manager - you score three, we score four. It works up to a point but when the goals dry up your defence won't cope with the pressure! i'd rather score loads of goals and then they start to dry up (which i have no reason to believe they will) than just never score at all...
Babylon Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 I like how you put Everton as one of the tough games so far this season - a team 4th from bottom! Kevin Keegan used to have the same mentality as your manager - you score three, we score four. It works up to a point but when the goals dry up your defence won't cope with the pressure! Oh well if we finish second I suppose we'll just have to settle with that. Your team has let in six goals in your last two games against teams you probably think will go down instead of you. I'm not sure you can preach about your great defence just yet. You have let in two goals less for goodness sake.
burnleyfan Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 A word of warning before you get giddy with your great results against Man U. Everton, Arsenal etc. When we were last in the Prem in 2009/10 our results were as follows: Man U home - won 1-0 Everton home - Won 1-0 Arsenal home - drew 1-1 We also beat Spurs 4-2 at home Drew with Man City away 3-3 And after all those good results we still went down!
Corky Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 A word of warning before you get giddy with your great results against Man U. Everton, Arsenal etc. When we were last in the Prem in 2009/10 our results were as follows: Man U home - won 1-0 Everton home - Won 1-0 Arsenal home - drew 1-1 We also beat Spurs 4-2 at home Drew with Man City away 3-3 And after all those good results we still went down! Possibly because you appointed Brian Laws who had been sacked by Sheffield Wednesday for being absolutely useless in the Championship.
lgfualol Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 A word of warning before you get giddy with your great results against Man U. Everton, Arsenal etc. When we were last in the Prem in 2009/10 our results were as follows: Man U home - won 1-0 Everton home - Won 1-0 Arsenal home - drew 1-1 We also beat Spurs 4-2 at home Drew with Man City away 3-3 And after all those good results we still went down! We already got giddy then brought back down to earth vs Palace. I'm fairly sure most of us realise we can go down.
burnleyfan Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 "Possibly because you appointed Brian Laws who had been sacked by Sheffield Wednesday for being absolutely useless in the Championship." We hadn't won in nine when Coyle left so the rot had set in before then!
sphericalfox Posted 13 October 2014 Posted 13 October 2014 A word of warning before you get giddy with your great results against Man U. Everton, Arsenal etc. When we were last in the Prem in 2009/10 our results were as follows: Man U home - won 1-0 Everton home - Won 1-0 Arsenal home - drew 1-1 We also beat Spurs 4-2 at home Drew with Man City away 3-3 And after all those good results we still went down! Looks like history will repeat itself. You'll have the strongest Champ team next year fo sure
Dan Posted 14 October 2014 Posted 14 October 2014 Many pound notes... The teams that played at our place last season with a couple missing at the time added to the squads. What pissed people off is that Dyche and you lot don't seem capable of differentiating between Sven Leicester and Pearson Leicester, and the fact Dyche was trying to make out it was impossible for him to compete due to our team costing so much. 01 Schmeichel £1m 02 de Laet Booked £1m 03 Konchesky £1.2m 04 Drinkwater £1m 05 Morgan £1m 18 Moore Youth Team 24 Knockaert £700k 08 James 1m 09 Vardy £1m 35 Nugent Free 11 Dyer Free Substitutes07 Hammond Free 10 King Youth Team 15 Schlupp Youth Team 22 Taylor-Fletcher Free 23 Miquel Youth Loan 25 Logan Youth Team 27 Wasilewski Free If you add on to that Mahrez 400k and Wood £1.2m It's £9.5m. That's basically the squad we used last year. Burnley01 Heaton FREE 02 Trippier 500k 06 Mee 500k 08 Marney 500k 04 Duff £30k 05 Shackell £1.2m 37 Arfield FREE 14 Jones FREE 09 Vokes £600 10 Ings £1m 19 Kightly Loan (has since cost £1.5m) Substitutes03 Lafferty 200k 11 Stanislas £1.2 12 Cisak Free 15 Edgar £300k 22 Stock FREE 26 Treacy ??? 28 Long 300k Wallace £2m, Barnes £600k Total £8.93m Don't let those facts get in the way of an inferiority complex. Whoever put that about Wigan has come out with a cracker there. They are how you played the game Burnley are failing to play. They competed for years whilst being comfortably the smallest club in the league.
Dan Posted 14 October 2014 Posted 14 October 2014 I like how you put Everton as one of the tough games so far this season - a team 4th from bottom! Kevin Keegan used to have the same mentality as your manager - you score three, we score four. It works up to a point but when the goals dry up your defence won't cope with the pressure! Yeah. I'd much rather have drawn 0-0 with Man Utd than won 5-3. Which one of us two has conceded 4 this season?
Guest ttfn Posted 14 October 2014 Posted 14 October 2014 Don't let those facts get in the way of an inferiority complex. Whoever put that about Wigan has come out with a cracker there. They are how you played the game Burnley are failing to play. They competed for years whilst being comfortably the smallest club in the league. Wigan were hardly self sufficient though were they? They've been bankrolled by a man who apparently broke his leg in the FA Cup Final. Even with the Premier League TV money, Wigan made losses more often than not. Burnley are (in theory) doing the right thing in spending within their means. The problem is that they seem to be spending so far within their means that they are giving themselves almost no chance of staying up. I suspect that, with our wage cap and total transfer fee spending of £10 million, we are also spending within our means, but at least at a level which makes us competitive. Burnley are like multi-millionaires living in a bungalow eating beans on toast three meals a day. Even if they're worried about a rainy day they could at least have a pizza once in a while.
BlackburnClaret Posted 14 October 2014 Posted 14 October 2014 Wigan? You'll be giving us Bolton and Blackburn next, have you seen the state those clubs are in now? These clubs are nothing but a great example of why Burnley are being so cautious. POOR BURNLEY You're just missing an amusing gif, great contribution, by the way.
BlackburnClaret Posted 14 October 2014 Posted 14 October 2014 Wigan were hardly self sufficient though were they? They've been bankrolled by a man who apparently broke his leg in the FA Cup Final. I didn't know that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.