Tom17LCFC Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Of course it's because of money. Your ground is bigger and newer because a lot of money was spent on it. If your training facilities are better, it's because you've spent more money. If your players are more expensive and on higher wages (which they are), it's because of money. If, as Mr. Pearson appears to think, every single element of your club is better than ours, it's because of money. Face the facts. Your owner has given the club £120m in free gifts, and has promised £180m more, and you come from a big city which means you have more fans. That means you have more money. If you're better than us, it's because of money. Not history, not winning trophies, just money. The only club in a big city, in fact the only club in a big county, and a rich rich owner who doesn't mind spending money. When you didn't have money, you were a outfit that couldn't pay for your own ground and were willing to rip off the lender to get it for tuppence. Now you've got money, it's "we're bigger than you, we're better than you, we've got more money than you." Owen Coyle went to Bolton because he said Bolton was 10 years ahead of Burnley. Don't brag so much about being Billy Big-Time now, because it might not last. the truth hurts chap, deal with it.
Vicki Vixen Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Of course it's because of money. Your ground is bigger and newer because a lot of money was spent on it. If your training facilities are better, it's because you've spent more money. If your players are more expensive and on higher wages (which they are), it's because of money. If, as Mr. Pearson appears to think, every single element of your club is better than ours, it's because of money. Face the facts. Your owner has given the club £120m in free gifts, and has promised £180m more, and you come from a big city which means you have more fans. That means you have more money. If you're better than us, it's because of money. Not history, not winning trophies, just money. The only club in a big city, in fact the only club in a big county, and a rich rich owner who doesn't mind spending money. When you didn't have money, you were a outfit that couldn't pay for your own ground and were willing to rip off the lender to get it for tuppence. Now you've got money, it's "we're bigger than you, we're better than you, we've got more money than you." Owen Coyle went to Bolton because he said Bolton was 10 years ahead of Burnley. Don't brag so much about being Billy Big-Time now, because it might not last. You also received Premier League TV revenue, but the only mugs you could attract up there were George Boyd and Lukas Jutkiewicz. While you and Dyche don't like to admit it, you have plenty of money to spend, but very few top players want to move to a club/town like Burnley. Perhaps if you invest some of that money in your stadium or your training facilities, you would be able to attract bette quality players?
Callabinho Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Obviously it's acceptable for Mourinho to call Wenger an expert in faluire, yet Pearson says what he did, and the whole of Burnley has a hissy fit.
dsr-burnley Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 One thing Dyche is particularly keen on is team chemistry. He has said that if a player does not fit in with the group (more management-speak!) then he won't be signing no matter how good. Our top wage is certainly no more than £1m per year, £20k per week, and probably more like £15k per week. We aren't going to sign someone on double that money if he's not twice as good as the ones we've already got, nor will we sign him if he's going to flash the wage packet and make out he's better because he's paid more. The extra Premier money amounts to about £100m-£110m guaranteed over 5 years. We can't afford to commit say £15m of that to a player like Ulloa, because of low resale value due to age, and because of the uncertainty as to whether he would pan out. He has panned out, and well done to you for taking the gamble, but if it had failed your owner could have written out a cheque for another £15m and you wouldn't have felt the loss. We have spent on the ground and on the training facilities. Not as much as you, though. Especially on the ground, because we had to do it up at a time when we were expected to pay for it, and going into administration wasn't an option, so our two new stands cost £6m the pair, about half of that paid by grants. And that's why we won't be spending £xm on a new stand for away supporters in the near future. But look on the bright side, we have replaced the roof and painted the seats
Corky Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Of course it's because of money. Your ground is bigger and newer because a lot of money was spent on it. If your training facilities are better, it's because you've spent more money. If your players are more expensive and on higher wages (which they are), it's because of money. If, as Mr. Pearson appears to think, every single element of your club is better than ours, it's because of money. I don't happen to believe every element is better. I've no idea about your board (only Lee Hoos). To be honest, it doesn't really matter. I would say that our owners are pretty professional in their public conduct and our manager, before Saturday, was more gracious in defeat or frustration than your current manager. Pearson went too far, but I think things have gone on behind the scenes to provoke such an outburst.
ScouseFox Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 loads of crying our cambiasso deal (deal being wages and fee) will cost us less than your george boyd deal. our mahrez deal will cost less than your george boyd deal. our vardy deal will probably cost less, maybe similar amounts to your george boyd deal, or your juke deal. our nuge deal (under sven, when we WERE big spenders) probably won't cost a great deal more than any deal you've paid for most of your strikers. etc etc etc value value value. you've got money to spend, hell, you've spent it. just on shit. stop crying and move on.
ScouseFox Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 in fact our fees and wages for cambiasso and mahrez (our best two signings in the last two transfer windows) combined will, based on estimates, probably cost us less than you will pay, in the fee and in wages, for george boyd alone. stop spending so much money pls it's really upsetting me.
dsr-burnley Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 in fact our fees and wages for cambiasso and mahrez (our best two signings in the last two transfer windows) combined will, based on estimates, probably cost us less than you will pay, in the fee and in wages, for george boyd alone. stop spending so much money pls it's really upsetting me. What's that got to do with the price of carrots? Well done on getting two good players on such relatively low wages - or are they just on short contracts? What we spent on Ings, Vokes, Trippier, Arfield, Jones, and Marney combined - wages + transfer fees - is probably less than what you spent on Ulloa. So bleeding what?
ScouseFox Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 What's that got to do with the price of carrots? Well done on getting two good players on such relatively low wages - or are they just on short contracts? What we spent on Ings, Vokes, Trippier, Arfield, Jones, and Marney combined - wages + transfer fees - is probably less than what you spent on Ulloa. So bleeding what? you were having a cry about our players costing money and our wages being high, I was just pointing out that if you get players for free (cambiasso) or very cheap (mahrez) you can pay them higher wages than if you spend ridiculous fees on players (like george boyd). and pointing out that your club has money and spends money, too. something your fans, manager and media seem to deny at every opportunity. the way your manager and fans go on you've picked up an 11 off the park and they're paying subs to play for your team. just constant bullshit.
ScouseFox Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 and I used those two as examples, as I said, as they were the best two signings we've made in the last year, whilst you've spent more than that on utter turd. whilst STILL claiming to never spend anything and being unable to compete.
st albans fox Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 100/110m over five years ? really? i thought it was about 60/80 mill per season. even if you go down this season, the para payments are 60 mill so your figure over five years is min 120 mill. see, you could have afforded leo !!
Corky Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Can I ask dsr-burnley, why has Dyche not been able to spend much money? Have you overspent before? What happened to the parachute payments and money banked from the Premier League?
Callabinho Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Can I ask dsr-burnley, why has Dyche not been able to spend much money? Have you overspent before? What happened to the parachute payments and money banked from the Premier League? Too many pound notes.
dsr-burnley Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Can I ask dsr-burnley, why has Dyche not been able to spend much money? Have you overspent before? What happened to the parachute payments and money banked from the Premier League? The parachute money last time was wasted on (a) trying to stop up, and more pertinently (b) on allowing Brian Laws to pay silly wages for players that weren't good enough in a bid to get back. In outline, Premier League money is about £70m guaranteed for the year you're there, with (if the worst happens) a further £60m for the 4 following years. Subtract from that the £5m per year TV money from the Championship, which you don't get if you're in the Prem or receiving Premier League parachutes, and you get about £105m. In round numbers. This time, we're not blowing the lot in a bid to stop up, partly because spending an extra £20-£30m might not make that much difference - there are few real difference makers willing to come, and the players who will only come for silly money, Dyche wouldn't want. We tried for Deeney (so did you, I believe) and his price was eventually way too high.
fuchsntf Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Not even my wife, nor my 3 girls, go on and on and on and on, like this thread. Dyche, Pearson, are football managers, both make interviews like any manager. We would all like santa claus, and angel gabriel, with a sprinkel of hells angel stardust. In reality they are pussycats, trying to be bears, in Pearsons case wolf.
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 7 October 2014 Posted 7 October 2014 Getting really sick of hearing about Burnley and their reluctance to spend anything in desperate hope of some sort of admiration from anyone. Really hope come May when they're a dead cert for relegation someone interviews Dyche and grills him about his bad business and constant denial of spending any funds. Honest question - has Pearson ever used lack of investment as an excuse for a loss in a post-match interview? (Excusing tongue in cheek comments possibly made following FA/League Cup games, e.g. Chelsea). Because us and Burnley must be very similar on player spending, when you compare to the top spending clubs. We are aware that we are going to be seen as the underdogs for 90% of games this season, but rather than dwell on it Pearson just sees us as a team. It's 11 vs 11, f*** player values/wages just find a way of getting a result. If we don't get a result, then we haven't created enough chances, haven't been clinical enough or have made defensive errors or a combination of these. Pearson will happily admit these following a bad result, whereas Dyche will make out that he has a team of gutsy charity workers who gave it their all and couldn't beat [insert professional football team here], no matter how rubbish they or the opposition were. This whole "proud of being tramps" thing is getting old really fast.
Dan Posted 8 October 2014 Posted 8 October 2014 Can I ask dsr-burnley, why has Dyche not been able to spend much money? Have you overspent before? What happened to the parachute payments and money banked from the Premier League? Why would they risk failing by spending money when they're seemingly happy to fail without?
Babylon Posted 8 October 2014 Posted 8 October 2014 One thing Dyche is particularly keen on is team chemistry. He has said that if a player does not fit in with the group (more management-speak!) then he won't be signing no matter how good. Our top wage is certainly no more than £1m per year, £20k per week, and probably more like £15k per week. We aren't going to sign someone on double that money if he's not twice as good as the ones we've already got, nor will we sign him if he's going to flash the wage packet and make out he's better because he's paid more. The extra Premier money amounts to about £100m-£110m guaranteed over 5 years. We can't afford to commit say £15m of that to a player like Ulloa, because of low resale value due to age, and because of the uncertainty as to whether he would pan out. He has panned out, and well done to you for taking the gamble, but if it had failed your owner could have written out a cheque for another £15m and you wouldn't have felt the loss. We have spent on the ground and on the training facilities. Not as much as you, though. Especially on the ground, because we had to do it up at a time when we were expected to pay for it, and going into administration wasn't an option, so our two new stands cost £6m the pair, about half of that paid by grants. And that's why we won't be spending £xm on a new stand for away supporters in the near future. But look on the bright side, we have replaced the roof and painted the seats You do realise that we still had to pay for the ground don't you? And that only last year (before the owners paid it off) we were still £17m in debt for it, paying £1m a year plus in interest. So please stop making out we got the ground for nothing. Birse lost about £4 / £5m the rest was paid off out of the £30/£35m that it cost.
Vicki Vixen Posted 8 October 2014 Posted 8 October 2014 I can see a Leicester - Burnley - QPR love triangle forming.
dsr-burnley Posted 8 October 2014 Posted 8 October 2014 You do realise that we still had to pay for the ground don't you? Yes, I realise that. But you were willing and ready to pay 2p in the pound until your new moneyman came along. Considering how much you were paying for the stadium, I doubt your then owners ever had serious plans to pay off the loans.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.