The "do they mean us?" thread

[Guest ttfn]

POOR LEICESTER

[Corky]

Dyche is an expert at playing the media game, he knows this is a nice story of an underdog that has little hope or expectation outside it's corridors and is embracing it to take the heat off his shoulders if they continually struggle.

 

I'd say Blackpool were bigger underdogs, given their manager had been in charge a year, had been in a relegation battle the previous season and had a three-sided ground with temporary stands when they were promoted. Burnley were in the Premier League four years ago, this isn't some tiny club coming straight from the abyss to glory.

Edited 16 October 2014 by Corky

[Babylon]

Did you read the whole post, rather than the first line?

 

He isn't judging us, and people are starting to have a persecution complex, he is saying that they can't afford to spend £8m on a player, even Leicester, arguably the second weakest team in the league, fellow new boys, can afford to spend £8m on one player.

Yes I did, I read a load of stuff where you seemed to form lots of conclusions of what he was trying to say from very little. Did you actually read what he said?

 

His comparisons are stupid, that's what people are saying. That's seemingly obvious to everyone on here other that you. If he'd said "we spent £3m on one player, even Leicester could spend £8m on one" that would be a fair comment. Not we bought 10 for £5m and whilst Leicester bought one for £8m, it's a moronic comparison. I don't take that as a dig at Leicester, it's just that idiot doing his usual deflecting.

[Captain...]

Yes I did, I read a load of stuff where you seemed to form lots of conclusions of what he was trying to say from very little. Did you actually read what he said?

 

His comparisons are stupid, that's what people are saying. That's seemingly obvious to everyone on here other that you. If he'd said "we spent £3m on one player, even Leicester could spend £8m on one" that would be a fair comment. Not we bought 10 for £5m and whilst Leicester bought one for £8m, it's a moronic comparison. I don't take that as a dig at Leicester, it's just that idiot doing his usual deflecting.

 

It is not a moronic comparison, we made the same comparison with United, Di Maria/Van Perise/Rooney cost more than our whole squad was said more than once. I'm pretty sure it was said about Lukaku and Sanchez when we played Everton and Arsenal. We could afford to spend more on one player than he could on his whole squad, that is his point and it is a fact and one that does demonstrate Burnley's spending ability, and not our business in the summer. If it was an objective view on which manager made the best signings in the summer, then it would be a moronic comparison, it isn't.

 

I don't disagree with the last bit, it is those that are acting like he is judging us, and taking it as an insult that I disagree with, he is taking the facts as they are to continue playing the poor old Burnley card, but it is nothing personal against us.

[MC Prussian]

Fvck sake he's at it again. "Even leicester have spent £8 million on one player"

Maybe ypur board don't trust you with any money. And rightly so after spending £3 million on George Boyd.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sean-dyche-interview-burnley-manager-4437121

Well said. Made me chuckle a bit. Sean Dyche clearly suffers from a severe case of sweettalkinitis.

[Nalis]

I want to ask all the Burnley fans reading this how they feel about the way Dyche deals with the media.

Are you happy with him banging on about how little resources he has to work with? Don't you realise that the only person these comments serve are himself?

I'm sure the owners/directors can't be best pleased to be called tight or skint, and I'm sure the players don't like being told they're not the manager's ideal choices. He only mentions money because he thinks it makes the job he's doing look better. He's making excuses. It's not very dignified, and it's pretty disrespectful.

Excellent point.

[Babylon]

We could afford to spend more on one player than he could on his whole squad,

And I will repeat again, using the same criteria that he did, we actually signed Ulloa, Cambiasso, Albrighton and Upson for 8 million and not one player. 

 

To be a correct statement using the same criteria to judge both sets of signings it should have been either "we spent £5m on 10 players, even Leicester spent £10m on 7", or "we spent £3m on one player, even Leicester spent £8m one".

 

Saying we spent £5m on 10 players and Leicester spent £8m on 1 is just weighting any point he's trying to make ridiculously in his favour.

[foxfanazer]

And I will repeat again, using the same criteria that he did, we actually signed Ulloa, Cambiasso, Albrighton and Upson for 8 million and not one player.

To be a correct statement using the same criteria to judge both sets of signings it should have been either "we spent £5m on 10 players, even Leicester spent £10m on 7", or "we spent £3m on one player, even Leicester spent £8m one".

Saying we spent £5m on 10 players and Leicester spent £8m on 1 is just weighting any point he's trying to make ridiculously in his favour.

Agreed

[Manwell Pablo]

Jesus are we still on Burnley

 

Mind you I suppose most Mags have got better things to moan about than us half them probably want us to win.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Why exactly, can't Burnley spend £8m on a player if the manager identifies a target he thinks will seriously help keep them in the division? They got the same amount of money as we did for promotion, the TV deal that gives the team who finishes bottom this year more than the team that won the league last year has been well documented, they will get parachute payments when they go down so why can't they spend anything? Simple. The owner/chairman is a cvnt. That's their fault, not anybody elses. There's running a club well, then there's a complete lack of ambition.

[Captain...]

And I will repeat again, using the same criteria that he did, we actually signed Ulloa, Cambiasso, Albrighton and Upson for 8 million and not one player. 

 

To be a correct statement using the same criteria to judge both sets of signings it should have been either "we spent £5m on 10 players, even Leicester spent £10m on 7", or "we spent £3m on one player, even Leicester spent £8m one".

 

Saying we spent £5m on 10 players and Leicester spent £8m on 1 is just weighting any point he's trying to make ridiculously in his favour.

 

It is still true what he said, and no different to those that said Man United paid more for Di Maria then we spent on our whole squad, which was said many times. He is not making a comparison of our respective buying strategies, he is saying that his budget for transfer fees was £5m, and Leicester spent more than that on one player. Most teams spent more than that on one player, even Leicester, that is his point, and it is true. He is using the facts available to indicate the gulf in spending power between Burnley and the rest, even Leicester. We have no idea on the actual cost of our signings or theirs as signing on fees, wages, bonuses, add ons etc are all undisclosed, so saying it your way is no more accurate.

 

I really don't get why you or anyone else is upset by it, he is not calling us big spenders, the opposite in fact, just saying that they can't compete with the other promoted clubs financially.

[Captain...]

Why exactly, can't Burnley spend £8m on a player if the manager identifies a target he thinks will seriously help keep them in the division? They got the same amount of money as we did for promotion, the TV deal that gives the team who finishes bottom this year more than the team that won the league last year has been well documented, they will get parachute payments when they go down so why can't they spend anything? Simple. The owner/chairman is a cvnt. That's their fault, not anybody elses. There's running a club well, then there's a complete lack of ambition.

 

We have greater spending power due to being a bigger club having more fans and a bigger stadium, better sponsorship deals and better revenue streams, we are also able to make that money available now due to the backing we have offset against the guarantee of receiving the money, which I believe is at the end of the season.

 

We also cleared our debts, whereas I believe Burnley had some to pay off, their owners may also have wanted to pocket some. I'm not going to criticize them for spending within their means, but it is boring to hear Dyche bring it up all the time. I just don't get this mock outrage that he pointed out that we spent more on one player then he did all summer. It's a fact.

[Chug Laguna]

Oh God stop talking about Burnley. They are just plain shit and I'm not through hating Stoke yet.

[BlackburnClaret]

Perhaps he reads this forum and just wants to do it to annoy you. Maybe I am Sean Dyche, ever thought of that?

[ScouseFox]

sean dyche can't afford a computer 

[Guest ttfn]

It is still true what he said, and no different to those that said Man United paid more for Di Maria then we spent on our whole squad, which was said many times. He is not making a comparison of our respective buying strategies, he is saying that his budget for transfer fees was £5m, and Leicester spent more than that on one player. Most teams spent more than that on one player, even Leicester, that is his point, and it is true. He is using the facts available to indicate the gulf in spending power between Burnley and the rest, even Leicester. We have no idea on the actual cost of our signings or theirs as signing on fees, wages, bonuses, add ons etc are all undisclosed, so saying it your way is no more accurate.

I really don't get why you or anyone else is upset by it, he is not calling us big spenders, the opposite in fact, just saying that they can't compete with the other promoted clubs financially.

They definitely can compete with us financially though. This isn't 2011. We've got a £30k wage cap which isn't exactly mental and the £8 million means we've got something like the 3rd or 4th lowest record signing in the league.

They get £60 million in TV money for this year alone. You're telling me they couldn't afford to spend £10 million on Deeney and pay him £30k a week? Of course they could. Even if Deeney broke both legs the day after he signed that would still only end up costing them a quarter of their Premier league cash just for this year.

It's not like anybody's advertising them spending all of their £60 million, just some of it. And if they don't spend it, don't complain it's because they're poor. It's because they're either too tight or don't see any value in the market. Given the success Ulloa has had I don't think it's stretching the point to think that £10 million on a really good centre forward (not necessarily Deeney, and money which they clearly have to spend) might have given them a better chance of staying up.

As for the Manchester United comparison, that's rubbish too. We're saying "wow, look at the sort of player they can buy" (for 4 times (£35 million more than) our total squad cost). Dyche is arguing the point over a comparative pittance, which he and his club clearly can afford.

If we did a like-for-like comparison on Manchester United's signings, the number would be even more ridiculous - something like £150 million on 7 or 8 players vs £10 million on a similar number. With us and Burnley it's £10 million v £5 million. It's not a misleading comparison to illustrate the wealth and spending power and average transfer fees paid by United to talk about di Maria costing more than all the players we signed. United aren't picking up another 7 players on free transfers and loans.

[Captain...]

sean dyche can't afford a computer 

 

He can, but it is second hand and only has dial up, not like Nigel down the road whose adopted Thai parents bought him the latest iPad and have unlimited broadband. 

[Captain...]

They definitely can compete with us financially though. This isn't 2011. We've got a £30k wage cap which isn't exactly mental and the £8 million means we've got something like the 3rd or 4th lowest record signing in the league.

They get £60 million in TV money for this year alone. You're telling me they couldn't afford to spend £10 million on Deeney and pay him £30k a week? Of course they could. Even if Deeney broke both legs the day after he signed that would still only end up costing them a quarter of their Premier league cash just for this year.

It's not like anybody's advertising them spending all of their £60 million, just some of it. And if they don't spend it, don't complain it's because they're poor. It's because they're either too tight or don't see any value in the market. Given the success Ulloa has had I don't think it's stretching the point to think that £10 million on a really good centre forward (not necessarily Deeney, and money which they clearly have to spend) might have given them a better chance of staying up.

As for the Manchester United comparison, that's rubbish too. We're saying "wow, look at the sort of player they can buy" (for 4 times (£35 million more than) our total squad cost). Dyche is arguing the point over a comparative pittance, which he and his club clearly can afford.

If we did a like-for-like comparison on Manchester United's signings, the number would be even more ridiculous - something like £150 million on 7 or 8 players vs £10 million on a similar number. With us and Burnley it's £10 million v £5 million. It's not a misleading comparison to illustrate the wealth and spending power and average transfer fees paid by United to talk about di Maria costing more than all the players we signed. United aren't picking up another 7 players on free transfers and loans.

 

But that is his point, he is not comparing his budget to United, or any established prem team, but even Leicester have spent more on one player than he did on his whole squad.

 

(I'm not trying to make any point about United, I'm just saying it is not inaccurate or wrong to compare your total spending with the spending on one player, especially when it serves the point).

 

They should be able to compete with us, they should be able to spend £8m - £10m on a player but he was prevented from doing so, he didn't pull the plug on any deal over money it was their board. He is basically trying to create the underdog spirit, but also cover his ass and make sure everyone knows that he is doing everything he can to be successful despite his hands being tied financially. He is probably angling for a bigger move, QPR might think that if Dyche can do that with no money, then I wonder what he can do with some backing.

 

I just don't understand why anyone is getting so worked up that he pointed out we spent £8m on one player, and he only had £5m to spend and needed to sign 10 players to get his squad Prem League ready. It is not a critique or comparison, just a statement of fact to illustrate how "hard done by" he is.

[Corky]

Anyone can see it is done to take the heat off his shoulders so he can get on with managing without outside pressure.

 

Dyche is very media savvy.

[Countesthorpe Fox 1884]

Perhaps he reads this forum and just wants to do it to annoy you. Maybe I am Sean Dyche, ever thought of that?

No because you haven't mention Market Forum Leaders........

[BlackburnClaret]

But that is his point, he is not comparing his budget to United, or any established prem team, but even Leicester have spent more on one player than he did on his whole squad.

 

(I'm not trying to make any point about United, I'm just saying it is not inaccurate or wrong to compare your total spending with the spending on one player, especially when it serves the point).

 

They should be able to compete with us, they should be able to spend £8m - £10m on a player but he was prevented from doing so, he didn't pull the plug on any deal over money it was their board. He is basically trying to create the underdog spirit, but also cover his ass and make sure everyone knows that he is doing everything he can to be successful despite his hands being tied financially. He is probably angling for a bigger move, QPR might think that if Dyche can do that with no money, then I wonder what he can do with some backing.

 

I just don't understand why anyone is getting so worked up that he pointed out we spent £8m on one player, and he only had £5m to spend and needed to sign 10 players to get his squad Prem League ready. It is not a critique or comparison, just a statement of fact to illustrate how "hard done by" he is.

 

For what it's worth Captain, I think you've called it about right. 

[Lineker's Left Foot]

But that is his point, he is not comparing his budget to United, or any established prem team, but even Leicester have spent more on one player than he did on his whole squad.

(I'm not trying to make any point about United, I'm just saying it is not inaccurate or wrong to compare your total spending with the spending on one player, especially when it serves the point).

They should be able to compete with us, they should be able to spend £8m - £10m on a player but he was prevented from doing so, he didn't pull the plug on any deal over money it was their board. He is basically trying to create the underdog spirit, but also cover his ass and make sure everyone knows that he is doing everything he can to be successful despite his hands being tied financially. He is probably angling for a bigger move, QPR might think that if Dyche can do that with no money, then I wonder what he can do with some backing.

I just don't understand why anyone is getting so worked up that he pointed out we spent £8m on one player, and he only had £5m to spend and needed to sign 10 players to get his squad Prem League ready. It is not a critique or comparison, just a statement of fact to illustrate how "hard done by" he is.

Probably best thing been said when referring to Dyche's comments

[Oxfordfox83]

Probably best thing been said when referring to Dyche's comments

So can we stop now? Pleeeeease?!

[Captain...]

So can we stop now? Pleeeeease?!

 

We'll have Pardew's post match comments to get all worked up about soon don't worry, while Duchess will be mentioning how even West Ham spent more on one player than Burnley did all summer.

 

(£12m for Enner Valencia if you're interested)

[GuestAppearance]

And I will repeat again, using the same criteria that he did, we actually signed Ulloa, Cambiasso, Albrighton and Upson for 8 million and not one player. 

 

To be a correct statement using the same criteria to judge both sets of signings it should have been either "we spent £5m on 10 players, even Leicester spent £10m on 7", or "we spent £3m on one player, even Leicester spent £8m one".

 

Saying we spent £5m on 10 players and Leicester spent £8m on 1 is just weighting any point he's trying to make ridiculously in his favour.

 

Again another person showing significant naivety about football finance...

 

Certainly Ulloa, Cambiasso and Albrighton will be on more money per week than our wage cap, probably Upson too.  So yes he could have added those players to the comparison but it wouldn't actually have done you any favours, it would have made the gulf in cost even greater.