It is a sign of how far Brentford have progressed that many
of their supporters were somewhat disappointed with their ninth place finish in
this season’s Championship. Their expectations had been raised by the Bees
reaching the play-offs the previous campaign, which chairman Cliff Crown
described as “our most successful in living memory.”
This was fair comment, given that Brentford had finished
fifth in their first season in the Championship for 22 years, and were plying
their trade in League Two as recently as 2009. In fact, Brentford had been
languishing outside the top two divisions for all but one season in near on 70 years before
gaining automatic promotion from League One in 2014, which amply demonstrated
the club’s ability to bounce back after the heartbreaking defeat to Yeovil Town
in the previous season’s play-off final.
As Brentford owner Matthew Benham noted, “We’ve come a long
way in a fairly short space of time and that can’t be forgotten.” Crown, in
turn, described the 2015/16 season as one of “consolidation, before we kick on
again.” That seems reasonable enough, considering the Bees’ impressive
finishing run, when they won seven of their last nine games (though that did
follow a less enjoyable run of 10 defeats in 13 games).
"Judgement Day"
On the face of it, the reason for Brentford going backwards was
fairly straightforward, namely the departure of manager Mark Warburton, who had
seemed to be working a minor miracle by guiding the club to an impressive fifth
place the previous season. A former city trader, Warburton had been promoted
from his former role as Brentford’s sporting director to manager by Benham, but
his contract was not renewed following a disagreement about the future
philosophy of the club.
Warburton was replaced by Marinus Dijkhuizen, the Excelsior
manager, in June 2015, but he left just four months later after a miserable time
with Benham himself admitting, “On the pitch, the level of the team is not
where it was 12 months ago.”
He added, “Very quickly we realised that he wasn’t going to
be our guy. But to be fair to Marinus, he was also dealt a bad hand. Such a
vast turnover of players. Massive upheaval.” However, he did also note, “There
was a huge cultural divide between him and the players.”
"Happy Jake"
In fairness to the Dutchman, not only did he lose star striker,
Andre Gray, who was sold to Burnley, but also had to cope with a disastrous,
newly laid pitch that contributed to injuries to a number of players, including
record signing Andreas Bjelland, who was ruled out for the season.
Lee Carsley, the Development Squad manger, was briefly
promoted to Head Coach, before making way for the current incumbent, Dean Smith,
who arrived from Walsall in November. Despite losing a couple of key players in
the January transfer window (James Tarkowski to Burnley and Toumani Diagouraga
to Leeds United), Smith led the team to a top ten finish.
Given all the issues experienced this season, there is cause
for optimism in the future. As co-director of football Phil Giles put it, “There's
been so much happening this season with injuries, pitches, three managers,
players striking, broken legs; all this kind of stuff. It can't happen every
season surely.”
Overall, it does look like all the millions invested by
Benham are beginning to pay off. He is a lifelong Brentford fan, who owns two
betting and statistic companies, Smartodds and Matchbook. His initial
involvement came in 2006, when the supporters trust, Bees United, needed
another £500k to complete their takeover.
"Good Vibrations"
At that time, Brentford were in deep financial trouble. As
former Chairman Greg Dyke said, “It is fair to say that without Bees United
there would probably not have been a club for Matthew to take over.”
That said, Benham is the man that has brought financial
stability to Brentford, first by pledging to inject a minimum of £5 million of
new capital between 2009 and 2014, then by taking full control in June 2012,
when he took over Bees United’s 96% shareholding.
Dyke again: “The days of spending monies that we did not
have and borrowing monies that we could not repay are long gone for this club.
Matthew’s monies have removed us from the hand to mouth existence that we
endured.”
In fact, Benham’s financial commitment to Brentford was up
to £76 million as at June 2015. The long-term aim is clearly to create a
sustainable club, but for the time being its ability to maintain a competitive
challenge in the Championship is almost entirely reliant on the owner’s
generosity.
"He blinded me with science"
In addition, Benham’s background has led to Brentford being
regarded as England’s prime exponents of statistical analysis. This approach
was pioneered at FC Midtjylland, who won the Danish league in 2015, where
Benham is the majority shareholder.
Benham himself does not appear completely comfortable with
the “Moneyball” label being applied to this strategy, as it is so often misused
and misunderstood: “Everyone came to the conclusion that our methods consisted
only of maths and nothing else. However, there has always been a mix between
maths and traditional coaching. Analytics has been responsible for identifying
some of our most successful players. But analytics are one part of a very big
process.”
The approach was further explained by Rasmus Ankersen,
Brentford’s other co-director of football: “We really believe analytics can
make a difference and have a role to play in football and will have a bigger
role to play in the future. But no matter how many times we say we also do all
the traditional stuff, people don’t listen because the narrative is set. We
don’t disrespect or disregard traditional scouting or coaching at all.”
He added, “Brentford and Midtjylland are small clubs with
small budgets and that means you’ve got to think differently. If you just do
the same as the other team then money becomes the decisive factor and we will
lose, so we have got to take a different approach. Analytics is a different
weapon. We had to go down that route to find an edge.”
Brentford’s challenge was highlighted by their 2014/15
financial results, which saw their loss nearly double from £7.7 million to a hefty
£14.7 million, despite revenue rising by £5.5 million to a record £10.0 million
following promotion to the Championship.
All three revenue streams increased: (a) broadcasting rose
£3.4 million from £1.1 million to £4.4 million, thanks to the higher TV deal in
the Championship; (b) ticketing shot up £1.4 million (81%) from £1.7 million to
£3.1 million; (c) commercial was up £0.7 million (44%) from £1.7 million to
£2.4 million.
However, wages also surged by £7.8 million (78%) from £10.0
million to £17.7 million, which the club said was “required to not only ensure
survival but compete in the Championship”. In addition, a significant element
was “as a result of bonuses paid out based on the first team’s league
position”.
In addition, player amortisation was £1.8 million higher at
£2.1 million, while other expenses climbed £1.1 million to £7.3 million.
Profit from player sales increased by £1.4 million from £0.6
million to £2.0 million, but other operating income (unexplained) fell by £3.1
million from £3.9 million to £0.9 million.
It should be noted that Brentford have changed the way that
they account for player trading. In the past, the club wrote-off transfer fees
as they occurred, but they now capitalise player registration costs and
amortise charges over the length of the contract (as do the vast majority of
football clubs). This has resulted in a restatement of the 2014 comparative,
but, interestingly, this does not explain why the revenue figure has also
changed.
Although Brentford’s £15 million loss is clearly not great,
it is by no means the worst in the Championship, having been “beaten” by
Bournemouth £39 million, Fulham £27 million, Nottingham Forest £22 million and
Blackburn Rovers £17 million. The harsh reality is that hardly any clubs are
profitable in the Championship with only six making money in 2014/15 – and most
of those are due to special factors.
Ipswich Town were the most profitable with £5 million, but
that included £12 million profit on player sales. Cardiff’s £4 million was boosted
by £26 million credits from their owner writing-off some loans and accrued
interest. Reading’s £3 million was largely due to an £11 million revaluation of
land around their stadium. Birmingham City and Wolverhampton Wanderers both
made £1 million, but were helped by £10 million of parachute payments apiece.
So the only club to make money without the benefit of
once-off positives was Rotherham United, who basically just broke even – and
ended up avoiding relegation to League One by a single place.
Of course, losses are nothing new for Brentford, though
there has been a clear willingness to accept higher losses since Benham came on
board. In the five years up to 2010, the annual losses were kept down to £1
million or lower, but in the five years since then Brentford have reported
aggregate losses of £36 million, averaging £7 million a season.
The approach was outlined by Crown in 2013: “The board
continues to run the club with a level of losses commensurate with the capital
injections by Matthew Benham. We believe that this is the correct strategy in a
results oriented business and one which involves a prudent approach to the
level of risk to the financial security of the club. The continuing losses are
accepted by Matthew and your board as the price to pay to reach our goals.”
That said, Benham explained that “It wasn’t sustainable for
us to continue making such heavy losses as we were last season. But off the
pitch, we (now) have a more sustainable structure. The club isn’t operating
anywhere near the loss it was operating at 12 months ago.”
Part of that improvement will have been due to profits made
from player sales. These can have a major impact on a football club’s bottom
line, but Brentford only made £2 million from this activity in 2014/15, presumably
for the sale of Adam Forshaw to Wigan Athletic.
In fairness, this is not an enormous money-spinner outside
the Premier League, though some clubs made a lot more than Brentford here: Norwich
City £14 million, followed by Ipswich £12 million, Leeds United £10 million and
Cardiff City £10 million.
Actually, that £2 million was the highest amount that
Brentford have made from player disposals for ages, accounting for almost 50%
of the profits from player sales in the last nine years.
That is all going to change in the 2015/16 accounts with the
lucrative sales of Andre Gray, Moses Odubajo, James Tarkowski, Stuart Dallas, Will
Grigg and Toumani Diagouraga, which should bring in at least £15 million of
profits.
Crown explained the thinking behind these departures:
“Sometimes we lose players that we would rather keep – whether for offers that
the leaving players feel they can’t refuse, and more recently for the slightly
more practical purposes of complying with the League’s Financial Fair Play
(FFP) regulations.”
This was echoed by Benham: “We have to cut our cloth
accordingly… which unfortunately includes having to accept big bids for our
best players from time to time.”
At least players are now leaving for big money rather than
peanuts. The club has also got smarter about structuring its transfers, as it
has been reported that they will earn around £3.5 million in add-ons on the
Gray/Tarkowski deals as a result of Burnley’s promotion to the Premier League.
To get an idea of underlying profitability, football clubs
often look at EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Depreciation and Amortisation),
as this strips out player trading and non-cash items. Again, Brentford had one
of the lowest with their minus £14 million EBITDA only better than Bournemouth
minus £25 million, Nottingham Forest minus £20 million and Blackburn Rovers
minus £15 million.
To be fair, only three clubs had a positive EBITDA in the
2014/15 Championship (Wolves, Birmingham City and Rotherham) and none of those
clubs generated more than £1.5 million. In stark contrast, in the Premier
League only one club (QPR) reported a negative EBITDA, which is testament to
the earning power in the top flight.
Brentford’s revenue has increased in line with the club’s
rise through the divisions: £3.0 million in League Two in 2009, £4.4 million in
League One in 2014, and £10.0 million in the Championship in 2015. As Crown
said after the promotion to League One, “it was important for the club’s
long-term future to get promoted as soon as possible.”
One other important driver for revenue movements before
promotion to the Championship was progress in the Cup competitions, e.g. 2013
was boosted by taking Chelsea to a replay in the fourth round of the FA Cup.
However, Brentford’s revenue was nowhere near the big hitters
in the Championship. In fact, it was the smallest in the division in 2014/15 at
£10 million. To place this into perspective, four clubs enjoyed revenue higher
than £35 million (over £25 million more than Brentford): Norwich City £52
million, Fulham £42 million, Cardiff City £40 million and Reading £35 million.
Benham is acutely aware of this structural imbalance: “You
have to remember, our revenue is very low. So we can’t ‘spend, spend, spend’
like other teams do. We have to be realistic. We have the lowest revenue in the
Championship by far.”
This alone explains Brentford’s desire to find an edge by
better use of analytics, as it’s a competitive necessity. Given their revenue
level, Brentford have punched well above their weight in finishing 5th and 9th
in their two seasons in the Championship.
Of course, these revenue figures are distorted by the
parachute payments made to those clubs relegated from the Premier League, e.g.
in 2014/15 this was worth £25 million in the first year of relegation.
If we were to exclude this disparity, then the revenue
differentials would be smaller, but Brentford would still be rock bottom of the
league table, behind the likes of Wigan Athletic, Huddersfield Town, Rotherham
United and Millwall – and two of those clubs ended up being relegated.
The increasing importance of TV revenue higher up the
football pyramid is seen by Brentford’s revenue mix. In the Championship,
broadcasting accounted for 45% of their total revenue, compared to just 24% in
League One. As a result, match day’s share fell from 38% to 31% and commercial
decreased from 38% to 24%.
In the Championship most clubs receive the same annual sum
for TV, regardless of where they finish in the league, amounting to just £4
million of central distributions: £1.7 million from the Football League pool
and a £2.3 million solidarity payment from the Premier League.
However, the clear importance of parachute payments is once
again highlighted in this revenue stream, greatly influencing the top eight
earners, though it should be noted that clubs receiving parachute payments do
not also receive solidarity payments. As a comparison, Brentford’s broadcasting
income was £4.4 million, while Fulham earned nearly £30 million.
Looking at the television distributions in the top flight,
the massive financial chasm between England’s top two leagues becomes evident
with Premier League clubs receiving between £65 million and £99 million,
compared to the £4 million in the Championship. In other words, it would take a
Championship club more than 15 years to earn the same amount as the bottom
placed club in the Premier League.
The size of the prize goes a long way towards explaining the
loss-making behaviour of many Championship clubs. As Benham observed, “If we
get into the Premier League, things become easier because of the TV deal
money.”
This is even more the case with the astonishing new TV deal
that starts in 2016/17, which will be worth an additional £30-50 million a
year, to each club depending on where they finish in the table. For example, I
have (conservatively) estimated that the club finishing bottom in the Premier
League next season will receive £92 million, which is £86 million more than a
Championship club not receiving parachute payments.
From 2016/17 parachute payments will be higher, though clubs
will only receive these for three seasons after relegation. My estimate is £75
million, based on the percentages advised by the Premier League (year 1 – £35
million, year 2 – £28 million and year 3 – £11 million). Up to now, these have
been worth £65 million over four years: year 1 – £25 million, year 2 – £20
million and £10 million in each of years 3 and 4.
There are some arguments in favour of these payments, namely
that it encourages clubs promoted to the Premier League to invest to compete,
safe in the knowledge that if the worst happens and they do end up relegated at
the end of the season, then there is a safety net. However, they do undoubtedly
create a significant revenue disadvantage in the Championship for clubs like
Brentford.
Crown has openly stated that Brentford’s goal is
“sustainable Premier League football”, but Benham’s ambitions don’t stop there,
as he has noted that the new deal “to an extent levels the playing field”, as
seen by the improved performances this season of clubs like Southampton, West
Ham and, of course, Leicester City.
Despite rising 81% to £3.1 million, Brentford had one of the
lowest match day incomes in the Championship, only ahead of Huddersfield Town
£3.1 million, Rotherham £2.6 million and Wigan Athletic £2.4 million. This was
far lower than clubs like Norwich City £10.7 million, Brighton £9.8 million and
Leeds United £8.8 million.
This was even though attendances increased from 7,715 to
10,700 in 2014/15 with the sale of season tickets almost doubling to 5,641.
This was 140% higher than the 4,469 average in League Two in 2007/08. There has
been a dip in attendances 2015/16 to 10,310, which was only ahead of Rotherham –
and some 2,300 behind Huddersfield Town, the next lowest club.
So Brentford’s average attendance is still one of the
smallest in the Championship, though it is a similar level to Bournemouth who
managed to gain promotion despite this disadvantage. Interestingly, the south
coast club operated a similar strategy to Brentford, effectively speculating to
accumulate, as the club’s owner heavily financed their attempts to go up.
Brentford have some of the lowest ticket prices in the
Championship, especially at the important cheaper end, as explained by the
board: “We took a conscious decision to keep season tickets and match day
prices to a level that would reward all those who had supported us through so
many previous seasons.” Moreover, season ticket prices have been frozen for the
2016/17 season in line with the club’s views on affordability.
The club’s income is clearly limited by the 12,300 capacity
of Griffin Park, hence the plans to build a new 20,000 capacity stadium at
Lionel Road. The club has acquired the site and has planning permission, but
needs to buy one remaining piece of land before any work can start.
This is subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order, but the
tribunal still needs to set the price. Even though the land is only valued at
£2.5 million, Brentford have offered £6.25 million in an attempt to accelerate
the process (the owners are apparently looking for £8.5 million).
The club has admitted that this is a very complex development,
including not only the construction of a new stadium, but also a hotel and over
900 apartments that will help fund the development (along with the sale of Griffin
Park).
"Is that you Mo-Dean?"
Benham has already provided around £25 million of funding
for the new stadium, though the final cost could rise to £45 million to
overcome all the challenges. In particular, the site is surrounded by three
railway lines, which poses “unique problems”, including the construction of a
bridge across one of the lines.
This is another sign of the owner’s commitment, though the
delays have been frustrating for Benham: “When I first became involved with the
club, around ten years ago, we were talking about the new stadium possibly
being used as a venue for the 2012 Olympics, but it has drifted further and
further away.” Nevertheless, the club “remains confident of being in the new
stadium ready for the 2018/19 season.”
Once again, despite rising 44% to £2.4 million, Brentford’s
commercial income was also among the smallest in the Championship, way behind
Norwich City £12.8 million, Leeds United £11.3 million and Brighton £8.9
million. In fact, it was only higher than Millwall £1.9 million and Wigan £1.5
million.
Brentford’s shirt sponsor is Matchbook, the global sports
betting exchange and one of Benham’s companies. The deal was extended for the
2015/16 season with an option to extend for one more year. The partnership also
sees Matchbook branding on the roof of the New Road Stand.
In 2014 Adidas extended the kit supplier deal by four years
until the end of the 2018/19 season.
Brentford’s wage bill shot up by 78% (£8 million) from £10
million to £18 million in 2014/15, though this was impacted by bonuses for
finishing in the play-off positions. Effectively, Brentford have increased
their wage bill in order to get out of League Two and League One, and then
upped it again in the Championship.
This has resulted in a fairly horrific wages to turnover
ratio of 178%, though this was actually better than the 224% in League One.
Of course, wages to turnover invariably looks terrible in
the Championship with no fewer than 10 clubs “boasting” a ratio above 100%, but
Brentford’s 178% was only surpassed by Bournemouth 237% - and that was inflated
by substantial promotion bonus payments.
However, Brentford’s £18 million wage bill was still in the
lower half of the Championship. On the fairly safe assumption that Bolton’s
wage bill was higher than Brentford’s, the Bees only had the 15th highest wages
in 2014/15.
Of course, this was still ahead of many other clubs, which
might surprise some Brentford fans, as Benham noted, “The big myth of last
season was the squad was run on a shoestring. In reality, the total first team
budget was mid-table.”
That said, Brentford will always struggle to keep its top
talent, as there are some clubs that will pay players a lot more. The impact of
parachute payments is again felt keenly here with the highest wage bills found
at Norwich City £51 million, Cardiff City £42 million, Fulham £37 million and
Reading £33 million.
Benham appreciates this point: “It comes back to budget.
Once we went up, and the players became aware that if they were playing for any
of our Championship rivals, they would get paid more money, we had a job on our
hands keeping certain players happy. Our structure is much more bonus-heavy,
which hasn’t helped us.”
This is likely to mean a fairly frequent turnover of
players, as those departing will need to be replaced by new recruits, who, if
they do well, will almost inevitably be sold. Many clubs have to follow this
strategy, but it’s a difficult one to successfully execute.
Another aspect of player costs that has risen is player
amortisation, which is the method that most football clubs use to expense
transfer fees and was adopted by Brentford this season. This has grown by £1.8
million from £0.3 million to £2.1 million in 2015.
As a reminder of how this works, transfer fees are not fully
expensed in the year a player is purchased, but the cost is written-off evenly
over the length of the player’s contract via player amortisation. As an
illustration, if Brentford were to pay £5 million for a new player with a
five-year contract, the annual expense would only be £1 million (£5 million
divided by 5 years) in player amortisation (on top of wages).
Brentford’s £2.1 million is towards the lower end of the
Championship, significantly surpassed by most other clubs, especially those
relegated from the Premier League in recent times, i.e. Norwich City, Cardiff
City and Fulham. Of course, this expense will have grown considerably in
2015/16 based on the much high transfer expenditure recently.
For many years, Brentford spent hardly anything on player
recruitment, but have averaged gross spend of around £5 million in the last two
seasons. This season alone included the following purchases: Andreas Bjelland
(FC Twente) £2 million, Lasse Vibe (IFK Göteborg) £1 million, Maxime Colin
(Anderlecht) £0.9 million and Josh McEachran (Chelsea) £0.8 million.
However, as a result of the high player departures,
Brentford actually had £12 million of net sales over the last two seasons. Benham
argued that this was a necessity, “With FFP we were always going to have to
sell players.” This meant that they were comfortably outspent by the likes of Derby
County £29 million and Middlesbrough £23 million.
It’s a challenge to sign players, but Brentford can offer
certain advantages, as Benham explained: “What we can demonstrate to potential
new signings is that if they come to Brentford, and excel, then it can be a
springboard for their careers. Look at what it did for Andre, Moses and
Forshaw. When they come to a team like us, they also have more chance of
getting regular first team football.”
Brentford have also made good use of the loan system, e.g. last
season their loans included Sergi Canos from Liverpool, Marco Djuricin from Red
Bull Salzburg and John Swift from Chelsea.
Brentford’s net debt more than doubled in 2015 from £19.2
million to £43.5 million, as gross debt rose by £23.8 million from £22.7
million to £46.4 million and cash fell £0.5 million from £3.5 million to £3.0
million.
Most of the debt (£43.4 million) is owed to the club’s
owner, Matthew Benham, and is interest-free, though secured by a legal charge
over the club’s freehold property. In addition, there are £2.9 million of other
loans, while the club has a £500,000 overdraft facility.
Brentford’s was by no means the largest debt in the Championship,
being lower than nine other clubs. In fact, four clubs had debt over £100 million,
including Brighton £148 million, Cardiff City £116 million and Blackburn Rovers
£104 million. Bolton Wanderers have not yet published their 2015 accounts,
given their much-publicised problems, but their debt was a horrific £195
million in 2014.
That said, the vast majority of this debt is provided by
owners and is interest-free, so the amounts paid out by Championship clubs in
interest is a lot less than you might imagine.
Even after adding back non-cash items such as player
amortisation and depreciation, then adjusting for working capital movements, Brentford
have made substantial cash losses from operating activities, e.g. £10.8 million
in 2015. They then spent a net £3.2 million on player recruitment and a hefty
£16 million on infrastructure investment, i.e. stadium development. This was
funded by £23.7 million of loans and £5.9 million of new share capital.
Since 2009 the club’s only real source of funds has been money
pumped in by Matthew Benham. This has been used to cover operating losses (£30
million) with a further £24 million spent on infrastructure investment (stadium
and training ground) and £8 million on acquiring a subsidiary (for the Lionel
Road site). Only £4 million went on player purchases (net), made up of £8
million purchases and £4 million sales.
Benham’s total commitment was up to £76 million as at 30
June 2015, comprising £43 million of loans, £25 million of non-voting
preference shares, £5 million of new share capital and £2 million of working
capital loans. This included £24.5 million on the Brentford Community stadium.
With some justification, the chairman described this as
“magnificent financial backing”, while even Mark Warburton, who has more reason
than most to criticise the owner said, “You have to respect the fact that
someone’s put so much money into the football club and put it into this state
of health.”
Of course, the long-term aim would be to reduce this
reliance on Benham. As far back as 2013, the chairman said, “We believe as a
board we should be striving to be breaking even on a sustainable basis, without
the requirement for substantial cash injections from our owner.”
Being so dependent on one individual can be a concern, but
Benham has to date been willing to provide substantial funding. However, Brentford
will not be able to simply buy success, as they will need to continue to comply
with the Financial Fair Play regulations.
Under the rules for 2014/15, clubs were only allowed a
maximum annual loss of £6 million (assuming that any losses in excess of £3
million were covered by shareholders injecting £3 million of capital). Any
clubs that exceeded those losses were subject to a fine (if promoted – like
Bournemouth) or a transfer embargo (if they remain in the Championship – as was
the case with Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Bolton Wanderers).
It should be noted that FFP losses are not the same as the
published accounts, as clubs are permitted to exclude some costs, such as youth
development, community schemes, promotion-related bonuses and infrastructure
investment (such as stadium improvements and training ground). This latter
expense in particular will help Brentford’s FFP calculation, as they have spent
a lot in these areas.
"Spanish Steps"
From the 2016/17 season the regulations will change to be
more aligned with the Premier League, so that the losses will be calculated
over a three-year period up to a maximum of £39 million, i.e. an annual average
of £13 million. This will likely encourage clubs to “go for it” even more.
Recently the club announced that they would close their
Academy, which has come as a major surprise, given that they had attained the
coveted Category Two status. This is once again about finding an edge in order
to compete and progress as a Championship football club, as Brentford “cannot
outspend the vast majority of our competitors”, though it will undoubtedly hit the affected youngsters hard.
The club statement explained their decision thus, “This
philosophy is particularly relevant with regards to the future of the Brentford
FC Academy. As a London club, there is strong competition for the best young
players, and the club’s pathways to First Team football must be sufficiently
differentiated to attract the level of talent that can thrive in a team
competing towards the top end of the Championship.”
“Moreover, the development of young players must make sense
from a business perspective. The review has highlighted that, in a football
environment where the biggest Premier League clubs seek to sign the best young
players before they can graduate through an Academy system, the challenge of
developing value through that system is extremely difficult.”
"Wild Woods"
There’s no doubt that Brentford have come a long way, but
the club is still far from breaking even, so continues to be reliant on Matthew
Benham to a large extent. The owner has invested heavily to give the club the
best possible chance, but there is no guarantee of success, especially with big
clubs like Newcastle United and Aston Villa joining the fray next season.
It will be important that the transfer budget is spent well
in the summer. According to co-director of football, Phil Giles, there should
be money available after the January sales: “The money will be reinvested in
the summer. I believe we’re fine for FFP this season.”
Although Brentford is clearly a club with ambition, they
have to strike the right balance off the pitch. A couple of years ago, Benham
gave some idea of the long-term vision: “Every club in the Championship would
like to get to the Premier League at some point, so we are no different. But we
are not going to put a timeframe on it. At some point we are going to try to
make a push for it... in x years. I don’t want to say publicly. But yes it is
achievable within a few years.”
At the time that seemed extraordinarily bullish, though
Bournemouth and Burnley have shown the way for “small” clubs. These days, the
owner is keeping his feet on the ground: “Brentford is a long-term project, and
we are a team in transition at the moment.”
In a recent interview, Benham beautifully summed up
Brentford’s dilemma: “We will give it everything to go up – as long as it makes
financial sense of course.”
********************************************************************************************************
Many of the Matthew Benham quotes in this blog have come
from a rare, lengthy interview that the club’s owner granted to the excellent
Brentford fan site Beesotted. You can read that interview in full here and also
follow them on Twitter @beesotted and @billythebee99
