ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

Apologies, yes I meant “spent any of the clubs money on incoming transfers” given we made a 5 million pound profit last season and 45 million pound profit the season before.

I can put the hesitancy this summer down to this posted on the MMT thread earlier which relates to our Covid liabilities non- of which has yet been paid

......£13.4m was our share of the £160m Overseas broadcast rebate - and a third I think of The £170m Sky/BT rebate (the rest is to be paid this season and next and will be done on the same formula). This does not include the £160m still not collected from PPTV/Suning for last season, or the £178m lost on the Chinese deal this season or the rebates overseas broadcasters are looking for this season or the likely £160m+ shortfall on the Chinese TV deal next season.

Add to that this next couple of months was to see the launch of the tender process for the next cycle - which globally respected analyst Claire Enders was predicting a 10% - 15% drop domestically and big price corrections in the far East (which is what we are seeing with the China deal) prior to the pandemic.

there are of course other income related issues that I have mentioned previously.

We had rainy day money - that has been eaten into already as incoming cash flow was effectively halted. the club has remained supportive of it's permanent staff and paid it's temporary staff until the end of the season.

I recently posted this on the MMT thread about the transfer window and our constraints as a result of outgoings

........ What we are seeing is the big clubs going into the marketplace prior to selling their cast-offs, but relatively confident they will do. That said Man Utd, Man City could still spend big , Spurs and Arsenal want to spend but will need to do some trading - I think Liverpool are done apart from outgoings

As for the rest West Ham are looking to spend, Aston Villa and Leeds could well spend another £50m each, Wolves are being linked with more players over £30m, Crystal Palace are spending, either in anticipation of Zaha leaving or to encourage him to stay. I expect Leicester, Sheffield Utd, Fulham. West Brom to spend. Newcastle and Everton have spent and will be looking to offload a few - particularly Everton. Brighton. Southampton have been cautious, but are bearing the fruits of previous spending.

As for us, we will bring bodies in, but Sean is deluded if he thinks we are going to buy young first team ready players who will improve us from the off, we just don't have that kind of money - I fully expect last season will see wages around £100m+ with bonuses (13 months - but still a year on year increase again).

For now we will have monthly outgoings of £7m or so (Wages and running costs - bonuses (probably £20m+) and and staged (£14m)/conditional transfer payments (between £1 and £3m) were paid/put to one side in the summer) reduced central distribution payments (which could be reduced further during the season) no matchday income, challenges on the commercial and catering side side could see income drop between £20m - £30m mean we have to be careful when thinking of additional outgoings particularly fees and wages

RoyboyClaret pointed out subsequently that the new corner stands had experienced very considerable cost overruns which I took to be several million as a result of the difficulties encountered in their construction.

[mdd2]

Isn't the situation one where even before Covid the club was struggling in this league with an aging squad having lost monies on some poor transfer deals (in hind sight) with a need to invest big to maintain/improve the squad?
Covid has blown what plans we had out of the water and the Board, I imagine with some reluctance, will have to either see us in all probability relegated this or next season or get some new blood (and money) on the Board to try and move us forward. This scenario rather than lets sell out for a big profit is the prevailing one surely?
I could see at a later stage, if any new owners go belly up, the likes of Mike Garlick and others coming back in to try and rescue what the New Board leave behind, but I may be wrong.

[ClaretTony]

RoyboyClaret pointed out subsequently that the new corner stands had experienced very considerable cost overruns which I took to be several million as a result of the difficulties encountered in their construction.

That’s not what we were told regarding the costs. Cost us time but not funds.

[Chester Perry]

Isn't the situation one where even before Covid the club was struggling in this league with an aging squad having lost monies on some poor transfer deals (in hind sight) with a need to invest big to maintain/improve the squad?
Covid has blown what plans we had out of the water and the Board, I imagine with some reluctance, will have to either see us in all probability relegated this or next season or get some new blood (and money) on the Board to try and move us forward. This scenario rather than lets sell out for a big profit is the prevailing one surely?
I could see at a later stage, if any new owners go belly up, the likes of Mike Garlick and others coming back in to try and rescue what the New Board leave behind, but I may be wrong.

Our difficulties are more the standard difficulties one sees in the bottom half of the Premier League after a few years at the top table (exacerbated by our desire to avoid debt) - the initial gap in wages between Championship and Established Premier League is filled - The transfer funding that gap allowed is depleted as it shrinks and the club grows to improve it's infrastructure (here I am talking talent rather than physical) - additional coaches, analysts, medical academy players etc. This all happens because revenues effectively hit a ceiling, beyond which it is very difficult to go. Because you are perceived as rich transfer fees are pushed up as others want their share, meaning you cannot get the players you want to develop the team. Gradually this makes you increasingly stagnant in your recruiting unless you are prepared for a regular sell of of players each season (usually more than one), that comes with the issue of destabilising the squad in terms of it's cohesion, nous and fight.

[Chester Perry]

That’s not what we were told regarding the costs. Cost us time but not funds.

I am aware of that CT, but it is very rare in any form of project that additional time does not cost additional monies, and we know these were far from insignificant issues.

I know you and Roy have the occasional disagreement, but I don't believe Roy would wantonly mislead on such an issue. It could be I misinterpreted the value though,

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Depends if the contract was to a cost, I can’t imagine we wouldn’t work to a cost and add penalties to the contract. The very nature of the build was time restricted, so it would be stupid not to include penalty clauses to safeguard the timely completion.

[ewanrob]

In the same sense that if a club agree a fee with another club for a player, and then that’s leaked to the press, and other clubs now start sniffing and potentially offering more money, or a more attractive offer you’d be pretty annoyed at being gazumped. The club might hold off on signing that asset over to you in the hope they might achieve a higher price with a second or third party.

You might be inclined to use the terms of the original agreement to seek financial recompense against the third party who leaked the availability of the player to the media.

Are you suggesting that other parties are now interested or have I read that completely wrong

[Row Z]

Depends if the contract was to a cost, I can’t imagine we wouldn’t work to a cost and add penalties to the contract. The very nature of the build was time restricted, so it would be stupid not to include penalty clauses to safeguard the timely completion.

I recall that there were issues in the ground which would no doubt have been relevant events under the terms of the contract and provided extra costs and time to resolve at the clubs expense.

[Row Z]

Are you suggesting that other parties are now interested or have I read that completely wrong

I read it as the leak was by another interested party with a view to them offering a more attractive proposal, with a potential legal claim being lodged between the separate interested parties.

Sounds messy and doesnt suggest that anything is close to being resolved in the short term?

[Wile E Coyote]

its tough being a fan thesedays, I can never recall big debates about the clubs finances. it was all about the team.
now we have supporters split on what deal would be the most beneficial. clearly no one has a clue. I must admit to being impressed though by the knowledge on financial issues on here. (not sarcasm)
it all looks an incredibly complex matter.
I just hope when the dust settles, the club can push on and succeed.

[ClaretTony]

I am aware of that CT, but it is very rare in any form of project that additional time does not cost additional monies, and we know these were far from insignificant issues.

I know you and Roy have the occasional disagreement, but I don't believe Roy would wantonly mislead on such an issue. It could be I misinterpreted the value though,

Nothing to do with Roy. It’s from information I’ve received from very reliable sources.

[randomclaret2]

its tough being a fan thesedays, I can never recall big debates about the clubs finances. it was all about the team.
now we have supporters split on what deal would be the most beneficial. clearly no one has a clue. I must admit to being impressed though by the knowledge on financial issues on here. (not sarcasm)
it all looks an incredibly complex matter.
I just hope when the dust settles, the club can push on and succeed.

Do you not remember the Ingleby/ Shackleton/Kilby dramas ?

[Steddyman]

Are you suggesting that other parties are now interested or have I read that completely wrong

He hasn't suggested that. He's just given a reason for why something being made public while still under an NDA can complicate matters.

[Chester Perry]

Nothing to do with Roy. It’s from information I’ve received from very reliable sources.

I am sure that Roy will join me in willing that is the outcome the club achieved

[Wile E Coyote]

Do you not remember the Ingleby/ Shackleton/Kilby dramas ?

yes, but they were only dramas for middle class accountants

[Vegas Claret]

In the same sense that if a club agree a fee with another club for a player, and then that’s leaked to the press, and other clubs now start sniffing and potentially offering more money, or a more attractive offer you’d be pretty annoyed at being gazumped. The club might hold off on signing that asset over to you in the hope they might achieve a higher price with a second or third party.

You might be inclined to use the terms of the original agreement to seek financial recompense against the third party who leaked the availability of the player to the media.

so are you intimating we could have more than one interested party ?

[UpTheClaretsFCBK]

Article in The Times, Saturday about "blank cheque companies" - otherwise known as Special-Purpose Acquisition Companies, SPACs.

Posting it because it may throw some light on ALK Investment's plans to raise capital. On the other hand, so far as I'm aware there has been nothing said by ALK themselves that a SPAC forms part of any plans they might be pursuing.

The article does mention Billy Beane, of "moneyball" fame - "thought have its eyes on a top-flight English football club and "recently hired Richard Scudamore as a director."

I've picked out a few "taster" paragraphs.

The hot fund that’s like handing a blank cheque to its creators
Spacs can make huge returns for those who set them up but very little for ordinary investors

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0c7c ... 8f8dd5ff70

"Blank cheque investment funds are all the rage in America this year. Prominent figures from business, politics and sport have raised tens of billions of dollars before going on the hunt for acquisitions."

"Such is their soaring popularity that blank cheque funds account for 43 per cent of all the money raised from initial public offerings (IPOs) in the US this year, research conducted for The Times shows. This is, by some distance, the largest proportion for any year in the last decade, and it comes in what is a bumper year for IPOs of all kinds."

Big names and numbers aside, blank cheque funds are changing the way that private companies go public. They are clearing a shortcut to the stock market, along a route that is shaded from the prying eyes of sceptical investors, stock exchange officials and government regulators.

More formally known as special purpose acquisition companies, or Spacs, blank cheque funds raise money from investors through IPOs before listing their shares on a stock exchange.

Nonetheless, American funds are looking for targets across the Atlantic. A $575 million Spac co-chaired by Billy Beane, the baseball executive portrayed in Moneyball, starring Brad Pitt, is thought to have its eyes on a top-flight English football club. The company recently hired Richard Scudamore, the former executive chairman of the Premier League, as a director.

UTC

Beane was involved in helping a consortium of investors buying Barnsley, headed by Chinese Billionaire Chien Lee who also owns OGC Nice.

Last season they signed 17 players and let go 21 players.
Finished 21st in the Championship scraping staying up.
They've already lost their first three games of this season.

This consortium have been involved in the running of the club since 2017.

[Duffer_]

I am sure that Roy will join me in willing that is the outcome the club achieved

Do we just need to will it so?

20200930_073645.jpg (30.76 KiB) Viewed 6988 times

[Spike]

Beane was involved in helping a consortium of investors buying Barnsley, headed by Chinese Billionaire Chien Lee who also owns OGC Nice.

Last season they signed 17 players and let go 21 players.
Finished 21st in the Championship scraping staying up.
They've already lost their first three games of this season.

This consortium have been involved in the running of the club since 2017.

So those who want the current Chairman removed want to replace him with a SPAC!

[Chester Perry]

Do we just need to will it so?



20200930_073645.jpg

I think someone misinterpreted (willfully?)

[aggi]

Question: If Garlick only owns 49.?% of the shares does someone else not have to agree to sell also or the Americans don't really achieve their aim of "overall control"? So it might not actually be in MG's hands

Realistically there's about 3 or 4% of shares that are spread between 1,500 or so people with them mainly owning 1 or 2 each. It's unlikely you could put together the opposition to block anything.

[Dark Cloud]

Realistically there's about 3 or 4% of shares that are spread between 1,500 or so people with them mainly owning 1 or 2 each. It's unlikely you could put together the opposition to block anything.

Yes, I get that, but what I was saying/asking was with Garlick only having 49.24% of the shares, him alone deciding to sell doesn't give ALK overall control, so us on here constantly discussing whether MG wants to sell or not, isn't the full story.

[aggi]

Yes, I get that, but what I was saying/asking was with Garlick only having 49.24% of the shares, him alone deciding to sell doesn't give ALK overall control, so us on here constantly discussing whether MG wants to sell or not, isn't the full story.

Yes, I'd forgotten to refresh and missed the later discussion on the shares.

Although the 49.24% may not technically a majority it is, realistically, a controlling interest given the way the shares are distributed.

[KateR]

minority shareholders have rights, depending upon shares held, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% each level can have different rights, what is not known, for me anyway, is what does the shareholder agreement say in regard to rights. There are legal rights for minority shareholders to protect them to a certain extent, regardless of what the shareholder agreement says.

[aggi]

minority shareholders have rights, depending upon shares held, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% each level can have different rights, what is not known, for me anyway, is what does the shareholder agreement say in regard to rights. There are legal rights for minority shareholders to protect them to a certain extent, regardless of what the shareholder agreement says.

The articles are pretty standard. There are extra minority shareholder rights, this is a reasonable summary https://www.crippspg.co.uk/shareholders ... ?pdf=26431 , but nothing that is really going to impact on this situation.

[KateR]

I have been a minority shareholder of 10% and I had veto rights written in to the shareholders agreement, regarding share offering that would dilute my 10% stake and also including outright sale to a majority stake holder. As I said, I have no clue whatsoever, what is in the BFC shareholders agreement, maybe those holding some shares will know, I don't. Probably a moot point in reality.

[aggi]

I have been a minority shareholder of 10% and I had veto rights written in to the shareholders agreement, regarding share offering that would dilute my 10% stake and also including outright sale to a majority stake holder. As I said, I have no clue whatsoever, what is in the BFC shareholders agreement, maybe those holding some shares will know, I don't. Probably a moot point in reality.

There is a right to buy shares if there is a share offering (in order to avoid diluting your shareholding) but nothing allowing any veto of sales, etc

The details can be seen at companies house website.

[KateR]

There is a right to buy shares if there is a share offering (in order to avoid diluting your shareholding) but nothing allowing any veto of sales, etc

The details can be seen at companies house website.

thanks for the info, I'll give reading BFC shareholders agreement a miss thank you

[ClaretAL]

https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/ ... rnley.html

[claretgilly]

A company called Calder Vale Holdings Limited has just been registered on Companies House, Alan Pace among the directors. Suspect the deal is quite close to completing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12919689

[arise_sir_charge]

A company called Calder Vale Holdings Limited has just been registered on Companies House, Alan Pace among the directors. Suspect the deal is quite close to completing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12919689

I expect that this is quite significant as it now 'links' ALK to the club.

[dibraidio]

It seems to me that the investment of the minority shareholders isn't worth the paper that it's written on.

[claretandy]

A company called Calder Vale Holdings Limited has just been registered on Companies House, Alan Pace among the directors. Suspect the deal is quite close to completing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12919689

Good find !

[claretonthecoast1882]

A company called Calder Vale Holdings Limited has just been registered on Companies House, Alan Pace among the directors. Suspect the deal is quite close to completing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12919689

Probably waiting for the transfer window to close before investing a few quid

[775claret]

Who are Velocity Sports registered in Jersey?

[onewillieirvine]

Claretgilly - Would you have any idea how long companies would normally be registered, before any takeover occurs please?

[Dougall]

I expect that this is quite significant as it now 'links' ALK to the club.

Clearly it links them to the UK, but how does it link them to BFC?

[Goobs]

A company called Calder Vale Holdings Limited has just been registered on Companies House, Alan Pace among the directors. Suspect the deal is quite close to completing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12919689

This is even more fun than watching Sky Scanner (or whatever it's called) for planes

[OffTheBar]

Clearly it links them to the UK, but how does it link them to BFC?

The name of the company is related to Burnley FC, surely? Could be a massive coincidence I suppose.

[BenWickes]

This is even more fun than watching Sky Scanner (or whatever it's called) for planes

This one?

https://www.flightradar24.com/IMX358/2444849b

[clansman]

Seems close now
Calder ale to be the vehicle for the purchase it would seem.

[Gordaleman]

If it's linked to the BFC takeover, then it's a strange name to choose. Calder Vale is in the west of the Forest of Bowland and the only local connection I know of is the Calder River.

[claretgilly]

Claretgilly - Would you have any idea how long companies would normally be registered, before any takeover occurs please?

Hard to say really, it's just one of many things that the lawyers they're paying handsomely will have on their 'Steps Plan'. Registering a company is pretty straightforward, and also easy to deregister if things don't work out. But obviously a step in the right direction.

[Grumps]

If it's linked to the BFC takeover, then it's a strange name to choose. Calder Vale is in the west of the Forest of Bowland and the only local connection I know of is the Calder River.

I thought it featured in the clubs history

[775claret]

If it's linked to the BFC takeover, then it's a strange name to choose. Calder Vale is in the west of the Forest of Bowland and the only local connection I know of is the Calder River.

Isn't Calder Vale the original location of Burnley FC's ground before Turf Moor?

Somewhere near where the college is now?

[HahaYeah]

Old thread re Calder Vale.

viewtopic.php?t=44621

[Gordaleman]

I thought it featured in the clubs history

In what way? The old ground? Maybe, but why would a forward looking company look so far back?

[Grumps]

In what way?

Our first ground

[BenWickes]

If it's linked to the BFC takeover, then it's a strange name to choose. Calder Vale is in the west of the Forest of Bowland and the only local connection I know of is the Calder River.

Wouldn't read too much into that. Calder International Holdings is based in Chester. May be the only name available.

[Gordaleman]

Our first ground

See my edit above.