Foreign Investment

[Burnley Ace]

Arent we a side interest for MG too though who lives in London and spends most of his week running his recruitment company there

Quite possibly- what’s your definition of side interest and how important is it that BFC is an investors main business concern?

[winsomeyen]

To be fair it was 6.5%, although even that returned a considerable amount of interest.

Hello Roy, I was refering to the sale of the Turf and the rent charged,sorry.

[Cleveleys_claret]

Well he spends more days at his other company than at Burnley, Surely in a transfer window his main priority should be this club not being in Hong Kong on a business trip when a deal is waiting to be signed off. How is he an investor? How much has MG invested in the last 3 years? He has no money according to many on here (80 million) to fund a top flight team.

[winsomeyen]

Not necessarily directly. Tell me how the owners of fulham, wolves, bournemouth, man city etc etc are making profit directly from owning a football club ?

One good example is at Chelsea where the owner has invested 1.5 billion and is now asking 2 billion to buy the club (allegedly)

[ClaretAndJew]

Well he spends more days at his other company than at Burnley, Surely in a transfer window his main priority should be this club not being in Hong Kong on a business trip when a deal is waiting to be signed off. How is he an investor? How much has MG invested in the last 3 years? He has no money according to many on here (80 million) to fund a top flight team.

It would be interesting to see how much of the director's money has been put into the club since the loans were paid off.

[cblantfanclub]

Foreign investors fall into several categories and the investment groups are in it for the long haul. They are trying to get in a position where they can control the PL and move the top clubs into a Euro/US super league which at the moment they haven't the power to do. They are prepared to invest heavily to achieve this by keeping their clubs in the frame.
It is well documented and one American Sports co. made an early shot last year but was voted down. I put all the report on a post last year but can't find it. Once it shakes down the losers will depart and the stupidly rich will get richer.
Brand enrichment is more to do with Leicester's owners.

[winsomeyen]

It would be interesting to see how much of the director's money has been put into the club since the loans were paid off.

I think we all know the answer to that question. FA and I dont mean the cup

[Cleveleys_claret]

Foreign investors fall into several categories and the investment groups are in it for the long haul. They are trying to get in a position where they can control the PL and move the top clubs into a Euro/US super league which at the moment they haven't the power to do. They are prepared to invest heavily to achieve this by keeping their clubs in the frame.
It is well documented and one American Sports co. made an early shot last year but was voted down. I put all the report on a post last year but can't find it. Once it shakes down the losers will depart and the stupidly rich will get richer.
Brand enrichment is more to do with Leicester's owners.

This is one of the reasons we would be such an attractive proposition as while we are owned by MG there is no way we will ever vote for it. But under Chinese/ American ownership it would be another club voting for it. Maybe thats good or a bad thing but that is the way it is headed. We will never be in that super league but we would have a seat at the table of the Premiership. The way we are going we wont have that as we will be out of the league replaced by a Leeds/ Villa type who have foreign ownership and are happy to go along with the new structure

[Stayingup]

Started a thread just before you on the same topic, I was the kind of fan who didn't want foreign investment but now after the window, if we want to compete, it looks the only way forwards...

I hear it all the time oh no we don't want foreign investment. We are a fine locally owned club and that's how it should stay. I don't totally agree. But it depends on your aspirations as a fan where you want the club to be. Mine is for us to stay in the Premier League and to compete with the teams outside the top 6, as we did last season. As we have seen most of the club's in our division have now spent millions. Spurs not but they don't need to. Whether the spending will end in tears I don't know, but it is clear that without spending a lot there is no future in the Prem. The only way for us to stay in the Prem is investment. Foreign or otherwise. I am not necessarily talking a complete takeover here. Just investment. Easier said than achieved probably.
.

[Royboyclaret]

It would be interesting to see how much of the director's money has been put into the club since the loans were paid off.

All internal loans were settled in full in 2014, after which there has been no requirement for financial input from any director.

[MRG]

All internal loans were settled in full in 2014, after which there has been no requirement for financial input from any director.

No requirement is debatable

[Pstotto]

Looking at the Wolves line-up and the manager, so proud to be Burnley as a British club.

[MRG]

Looking at the Wolves line-up and the manager, so proud to be Burnley as a British club.

Post like this just confuse me. Why are you proud to not be in a position to compete?

[Stayingup]

Fulham and Wolves came up with megabuck owners - it gets more difficult every year to build a team on a budget. I'm not saying it can't be done but it's very hard work as SD keeps alluding to in his interviews. There is little doubt we need some sort of investment just to carry on being the over achieving low budget underdogs - low budget in premier league terms is more than ours.

These so called investors are killing the game and when there are too many as there nearly is already and they can't win anything despite their deep pockets it will all go bad. The only hope I can see is that the top half dozen clubs move into a Euro super league and the money moves - that's the stated aim of a lot of these investors who want to get the game over to the States for part of the season where they could potentially make even more money- I'm sure you've all read about Real this week.

They aren't in this to win the PL or FA cup they are in it to take it over and move it onto a global stage. Greed Greed and more Greed why do people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it and don't know the word enough.

They care not for culture, tradition or any of the things we love about English football. If we want to eat at the top table for a little longer prepare to make a deal with the devil - let's home some are better than others.

C. Blant. What do you think would have happened to Will Hughes had he fouled Col as he did Ward? Row Z I would think. Hehe.

[Royboyclaret]

Hello Roy, I was refering to the sale of the Turf and the rent charged,sorry.

Ah, the famous Longside Properties a company set up by Barry Kilby and John Sullivan in 2007. They bought Turf Moor for £3.2m and charged annual rent of £330k (so 10% ish). They sold on to a mysterious company Lionbridge in 2009 when Barry became uncomfortable being landlord and tenant. The ground was finally returned to BFC ownership in 2013.

[Pstotto]

You've bought the media line MRG, I can't believe you can be so stupid. 'We're not in a position to compete????????????????????'

[cblantfanclub]

From the BBC last year - there's plenty more

The International Champions Cup - which this year featured Manchester City, Manchester United, Tottenham, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Paris St-Germain, Juventus and Roma all playing three games each at 11 venues in the United States - has attracted large crowds.

In 2014, Michigan had a US soccer record crowd of 109,318 for the game between Real Madrid and Manchester United.

Stillitano says it has caught the attention of Stephen Ross, the billionaire owner of Relevent Sports and the Miami Dolphins.

"Our owner refers to the Glazers and Stan Kroenke as partners. The NFL mentality is one of true partnership. They've certainly talked among themselves about things like this happening. People get excited when they see the real thing live.

"Now, there are the league rules, there are regulations - so I could never speak for the Glazers or Stan Kroenke - I'm just saying, from our perspective, we would love to have regular season games."

So far the league has kept them at bay but with Wolves and Fulham the power is shifting.

[Stayingup]

Where will Aston Villa’s come from or Bournemouth, Fulham or Southampton?

Even the mega rich Aranb and Russian investors don't get the return. They don't put their money for that kind of return. Kudos normally.

[Pstotto]

You'll be wanting the Chinese to run our nuclear power stations next...

[MRG]

Even the mega rich Aranb and Russian investors don't get the return. They don't put their money for that kind of return. Kudos normally.

Again it’s all very conflicting... Burnley would implode if they got an investor as the investor would be looking for a return but then when pushed on this statement nobody can actually give a single example where an investor is getting this essential return.

Can anybody actually offer any evidence of why an investor would be a negative for Burnley Football Club?

[Royboyclaret]

No requirement is debatable

Well, not really MRG, the Club have made more than sufficient net profit of late to cover all requirements.

Of course, if you are referring to significant external investment, then that's a different matter altogether. Although such investment is way beyond the wealth of any of the current seven directors.

[Cleveleys_claret]

Looking at the Wolves line-up and the manager, so proud to be Burnley as a British club.

Fully agree...would much rather have Westwood than Neves, Hendrick than Moutinho, Woods than Costa and Taylor than Jota

[winsomeyen]

Thanks for your input Roy, Truly a strange set up where if memory serves Lionbridge was registered on some island in the Carribean similar to the Bates situation at Leeds.
Like yourself I have supported the clarets for longer than I care to remember and well remember Sir Bobs antics and have little confidence in our or any other board.

[Royboyclaret]

Again it’s all very conflicting... Burnley would implode if they got an investor as the investor would be looking for a return but then when pushed on this statement nobody can actually give a single example where an investor is getting this essential return.

Can anybody actually offer any evidence of why an investor would be a negative for Burnley Football Club?

That's a very good question. The sale of Chelsea thread for £2 billion might offer some insight.

[Pstotto]

If I want to watch Sporting, I'll go to Lisbon for a visit.

[Dark Cloud]

At the end of the day the sugar daddy ownership thing is simply a lottery. It doesn't matter whether they are foreign or not. Bolton were dropped in it when a British "fan" decided enough was enough, so were lowly Darlington and they're not the only ones. For every Roman Abramovitch and Sheikh Mansoor there's an Ellis Short or the idiots who stitched up Portsmouth. How the well meaning people selling the club on can ever be sure the new owners are fit and proper I've no idea and it's clear that Ted Bundy would have little trouble circumventing the league's own fit and proper persons test. Loads of clubs (fans) have been badly let down, whereas for a few it's been brilliant. Selling out is a lottery and one which I'd prefer us not to play if at all possible, but I'm starting to accept that it is increasingly likely to happen at some stage.

[Vegas Claret]

One good example is at Chelsea where the owner has invested 1.5 billion and is now asking 2 billion to buy the club (allegedly)

er, that's my exact point - he's kept Chelsea in the PL (not that there was any doubt) and so can sell for a profit. You only have to look at Sunderland, Villa and Blackburn to see how quickly a company devalues when it doesn't have the money surrounding (and by that I don't mean tv money) the PL

[winsomeyen]

At the end of the day the sugar daddy ownership thing is simply a lottery. It doesn't matter whether they are foreign or not. Bolton were dropped in it when a British "fan" decided enough was enough, so were lowly Darlington and they're not the only ones. For every Roman Abramovitch and Sheikh Mansoor there's an Ellis Short or the idiots who stitched up Portsmouth. How the well meaning people selling the club on can ever be sure the new owners are fit and proper I've no idea and it's clear that Ted Bundy would have little trouble circumventing the league's own fit and proper persons test. Loads of clubs (fans) have been badly let down, whereas for a few it's been brilliant. Selling out is a lottery and one which I'd prefer us not to play if at all possible, but I'm starting to accept that it is increasingly likely to happen at some stage.

A lot of truth in what you post, but if the club is to be sold there is no point waiting until we are in championship or worse before taking action.

[Blackrod]

Playing Devils Advicate here a bit but we keep being told we are being run as a business but no business aims to stand still or accepts it's humble beginnings or starting point. The aim has to be for growth often achieved via change of management/ approach or additional or outside investment. We cannot sustain a PL club under the current board and chairman because they cannot fund the club to a level that we can viably compete continually. The market will run way from us. So we accept results like today, downward form and that we are relegation candidates ( last year was probably a freak year) or we move forward with outside investment. Garlick has done a great job but he can't take us further.

[MRG]

Playing Devils Advicate here a bit but we keep being told we are being run as a business but no business aims to stand still or accepts it's humble beginnings or starting point. The aim has to be for growth often achieved via change of management/ approach or additional or outside investment. We cannot sustain a PL club under the current board and chairman because they cannot fund the club to a level that we can viably compete continually. The market will run way from us. So we accept results like today, downward form and that we are relegation candidates ( last year was probably a freak year) or we move forward with outside investment. Garlick has done a great job but he can't take us further.

Sums up my thoughts exactly

[Royboyclaret]

Playing Devils Advicate here a bit but we keep being told we are being run as a business but no business aims to stand still or accepts it's humble beginnings or starting point. The aim has to be for growth often achieved via change of management/ approach or additional or outside investment. We cannot sustain a PL club under the current board and chairman because they cannot fund the club to a level that we can viably compete continually. The market will run way from us. So we accept results like today, downward form and that we are relegation candidates ( last year was probably a freak year) or we move forward with outside investment. Garlick has done a great job but he can't take us further.

In a nutshell, that's about the sum of it and the whole process has been accelerated this time with Fulham and Wolves spending £110m and £67m respectively.

Standing still is no longer an option.

[Dark Cloud]

The reason I think it's becoming more and more likely is I suspect SD and Mike Garlic are increasingly at odds over our spending policy. For several years they've been in perfect harmony, but over the summer I felt they were becoming rather divided on the way forward and SD is getting frustrated. Mike Garlic might decide selling out is the only way to go to get the spending power SD believes we need.

[Lancasterclaret]

Can people please remember that every Premier League club can spend a trillion million billion pounds on players, and THREE will still go down.

You can't expect us to compete with teams that are quite happy to spend the levels of transfers (and crucially wages) that some clubs are willing to do.

If you follow that SwissRamble bloke on twitter, he did a fascinating insight into the finances of Swansea over the premier league period. They did really well, but were at their absolute limit financially, and they knew they had reached the limit of their revenue streams.

Essentially there is a limit to just how far our wage bill can go, and I'd be interested to see just how close to that limit we are at the moment.

[MRG]

Can people please remember that every Premier League club can spend a trillion million billion pounds on players, and THREE will still go down.

You can't expect us to compete with teams that are quite happy to spend the levels of transfers (and crucially wages) that some clubs are willing to do.

If you follow that SwissRamble bloke on twitter, he did a fascinating insight into the finances of Swansea over the premier league period. They did really well, but were at their absolute limit financially, and they knew they had reached the limit of their revenue streams.

Essentially there is a limit to just how far our wage bill can go, and I'd be interested to see just how close to that limit we are at the moment.

If that’s the case the club need to be honest with us around their expectations then we as fans can decide if we wish to continue to invest a percentage of our salaries into the club, a percentage which is higher than both the manager or any member of the board

[Burnley Ace]

nobody can actually give a single example where an investor is getting this essential return.

Can anybody actually offer any evidence of why an investor would be a negative for Burnley Football Club?

The Owners of Man Utd have made a decent return as have the Oystons.

[Burnley Ace]

If that’s the case the club need to be honest with us around their expectations then we as fans can decide if we wish to continue to invest a percentage of our salaries into the club, a percentage which is higher than both the manager or any member of the board

So your support is contingent on the expectations of the Board or the level of investment? It’s an old trope but supporting one of the big 6 may suit you better.

[Lancasterclaret]

Right

All i can say to that is that isn't a reason I'd ever consider to stop supporting Burnley.

Sounds like a reason an awful lot of people stopped supported our friends down the road though.

[Royboyclaret]

Can people please remember that every Premier League club can spend a trillion million billion pounds on players, and THREE will still go down.

You can't expect us to compete with teams that are quite happy to spend the levels of transfers (and crucially wages) that some clubs are willing to do.

If you follow that SwissRamble bloke on twitter, he did a fascinating insight into the finances of Swansea over the premier league period. They did really well, but were at their absolute limit financially, and they knew they had reached the limit of their revenue streams.

Essentially there is a limit to just how far our wage bill can go, and I'd be interested to see just how close to that limit we are at the moment.

Lancaster, as our next set of accounts will identify, we are nowhere near close to the limit to which you refer. Because of the merit payments for finishing 7th our Turnover will be sufficient, even allowing for a Wage bill in excess of £70m, to return a Net Profit approaching £60m (this of course includes the profit on sale of Keane and Gray.

Of course this season could be an entirely different matter and might reveal the necessity for additional investment.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yup, I get that, but do we know what the average premier league wage is now?

Its certainly gone up, and I think you'd agree that under our current system we could not match the expenditure of wages and transfers that Wolves and Fulham have done?

[jojomk1]

We’re only 3 games in....grow some!

Wake up and smell the coffee !

[Vegas Claret]

The Owners of Man Utd have made a decent return as have the Oystons.

say what ???

The debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the takeover was split between the club and the family; between £265 million and £275 million was secured against Manchester United's assets, putting the club into debt for the first time since James Gibson saved them in 1931

you might want to read this
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... er-united-

[Royboyclaret]

Yup, I get that, but do we know what the average premier league wage is now?

Its certainly gone up, and I think you'd agree that under our current system we could not match the expenditure of wages and transfers that Wolves and Fulham have done?

All we currently have is information to year end Jun'17 when our Wage bill was £61m and the next lowest in the Prem was slightly under £80m. Of course the Wage bill of the big six is around the £200m mark which distorts the average which was probably around £95m. I'd suggest ours to Jun'18 is about £70m.

I agree that under our current set up we cannot match the likes of Fulham and Wolves which is precisely why I support any move for sensible outside investment. The alternative does not bear thinking about.

[KRBFC]

It doesn't have to be foreign (sorry - just getting in quick before the PC brigade jump in), but I respect clubs who don't buy their way - Fulham and Wolves are going to buy survival. Not because of a good manager - not because of tactics - because they've had money to chance at players. If they fail? They'll simply spend another 100 million in January. It's a joke. They are a joke.

So yes - investment is always great, so long as we don't go down that route. I want us to stick with SD's approach - not sign d-heads (barton apart), who could unrest the changing room. And stick with players who work their backside off. I don't want us to spending millions on a player who is coming for the pay packet.

Btw Fulham spent less than we did to achieve promotion to the PL, they also spent less on fees than their income for promotion.

[Lancasterclaret]

So how much outside investment do you reckon we need to match our fellow relegation rivals Wolves and Fulham?

This is the issue for me. We can't compete, so we have to buy smart.

And that gets harder and harder with more and more clubs being owned by billionaires who don't care about the costs.

[Lancasterclaret]

And its worth mentioning that I'm not sure that all Burnley fans are aware of the costs involved just having the squad we have.

[Royboyclaret]

So how much outside investment do you reckon we need to match our fellow relegation rivals Wolves and Fulham?

This is the issue for me. We can't compete, so we have to buy smart.

And that gets harder and harder with more and more clubs being owned by billionaires who don't care about the costs.

That's not easy to answer and why I asked the question on the ''buy Chelsea for £2billion'' thread as to the potential valuation of BFC currently. We probably need to link that thread as it provoked some sensible responses to a tricky problem.

[Lancasterclaret]

I mean, the closest example I can think of is Swansea.

Sold to a couple of Americans, who got the club relegated and now have slashed the squad and costs while in the championship.

[kentonclaret]

I posted on here several months ago that trying to sustain a place in the PL solely on the revenue received from Sky is becoming almost impossible as a long term venture. As we have seen clubs like Fulham and Wolves are quite prepared to spend the whole £100m on bringing in players to strengthen their squads and spread the net far and wide to recruit the best available.

Burnley not only have far less money available for transfer activity but are limited it seems to targeting players from recently relegated clubs (who often want to hold on to their players to sustain a promotion push) or from the Championship where many of the clubs can match or beat what we are prepared to offer in wages.

With the last transfer window being such a massive disappointment I would not hold out any great hope that the January window will be any different.

[Cleveleys_claret]

And its worth mentioning that I'm not sure that all Burnley fans are aware of the costs involved just having the squad we have.

Right then Walters for 3 million. Wages of lets say 30k which is 1.5million a year x 2 years. Thats 6 million. His contribution nothing.

Wells 5 million and lets say 20k a week over 2 years yhats another 2 million. Thats another 7 million.

In total 13 million

Schurrle no transfer fee. Lets say 120k wages over 2 years is roughly 12million

I know which i would rather have

[Lancasterclaret]

Did you get those figures from the same place you get all your transfer gossip?