ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:30 pm

From what I was told, that’s a tale.

How close was it Tony?

Didn't Jay Rodriguez' fee double at the end of his first season back with us?

Juan Tanamera wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:40 pm

Didn't Jay Rodriguez' fee double at the end of his first season back with us?

From what I can remember wasn’t it £10m with £5m to pay immediately and a further £5m this summer?

If someone had of said say 12 years ago that new board members would propel the club to the Premier league and eventually become established a lot would say where are they from America ? Russia?Arabian peninsula? Are they mega Billionaires or just bog standard billionaires, we'll have some of that.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:12 pm

We couldn’t have known he’d need surgery twice and once fit not be able to get in because of the form of the other two.

We certainly couldn’t.

The question though was “in what way has the signing affected us”?

I’d argue that it limited the funds available for other signings - whether or not they might have come to fruition or indeed improved us, is of course debatable.

On the pitch, it’s not been detrimental, perhaps maybe with the exception of the Brighton game when we didn’t look on our game defensively.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:30 pm

From what I was told, that’s a tale.

Well if it was that close and no a gimmick offer, I'm gonna have a word with my ex Leeds mate...who probably doesnt know Eddie Gray

Shame we couldn’t get him. He’d have been great for us.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:48 pm

We certainly couldn’t.

The question though was “in what way has the signing affected us”?

I’d argue that it limited the funds available for other signings - whether or not they might have come to fruition or indeed improved us, is of course debatable.

On the pitch, it’s not been detrimental, perhaps maybe with the exception of the Brighton game when we didn’t look on our game defensively.

I don’t think it’s affected us at all. Had we not signed him we’d have signed another defender who might not have played.

That could well be the case but I do think having a player throwing his toys out of the pram and effectively being suspended on full pay, is an affect. Be that financially or otherwise - on the pitch I’d agree though

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:44 pm

From what I can remember wasn’t it £10m with £5m to pay immediately and a further £5m this summer?

I have the same memory on that

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:03 pm

I have the same memory on that

I’ve had a look and didn’t use it when he signed but I think that was it.

To think, the summer before some on here were throwing a hissy fit because we didn't cough up the £20 million that WBA wanted back then.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:32 pm

Is it really one vote per share or is it one vote per voting share?

As I recall the purpose of the restructuring a few Years ago was to create a new class of voting shares with a minimum holding size, way out of the reach of most of us. We were given another new class with no voting rights. Potential buyers won’t be overly interested in those.

That’s not to say doing that was wrong - it is the board who have put their money at risk, whilst you could argue that the rest of us only bought a couple of shares for sentimental reasons, but it was a decision taken to put their own interest ahead of the fans.

The point I’ve always been trying to make is not that the Board are doing anything illegal, just that they are motivated a lot more as hard-nosed businessmen and maybe a bit less as caring Burnley fans than people think.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:32 pm

Sheff Wed need a new ground, or massive redevelopment of theirs.
Massive investment in squad, a top manager and probably money for their training facilities and youth set up.

You could apply most of those requirements to any number of championship clubs.

The money it would cost to buy Burnley would be a fraction of the cost.

Maybe Sheff Wed is not a good example - I don’t know. My point is, if you’re going to buy and improve an already top-half Premier League club and have any hope of making a return on your investment, you need a supporter base - or potential supporter base - that can generate a cash flow big enough to give you that return. That means a regular attendance of over 50,000. I picked on SW as that are a club currently underachieving who, if they were a top half Prem club, could potentially generate that sort of interest.
I don’t think you can say that about Burnley.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:32 pm

Is it really one vote per share or is it one vote per voting share?

According to Companies House there is only one class of shares, 122,478 shares in 1,732 individual holdings, and all shares are "one vote per share full rights to participate in any distribution declared on the shares full rights to participate in any capital distribution on the shares no specific redemption rights".

scouseclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:41 pm

Maybe Sheff Wed is not a good example - I don’t know. My point is, if you’re going to buy and improve an already top-half Premier League club and have any hope of making a return on your investment, you need a supporter base - or potential supporter base - that can generate a cash flow big enough to give you that return. That means a regular attendance of over 50,000. I picked on SW as that are a club currently underachieving who, if they were a top half Prem club, could potentially generate that sort of interest.
I don’t think you can say that about Burnley.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... y_capacity

Newcastle and Sunderland are/were losing money in the top flight and they've both got Stadia with circa 50k capacity.

Rich people aren't buying football clubs to get a return on their investments and they certainly aren't going to find one in the championship that won't require massive investment and drag them into the top 6 of the PL.

scouseclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:30 pm

As I recall the purpose of the restructuring a few Years ago was to create a new class of voting shares with a minimum holding size, way out of the reach of most of us. We were given another new class with no voting rights. Potential buyers won’t be overly interested in those.

That’s not to say doing that was wrong - it is the board who have put their money at risk, whilst you could argue that the rest of us only bought a couple of shares for sentimental reasons, but it was a decision taken to put their own interest ahead of the fans.

The point I’ve always been trying to make is not that the Board are doing anything illegal, just that they are motivated a lot more as hard-nosed businessmen and maybe a bit less as caring Burnley fans than people think.

The board has made a public, legal declaration, repeated every year, at Companies House, that all the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Lttd. are voting shares with equal rights to each other. There is only one class of share according to the annual Compliance Statement filed at Companies House.

If you are right that there are two classes of share, then the Board is doing something illegal by definition. I think your memory is inaccurate.

And incidentally if they had done what you accuse them of, it would be wrong. It would be a fraud on the minority shareholders, who do have certain legal protections. The owners of 99% of a company can not use force majeure to deprive the 1% of their rights, and minority can take the majority to court if necessary.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:44 pm

From what I can remember wasn’t it £10m with £5m to pay immediately and a further £5m this summer?

Yes, that's how I seem to remember the deal.

Phillips bought into Bielsa and his ethos for his boyhood club but I reckon it was a financially enhanced package or promise that swung it for him. Sure he may have made an impact but our midfield wasn't too shabby without him.

JohnMac wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:03 pm

Phillips bought into Bielsa and his ethos for his boyhood club but I reckon it was a financially enhanced package or promise that swung it for him. Sure he may have made an impact but our midfield wasn't too shabby without him.

Leeds certainly upped his deal (I believe he it went to something like our top earners) - though he would have been off if they had not been promoted this summer - as would have Bielsa

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:26 pm

Leeds certainly upped his deal (I believe he it went to something like our top earners) - though he would have been off if they had not been promoted this summer - as would have Bielsa

Shame on both counts!!

BenWickes wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:33 pm

Who's he/she?

I think it's that clucker who used to do Top Gear

dsr wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:15 pm

The board has made a public, legal declaration, repeated every year, at Companies House, that all the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Lttd. are voting shares with equal rights to each other. There is only one class of share according to the annual Compliance Statement filed at Companies House.

If you are right that there are two classes of share, then the Board is doing something illegal by definition. I think your memory is inaccurate.

And incidentally if they had done what you accuse them of, it would be wrong. It would be a fraud on the minority shareholders, who do have certain legal protections. The owners of 99% of a company can not use force majeure to deprive the 1% of their rights, and minority can take the majority to court if necessary.

Well can somebody with a better memory tell me what did happen then? Because I very definitely did get notice, sometime in the early 2010s, of a Special Resolution and EGM, the crux of which was to change the voting terms. I very definitely did get issued with a new share certificate and I very definitely haven’t been sent an invite to any AGM or been sent any proxy voting forms since.

Could one of the more learned gentlemen briefly surmise what an investor group would require earnings wise from us and how they’d go about that ? I’m presuming adding perhaps around 6-9k capacity ? and of course increasing our worldwide appeal /tv /advertising revenues . Though this still seems “ pretty thin” for a biggish investor and many yrs before we could increase capacity etc

Thanks in advance

scouseclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:33 am

Well can somebody with a better memory tell me what did happen then? Because I very definitely did get notice, sometime in the early 2010s, of a Special Resolution and EGM, the crux of which was to change the voting terms. I very definitely did get issued with a new share certificate and I very definitely haven’t been sent an invite to any AGM or been sent any proxy voting forms since.

I'm guessing that the new share certificate followed the restructuring so was reflecting that it was in BURNLEY FC HOLDINGS LIMITED which wholly owns the company that operates the football club.

Everyone who owns shares technically has the same voting rights. However, because the board own so many shares they are able to effectively opt not to have an AGM and as such there isn't any voting.

AlargeClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:31 am

Could one of the more learned gentlemen briefly surmise what an investor group would require earnings wise from us and how they’d go about that ? I’m presuming adding perhaps around 6-9k capacity ? and of course increasing our worldwide appeal /tv /advertising revenues . Though this still seems “ pretty thin” for a biggish investor and many yrs before we could increase capacity etc

Thanks in advance

In terms of the ground, I imagine the main attraction would be exploitation of corporate seats. Any increase in capacity would very much be on the basis of more high-priced seats and related facilities.

More profitable would be increasing commercial revenues, particularly from overseas.

There's a fair scope for increase on the above two as they are pretty minimal at the moment. There is something of a limitation in Burnley's catchment area and local competition though.

Another avenue would be more profitable player trading. Look at clubs like Brentford with a very firm view of how they are going to monetise players. Being able to scale that up with the Premier League as the shop window would be potentially high returns. It is a risky area to focus on with values going down and the leaving on a free.

The other benefit is "sportswashing". Erasing unsavoury reputations through sport. Man City are a pretty obvious example of this.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:59 pm

I'm guessing that the new share certificate followed the restructuring so was reflecting that it was in BURNLEY FC HOLDINGS LIMITED which wholly owns the company that operates the football club.

Everyone who owns shares technically has the same voting rights. However, because the board own so many shares they are able to effectively opt not to have an AGM and as such there isn't any voting.

I think that decision was to allow them NOT to have a yearly meeting where everyone was allowed to turn up and complain about the pies and NOT have to send a paper copy of the accounts to everyone as it cost a fortune
TBDG

theboydonegood wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 3:08 pm

I think that decision was to allow them NOT to have a yearly meeting where everyone was allowed to turn up and complain about the pies and NOT have to send a paper copy of the accounts to everyone as it cost a fortune
TBDG

The rules had also changed pretty recently to allow the opt out. If it hadn't been for that we could still have gone along and complained about the pies.

The last AGM was in 2012 just after the arrival of Sean Dyche as manager. A shareholders meeting was held a year later but it wasn’t an AGM and I recall shareholders were not permitted to send a proxy.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:34 pm

The last AGM was in 2012 just after the arrival of Sean Dyche as manager. A shareholders meeting was held a year later but it wasn’t an AGM and I recall shareholders were not permitted to send a proxy.

Yes, when I said recently I meant recent to BFC making the change, not recent to now. I wasn't very clear.

To call a shareholders' meeting, it needs a request by 5% of the shareholders by voting power. (Alternatively, a court could order it at the request of a single shareholder, but unless they were given a good reason to, they wouldn't.)

The only instance I can think of that would be likely to cause a court to get involved would be if the club created and sold new shares still at £200, This would be unfairly enriching the new shareholders at the expense of the old, because if the club is worth say £200m then the shares are worth about £1,600 each. Add another 100,000 shares at £200, say, that would add £20m to the value of the club but the shares would now be worth only £1,000 each. (round numbers.) If that were to happen, then the minority shareholders could go to court with a very real chance of success.

dsr wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:20 pm

To call a shareholders' meeting, it needs a request by 5% of the shareholders by voting power. (Alternatively, a court could order it at the request of a single shareholder, but unless they were given a good reason to, they wouldn't.)

The only instance I can think of that would be likely to cause a court to get involved would be if the club created and sold new shares still at £200, This would be unfairly enriching the new shareholders at the expense of the old, because if the club is worth say £200m then the shares are worth about £1,600 each. Add another 100,000 shares at £200, say, that would add £20m to the value of the club but the shares would now be worth only £1,000 each. (round numbers.) If that were to happen, then the minority shareholders could go to court with a very real chance of success.

To give an idea of what you'd need here, after discounting the directors you'd need something like the next 450 largest shareholders to get together to represent 5% of the shares.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:42 pm

To give an idea of what you'd need here, after discounting the directors you'd need something like the next 450 largest shareholders to get together to represent 5% of the shares.

The board hold 93.8% - take away the shares of dead people and I suspect you would be more than hard pushed to get to 5%.

This thread has gone off on a tangent, is there currently a deal being discussed and if so, are we likely to hear anything before the start of the season? Or this season at anytime?

Summary of position so far according to this thread / other posts on the message board:

Number of different posters have reported that a takeover deal is being progressed. On this thread look out for posts from the following:
Danieljwaterhouse, BenWickes and MRG.
Summary of key points so far:

An investor/sale that is buying it to ‘compete’ with the other large state/family run enterprises in the Middle East.

Link to HS2 and preferential investment opportunities in the wider community

agreements understood to be in place, price agreed and that an approach for fit and proper persons test is being structured.

Egyptian living in America. Still no names leaked.

ClaretTony hasn’t passed any comment other than it not understood to be imminent.

Fit and proper person test will likely happen via an NDA (non disclosure agreement) so we’ll potentially never know if it’s happening / already happened until such time anything is announced by the club.

Have I missed anything?

Also to put this here given the topic at hand:

What is the owners’ and directors’ test and how does it work?
It is what was previously known as the “fit and proper person’s test”. Those who want to become owners of EFL and Premier League clubs have to satisfy certain requirements, such as not having an unspent criminal conviction for fraud, not being bankrupt, and not being banned from serving as a company director. Anyone who wants to be a director or owner is asked to provide information — there is no investigatory element by the authorities. In the Premier League there is a greater requirement in terms of a prospective owner providing proof they can maintain the club as a going concern.

Why is there so much criticism of the test?
Representatives of some EFL clubs believe that the current test is feeble. The offences that would disqualify someone as a director do not apply if they took place a few years ago, as they are “spent”. The Bolton Wanderers owner Ken Anderson had previously been disqualified from serving as a company director for eight years; the former Watford owner Laurence Bassini had been banned for two years by the FA for financial misconduct; Bury’s owner Steve Dale had involvement in companies that were dissolved. All passed the test.

What are the restrictions on spending by EFL clubs? Why do these appear not to be working?
League One clubs are restricted to spending 60 per cent of their turnover on wages, and League Two clubs are only permitted to spend 55 per cent of their turnover. Owners are permitted to inject their own funds to spend on wages, which is how Bury ended up as a financial basketcase. In the Championship, losses are limited to £13 million a season (or £5 million if the owner does not inject equity to cover losses).

How much of the blame for this crisis lies at the door of the EFL?
It must take some of the responsibility for the feebleness of the owners and directors’ test, and the loopholes in the spending restrictions, but it is following the wishes of the 72 clubs — many of whom don’t like their activities being restricted.

Will the government bring in legislation?
Unlikely. There is an acceptance that football is a special and unique industry but successive governments have always shied away from imposing laws that would not apply to companies in other industries. If an independent regulator is to be created to oversee the ownership of clubs, it will have to be a decision that English football takes itself.

Fair enough. Just all seems strange how there's plenty of talk on here and just the odd murmor in the press. Mind you it would be the most Burnley thing ever for them not to tell anyone and have fans work out for themselves when they are a random name taking over in the pre match program notes

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:48 pm

ClaretTony hasn’t passed any comment other than it not understood to be imminent.

Delighted to have been singled out but my comment shouldn't be taken as if I think there is something going to happen but just not imminently. I am sure something has been going on. Whether that has led to where some on this discussion believe I don't know but, while the club, I am sure, are actively seeking investment, I'm not sure there is a takeover in the plans.

Interesting to see if there are any developments on this as we near the new season from those 3 posters who are party to some information as alluded to on this thread.

Will Garlick and the board be willing to relinquish control of the club completely or will they still want to be involved ?

Ideally i still think they want involvement, if that is the case it becomes a more difficult sell of course.

Another week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 am

Another week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?

Doubt those in the know post on here

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 am

Another week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?

Probably a load of hot air

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 am

Another week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?

They can't tell you when it will happen, but it will

It might be this year, 5 yrs or 20, but when it does they'll make sure we are aware they were right.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:06 am

They can't tell you when it will happen, but it will

It might be this year, 5 yrs or 20, but when it does they'll make sure we are aware they were right.

I might be long gone when it happens given the main players (Garlick & John B) are both a lot younger than me.

This thread should probably be titled ' Please bail us out of the No Transfers Thread'.

Doubt either are happening.

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 am

Another week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?

Why do we need a takeover, when we have the best board of directors we've ever had?

Be careful what you wish for.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:33 am

Why do we need a takeover, when we have the best board of directors we've ever had?

Be careful what you wish for.

Something about ambition or other vague reasons like that.

Why do people get so worked up - needing time know what’s happening

You don’t know what’s happening, if anything is
You have no control over it
It’s none of your business

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:39 am

Something about ambition or other vague reasons like that.

Yeh, take risks with the club and end up like Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackburn etc. How people expect 'Little old Burnley' to compete with the likes of the top six is beyond me. No matter how much money comes into Burnley, they will always have more, so us finishing 7th and 10th is a minor miracle in itself.

Not for me thanks. I prefer the 'Tortoise and the Hare' approach. Have some patience. BFC has got better and better every year under the current board and manager. I repeat, be careful what you wish for. The last man who tried that approach at Burnley, John Jackson, nearly bankrupted the club by bringing in John Bond. Maybe you're too young to remember that?

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:33 am

Why do we need a takeover, when we have the best board of directors we've ever had?

Be careful what you wish for.

Are they the best or have they just got luck with one managerial appointment?