ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Gordaleman]

If true that should ease any reservations.

Have to say that other sources are saying that they want a 'Hands on approach', whatever that means. Does it mean complete control, or with Mike Garlick? Who knows, but time will tell.

[Turfytop]

Don’t know how true it is, admit could be a load of rubbish, but heard today that garlick was meant to sign the deal to sell the club last Friday, but it passed without it being signed, and the Americans are getting frustrated with him, and may pull out of the deal, has any of the in the know posters heard anything

[DCWat]

Don’t know how true it is, admit could be a load of rubbish, but heard today that garlick was meant to sign the deal to sell the club last Friday, but it passed without it being signed, and the Americans are getting frustrated with him, and may pull out of the deal, has any of the in the know posters heard anything

Well if transfer windows are anything to go by, it’ll go right to the wire!!

[summitclaret]

Don’t know how true it is, admit could be a load of rubbish, but heard today that garlick was meant to sign the deal to sell the club last Friday, but it passed without it being signed, and the Americans are getting frustrated with him, and may pull out of the deal, has any of the in the know posters heard anything

Maybe they have all read this thread

[aggi]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/8+The ... 75.5241898
1. Alan and Dave's new address for ALK , 8 The Green in Delaware, may look pretty, but it's simply a meeting room for hire for legals.
https://www.delawarecompanyhouse.com/
2. Alan Pace left Citbank to buy a Premier League club, a bit of a random thing to do.
https://www.thetradenews.com/citi-globa ... ball-club/
3. He and as his mate are corporate finance people, they are on commission. If all you blind progressives are happy with this, they will will want their (well earned !) £30-40m commission from someone.....(a debt on the club)
4. They bought a stake in AiScout and Player Lens to to either a/ provide some legitimacy, b/ pretend that moneyball stats in football is actually a thing.
4. Moneyball is 1%, inert skill/dedication of individuals, training, scouting is how football works and always will. The players testimonials and success stories on AiScout are from already good players who were about to step on the conveyor belt.
5. SCP/Legends (who Checketts left goodness when or why) is simply a corporate concession (Warning the price of Twix is probably best saved until Halloween).
6. It's rubbish being negative, but when the real money guy is secret, it makes me nervous (All the clubs that have been involved with secret potential buyers find out he's a criminal, dodgy human rights, no money....), have they even got someone lined up or are they peacocking from this end to sniff out a US money man or woman.
7. One of the few decent owners mentioned on here was Srivaddhanaprabha of King Power. A nice man who made billions from being a landlord of leased rental space on 3 malls in 30 years (and being a friend of the prince and forgetting to pay his taxes, bet the Thai public actually loved him)
8. Lots of comments suggest a buyback model, e.g., £100m over 5 years (like the SheffUTD model) @ 20%
9. ALK own 100% on day 1, pay 20M, less 40m to ALK (-20m) plus debt to Garlick and Banaszkiewicz (-100m)
10. year 2, ALK pay 2nd instalment, £20m, balance now 100m to G&B) get relegated, ALK invoke clause saying relegated value £40 so paid up.
11.Still no investment, but in debt to B&G.
12. B&G forced to write off debt. ALK kindly inject capital, solely reduces debt.
13. Meanwhile, wildly in debt, fire sale, blah blah blah. we never did spend that £50m on getting us to that magic 6th position.

One other note on this, Delaware is usually chosen as the state for this kind of thing as they offer a great deal of privacy. No need to disclose director or investor names and no publicly accessible registers or accounts.

[blake's wand]

I would imagine our start to the season is not helping our negotiation position at the moment. Injuries + Dyche coming out saying how much we need new players = desperate for a cash injection

[martin_p]

I would imagine our start to the season is not helping our negotiation position at the moment. Injuries + Dyche coming out saying how much we need new players = desperate for a cash injection

I would imagine any investor worth their salt would already know most of that.

[summitclaret]

I would imagine any investor worth their salt would already know most of that.

Which makes not signing Gibson's replacement before now absolute madness.

[blake's wand]

I would imagine any investor worth their salt would already know most of that.

They might know the financial situation, but starting off with 2 wins and no more injuries would also very much have changed the hand

[martin_p]

They might know the financial situation, but starting off with 2 wins and no more injuries would also very much have changed the hand

I wouldn’t have thought so. If the investors know so little about football that the results of the first two matches of the season put them off we’re probably better off without them.

[Gordaleman]

I would imagine our start to the season is not helping our negotiation position at the moment. Injuries + Dyche coming out saying how much we need new players = desperate for a cash injection

I don't think the start to the season or even the injury situation will make any difference at all to the negotiations. (If there are any.)

People in business, involved in multi million-pound deals, think in a totally different time frame to fans who just think about last week, or next week. They are buying for the long term, not next week.

[summitclaret]

I don't think the start to the season or even the injury situation will make any difference at all to the negotiations. (If there are any.)

People in business, involved in multi million-pound deals, think in a totally different time frame to fans who just think about last week, or next week. They are buying for the long term, not next week.

They would be buying to stay in the PL. Seeing who played cb for us and possibly losing the best defender at the last minute would frighten me to death.

[Reecey1987]

Seems to have gone quiet on this thread

[bfcmik]

Seems to have gone quiet on this thread

Well, the only real facts we know are what was in the statement. BFC are in negotiations with a venture capital group called ALK Holdings is the only real fact we know. They may, or may not, buy up to 89% of the club's shares and may, or may not, take a hands on role in the management of the club if they succeed.

Everything else is either speculation or assumptions based on the sparse background information that is out there. It is hard to keep speculating and assuming when no new info is out there. The deal will, or will not, happen in it's own fine time. Both sides have to believe they got a good deal or it won't happen

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Still an NDA in place, and now it’s in the public domain it’s even more troublesome

[Winstonswhite]

It’s a massive decision for Garlick.

In my opinion he’s not spent any of the clubs money recently to make it a good proposition to investors, but now it’s coming to the crunch he’s got to weigh up whether he’s cashing in to a responsible group.

Ultimately I think money will talk and he’ll get rid.

[Chester Perry]

It’s a massive decision for Garlick.

In my opinion he’s not spent any of the clubs money recently to make it a good proposition to investors, but now it’s coming to the crunch he’s got to weigh up whether he’s cashing in to a responsible group.

Ultimately I think money will talk and he’ll get rid.

I would like you to quantify not spending any of the clubs money when he knows what is coming down the line in terms of broadcast revenues, can't trust the government on attendances and consequently has challenges on commercial offerings.

I ask because I think we spent around £140m last season in cash

[Reecey1987]

Still an NDA in place, and now it’s in the public domain it’s even more troublesome

Surely all this wouldn't matter if it was that far down the line as previously suggested?

[Gordaleman]

They would be buying to stay in the PL. Seeing who played cb for us and possibly losing the best defender at the last minute would frighten me to death.

That's you. Personally, I'm not in the least bit worried and I don't think potential investors will be either.

[Dark Cloud]

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

[snapcrackleandpop]

Still an NDA in place, and now it’s in the public domain it’s even more troublesome

Daniel I don’t pretend understand these things, but what you mean when you say it could be more troublesome now it is in the public domain?

[Chester Perry]

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

I thought there was a rule that any sale of shares had to be approved by the board (who represent the vast majority of shares)

[Vegas Claret]

Still an NDA in place, and now it’s in the public domain it’s even more troublesome

in what sense ?

[Royboyclaret]

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

Tony......If the above quote "they may or may not buy 89% of the shares" is anywhere close to accurate, then it appears the Board are pretty much of one accord on this. This is currently as it stands :-

MG......60,308 shares......49.24%
JB.......34,544 shares......28.20%
BK......4,032 shares.
CH......4,003 shares.
BN......4,010 shares.
TC......4,000 shares.
BF.......4,000 shares.

So, 16.36% holding between Kilby, Holt, Nelson, Crabbe & Flood.

The remaining shares, just over 6%, are distributed amongst slightly over 1,800 other BFC shareholders.

[randomclaret2]

Potentially some nice little retirement nest eggs for our Septuagenarian directors

[summitclaret]

Is this too simplistic, but if the Club is sold for £200m, MG gets just under £100m?

[Chester Perry]

Is this too simplistic, but if the Club is sold for £200m, MG gets just under £100m?

not after Capital gains tax he doesn't

[Royboyclaret]

Potentially some nice little retirement nest eggs for our Septuagenarian directors

Of which there are at least three, maybe even four. They have all served us so well for many years, but perhaps the age situation was always going to play a major part in any decision.

[FactualFrank]

Is this too simplistic, but if the Club is sold for £200m, MG gets just under £100m?

He's not Donald Trump.

[clansman]

Surely Mike has to offer his shares to existing shareholders first.if they can’t match the American offer then Mike can proceed. But would that not mean all shareholders have to see the offer?

[claretandy]

not after Capital gains tax he doesn't

Quite a few of the directors hols some of their shares in a tax efficient way.

[Chester Perry]

Quite a few of the directors hols some of their shares in a tax efficient way.

I would be surprised if they didn;t given the prudent way the club has been managed

[Duffer_]

Surely Mike has to offer his shares to existing shareholders first.if they can’t match the American offer then Mike can proceed. But would that not mean all shareholders have to see the offer?

Nothing in the Articles to suggest that is the case.

Screenshot_20200929-210052_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (417.6 KiB) Viewed 3647 times

[ClaretTony]

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

He will own over 50% of the active shares I would have thought. Some of the shares not held by directors are likely to be in the names of people who have passed away so would not be able to be used for voting purposes.

[Winstonswhite]

I would like you to quantify not spending any of the clubs money when he knows what is coming down the line in terms of broadcast revenues, can't trust the government on attendances and consequently has challenges on commercial offerings.

I ask because I think we spent around £140m last season in cash

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.

[Burnleyareback2]

Amazing that a few weeks ago at the end of the season how positive things were with another top 10 finish.

A few weeks later and the noisy few can’t say a positive word about the club and how it is or has been run.

Already ALK are deemed as the Messiah. Despite nobody knowing any of their intentions, plans or how they will financially structure the takeover or the long term sustainability of the club.

No need to reply. Just stating the facts.

[Dark Cloud]

Tony......If the above quote "they may or may not buy 89% of the shares" is anywhere close to accurate, then it appears the Board are pretty much of one accord on this. This is currently as it stands :-

MG......60,308 shares......49.24%
JB.......34,544 shares......28.20%
BK......4,032 shares.
CH......4,003 shares.
BN......4,010 shares.
TC......4,000 shares.
BF.......4,000 shares.

So, 16.36% holding between Kilby, Holt, Nelson, Crabbe & Flood.

The remaining shares, just over 6%, are distributed amongst slightly over 1,800 other BFC shareholders.

Cheers Roy. I know it only takes one other board member to chuck his lot in with MG and sell up and ALK (or anyone else) can then take control of the club and that's especially true if the other person is John B and I guess any purchaser would prefer it to be him as their majority share is then pretty overwhelming. As an aside, I'd be extremely surprised if Barry K were queuing up to sell as although I don't know him personally, but have met him all over the country in passing whilst following the Clarets and bearing in mind his devotion and track record in "supporting" the Clarets in every sense of the word, he doesn't strike me as the sort to sell out for a quick personal buck or indeed want to pull out of the club and let these characters have a go when it really could be good for us......or could be a complete disaster and who knows which?

[arise_sir_charge]

Barry Kilby has sold multiple shares previously. Nothing wrong with that at all but don’t think he’d choose not to now if there was a significant offer in front of him.

[Royboyclaret]

Cheers Roy. I know it only takes one other board member to chuck his lot in with MG and sell up and ALK (or anyone else) can then take control of the club and that's especially true if the other person is John B and I guess any purchaser would prefer it to be him as their majority share is then pretty overwhelming. As an aside, I'd be extremely surprised if Barry K were queuing up to sell as although I don't know him personally, but have met him all over the country in passing whilst following the Clarets and bearing in mind his devotion and track record in "supporting" the Clarets in every sense of the word, he doesn't strike me as the sort to sell out for a quick personal buck or indeed want to pull out of the club and let these characters have a go when it really could be good for us......or could be a complete disaster and who knows which?

I was asked the very same question earlier today and answered in just two words......Very apprehensive.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Surely all this wouldn't matter if it was that far down the line as previously suggested?

It will remain until the deal is completely done, and will very likely remain in place post deal.

People want to know more, I’m suggesting that people can’t divulge more currently.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Daniel I don’t pretend understand these things, but what you mean when you say it could be more troublesome now it is in the public domain?

Depending on the nda, people could very easily, and without any intent or malice fall foul of key/protected information that it was originally put in place for.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

in what sense ?

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.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Of which there are at least three, maybe even four. They have all served us so well for many years, but perhaps the age situation was always going to play a major part in any decision.

Investments are always held in a manner of ways to minimise, offset or null inheritance taxes...

[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