ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[mybloodisclaret]

Djw... please don't take this wrong way, there has been too much squabbling on here already, but I thought from your earlier posts that you were suggesting that it was ALK who were planning in significant wider investment and that there was going to be alot of investment into the club. Can I ask, from your understanding, is that the ALK interest or Middle Eastern?

[Devils_Advocate]

Before I make up my mind I would want to hear about what level of investment there will be in players and what calibre of manager they think they can bring in

The whole training ground and academy development has been good but its got a bit boring now and Id rather see us spend some cash on top quality players who can improve the team and entertain us fans

[Lowbankclaret]

Look Mr Garlick understands Footbal is on its arse.

Revenue down by probably 50%.

He needs to cash in now.

If he gets 30 million in back sack he does not give so much as a fart for the club.

He will walk away rich.

And that’s what he is going to do.

[Father Jack]

Daniel. You say it’s accurate because you understand that the sale and purchase agreement has been signed by Garlick and John B for the Eyptian bid?

[jedi_master]

You can’t refute an accurate report.

Yet reports of ALK speaking to the club today (according to Chris Boden), allied with things said by a few posters on here who have an ear to the ground paint a different picture?

As I say, I don’t understand why (if it’s ********) the club wouldn’t deny it today. They can clearly see the socials and read this messageboard - they know that this has overwhelmingly concerned the fanbase and if it was without basis should surely have issued a denial early on - just my thoughts 24 hours later after it has appeared anyway.

[KRBFC]

Before I make up my mind I would want to hear about what level of investment there will be in players and what calibre of manager they think they can bring in

The whole training ground and academy development has been good but its got a bit boring now and Id rather see us spend some cash on top quality players who can improve the team and entertain us fans

I’m in the same boat, iv lost interest in Burnley recently, the latest transfer window felt like waving the white flag and just giving up as a club.

I’m just not excited by going to Stamford bridge with Eric Pieters at right wing, part of the enjoyment in football is new signings, willing them to personally succeed and the excitement at watching a foreign player with pedigree pull on the shirt. Our squad is stale as hell with one way of playing and zero depth.

Whatever will be, will be.

[Duffer_]

I know nothing about the state of takeover negotiations. But if I did, I would state what I could without breaking any legal or moral obligations. If that meant I could say nothing then I would say nothing. I wouldn't dripfeed cryptic clues and snippets, have hissy fits at people challenging my "authority" despite not revealing my "credentials", or get off on other posters asking for more details. It speaks of a very fragile ego.

[NewClaret]

Yet reports of ALK speaking to the club today (according to Chris Boden), allied with things said by a few posters on here who have an ear to the ground paint a different picture?

As I say, I don’t understand why (if it’s ********) the club wouldn’t deny it today. They can clearly see the socials and read this messageboard - they know that this has overwhelmingly concerned the fanbase and if it was without basis should surely have issued a denial early on - just my thoughts 24 hours later after it has appeared anyway.

Totally with you on this jedi_master.

My nerves have been claimed by Biden/CT/Alex Jones saying no deal yet and talks with ALK were ongoing, but if that were the case I see no reason whatsoever for the club not to deny it.

Having the wider world think you’ve singed a SPA with a controversial lawyer and a dodgy Egyptian business man is not in the clubs interests if untrue, in part because of the concern it brings their loyal supporters but also poor PR and because it may deter other potential investors from entering the race.

It’s all very odd.

[TVC15]

Totally with you on this jedi_master.

My nerves have been claimed by Biden/CT/Alex Jones saying no deal yet and talks with ALK were ongoing, but if that were the case I see no reason whatsoever for the club not to deny it.

Wow - did not realise how big the story has become. The next leader of the free world is involved ?

[Burnley Ace]

The one thing this whole situation has made me realise is just how easy it is to whip up a fan base. There are genuinely Burnley fans on social media suggesting that if this happens the club will no longer exist in a years time. To be honest it’s pathetic none of us really know the realities and anyone that is willing to invest 200m into a business can’t be sniffed at

They are paying £200m not investing £200m in the business. Where is the money coming from (loan secured against future BFC income?) and how much new moneyare they going to make available?

[Chester Perry]

They are paying £200m not investing £200m in the business. Where is the money coming from (loan secured against future BFC income?) and how much new moneyare they going to make available?

I would be more concerned with how they plan to raise revenues to maintain a sustainable business model for the club, given that it has been commonly held to be very well run, yet has struggled to grow them to meet the demands of the manager.

[Father Jack]

Sean Dyche's future at the heart of Burnley takeover bids
Both interested parties want Dyche to be retained, but his future could be complicated if chairman Mike Garlick remains at the club

By
James Ducker,
NORTHERN FOOTBALL CORRESPONDENT and
Jeremy Wilson,
CHIEF SPORTS REPORTER
29 October 2020 • 10:30pm

The rival investors bidding for control of Burnley consider Sean Dyche to be central to their plans, but the manager’s future could be complicated if chairman Mike Garlick remains at the club.
ALK Capital, an American investment company, faces competition from a group led by Egyptian entrepreneur Mohamed Sayed Zein Elkashashy and Chris Farnell, a Cheshire-based sports lawyer, for ownership of the club.
Telegraph Sport understands both parties would be fully committed to ensuring Dyche was retained, having been impressed by the job he has done at Turf Moor over the past eight years.
ALK – which is headed by Alan Pace, a former president of Major League Soccer franchise Real Salt Lane, who has previously tried to buy Sheffield United – are thought to have indicated they would seek to appoint a new board to run the club if their bid was successful.
Yet the prospect of Garlick staying on in some capacity is believed to have been discussed during negotiations with the Farnell-backed bid.

It is unclear what role Garlick would be given since Farnell and Elkashashy are expected to take control of the day-to-day running of the club if their £200 million bid was given the go-ahead.
But fears have been raised about how Dyche would react to such a scenario, given the severe deterioration in his relationship with Garlick, with staff at the club saying they have largely given up hope of trying to effect a reconciliation.
Dyche has spoken publicly about his frustration at the club running down contracts and was dismayed by the lack of signings this summer, but Garlick is thought to have told the board money was available. Burnley are 18th in the table after taking only one point from their first five games and face Chelsea tomorrow.
Communication between Dyche and Garlick is infrequent now and it is understood the chairman has instructed board members not to discuss the prospective takeover with the manager. Garlick has been asked for comment. Dyche insisted on Thursday he was in the dark over matters relating to a potential sale.

I know what you know,” he said. “I don’t know of any ownership, as far as I know, it is just stories in the papers. They seem to be growing and getting more detailed as the weeks have gone on.”
Garlick is Burnley’s majority shareholder with a 49.24 per cent stake in the club. Burnley’s other leading shareholder is John Banaszkiewicz, who has a 28.2 per cent stake. Dyche expressed confidence that, if Burnley was sold, the board would have the club’s best interests at heart.
He said: “I can only imagine, if there are these interested parties, that there’s some due diligence going on that would appoint or align the people they think can add to what the club is. But it’s down to them.
“The chairman, the major shareholders, John and the board … they know the club like the back of their hand, they are all Burnley people, they’ve all got roots in and around Burnley. So I’m sure it will be their decision.
“They will make the decisions they think are correct, whatever those decisions are, if – of course – these rumours are true.”

ALK is understood to have asked for an array of information from Burnley. It has dismissed claims it has been struggling to raise the money to complete the deal and also distanced itself from suggestions Pace would favour a “Moneyball” approach to recruitment, even though he believes there is huge potential in the use of state-of-the-art technology within scouting.
Farnell has been cleared to pursue his bid to buy Burnley after overturning a ban from becoming a director of an English football club. The ban was imposed following his involvement in an attempt by Manchester-based businessman, Paul Elliott, to buy Charlton Athletic.
Farnell lodged an appeal after maintaining he failed the EFL’s owners’ and directors’ test only because of an administrative error and an independent arbitration panel agreed this week that there had been no attempt to intentionally mislead the EFL, which led to his disqualification being backdated to end on Sept 14.

[RingoMcCartney]

In football, certain managers can only take a club to a certain level. For the club to progress on the pitch that manager has to move on.

It's no different at boardroom level.......

[thelaughingclaret]

I don’t get why some posters are suggesting this is a good thing? Has any club actually prospered when assest stripers have taken over who are only there just to make money quickly at all costs? Big city clubs can survive as even in lower leagues someone will still want to take them over but we are a small town club with a relatively small ground and small gates. No one will want to take over a league one Burnley. We will go under.

[Woodleyclaret]

We are playing at home on Saturday, indeed you are losing interest

[Danieljwaterhouse]

I would be more concerned with how they plan to raise revenues to maintain a sustainable business model for the club, given that it has been commonly held to be very well run, yet has struggled to grow them to meet the demands of the manager.

This is a concern I share.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

I just figured you’d tell em we’re surfing on Albert Hoffman’s bike?

[MACCA]

Look Mr Garlick understands Footbal is on its arse.

Revenue down by probably 50%.

He needs to cash in now.

If he gets 30 million in back sack he does not give so much as a fart for the club.

He will walk away rich.

And that’s what he is going to do.

Just 30m?

That would be great if he put the other 50m+ he gets from the sale into the club/town.
That would be some legacy.

However, I think it's more likely he will enjoy finally completing his 5 year plan, whilst more than doubling his current personal worth overnight.
Businessmen are just that, cash is king... unless you have too much of course.

Remember, one club for all!

[MRG]

Posted on the other thread.

Can anybody tell me which club Farnell has gone into as a stable well ran club and ruined them?

[ten bellies]

Look Mr Garlick understands Footbal is on its arse.

Revenue down by probably 50%.

He needs to cash in now.

If he gets 30 million in back sack he does not give so much as a fart for the club.

He will walk away rich.

And that’s what he is going to do.

He's already rich.

[dandeclaret]

I don’t get why some posters are suggesting this is a good thing? Has any club actually prospered when assest stripers have taken over who are only there just to make money quickly at all costs? Big city clubs can survive as even in lower leagues someone will still want to take them over but we are a small town club with a relatively small ground and small gates. No one will want to take over a league one Burnley. We will go under.

Where is the evidence they are asset strippers?

If they are paying £200m, what margin do
You think there is in asset stripping the club?

Do asset strippers often take over a healthy business to strip it down?

[MACCA]

He's already rich.

Not rich in premier league chairmen terms.
A reported worth of 65m, doubt even 10m will be visable in a bank.

If reports are to be believed, he could go to 165m overnight.
Best bit of business he ever has, or ever will do.

Fair play to him.

[Top Claret]

Farnell as never owned a football club, he just carries out legal work for would be buyers, so what is the beef with him?

He is like any other lawyer paid by his client to get results whether their moral or not, that's what lawyers do

[2 Bee Holed]

Yes we do need to take action.

I propose:
1/. Boycotting both Home and Away games.
2/. For those of you who feel you cannot boycott, turn your backs to the board
at 3.06pm. I will let off a sparkler at the appropriate time behind the JM.
3/. Mass protests outside the Bob Lord on matchdays.
In socially distanced groups of no more than 6.
4/. Not watching Burnley on PPV games.
5/. Mass cancellation of season ticket direct debits.

All very radical, I know. However, this has not been tried simultaneously before and should do the trick.
It should certainly make them/him think twice before selling their/his own personal property.

[Top Claret]

Why is it people compare us with the likes of Bolton, Bury and Charlton, when we couldn't be farther apart.

We are a well run club with a turnover of 100 million plus who have zero debt, the mentioned clubs were on their arse with a mountain of debt, just right to be picked off for appitance by dodgy business men

Why would anyone be as stupid to pay £200 million for the club then asset strip for a return of half is investment, get real ffs.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Why is it people compare us with the likes of Bolton, Bury and Charlton, when we couldn't be farther apart.

We are a well run club with a turnover of 100 million plus who have zero debt, the mentioned clubs were on their arse with a mountain of debt, just right to be picked off for appitance by dodgy business men

Why would anyone be as stupid to pay £200 million for the club then asset strip for a return of half is investment, get real ffs.

Finally someone is actually using there brain.

It has been embarrassing listening to some Burnley fans on this matter.

[whentheballmoves]

You're assuming that they actually do pay the £200 million. Just because they say they have it, and there's proof they have it, means nothing.

Been speaking to Bury fans, and they can explain it all better than me, and with sadly unfortunate experience...

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Where is the evidence they are asset strippers?

If they are paying £200m, what margin do
You think there is in asset stripping the club?

Do asset strippers often take over a healthy business to strip it down?

Not often but yes it happens. In a falling market with a recession almost guaranteed, nothing is off the table in the next 10-15 years.

[Newcastleclaret93]

You're assuming that they actually do pay the £200 million. Just because they say they have it, and there's proof they have it, means nothing.

Been speaking to Bury fans, and they can explain it all better than me, and with sadly unfortunate experience...

So by your logic, Garlick is going handover the company to someone without receiving his 200m? Not sure that’s how transactions work

[Newcastleclaret93]

You're assuming that they actually do pay the £200 million. Just because they say they have it, and there's proof they have it, means nothing.

Been speaking to Bury fans, and they can explain it all better than me, and with sadly unfortunate experience...

So by your logic, Garlick is going handover the company to someone without receiving his 200m? Not sure that’s how transactions work

[bfcjg]

Not sure if I feel as I did the days before the Orient match or the days before we played Sheff Utd at Wembley. I wish it was a genuine Burnley supporters based consortium taking control from our current supporters who own the club.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

So by your logic, Garlick is going handover the company to someone without receiving his 200m? Not sure that’s how transactions work

Look at the Glazers takeover of ManU for creative accounting. Then the season tickets went up, then season ticket holders had to compulsory purchase tickets for cup games, etc.,

[Stayingup]

There are have been some posters on this thread with excellent knowledge of the mechanics of takeovers and of accounting etc and the workings of the club. I haven't kept up and can't add anything useful beyond what has been said. However, I read this article this morning, which may have been discussed in earlier posts and which says that the rival investors are keen to keep Sean Dyche and that the strained relationsghip (very strained - no reconcilliation in the offing) between Dyche and Mike Garlick threatens the talks. Therefore for this, one of these, to happen it looks like one of the two will have to go. Which one? Catch 22

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... over-bids/

[MACCA]

Look at the Glazers takeover of ManU for creative accounting. Then the season tickets went up, then season ticket holders had to compulsory purchase tickets for cup games, etc.,

And if any of that happened here there would be a large proportion of fans not bothering, we will be lucky if gates dont drop a few thousand anyway once things get back to normal in the football world.

[arise_sir_charge]

Look at the Glazers takeover of ManU for creative accounting. Then the season tickets went up, then season ticket holders had to compulsory purchase tickets for cup games, etc.,

Nothing overly creative about what the Glazers did, they just bought a business by financing it with its own money. It happens daily but someone, somewhere has to guarantee the finance.

The other thing about the Glazers and United, in the event they ever sell the debt will be more than covered in any sale price. It sounds huge but it’s only a small portion of the worth of that business.

Not sure you’d be able to finance a £200m purchase against Burnley FC though to be honest.

[Leisure]

Look at the Glazers takeover of ManU for creative accounting. Then the season tickets went up, then season ticket holders had to compulsory purchase tickets for cup games, etc.,

The situation at Man Utd was totally different to ours in that they would have a massive waiting list for season tickets so they knew that even if existing ST holders wouldn't pay the increases and cancelled, they wouldn't lose any ST holders as people from the waiting list would take them. That's not the situation with us.

[snapcrackleandpop]

You're assuming that they actually do pay the £200 million. Just because they say they have it, and there's proof they have it, means nothing.

Been speaking to Bury fans, and they can explain it all better than me, and with sadly unfortunate experience...

Bury was completely different they were already bang in trouble, Steve Dale bought the club for a quid not 200 million and couldn't have cared less if they went tits up because he WAS looking to make a quick buck. Go back in the thread and listen to Simon Jordan's take on it he explains it better.

All takeovers are fraught with risk but not all are bad, in my opinion if we stick with the current regime we are also in a spot of bother, because MG has no interest in spending any money, which will eventually lead to a parting of the ways with SD then where do we go, that also scares me. We have to trust the board will make the correct decision.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Bury was completely different they were already bang in trouble, Steve Dale bought the club for a quid not 200 million and couldn't have cared less if they went tits up because he WAS looking to make a quick buck. Go back in the thread and listen to Simon Jordan's take on it he explains it better.

All takeovers are fraught with risk but not all are bad, in my opinion if we stick with the current regime we are also in a spot of bother, because MG has no interest in spending any money, which will eventually lead to a parting of the ways with SD then where do we go, that also scares me. We have to trust the board will make the correct decision.

Think there is a reason he’s not wanted to spend any money recently!

[THEWELLERNUT70]

Is Mighty Mike going all lone wolf on this atm?

[Hipper]

If this investment is about a choice between Garlick and Dyche I'd choose Garlick and no investment.

Dyche is at the end of the day just an employee who has no financial interest in the club (I assume) other then that he gets his very large salary and bonuses. He can leave whenever he chooses, whether there's a takeover or not.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

If this investment is about a choice between Garlick and Dyche I'd choose Garlick and no investment.

Dyche is at the end of the day just an employee who has no financial interest in the club (I assume) other then that he gets his very large salary and bonuses. He can leave whenever he chooses, whether there's a takeover or not.

I’d rather keep our most successful manager in the last 50 years. We aren’t in the top league solely on shrewd boardroom management.

[Whatsupdoc]

Anybody know anything about this man who is according to Sky about to take over?

[ClaretTony]

I've just amended the thread title given the change in the situation over the past couple of days

[mdd2]

Think there is a reason he’s not wanted to spend any money recently!

May be because he is more aware than most what this virus is doing to BFC finances

[Boss Hogg]

If this investment is about a choice between Garlick and Dyche I'd choose Garlick and no investment.

Dyche is at the end of the day just an employee who has no financial interest in the club (I assume) other then that he gets his very large salary and bonuses. He can leave whenever he chooses, whether there's a takeover or not.

It’s all about opinions but I would choose the opposite.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’d rather keep our most successful manager in the last 50 years. We aren’t in the top league solely on shrewd boardroom management.

Some on here would have you believe that it's nothing to do with the board at all in anyway shape or form.

Mind you, they're also idiots.

[Nonayforever]

So by your logic, Garlick is going handover the company to someone without receiving his 200m? Not sure that’s how transactions work

Yes, unfortunately that does happen.
I personally know of a businessman who lost his company and house when an unscrupulous business " bought " his business.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Some on here would have you believe that it's nothing to do with the board at all in anyway shape or form.

Mind you, they're also idiots.

I don’t think the board of directors are the main reason though are they.

[scouseclaret]

If this investment is about a choice between Garlick and Dyche I'd choose Garlick and no investment.

Dyche is at the end of the day just an employee who has no financial interest in the club (I assume) other then that he gets his very large salary and bonuses. He can leave whenever he chooses, whether there's a takeover or not.

I think whoever takes over should give him a chunk of the equity - it’s the best way to ensure the interests of board and manager are fully aligned.

[claptrappers_union]

I'm just wondering, can this thread be merged with the 'Investor' thread?