ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[aggi]

In the accounts for 2018 Mike Garlick was declared as having 60,308 shares. The share capital was given as 122,478 shares of £1 each.

Does that mean that he's being offered roughly 180 million at 3000 per share?

Presumably that means the other shares are only worth 1 pound each still.

That £1 is pretty irrelevant. It's just a nominal value when the shares are created, it could be anything.

No-one (in the public domain) knows whether the mooted £200m is just for Garlick's shares, Garlick's and John B's, all the directors' shares or what.

I would think at a minimum it would be Garlick and John B and more likely all of the directors.

Valuing the other shares is somewhat complicated. Ultimately they're worth what someone will pay for them and the shareholdings (apart from John B) are low enough that they aren't worth much in terms of control/influence but there are additional complications such as forcing purchase if > 90% of the shares are purchased (which would be the case if all directors sold their shares).

[aggi]

I'd much prefer a more local investment if possible.
Maybe a company that once sponsored part of our kit a few years back?

Assuming you're referring to the Hut I can't see it. The company isn't going to be making a purchase like that so soon after floatation and for the owner the majority of his assets appear to be tied up in shares, property, etc

[Grumps]

I think local investment would have been on the cards long ago if was possible. I think the club already has the richest locals who'll back us.
Sadly P3 Computers didn't turn into the next a Dell or HP and even PSV Eindhoven are strapped for cash despite local investment and loans by Philips!
If you mean local as the UK as a whole I don't think there's any interest at all. It's no coincidence most clubs are backed by foreigners.
As much as I hate it clubs like Chelsea have been spending the world's best money, to compete you need much more then just a little here and there.
Unless it's worth giving the likes of Branson, Ashley or Ecclestone a go. Now that's a scary thought!

Funny fact: When Ecclestone bought part of QPR he was initially tricked by Flavio Briatore that he was buying a Pizza chain. He had no clue that QPR was even a football club.

Local, as in the hut group I think is what was being suggested as ideal

[superdimitri]

Local, as in the hut group I think is what was being suggested as ideal

But has that even been a possibility? I haven't heard anything steadfast compared to the others.

More chance of being backed by boohoo.com

[MACCA]

I'd much prefer a more local investment if possible.
Maybe a company that once sponsored part of our kit a few years back?

Those billionaire brothers from down the M65 would have been nice, or failing that Boohoo, I hear they're making a hell of a lot of money these days, although not sure of exact worth of the Boohoo owner.

Edit - Boohoo man is also worth over 1bn and is from.the north west.

I half expected us to be sponsored by them at some point, and although it would be far better than a betting company, imagine having Boohoo on your shirt after losing, going down or fan upset etc. Its a newspapers/ journalists dream.

If I was MG I'd be giving them a call and putting the feelers out

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Can someone please explain to me, why, just because a billionaire is ‘local’ or because they’re from the North West fans feel they should be investing into BFC?

[ClaretTony]

Can someone please explain to me, why, just because a billionaire is ‘local’ or because they’re from the North West fans feel they should be investing into BFC?

Ha ha - always remember the pursuit of David Crossland at Airtours some years ago. Everyone thought, because he was a local man, that he'd come in and chuck money at it. The one big problem was that not only did David Crossland have no interest in Burnley FC, he had no interest in football.

[Steddyman]

Absolutely nothing in there that we didn't all know over a week ago

Agreed, nothing new today, but that was tweeted as the latest update minutes before I posted that.

But strictly speaking, we didn't know that Pace had been looking to buy a house here a week ago

[TheFamilyCat]

Can someone please explain to me, why, just because a billionaire is ‘local’ or because they’re from the North West fans feel they should be investing into BFC?

Bit like the Airtours bloke back in the 90's. Some fans seemed to think he was obliged to buy Burnley because he was rich and local.

Edit: Looks like Tony beat me to this.

[Nonayforever]

That JohnDearyMe is a very good question for which there appears to be little answer. Questionable and controversial without a doubt.

That certainly appears to be the case but the answer probably lies in the fact that the people fronting the 2nd bid appear to be very efficient at getting the job done.

[Paul Waine]

Can someone please explain to me, why, just because a billionaire is ‘local’ or because they’re from the North West fans feel they should be investing into BFC?

My pick of "local" billionaires would be Jim Ratcliffe. Born North Manchester. Worth somewhere around £15bn (+/-). Majority owner of Ineos. Big, multiple sports fan. Turned down Chelsea when Abramovich asked £3bn. Owns one or two smaller European football clubs.

[Grumps]

Can someone please explain to me, why, just because a billionaire is ‘local’ or because they’re from the North West fans feel they should be investing into BFC?

They shouldn't. But the guys from the hut, are burnley fans, have invested in the club previously, and publically stated they would look to again. I don't think now is the time, but that is why people are speculating

[Paul Waine]

In the accounts for 2018 Mike Garlick was declared as having 60,308 shares. The share capital was given as 122,478 shares of £1 each.

Does that mean that he's being offered roughly 180 million at 3000 per share?

Presumably that means the other shares are only worth 1 pound each still.

If £180 million is being talked about, that isn't just for MG's shares, that's for all the shares, at (approx) £1,450 per share.

So, MG's 60,308 shares would be worth a little under £90 million.

The notional value of the shares reported in the accounts are, as others have already posted, just the notional value. If they were selling for £200 a share - which is the price some posting on here have mentioned they paid for their shares some time back - then the shares appear in the accounts as (a) notional value £1 plus (b) share premium received £199 = total cash rec'd for share £200.

Although at least one other poster says otherwise, I believe that every shareholder will be given the opportunity to sell their shares to the successful bidder. Mike Garlick, as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and the other directors are negotiating the sale of the club, not just the sale of their individual shares.

Whether individual small shareholders will be forced to accept the offer for their shares I don't know. Those details should become apparent if/when the club announces a deal.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

Those billionaire brothers from down the M65 would have been nice, or failing that Boohoo, I hear they're making a hell of a lot of money these days, although not sure of exact worth of the Boohoo owner.

Edit - Boohoo man is also worth over 1bn and is from.the north west.

I half expected us to be sponsored by them at some point, and although it would be far better than a betting company, imagine having Boohoo on your shirt after losing, going down or fan upset etc. Its a newspapers/ journalists dream.

If I was MG I'd be giving them a call and putting the feelers out

Hasn't Boohoo attracted some "difficult" publicity recently - something about the factories in Leicester supplying some of the clothes not complying with employment legislation?

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/2 ... n-failings

[Steddyman]

Ha ha - always remember the pursuit of David Crossland at Airtours some years ago. Everyone thought, because he was a local man, that he'd come in and chuck money at it. The one big problem was that not only did David Crossland have no interest in Burnley FC, he had no interest in football.

And will now also have no money.

[Juan Tanamera]

Can someone please explain to me, why, just because a billionaire is ‘local’ or because they’re from the North West fans feel they should be investing into BFC?

If you're referring to my post, I'm fairly confident that I stated I would PREFER someone more local.
Not SHOULD.
But PREFER.
Slight difference in my opinion.

[NewClaret]

My pick of "local" billionaires would be Jim Ratcliffe. Born North Manchester. Worth somewhere around £15bn (+/-). Majority owner of Ineos. Big, multiple sports fan. Turned down Chelsea when Abramovich asked £3bn. Owns one or two smaller European football clubs.

That’s a very good call. He’s very much in to sports and £200m would be a snip to him!

Kit would look great with Ineos as sponsor too!

[NewClaret]

Assuming you're referring to the Hut I can't see it. The company isn't going to be making a purchase like that so soon after floatation and for the owner the majority of his assets appear to be tied up in shares, property, etc

Me either, as I think he’ll be tied in to his £700m or so shares for a good period too.

Get the impression he’s also a guy that likes making money vs spending it on an asset that could swallow it all up quickly... and is likely a guy whose attentions are very much elsewhere at the moment now he has a £6.5bn plc to run.

Would be an ideal scenario if he were interested though!

[jrgbfc]

Hasn't Boohoo attracted some "difficult" publicity recently - something about the factories in Leicester supplying some of the clothes not complying with employment legislation?

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/2 ... n-failings

From what I've heard their factories in Burnley are a terrible place to work, run like sweatshops.

[BleedingClaret]

No ones actually going to buy us are they?

[ClaretTony]

No ones actually going to buy us are they?

I would think it is more likely we will be bought than not

[TheFamilyCat]

That’s a very good call. He’s very much in to sports and £200m would be a snip to him!

Kit would look great with Ineos as sponsor too!

I wouldn't be too keen on being renamed Burnley Grenadiers.

[BenWickes]

No ones actually going to buy us are they?

As CT says. A lot more likely than not.

[android]

There's ~ 16% spread between the Nelsons, Holts, Floods, Kilby and Crabb so enough to collectively cause some awkwardness but nothing major.

I updated the list of shareholders in Google sheets to reflect the December 2019 position if anyone is interested.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Thanks aggi. I acquired a few shares a long time ago but this is the first time I have ever seen a full list.

[android]

If £180 million is being talked about, that isn't just for MG's shares, that's for all the shares, at (approx) £1,450 per share.

So, MG's 60,308 shares would be worth a little under £90 million.

The notional value of the shares reported in the accounts are, as others have already posted, just the notional value. If they were selling for £200 a share - which is the price some posting on here have mentioned they paid for their shares some time back - then the shares appear in the accounts as (a) notional value £1 plus (b) share premium received £199 = total cash rec'd for share £200.

Although at least one other poster says otherwise, I believe that every shareholder will be given the opportunity to sell their shares to the successful bidder. Mike Garlick, as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and the other directors are negotiating the sale of the club, not just the sale of their individual shares.

Whether individual small shareholders will be forced to accept the offer for their shares I don't know. Those details should become apparent if/when the club announces a deal.

UTC

I think it would also be the case that in any takeover the highest possible number is the figure fed to the public / media. For example, if the bidder is putting up say £180m isn't it possible/likely that say £130m is the offer to shareholders to buy the shares (no direct benefit to the club) and say £50m is a commitment to invest new money into the club.

If you are a shareholder you are obviously interested in both amounts but all fans are particularly interested in the £50m part in my example. (All numbers just for illustration and I claim no inside knowledge)!

[arise_sir_charge]

All this talk of very wealthy locals.......what’s to say some of them aren’t part of the ALK bid?

[Paul Waine]

I think it would also be the case that in any takeover the highest possible number is the figure fed to the public / media. For example, if the bidder is putting up say £180m isn't it possible/likely that say £130m is the offer to shareholders to buy the shares (no direct benefit to the club) and say £50m is a commitment to invest new money into the club.

If you are a shareholder you are obviously interested in both amounts but all fans are particularly interested in the £50m part in my example. (All numbers just for illustration and I claim no inside knowledge)!

Hi android, if you own a few shares, I've got good news for you: whatever figure is reported as the price paid to buy the club will be the price paid to buy the club.... it won't include another figure representing fund to invest in transfers etc. So, if you've got, let's say, 5 shares (you mention "a few") and the club is bought for £180 million (the figure reported by Reuters re ALK Capital) and assuming, of course, that a deal is completed, you will receive 5 x £1,400 = £7,000.

I know nothing about the club's negotiations. I only know the Reuters/ALK Capital and the other stuff reported about Farnell/El Kashashy. I don't know is any of it is accurate, or if any deal will be concluded.

However, the figure reported will only be the figure to buy the club. Why would the media report a higher figure? The most important people in the deal are the buyers and the sellers. The sellers won't want the deal figure inflated above what they will receive.... then spend time explaining to everyone, including the tax man that they sold for less. Equally, the buyers won't want to tie themselves into an specific commitments to invest in the club, player transfers and other stuff. You mention, as an example, £50m. Is that a one off? is that £50m at the next transfer window? or over the next season? or £50m to be invested for X seasons? Of course, the ODT may include discussions with PL on the ability of the new owners to invest in the club. Or, it may not.... based on no apparent requirement for Mike Garlick/John B to be approved with a commitment to fund the club, beyond what the club can afford from tv revenues etc, over previous seasons.

I get it that, as fans, we are interested in the investment in the club. That won't be rolled up into any figure that any buyer pays to acquire the club.

UTC

[android]

You probably didn't mean that to sound condescending Paul! I know how a takeover works thanks.

I'm sure the tax man would not be so easily fooled and I wasn't suggesting any shenanigans! But while the actual purchase price will be whatever it is, if the buyer was also investing in new capital in the business then there would be a gap between the price and the total investment (as in my simple made up example) and the buyer could want to shout about it. Maybe it is fanciful to think they would put new capital in at the outset but let's see. I was just pointing out that the total "investment" from the buyer's viewpoint isn't necessarily confined to the purchase price for the existing shares and we don't actually know any details as yet regarding the numbers being thrown around.

[mybloodisclaret]

I wouldn't imagine we would know much about the detail of the deal until much further down the line, what is abundantly clear is that we need investment, really quite urgently in the first team playing side.

I hope whoever completes the takeover are wholly aware of that and more importantly, prepared to do it.

[Woodleyclaret]

Derby take over approved .
Perhaps now ours wont be far off completion

[superdimitri]

Mercedes AMG 7 time world F1 champions earn Ineos sponsorship...and Burnley FC? I'd love it but its not going to happen is it.

[BenWickes]

I wouldn't imagine we would know much about the detail of the deal until much further down the line, what is abundantly clear is that we need investment, really quite urgently in the first team playing side.

I hope whoever completes the takeover are wholly aware of that and more importantly, prepared to do it.

Should have been completed before the last window but negotiations have took longer than planned. They're acutely aware of what needs investing in and will.

[mybloodisclaret]

Should have been completed before the last window but negotiations have took longer than planned. They're acutely aware of what needs investing in and will.

Thanks for reply Ben, is that in respect of both bids or ALK? As from previous posts you seem to know more about their bid.

[BenWickes]

Thanks for reply Ben, is that in respect of both bids or ALK? As from previous posts you seem to know more about their bid.

No worries. We're all basically singing from the same hymn sheet I think. Valuation has dropped due to Covid (it's affected all clubs) and the second bid has slowed progress down.
I'm not as up to speed with the other bid as ALK. I am led to believe there'd be a substantial amount made available by both parties. Long term I think ALK is better suited to our identity. That said. People need to take a step back from the Farnell involvement. My understanding is it's purely an advisory role.
When I say substantial by the way. I'd suggest enough to test the resolve of clubs we'd in the past have shied away from once a level was hit. Don't expect us to go splashing £40 million on a player. There would be funds available as far as I am aware to bring in three or four players, who in the past; might have been out of our reach.
Neither interested party is in it to asset strip and both have visions of maintaining our presence in the PL.
The one that interests me is ALK is keen to stay at Turf Moor and redevelop it. I am told they are NOT keen on redeveloping the Bob Lord too much as the view on TV encapsulates what we are all about. They like that.
Both deals, though admittedly I know less about bid 2; seem to offer positives.

[joey13]

Ha ha - always remember the pursuit of David Crossland at Airtours some years ago. Everyone thought, because he was a local man, that he'd come in and chuck money at it. The one big problem was that not only did David Crossland have no interest in Burnley FC, he had no interest in football.

I actually met him , he moved to Jersey at roundabout the same time , said to me if Burnley we’re playing in his back garden he would draw the curtains

[jtv]

......
The one that interests me is ALK is keen to stay at Turf Moor and redevelop it. I am told they are NOT keen on redeveloping the Bob Lord too much as the view on TV encapsulates what we are all about. They like that.
Both deals, though admittedly I know less about bid 2; seem to offer positives.

Thanks for very reassuring posts Ben. Does the Egyptian deal envisage moving away from the Turf? That will not be seen as a positive I'm afraid.

[bfcjg]

I actually met him , he moved to Jersey at roundabout the same time , said to me if Burnley we’re playing in his back garden he would draw the curtains

Ten bob millionaire, really rich people have blinds

[775claret]

I actually met him , he moved to Jersey at roundabout the same time , said to me if Burnley we’re playing in his back garden he would draw the curtains

Wasn't the Prairie playing fields effectively his back garden?

I know times were hard, but we hadn't fallen that far!!

[Quickenthetempo]

No worries. We're all basically singing from the same hymn sheet I think. Valuation has dropped due to Covid (it's affected all clubs) and the second bid has slowed progress down.
I'm not as up to speed with the other bid as ALK. I am led to believe there'd be a substantial amount made available by both parties. Long term I think ALK is better suited to our identity. That said. People need to take a step back from the Farnell involvement. My understanding is it's purely an advisory role.
When I say substantial by the way. I'd suggest enough to test the resolve of clubs we'd in the past have shied away from once a level was hit. Don't expect us to go splashing £40 million on a player. There would be funds available as far as I am aware to bring in three or four players, who in the past; might have been out of our reach.
Neither interested party is in it to asset strip and both have visions of maintaining our presence in the PL.
The one that interests me is ALK is keen to stay at Turf Moor and redevelop it. I am told they are NOT keen on redeveloping the Bob Lord too much as the view on TV encapsulates what we are all about. They like that.
Both deals, though admittedly I know less about bid 2; seem to offer positives.

The comment about not wanting to develop the Bob Lord stand worries me a little. They are supposed to be business men after all and the only revenue stream I can see increasing in the ground is putting 4k extra prime location seats on the Bob Lord with far better corporate facilities.
The only financial benefit to doing the CF up would be if it increased away fan numbers for the big clubs.

[ŽižkovClaret]

The comment about not wanting to develop the Bob Lord stand worries me a little. They are supposed to be business men after all and the only revenue stream I can see increasing in the ground is putting 4k extra prime location seats on the Bob Lord with far better corporate facilities.
The only financial benefit to doing the CF up would be if it increased away fan numbers for the big clubs.

We forget that the James Hargreaves / Jimmy Mc are around 25 years old now, and the roof design for one thing isn't great, added to the amount of wasted space at the back.

If you were ambitious, with the money to back you, you could rebuild the whole 3 sides aside from the Bob Lord, creating far more fit for purpose ground, while retaining the charm of the View over the Bob Lord

[Paul Waine]

The one that interests me is ALK is keen to stay at Turf Moor and redevelop it. I am told they are NOT keen on redeveloping the Bob Lord too much as the view on TV encapsulates what we are all about. They like that.

Had to laugh at the idea that the rows of terraced houses with the moors in the background "encapsulates what we are all about." I guess they could still get that with an extra tier on top of the JH stand and the cameras on the roof, plus fitting the "Martin Dobson tier" on top of the Bob Lord stand.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

We forget that the James Hargreaves / Jimmy Mc are around 25 years old now, and the roof design for one thing isn't great, added to the amount of wasted space at the back.

If you were ambitious, with the money to back you, you could rebuild the whole 3 sides aside from the Bob Lord, creating far more fit for purpose ground, while retaining the charm of the View over the Bob Lord

It's all about where you put the cameras, Zizkov.

[Jakubs Tash]

From what I've heard their factories in Burnley are a terrible place to work, run like sweatshops.

A little off topic but there aren't any BooHoo factories in Burnley. Warehouses; yes. Factories; no.

[COBBLE]

I love the view over the Bob Lord stand. But to amuse myself I have imagined erecting a hoarding all along the top and deciding what image to paint on. It would be cheaper. Currently it would have to be the pyramids at Giza, or Manhattan. Any other choices?

[Paul Waine]

I love the view over the Bob Lord stand. But to amuse myself I have imagined erecting a hoarding all along the top and deciding what image to paint on. It would be cheaper. Currently it would have to be the pyramids at Giza, or Manhattan. Any other choices?

I love the view of the Rockies from Downtown Denver..... but, it's not the pennine moors.

UTC

[NottsClaret]

The comment about not wanting to develop the Bob Lord stand worries me a little.

To be fair, there's three stands at the Turf worse than the Bob Lord.

[joey13]

Thanks for very reassuring posts Ben. Does the Egyptian deal envisage moving away from the Turf? That will not be seen as a positive I'm afraid.

Land already purchased, the old Padiham power station site ,,ssshhh, don’t tell anyone else

[joey13]

Ten bob millionaire, really rich people have blinds

I sold him both

[RMutt]

I love the view over the Bob Lord stand. But to amuse myself I have imagined erecting a hoarding all along the top and deciding what image to paint on. It would be cheaper. Currently it would have to be the pyramids at Giza, or Manhattan. Any other choices?

Sydney Opera House, the hanging gardens of Babylon, herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across Crown Point.

[Quickenthetempo]

Land already purchased, the old Padiham power station site ,,ssshhh, don’t tell anyone else

You might laugh, but there's plenty of land next to the training ground in Padiham where a new ground could be built.
A hardly used farmers field right next to it and the old main gas factory next to that, that has been demolished for 350 houses.
But that has been held up for a couple of years.