ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[aggi]

I'd love to see the 'facts' people are using to reach all these assumptions, I see plenty of.. Mooted.. Thought to be... Rumoured to be etc etc, but in reality we don't know if, or how he is or isn't involved in a possible bid for burnley....

Well Mohamed Sayed Zein ELKASHASHY is a director of a sole company in the UK, Staunch Partners. He shares the ownership of that company equally with Farnell. That is all facts.

The above isn't a standard relationship for legal adviser/client so that suggests the relationship is other than that. It may of course be related to an entirely different business venture but I would be suspicious of any suggestions that Farnell is solely acting as a lawyer for Elkashashy

[Grumps]

Well Mohamed Sayed Zein ELKASHASHY is a director of a sole company in the UK, Staunch Partners. He shares the ownership of that company equally with Farnell. That is all facts.

The above isn't a standard relationship for legal adviser/client so that suggests the relationship is other than that. It may of course be related to an entirely different business venture but I would be suspicious of any suggestions that Farnell is solely acting as a lawyer for Elkashashy

Are staunch buying burnley? Or do we not really know?

[TVC15]

TVC, it's a fair point other than the fact he or his associates would need £200m to get through our doors. That's the single biggest difference.

I know what you mean but I give you Michael Knighton doing keep ups on the Old Trafford pitch !!
I know it’s a long time ago but there has been a lot of false dawn takeovers at all levels of clubs some of which can get very far in the process before being thrown out or failing.

[arise_sir_charge]

I know what you mean but I give you Michael Knighton doing keep ups on the Old Trafford pitch !!
I know it’s a long time ago but there has been a lot of false dawn takeovers at all levels of clubs some of which can get very far in the process before being thrown out or failing.

Yes but you sort of make my point. Michael Knighton never paid up and thus never owned Man United.

[TVC15]

Yes but you sort of make my point. Michael Knighton never paid up and thus never owned Man United.

I know but often it’s not just as simple as showing your Halifax BS passbook with £200m sat in it !!
On many occasions you can get a long way in the process before it becomes clear that either you don’t have enough money or probably more relevant these days that the source of your wealth or funds is not what the selling club originally understood them to be....or would like them to be.

[Nonayforever]

TVC, it's a fair point other than the fact he or his associates would need £200m to get through our doors. That's the single biggest difference.

It requires proof of funds - that is totally different to actually transferring the money to a beneficiaries account.

[Charlton Boy]

Good advice, perhaps you need to take it on board as well...

How so

[NRC]

Well Mohamed Sayed Zein ELKASHASHY is a director of a sole company in the UK, Staunch Partners. He shares the ownership of that company equally with Farnell. That is all facts.

The above isn't a standard relationship for legal adviser/client so that suggests the relationship is other than that. It may of course be related to an entirely different business venture but I would be suspicious of any suggestions that Farnell is solely acting as a lawyer for Elkashashy

I haven’t read anything to suggest Farnell is NOT acting in any other capacity than a legal one at this juncture. He may be, he may be not. That he is 50% in Staunch is not material. When I and another 3rd party bought into a northwest-based company a shell company like Staunch was structured to allow the existing management team and us to become directors of the shell for the purposes of acquisition.

I’m not concluding anything at this point beyond What I know, which is
1. We don’t know Farnell’s intent
2. My connection with Dubai royal connections does not know Cashashy

[joey13]

How so

Ignore him , he isn’t worth the effort

[Vegas Claret]

I haven’t read anything to suggest Farnell is NOT acting in any other capacity than a legal one at this juncture. He may be, he may be not. That he is 50% in Staunch is not material. When I and another 3rd party bought into a northwest-based company a shell company like Staunch was structured to allow the existing management team and us to become directors of the shell for the purposes of acquisition.

I’m not concluding anything at this point beyond What I know, which is
1. We don’t know Farnell’s intent
2. My connection with Dubai royal connections does not know Cashashy

can you ask your connection with the Dubai Royal family if he wouldn't mind asking them to buy a struggling PL football club ?

[IWOODLOVETT]

So........ theoretically £200m buys the club and the current owners walk away with pockets full of cash. What then ??

If the buyers have now spent all of their savings £200m on buying the club, where is the money for further investment and/or team building coming from - if not from player or asset (ground) sales??

So if there is no more money available in the winter transfer window, the team is unlikely to be strengthened, the manager may put his notice in and relegation will loom large.

Status quo as far as the fans are concerned and very worrying times !!!

[Charlton Boy]

So........ theoretically £200m buys the club and the current owners walk away with pockets full of cash. What then ??

If the buyers have now spent all of their savings £200m on buying the club, where is the money for further investment and/or team building coming from - if not from player or asset (ground) sales??

So if there is no more money available in the winter transfer window, the team is unlikely to be strengthened, the manager may put his notice in and relegation will loom large.

Status quo as far as the fans are concerned and very worrying times !!!

[Goobs]

So........ theoretically £200m buys the club and the current owners walk away with pockets full of cash. What then ??

If the buyers have now spent all of their savings £200m on buying the club, where is the money for further investment and/or team building coming from - if not from player or asset (ground) sales??

So if there is no more money available in the winter transfer window, the team is unlikely to be strengthened, the manager may put his notice in and relegation will loom large.

Status quo as far as the fans are concerned and very worrying times !!!

What would any prospective buyers gain from spending all their money and letting us get relegated? There wouldn't be enough assets left in the club to get their money back in all likelihood and the club would be worth peanuts in the championship with all the players gone.

[Leisure]

So........ theoretically £200m buys the club and the current owners walk away with pockets full of cash. What then ??

If the buyers have now spent all of their savings £200m on buying the club, where is the money for further investment and/or team building coming from - if not from player or asset (ground) sales??

So if there is no more money available in the winter transfer window, the team is unlikely to be strengthened, the manager may put his notice in and relegation will loom large.

Status quo as far as the fans are concerned and very worrying times !!!

Hopefully £100m buys the club and the other £100m is investment!

[TVC15]

Hopefully £100k buys the club and the other £100k is investment!

Hopefully it’s more than £100k !

[Grumps]

Ignore him , he isn’t worth the effort

[Firthy]

Not sure which is worst. Waiting for a signing or waiting for the takeover to be confirmed?

[aggi]

I haven’t read anything to suggest Farnell is NOT acting in any other capacity than a legal one at this juncture. He may be, he may be not. That he is 50% in Staunch is not material. When I and another 3rd party bought into a northwest-based company a shell company like Staunch was structured to allow the existing management team and us to become directors of the shell for the purposes of acquisition.

I’m not concluding anything at this point beyond What I know, which is
1. We don’t know Farnell’s intent
2. My connection with Dubai royal connections does not know Cashashy

A shell company is obviously not unusual, it being part owned by your lawyer is.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I still do not understand how people think Burnley can be asset stripped?
The finances just do not add up. The clubs assets are worth less than what the potential deal is going to cost the buyer. If he sold everything the club owned he wouldn’t even break even.

Then people suggesting that they can take over the club without transferring funds? Do people really think Garlick is going to hand over the club without the 200m in the bank?

[Grumps]

I still do not understand how people think Burnley can be asset stripped?
The finances just do not add up. The clubs assets are worth less than what the potential deal is going to cost the buyer. If he sold everything the club owned he wouldn’t even break even.

Then people suggesting that they can take over the club without transferring funds? Do people really think Garlick is going to hand over the club without the 200m in the bank?

Unfortunately, some do.

[TVC15]

I still do not understand how people think Burnley can be asset stripped?
The finances just do not add up. The clubs assets are worth less than what the potential deal is going to cost the buyer. If he sold everything the club owned he wouldn’t even break even.

Then people suggesting that they can take over the club without transferring funds? Do people really think Garlick is going to hand over the club without the 200m in the bank?

Who suggested that they can take over the club without transferring funds ?

[BenWickes]

An entertaining afternoon reading through the posts. In a nutshell. Investors are going to spend all their money on buying the club and have no money left to invest in players, probably because they're buying the club in instalments from their Halifax account.

I did like the idea of a potential investor rocking up to Mike Garlick with his Halifax passbook

[arise_sir_charge]

It requires proof of funds - that is totally different to actually transferring the money to a beneficiaries account.

TVC - This suggests something along the lines you've just mentioned.

Nothing happens unless £200m changes hands. That's the long and short of it that not a lot of people on here seem to grasp.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

Who suggested that they can take over the club without transferring funds ?

Charlton Boy

[bfcmik]

So........ theoretically £200m buys the club and the current owners walk away with pockets full of cash. What then ??

If the buyers have now spent all of their savings £200m on buying the club, where is the money for further investment and/or team building coming from - if not from player or asset (ground) sales??

So if there is no more money available in the winter transfer window, the team is unlikely to be strengthened, the manager may put his notice in and relegation will loom large.

Status quo as far as the fans are concerned and very worrying times !!!

The buyers would not spend ALL their assets just buying the club. A failure to invest significant money into the club would be a pointless (pun intentional) way to get rid of lots of cash. Both buyers say they represent a group of others who are also investing in the consortium but staying out of the spotlight. It is a common sports ownership practice in the US and other places.

[Chester Perry]

It is a common sports ownership practice in the US and other places.

As is the owner receiving trophies not the the team - the FSG boys didn't seem too happy about that when Liverpool won the Champions League

[Jakubs Tash]

By the end of the day today/tomorrow we should have a preferred bid. Let’s be really clear, the Premier league will not sanction a bid from a cowboy, they’re very protective of their product.

Any news on this?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Any news on this?

No

[TVC15]

TVC - This suggests something along the lines you've just mentioned.

Nothing happens unless £200m changes hands. That's the long and short of it that not a lot of people on here seem to grasp.

I’m not sure of that - I think most people on here have the common sense to know that a purchase or a transaction is not completed until the seller has cleared funds in his account from the buyer....as in buying a house or a car or anything else !!

Most people are also familiar with what “proof of funds” relates to also - it’s something that most estate agents ask for now in a residential or commercial property purchase when you are at the point of wanting to submitting an offer.

I haven’t checked the whole of the thread - it’s too long !! - to see if Charlton Boy or anyone else has actually said that the purchase of the club could be completed without transferring the funds

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Buying a business isn’t just the initial investment, you have to cover that weeks/months wages for example. You need a working and viable budget, you’ll need to cover the infrastructure, ensure key people don’t just get up and walk to the competition.

It’a very very complicated

[Danieljwaterhouse]

How so

It’s good that other clubs fans are willing to share their concerns. It’s sad what has happened to your club, we can all agree that.

This situation is totally different

[jtv]

I guess that the EPL guys would need reassurances that the new owners have the funds to keep the Club going, not just the funds to pay the current shareholders.

[Dark Cloud]

I'm inclined to believe that Garlick wants to sell primarily because he realises that the longer we stay in the PL the more wages (in particular) are creeping up and our much celebrated profitability is being squeezed. It won't be long before our costs are up there with our revenue and despite being a jolly rich chap personally, he knows full well that he's not in a position to bank roll the club and definitely not in the way that most other PL owners can and are doing. If we're to continue to thrive at this level, the club needs investment and thus in an ideal scenario, whoever buys the club, not only pays for the majority of the shares and becomes the "owner" but has a whole load of other cash they are prepared to then put in to boost the playing side. I really can't see a situation where Garlick sells up to people who can find the cost of buying the club ok, but actually have pledged nothing else because in that case it will all have been extremely pointless.

[warksclaret]

Hopefully any new owner will take a total review of our company structure. By that I don't mean the playing side and coaches. I hope they back the best manager we have had since Harry Potts. But I hope the review is focused on the executive staff set-up, and whether they are actively contributing to our club (yes in particular the Technical Director/analytical team). I also feel there are huge sponsorship and commercial opportunities we are missing out on, and not exploiting. After all we keep getting told its the best league in the world-its the place to be

[TVC15]

Buying a business isn’t just the initial investment, you have to cover that weeks/months wages for example. You need a working and viable budget, you’ll need to cover the infrastructure, ensure key people don’t just get up and walk to the competition.

It’a very very complicated

Of course its all that - but what you do and how you do it after the purchase is not something that the current owner will have any control over.
Yes Garlick and the rest of the board will be asking for proposals of how the club will be ran after the purchase - but building these assurances in contractually is a lot more complex and there will be certain things that any prospective purchase would just never agree to guarantee in perpetuity.....like selling our ground or any other assets.

You cannot sell your control and then maintain control over how you want the club to be ran.

So when you say that an investor or purchaser needs a “working and viable budget” other than the fact that anybody who owns a football club or any business needs that what has this got to do with any purchase or prospective purchaser / investment ? Anybody can throw together a 5 year forecast business plan or budget which looks viable on paper.

[arise_sir_charge]

Of course its all that - but what you do and how you do it after the purchase is not something that the current owner will have any control over.
Yes Garlick and the rest of the board will be asking for proposals of how the club will be ran after the purchase - but building these assurances in contractually is a lot more complex and there will be certain things that any prospective purchase would just never agree to guarantee in perpetuity.....like selling our ground or any other assets.

You cannot sell your control and then maintain control over how you want the club to be ran.

So when you say that an investor or purchaser needs a “working and viable budget” other than the fact that anybody who owns a football club or any business needs that what has this got to do with any purchase or prospective purchaser / investment ? Anybody can throw together a 5 year forecast business plan or budget which looks viable on paper.

First point, they can’t sell the ground.

Secondly whilst the premise of your point is right what would be the point. Why shell out all that money without any plan or funding to take what you buy forward?

Something that is continually missed in this thread is that the purchaser needs to part with a huge amount of money to complete stage one......why would anybody do that just to effectively throw it all away? I can’t think of any logical reason.

[DCWat]

It’s good that other clubs fans are willing to share their concerns. It’s sad what has happened to your club, we can all agree that.

This situation is totally different

So are you confident that people’s concerns are unjustified, be this Farnell, El Kashashy, the source(s) of funds or the long term plans for our football club?

I’m all for investment / sale and think that Garlick has run his course with us, but I’m yet to see something, aside from the snippets that you and Ben have posted, that give me great confidence, in either ALK or the other side.

So far, all I can see is a hope that Garlick is doing what is right for Burnley FC and not just his bank balance.

We’ve seen plenty of clubs sold, presumably with the very best of intentions, only for the new hierarchy to turn out to be anything but positive for the club that they’ve purchased.

I’d love to know how we can be confident in either bid.

[Nonayforever]

Something that is continually missed in this thread is that the purchaser needs to part with a huge amount of money to complete stage one......why would anybody do that just to effectively throw it all away? I can’t think of any logical reason.

One point that is missed on this thread is that the "purchaser" won't be one person.
The individuals negotiating with the club certainly won't be the individuals with the money. The eventual owners could number many individuals or companies.
The people leading the negotiations may be selling a completely different vision to each interested party.

[TVC15]

First point, they can’t sell the ground.

Secondly whilst the premise of your point is right what would be the point. Why shell out all that money without any plan or funding to take what you buy forward?

Something that is continually missed in this thread is that the purchaser needs to part with a huge amount of money to complete stage one......why would anybody do that just to effectively throw it all away? I can’t think of any logical reason.

How do you know they can’t sell the ground ?

Anyway that’s irrelevant - I agree with everything you have said.
The point I was making was that these are simply future plans and strategy and whilst it’s good to know for existing shareholders and fans it’s not something by its very definition that you necessarily need to prove as part of the actual takeover.
Yes it might be part of the selection process deciding which strategy is the best and even how deep their pockets are beyond the initial purchase price but like you intimate nobody is going to say they are going to buy the club and then strip or sell the assets (and I’m not saying that’s what anybody is going to do either)

[Grumps]

So are you confident that people’s concerns are unjustified, be this Farnell, El Kashashy, the source(s) of funds or the long term plans for our football club?

I’m all for investment / sale and think that Garlick has run his course with us, but I’m yet to see something, aside from the snippets that you and Ben have posted, that give me great confidence, in either ALK or the other side.

So far, all I can see is a hope that Garlick is doing what is right for Burnley FC and not just his bank balance.

We’ve seen plenty of clubs sold, presumably with the very best of intentions, only for the new hierarchy to turn out to be anything but positive for the club that they’ve purchased.

I’d love to know how we can be confident in either bid.

The answer to your last point is that we Carnt, because we don't really know anything about either bid
But by the same reasoning we also cannot not be confident in either bid.

Iam amazed, that with so few facts known about either bid, people can be so much against, or for, either bid.

[Tribesmen]

Always like to check this thread once a day , not sure why if i am honest .

[MACCA]

Theres several people posting a lot of stuff as though they are in the loop, yet it seems most if not all of what they have said either hasnt happened, or isnt actually inside info st all.

My mate who doesnt read this board knows as much as I do regards this takeover and he flicks through the odd paper.

[Dark Cloud]

Always like to check this thread once a day , not sure why if i am honest .

Probably safe to give tomorrow a miss tbh. Maybe even leave it till Saturday.

[arise_sir_charge]

How do you know they can’t sell the ground ?

Anyway that’s irrelevant - I agree with everything you have said.
The point I was making was that these are simply future plans and strategy and whilst it’s good to know for existing shareholders and fans it’s not something by its very definition that you necessarily need to prove as part of the actual takeover.
Yes it might be part of the selection process deciding which strategy is the best and even how deep their pockets are beyond the initial purchase price but like you intimate nobody is going to say they are going to buy the club and then strip or sell the assets (and I’m not saying that’s what anybody is going to do either)

I’m fairly sure there is a covenant on the ground that was introduced as part of the buy back scheme a few years ago.

[TVC15]

I’m fairly sure there is a covenant on the ground that was introduced as part of the buy back scheme a few years ago.

Covenants can be released as part of the purchase of land or property or business - as long as you can get to the person or entity who issued the covenant.
Whether they insist this covenant remains as part of any sale none of us have a clue - and similarly any purchaser may not be bothered about the covenant remaining (again we don’t know - or I don’t know others may do ?)

[aggi]

First point, they can’t sell the ground.

Secondly whilst the premise of your point is right what would be the point. Why shell out all that money without any plan or funding to take what you buy forward?

Something that is continually missed in this thread is that the purchaser needs to part with a huge amount of money to complete stage one......why would anybody do that just to effectively throw it all away? I can’t think of any logical reason.

It's very unlikely the plan is to stop the investment but there are plenty of circumstances that may prompt it. From simply underestimating the funds required to "move to the next level" to frozen funds due to dubious provenance to changing political landscapes.

I certainly don't think that they are planning to buy the club and not invest but different owners have different levels of risk.

[Devils_Advocate]

We're in a bit of a catch 22 if a good investor comes on board and is willing to pump some money in.

On the one hand we desperately need Dyche to keep us in the Prem for a couple of years whilst we build a better team with the injection of funds

On the other hand do we really want a manager like Dyche spending the new money. Whist there's noone better at making in a purse out if a sows ear im not sure Id trust him spending big bucks and if we're not careful we end up like a Blackburn or a Bolton throwing good money after bad

Could be a tricky situation which could go either way

[randomclaret2]

Who would you trust to splash the cash DA ?

[Devils_Advocate]

Nobody springs to mind but someone who has a track record of making big money signing and managing players with big ego's would be preferable if we are going to splash the cash

Trouble is how do we attract that kind of person and even if we get someone with good experience it doesnt mean it will work. Thats the trouble with investment - the more you spend, the more you're likely to waste and the more of a mess you can get yourself in

It could be a real rollercoaster ride but is that what you want for your football club especially if there is a chance the wheels could come off altogether

[randomclaret2]

I suppose it depends how you see things panning out if there is no takeover...the wheels may well come off anyway