ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Devils_Advocate]

To use your 8m figure, over 7 seasons that's 56m, roughly the same figure MG squirreled away in "cash reserves" all for it to disappear over night.

So paying interest on loans for 8 years or giving it away to share holders is nor here nor there.
And It dudnt take 8 years to squirrel away...

Having £56m in the bank compared to a £8m per year debt to service* if we go down in the next few years is where we potentially are in the sh*t and a lot worse off under this new model compared to Garlicks prudent and careful approach

*thats assuming the debt level is correct for the purpose of this example which is still unknown

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And the ill merited arrogance of fans like yourself who willingly accept this ridiculous business model without question is staggering. What price would you put on integrity and solid values ?

I can see what they want to do, I have ideas about how it's feasible.

If we sold an extra 10k shirts at £40 a pop that's £400k alone.
The USA alone is a massive market, then add that to the far east...
Marketed correctly and we could cover those loan repayments just through shirt sales alone.

On a planet of 7-8 billion people we should be able to do that quite easily as we are in the most marketed league in the world and we get paid to be part of that league...

Integrity and values can still be the same, we just have to make more money to ensure the club remains competitive and the squad is improved upon.

Sneering at the idea of having a world wide fan base and not wanting them to visit TM isn't arrogance from me, that's you sunshine.

I find the whole project exciting, especially the business side of it and the potential market/sales opportunities.

You crawl back into your small corner of the world though and barricade yourself in if it makes you feel safer.

[NottsClaret]

On a planet of 7-8 billion people we should be able to do that quite easily as we are in the most marketed league in the world and we get paid to be part of that league...

Sounds like you're putting yourself forward for the Global Advisor role. I remember another East Lancs club with big ideas who had one of those.

[mealdeal]

No one knows how this is going to pan out, but for me, the questions being asked are important and can't be brushed to one side with what appears to be the ultra simplicity of GIADJ - amounting to 'just increase revenue' and 'think big'.

He's been there I suppose with his growing businesses and vast experience, but for the rest, forgive us if there are concerns.

[DomBFC1882]

That mentality is part of the problem on here, small club, wants to stay a small club etc etc.

Step out of the doldrums and into the big wide world.
We aren't this small club anymore, we haven't been for a while to be fair, but the mentality of some of you is seemingly going to carry on being that way.

Hi DJ,

I just want to say thank you for a decent long debate yesterday, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'm just going to sit back now and let it unfold as I think every query I have had has been addressed by you as well as can be.

Take care mate

[Jakubclaret]

It's only less to spend if we fail to increase revenue, its not really that difficult to understand tbh

In a post Covid landscape that’s a very punchy aim, people are cutting back on spending not increasing spending, when all said & done though money will be tight everywhere it won’t just be BFC affected.

[SonofPog]

So far there's nothing that people are suggesting (increasing revenue etc) that we couldn't have done already with the old board.

But now we do it not from a position of strength (no debt to service, cash reverses) to one of relative weakness.

The new owners are going to have to grow the profit massively just to break even.

Even if we believe that these guys somehow have more knowledge / expertise that would allow them to do it rather than the old owners, we're still basically paying 6 to 10 million a year for glorified management consultants, with all the risk being placed on the club if it doesn't work.

Frankly, no one's exactly covering themselves in glory right now. MG and JB have pocketed millions and seemingly weakened us. Pace et al have inputted no money (or a lot less than we're worth) for themselves and have saddled us with debt.

What exactly is there to be excited about?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Hi DJ,

I just want to say thank you for a decent long debate yesterday, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'm just going to sit back now and let it unfold as I think every query I have had has been addressed by you as well as can be.

Take care mate

Same here.

Does this mean your Missus is now going to get more than a sentence out of you?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

In a post Covid landscape that’s a very punchy aim, people are cutting back on spending not increasing spending, when all said & done though money will be tight everywhere it won’t just be BFC affected.

Covid won't be here for ever, thing long term.
Stuff can be actioned whilst this is still going on.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Sounds like you're putting yourself forward for the Global Advisor role. I remember another East Lancs club with big ideas who had one of those.

I'm not as photogenic as Shebby

[GodIsADeeJay81]

No one knows how this is going to pan out, but for me, the questions being asked are important and can't be brushed to one side with what appears to be the ultra simplicity of GIADJ - amounting to 'just increase revenue' and 'think big'.

He's been there I suppose with his growing businesses and vast experience, but for the rest, forgive us if there are concerns.

I've given ideas but it starts with a mentality change, the club has to start thinking big.

We have to look past the edges of the Burnley area.
We have to change the sales operations to think international.
Our social media streams need to think modern and become more interactive.
I've mentioned the advertising in the ground needs to look for larger national and international companies.

We need to look at our signings and consider signing a player who will fit the squad AND boost shirt sales in other countries, other clubs do that stuff all the time.
We'd then have to change our retail arm to allow for international shipping, I've already mentioned ebay and amazon... I don't think I can ship internationally from the club site, but I'd need to check.

Online content for fans across the world to watch, digest and learn more about the club could probably be vastly improved.

Claret Tony regularly does articles on here about all sorts of stuff, out of his own time, but does the club do that?
We have a history, we've been to the bottom and back, people will want to hear that when the hear about the club.

Pog just referred to the old board and why it couldn't have been done under them, and quite simply they didn't have the mentality to do it, or possibly the contacts, time etc.
It does require a complete shift in mindset to commercially grow a business.

[MACCA]

Having £56m in the bank compared to a £8m per year debt to service* if we go down in the next few years is where we potentially are in the sh*t and a lot worse off under this new model compared to Garlicks prudent and careful approach

*thats assuming the debt level is correct for the purpose of this example which is still unknown

Depends if you believe everything you read about ALK and everything you read/heard from MG, as I wouldn't believe the later if he told me it was raining outside... I'd have to go and double check.

I'll give ALK the benefit of the doubt and judge their word and actions in 12 months time.
There's no point getting all upset, mad or frustrated now, theyve not had any time to change much if anything.

[mealdeal]

It does require a complete shift in mindset to commercially grow a business.

Some interesting thoughts for sure. You seem to have some experience in this kind of thing, what sorts of businesses have you grown?

[DomBFC1882]

Same here.

Does this mean your Missus is now going to get more than a sentence out of you?

I very much doubt it

Talking about football is sooo much more enjoyable

[Devils_Advocate]

Depends if you believe everything you read about ALK and everything you read/heard from MG, as I wouldn't believe the later if he told me it was raining outside... I'd have to go and double check.

I'll give ALK the benefit of the doubt and judge their word and actions in 12 months time.
There's no point getting all upset, mad or frustrated now, theyve not had any time to change much if anything.

You've lost me as im not arguing whether certain figures are true or not but you just posed the question would you squirrel £56m away for it to be given away overnight or create the £56m in loan repayments.

Had Garlick not sold and we gone down we would have had no debt and £56m. Now Garlick has sold and just for the purpose of your scenario we have a debt and a £8 per year serviceable loan if we go down we still have a loan to service and no money in the bank.

Garlick has sold the business for what it is worth and is always going to walk away with a profit and you wanted Garlick gone. It is ALK who have structured how that takeover is paid for and if indeed it is through loans and transferring our cash into loans because they dont have their own capital then the beef should be with ALK and not Garlick.

It maybe that they have invested their own money and that the loans are available to inject into the club rather than sitting in the bank for a rainy day. If thats the case then its fair that some will like that approach and some will still worry in case we strectch ourselves too far and go down with a wage bill and debt we cannot sustain.

I am on the fence until we see more information but going right back to your original point then having £56m in the bank and Garlick owning the club is a much better situation than having a large debt to service and Pace in charge should we go down.

Should we stay up (and possibly we stay up because the club is ran better under Pace) then thats a different discussion and the case for the takeover is much stronger

[MACCA]

You've lost me as im not arguing whether certain figures are true or not but you just posed the question would you squirrel £56m away for it to be given away overnight or create the £56m in loan repayments.

Had Garlick not sold and we gone down we would have had no debt and £56m. Now Garlick has sold and just for the purpose of your scenario we have a debt and a £8 per year serviceable loan if we go down we still have a loan to service and no money in the bank.

Garlick has sold the business for what it is worth and is always going to walk away with a profit and you wanted Garlick gone. It is ALK who have structured how that takeover is paid for and if indeed it is through loans and transferring our cash into loans because they dont have their own capital then the beef should be with ALK and not Garlick.

It maybe that they have invested their own money and that the loans are available to inject into the club rather than sitting in the bank for a rainy day. If thats the case then its fair that some will like that approach and some will still worry in case we strectch ourselves too far and go down with a wage bill and debt we cannot sustain.

I am on the fence until we see more information but going right back to your original point then having £56m in the bank and Garlick owning the club is a much better situation than having a large debt to service and Pace in charge should we go down.

Should we stay up (and possibly we stay up because the club is ran better under Pace) then thats a different discussion and the case for the takeover is much stronger

Can either service the debt at 8m year ( using that figure someone mentioned above ) by staying in the prem whilst also trying to increase revenue
Or once down, sell Tarky, Pope, McNeil and any other prized asset to then be debt free, and not need to finance the 8m per season.

Only thing clear was the last plan ( term used lightly ) wasnt working so we have rolled the dice.

The board members who we are regularly told are big fans, care more about the club than you and I, and only want the best for the club have decided these people and their plans/ strategy, and the way they have done it were the best men for the job..

There's nothing we can do now, only give them a chance.

[DCWat]

I can see what they want to do, I have ideas about how it's feasible.

If we sold an extra 10k shirts at £40 a pop that's £400k alone.
The USA alone is a massive market, then add that to the far east...
Marketed correctly and we could cover those loan repayments just through shirt sales alone.

On a planet of 7-8 billion people we should be able to do that quite easily as we are in the most marketed league in the world and we get paid to be part of that league...

Integrity and values can still be the same, we just have to make more money to ensure the club remains competitive and the squad is improved upon.

Sneering at the idea of having a world wide fan base and not wanting them to visit TM isn't arrogance from me, that's you sunshine.

I find the whole project exciting, especially the business side of it and the potential market/sales opportunities.

You crawl back into your small corner of the world though and barricade yourself in if it makes you feel safer.

You’ve given an example here, in shirt sales, that to be honest, shows a level of naivety. Man United don’t earn £65 or whatever they charge for a shirt, for each shirt sold.

Their deal will be with Adidas, a deal which Adidas pay Man United upwards of £75 million a season. I don’t know if United receive any extra on that if certain conditions are met, but even if they did, the vast majority of revenue from the 3.25 million shirts they sell a year, will then go to Adidas.

You’re sneering at people, calling them dense, small minded, having no vision and telling them to crawl back into their small corner of the world.

You’re professing to have vision and business acumen whilst looking down on others with a different view, but displaying a less than basic understanding of a major part of the football business (shirt sales).

By all means, have your opinions, but don’t belittle others for theirs. It may not be how you intend to come across, but I’m seeing more and more words with less and less substance, topped off with insults at anyone with an alternative view.

I’ve said it many times before, this place would be so much better if debates could be kept civil.

For what it’s worth, I can understand the earlier points about not wanting to become too corporate as a football club. I hate going to Old Trafford for that very reason, they’re more Man United Limited than Man United FC. Take the top tiers off Old Trafford and that’s where the core support is, the rest is the market driven support that you’re mentioning.

There’s nothing wrong with people not liking that or wanting Burnley to become like that (on a smaller scale). It’s not narrow or small minded, it’s traditionally what a football club is all about.

What we’re talking about now is the ‘if you can’t beat them, joint them’ type approach - it’s becoming more and more of a necessary evil and that certainly won’t sit comfortably with many - it doesn’t with a lot of fans at the big clubs, I can assure you of that.

Sorry to dig you out on this thread again, I just think that the debate would be much better if we could all avoid the name calling and constant arguments.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Some interesting thoughts for sure. You seem to have some experience in this kind of thing, what sorts of businesses have you grown?

Local motor factor branch - sales increase through email usage, build and improve customer relations with local workshop's, visit potential customers to encourage them to use us.
Doubled sales within 12 months.

National motor factor branch - as above but also changed stock content for the branch as it wasn't working.

International Land Rover and Jeep parts supplier - took over their social media, eBay store, amazon store and company website.
Operated the twitter and Facebook accounts before they finally saw the need to employ someone especially for that job and they could finally see the benefits of it

Rewrote all of the product information for on their website because the wording was absolute garbage, increased product range on eBay/Amazon, put together packages of products you'd need to do certain jobs, thus saving customers time and money finding and buying parts individually (brake pads & Discs together with sensors, or timing belt kit/water pump and aux belt etc).
That stuff is easy enough if you've done mechanics for long enough.
For some reason on their main business site they'd never linked products together, the old "if you're buying this you might want to purchase this item here" and they'd never done SEO for their site which I found bizarre.

Then I increased national and international business customer base through the usual contacting and chatting, plus the odd national visit and used social media to showcase what we had, plus the online ordering system on our trade site etc.

Things like taking prepped vehicles out on tour to owners clubs day events around the country, spend weekends at shows to promote and chat to potential retail customers.
People aren't going to spend £2000 on a lift kit for a vehicle if they can't see it in action.


Local independent workshop - increase customer base, create/maintain website, created deals to entice customers in.

I did consider going to another local motor factor to do the same recently because the manager and assistant manager have both left because they spent over a decade there plodding along with no real urgency to grow the sales and a new owner has come in and wants to grow the business and the old staff didn't really have the ideas of how to do it or the drive to try.

Honestly though, I'd rather spend the time with my daughter right now and do my own thing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You’ve given an example here, in shirt sales, that to be honest, shows a level of naivety. Man United don’t earn £65 or whatever they charge for a shirt, for each shirt sold.

Their deal will be with Adidas, a deal which Adidas pay Man United upwards of £75 million a season. I don’t know if United receive any extra on that if certain conditions are met, but even if they did, the vast majority of revenue from the 3.25 million shirts they sell a year, will then go to Adidas.

You’re sneering at people, calling them dense, small minded, having no vision and telling them to crawl back into their small corner of the world.

You’re professing to have vision and business acumen whilst looking down on others with a different view, but displaying a less than basic understanding of a major part of the football business (shirt sales).

By all means, have your opinions, but don’t belittle others for theirs. It may not be how you intend to come across, but I’m seeing more and more words with less and less substance, topped off with insults at anyone with an alternative view.

I’ve said it many times before, this place would be so much better if debates could be kept civil.

For what it’s worth, I can understand the earlier points about not wanting to become too corporate as a football club. I hate going to Old Trafford for that very reason, they’re more Man United Limited than Man United FC. Take the top tiers off Old Trafford and that’s where the core support is, the rest is the market driven support that you’re mentioning.

There’s nothing wrong with people not liking that or wanting Burnley to become like that (on a smaller scale). It’s not narrow or small minded, it’s traditionally what a football club is all about.

What we’re talking about now is the ‘if you can’t beat them, joint them’ type approach - it’s becoming more and more of a necessary evil and that certainly won’t sit comfortably with many - it doesn’t with a lot of fans at the big clubs, I can assure you of that.

Sorry to dig you out on this thread again, I just think that the debate would be much better if we could all avoid the name calling and constant arguments.

People have spent a while now wanting more investment in the club, whinging every transfer window when we don't purchase a number of players for certain positions that they feel needs filling.

New owners rock up with the idea of expanding revenue streams, improving the squad and overall club structure, attracting positive international attention and people suddenly step back, not wanting an increased fan base, don't want revenue streams overhauled, start worrying about values and integrity (they're Mormons, they've got better values and integrity than most) .

Is it small minded to not want a club to grow, improve and thrive?
Yes.

As for shirt sales, I don't know what our contract is with our shirt manufacturer, I don't know what cut we get, but I was giving an example of how easy it can be to generate money because you asked me for more substance.
I provide it and you're calling me out because I don't know the ins and outs of the clubs shirt sales contract.

Utd don't get money from the shirt sales, I know that, however they've got a whacking great big deal worth £750 million over 10 yrs from 2014 with Adidas, plus this enables them to have better sponsorship deals on top of that, which was an additional £53 million a year which Chevrolet...
If we can increase shirt sales, we can then have an improved deal with shirt manufacturers as we'd be more attractive.
Then we can attract better shirt sponsorship deals for both the front chest area and the sleeve.
It's all intertwined, I know that already, but some people can't seem to grasp that.

We either grow the club or we drop back into the championship where people would probably feel safer...right up until the funds start to run out and then they'll moan that the club isn't "Daring to Dream"

That's the long and the short of it.

[mealdeal]

Honestly though, I'd rather spend the time with my daughter right now and do my own thing.

Roger that. I'm not going to lie, I assumed you were the archetypal pub bore, all opinion and no substance. You've set me straight there, fair play and enjoy your retirement.

[KateR]

I am on the fence until we see more information but going right back to your original point then having £56m in the bank and Garlick owning the club is a much better situation than having a large debt to service and Pace in charge should we go down.

I don't think anyone is actually saying this model and what we have is great, equal to or better than what we did have in 2020 and before. No one is saying that this is less risk, the only thing I have read is how certain people view the model we now have since a lot of people were questioning and asking how it could work, or could it improve what we did have.

I think what were facts for me are that the previous owners were never going to spend big money, that for a least two years we have heard they were looking to sell, that the bank balance was increasing. They had a business plan and that was to grow BFC, get PL status, keep it and sell it, in 2008 that was a great plan, it worked, some of it through luck for sure but not many were questioning that model but many did not believe then we would gain and have stable periods in the PL. Many believed once we achieved PL we were in the money and we would be buying all sorts of players and complained when no starts came in, many over the decade have claimed lack of ambition, questioned why we were not buying players and breaking our records window on window. It was a safe sound business plan, not that much risk to the club at all, little risk to the owners who kept growing the bank, reason, because spending tens of millions on single players might have got you a few rungs up the table but no guarantee of European places, which would have been the only way you get your return on the investment.

People wanted more ambition from the owners, well they have it and they don't like that either. AP said he would back SD in the Jan window, that wasn't a lie, he didn't say he would buy any player he wanted at any price, I believe players were identified, they were evaluated and bids made accordingly. We know valuations were not agreed on and we got no one, we all know this has been the BFC way for a long time. I am pretty certain MG will have been the guiding light in the dealings and as a board member protecting his investment, personally it went exactly how I expected it to go, he did not lie, people just read into his words what they wanted to hear and now it's a huge issue for some.

No one is claiming this new model is great, that this new model is no problem and no risk and just as good as the previous safe one because we do have a loan, we don't have as much in the bank. The trade of is that we have a new business model, which may or may not work, it's certainly not a slam dunk to coin a phrase and people are right to be worried. I think everyone agrees that if we go down we are in a much worse position than we would have been, but we are where we are and it's not going to change, it is what it is now, people can worry all they like, it won't change anything

I think what people are saying is exactly what you have put down, wait until you see a little/lot more in terms of what they do, is it working or not, I know I am in the exact same boat with you, but I won't worry about it until something goes wrong. I'm not excited about it either, but I am interested, even intrigued to see what they do and how it works because I was skeptical and I still am skeptical but I recognize these guys deal in this world and that is a crumb of comfort. The other thing I recognize like some here is that there is a vast untapped market out there which the previous owners never went after and I don't think they ever would have.

[Chester Perry]

most shirt deals pay around 5% of the retail price once a threshold of sales has been achieved, we should earn more as we control the retail, which we handle, by common consent, quite badly. Liverpool had to go to court to prove that even though they are receiving less upfront from Nike the 20% commission on all sales, made the deal more profitable.

[Chester Perry]

I don't think anyone is actually saying this model and what we have is great, equal to or better than what we did have in 2020 and before. No one is saying that this is less risk, the only thing I have read is how certain people view the model we now have since a lot of people were questioning and asking how it could work, or could it improve what we did have.

I think what were facts for me are that the previous owners were never going to spend big money, that for a least two years we have heard they were looking to sell, that the bank balance was increasing. They had a business plan and that was to grow BFC, get PL status, keep it and sell it, in 2008 that was a great plan, it worked, some of it through luck for sure but not many were questioning that model but many did not believe then we would gain and have stable periods in the PL. Many believed once we achieved PL we were in the money and we would be buying all sorts of players and complained when no starts came in, many over the decade have claimed lack of ambition, questioned why we were not buying players and breaking our records window on window. It was a safe sound business plan, not that much risk to the club at all, little risk to the owners who kept growing the bank, reason, because spending tens of millions on single players might have got you a few rungs up the table but no guarantee of European places, which would have been the only way you get your return on the investment.

People wanted more ambition from the owners, well they have it and they don't like that either. AP said he would back SD in the Jan window, that wasn't a lie, he didn't say he would buy any player he wanted at any price, I believe players were identified, they were evaluated and bids made accordingly. We know valuations were not agreed on and we got no one, we all know this has been the BFC way for a long time. I am pretty certain MG will have been the guiding light in the dealings and as a board member protecting his investment, personally it went exactly how I expected it to go, he did not lie, people just read into his words what they wanted to hear and now it's a huge issue for some.

No one is claiming this new model is great, that this new model is no problem and no risk and just as good as the previous safe one because we do have a loan, we don't have as much in the bank. The trade of is that we have a new business model, which may or may not work, it's certainly not a slam dunk to coin a phrase and people are right to be worried. I think everyone agrees that if we go down we are in a much worse position than we would have been, but we are where we are and it's not going to change, it is what it is now, people can worry all they like, it won't change anything

I think what people are saying is exactly what you have put down, wait until you see a little/lot more in terms of what they do, is it working or not, I know I am in the exact same boat with you, but I won't worry about it until something goes wrong. I'm not excited about it either, but I am interested, even intrigued to see what they do and how it works because I was skeptical and I still am skeptical but I recognize these guys deal in this world and that is a crumb of comfort. The other thing I recognize like some here is that there is a vast untapped market out there which the previous owners never went after and I don't think they ever would have.

The comforting thing is that both sets of owners had a strategy the last ones had the discipline adhered to it the current ones are showing discipline by adhering to theirs, we know this because both have been able to say no when they have been asked to stump up more for what they were trying to achieve,

[kentonclaret]

What many on here are agreed on is that the modus operandi of using analytical software and algorithms to scour the football globe and identify transfer targets at an early stage, develop them, and then sell them on for profit will be a completely different way of working. It remains to be seen how our manager adapts to this new role and how successful it will be. Thomas Franck at Brentford operates in a completely different way to Sean Dyche for example.

[Chester Perry]

What many on here are agreed on is that the modus operandi of using analytical software and algorithms to scour the football globe and identify transfer targets at an early stage, develop them, and then sell them on for profit will be a completely different way of working. It remains to be seen how our manager adapts to this new role and how successful it will be. Thomas Franck at Brentford operates in a completely different way to Sean Dyche for example.

It has to be only part of the plan, there is much else to be done

[daveisaclaret]

I think we should expand revenue streams.

[DCWat]

People have spent a while now wanting more investment in the club, whinging every transfer window when we don't purchase a number of players for certain positions that they feel needs filling.

New owners rock up with the idea of expanding revenue streams, improving the squad and overall club structure, attracting positive international attention and people suddenly step back, not wanting an increased fan base, don't want revenue streams overhauled, start worrying about values and integrity (they're Mormons, they've got better values and integrity than most) .

Is it small minded to not want a club to grow, improve and thrive?
Yes.

As for shirt sales, I don't know what our contract is with our shirt manufacturer, I don't know what cut we get, but I was giving an example of how easy it can be to generate money because you asked me for more substance.
I provide it and you're calling me out because I don't know the ins and outs of the clubs shirt sales contract.

Utd don't get money from the shirt sales, I know that, however they've got a whacking great big deal worth £750 million over 10 yrs from 2014 with Adidas, plus this enables them to have better sponsorship deals on top of that, which was an additional £53 million a year which Chevrolet...
If we can increase shirt sales, we can then have an improved deal with shirt manufacturers as we'd be more attractive.
Then we can attract better shirt sponsorship deals for both the front chest area and the sleeve.
It's all intertwined, I know that already, but some people can't seem to grasp that.

We either grow the club or we drop back into the championship where people would probably feel safer...right up until the funds start to run out and then they'll moan that the club isn't "Daring to Dream"

That's the long and the short of it.

Perfect response, no digs or name calling

The one point I would counter is that it’s not small minded to not want the club to grow. It may lack a level of ambition but it isn’t small minded.

Someone may live in a one bed flat, be perfectly happy, content and have no desire to move to somewhere bigger, that’s not small minded.

There’s many a fan that has dropped their clubs because of the commercialisation of football and all that brings with it. Football is continuing to change and there’s nothing wrong with people not liking it - it’s a difficult position to be placed in; when you don’t like or even want what is happening but have strong emotional and historical ties to what is being changed.

I’m not against changes (within reason) and I’m very intrigued to see how all of this pans out, but I’m both a little sceptical and nervous.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Roger that. I'm not going to lie, I assumed you were the archetypal pub bore, all opinion and no substance. You've set me straight there, fair play and enjoy your retirement.

Unfortunately I'm not old enough or rich enough to retire, I'm still only 40

I still work full time, just doing whatever job I fancy doing, but around the times I see my daughter.

[DCWat]

It has to be only part of the plan, there is much else to be done

If it proves successful, it may bring benefits to us in the short to medium term, but presumably, the longer term plan is to sell it on. Surely at this point the benefits would be diluted as we would have competition from other users and there would be no benefit to Burnley from sales, would there?

[kentonclaret]

"It has to be only part of the plan, there is much else to be done"

Alan Pace himself admits to being heavily involved in software algorithms and the analytical assessment of players.

In August 2020 ALK invested in 2 London-based football technology firms, AiScout and Player LENS. Both of these companies are involved in data analytics and predictive assessment of players.

Rather than just being a part of the plan I would suggest that it is the core part of the plan.

[fatboy47]

Nowt wrong wi' a bit of international marketing for us small fish.

Can't move in Mumbai for all the hordes of Rovers shirts.

[fatboy47]

"It has to be only part of the plan, there is much else to be done"

Alan Pace himself admits to being heavily involved in software algorithms and the analytical assessment of players.

He'll need to be heavily involved in alchemy, or a magician if he's thinking of turning BFC into a global brand.

All opinions....mine being that there's one or two people on here been at the 'shrooms.

[Vegas Claret]

I can see what they want to do, I have ideas about how it's feasible.

If we sold an extra 10k shirts at £40 a pop that's £400k alone.
The USA alone is a massive market, then add that to the far east...
Marketed correctly and we could cover those loan repayments just through shirt sales alone.

On a planet of 7-8 billion people we should be able to do that quite easily as we are in the most marketed league in the world and we get paid to be part of that league...

Integrity and values can still be the same, we just have to make more money to ensure the club remains competitive and the squad is improved upon.

Sneering at the idea of having a world wide fan base and not wanting them to visit TM isn't arrogance from me, that's you sunshine.

I find the whole project exciting, especially the business side of it and the potential market/sales opportunities.

You crawl back into your small corner of the world though and barricade yourself in if it makes you feel safer.

On the assumption that the USA would be the main market then our style of football, pace at which we play would need to be improved. Nothing turns off American sports fans than dull games (although Baseball is the absolute antithesis of that)

[Chester Perry]

People are confusing the Club and ALK as to who owns AI Scout and Player Lens - they are both owned by ALK (at least in part) not the club- ALK also own the club. The club may help as a proving ground for the technology and it's development and may benefit from that, everything I am seeing and hearing suggests that this is intended for a group of clubs either related by ownership or partnership not necessarily for the commercial market , at least on the AI Scout side - so far Player Lens is a very different animal, that could be developed as it's own autonomous platform.

None of this detracts from the need to develop the club on the matchday, retail and commercial front, there are no end of infrastructure and organisational improvements that could be made and the Academy still needs to shift up a gear or two, the progress on that front has been both rapid and clear, there is obviously a well considered plan at work there with more to come it would seem.

[Devils_Advocate]

Can either service the debt at 8m year ( using that figure someone mentioned above ) by staying in the prem whilst also trying to increase revenue
Or once down, sell Tarky, Pope, McNeil and any other prized asset to then be debt free, and not need to finance the 8m per season.

Only thing clear was the last plan ( term used lightly ) wasnt working so we have rolled the dice.

The board members who we are regularly told are big fans, care more about the club than you and I, and only want the best for the club have decided these people and their plans/ strategy, and the way they have done it were the best men for the job..

There's nothing we can do now, only give them a chance.

Im ignoring the bits i've highlighted in red as im just trying to discuss our views and I have never been one to make a case either way for if Garlick or any of our over directors are good people and fans. I agree with you that these people who build them up as saints rather than business men are a bit silly so whether its Kilby, Garlick or Pace I look at the results we produce and not the morality of the person behind it.

Also this give them a chance means nothing to me as again I dont prejudge anyone good or bad so its not a case of giving them a chance or piling on to them for me but wait and see. That said there's nothing wrong with people discussing whats going on even of some do go to the extremes at both side

So that leaves me with what you actually said that is relevant to our discussion and again I dont think you are representing the situation fairly and accurately. The bit about once down we can sell off our assets to pay off the debt is potentially a big disadvantage to if we went down with Garlick still in charge with no debt and £50m in the bank.

With no debt and money in the bank we can afford to keep onto our good players and if we have to sell some because they have outgrown us then we can invest in players to get us back up. Its what happened last time we went down where we kept a lot of players and were able to spend what was a lot of money at the time for us and the Championship on Gray who was key to getting us up that season.

If we go down and sell all our best players to pay off the debt and lower the wage bill then the chances of us being in a position to bounce back is a lot less likely.

Now all the above is based on going down and that might not happen. My view is we are less likely to go down under the new ownership than under Garlick so I can understand for some people that being braver and rolling the dice to stay up is a preferred option.

I just remember over the last 5 or 6 years how one of the things most Burnley fans stood behind was that w are going to go down eventually and when we do lets not end up like a Bolton or a Portsmouth. Well rolling the dice does now put us in a position whereby a few bad decisions and some mistakes thats where we could end up.

In summary for me it seems that we are taking a bit of a risk that we can leverage the club in the short term to build for a better and stronger future but at the risk of if we do go down we may run into some serious financial trouble.

How it will pan out who knows and which one of the two options you prefer is down to personal preference. Im still no real feeling or care for which of the two strategys I prefer so I really am the archetypal wait and see person but the bit I like is the discussion and debate. Whether it be the interesting sensible stuff, the people who are either ridiculously positive or ridiculously negative or those who just like a good old argument it definitely makes this board a bit more interesting to read

[dandeclaret]

A small thinking one yes.

Think bigger, that's what any business has to do to grow.
Burnley haven't done for a while in regards to revenue growth and they've been missing out as a result.

You make it sound so easy, as though Burnley were run by a couple of lads who set up a corner shop. They were ran by very successful businessmen, who made far more correct decisions, than wrong in their tenure. There's a difference between thinking big, and being able to deliver big. Plenty in football have thought big, very few have delivered big.

[Winstonswhite]

You make it sound so easy, as though Burnley were run by a couple of lads who set up a corner shop. They were ran by very successful businessmen, who made far more correct decisions, than wrong in their tenure. There's a difference between thinking big, and being able to deliver big. Plenty in football have thought big, very few have delivered big.

Well said. People bang on about increasing commercial revenue like it’s some new idea that hasn’t been tried by numerous professional people over the last twenty years.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You make it sound so easy, as though Burnley were run by a couple of lads who set up a corner shop. They were ran by very successful businessmen, who made far more correct decisions, than wrong in their tenure. There's a difference between thinking big, and being able to deliver big. Plenty in football have thought big, very few have delivered big.

Yes they've been successful and kudos to them for that and how they've ran Burnley very well under their tenure.

However, it's worth noting that Garlick was still running his other business whilst also looking after the club.

Pace has moved here specifically to run the club.
The new lot will have contacts that the old lot didn't have, especially the bloke who was in charge at Madison Square Gardens.
They'll have a different mindset and approach.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Well said. People bang on about increasing commercial revenue like it’s some new idea that hasn’t been tried by numerous professional people over the last twenty years.

Burnley are doing the basics, for most things, and nothing for other stuff.

[Leisure]

Please can someone in the know comment on this?

Burnley fc do not have a large debt. Burnley fc haven’t borrowed any money.! The debt is with ultimate parent. If they went bust we would then be owned by a company controlled by a man with a personal net worth of 41 billion dollars.

[Winstonswhite]

Burnley are doing the basics, for most things, and nothing for other stuff.

Ok. If you say so.

[NottsClaret]

He'll need to be heavily involved in alchemy, or a magician if he's thinking of turning BFC into a global brand.

All opinions....mine being that there's one or two people on here been at the 'shrooms.

I'd concur with this. We're temporary members of a big league. We've as much global appeal as say Cadiz in Spain or Bielefeld in Germany.. ie making up the numbers for the big clubs to play. Anyone travelling the world to see those teams play? Selling many shirts in Singapore?

If anyone thinks there's untapped millions out there, that'll pay the £9m interest every year on our new mortgage, then fair do's.

[dandeclaret]

Yes they've been successful and kudos to them for that and how they've ran Burnley very well under their tenure.

However, it's worth noting that Garlick was still running his other business whilst also looking after the club.

Pace has moved here specifically to run the club.
The new lot will have contacts that the old lot didn't have, especially the bloke who was in charge at Madison Square Gardens.
They'll have a different mindset and approach.

The Club had a highly rated CEO (until recently) to run the business - full time. Now we still have a CEO, but probably not with the same experience as his predecessor. There's also a fill time commercial department tasked with getting sponsors. Of course, the new men may bring better contacts for sponsorship, and it may pay off, but equally, they may yield nothing, as sponsoring stuff in the premier league is expensive - and bang for buck if you're not on prime time TV slots in relevant countries (Hello 12:30 Saturday - never on) is very difficult.

They may have a different mindset, in fact, I don't doubt they do. I reiterate my first point though, plenty have thought big, and been unable to deliver. Their mantra has also been evolution, not revolution. Remember where a lot of this stems from. If is the biggest word in football, but IF the loan from MSD / Dell at 80 - 90m is correct, and IF it's got an interest rate of 9.5% ish, then in order to pay the £8-£9m in annual interest, revenues outside of TV rights, is going to have to pretty much double (pre tax) to pay for it. If there's to be more money to invest in the club, then it's going to need trebling +. And that's before the full time employees at the club have taken a salary. That is not impossible, it's often easy in a growth market, but in a saturated market, with a club at / above the absolute top of it's current abilities / potential, that is going to be tough. It will take a lot of work to develop abilities to grow that potential. It's easy to think big, but as I said, it's not easy to deliver big.

[dandeclaret]

Please can someone in the know comment on this?

Burnley fc do not have a large debt. Burnley fc haven’t borrowed any money.! The debt is with ultimate parent. If they went bust we would then be owned by a company controlled by a man with a personal net worth of 41 billion dollars.

The club may end up in that position Leisure, but the question is - does he want it?

If Barclays reposess a house, that house is owned by a company with a net worth of, at a guess, a hundred billion. But when they get the house, they don't send a decorator round to paper the walls to their taste.

[Chester Perry]

Im ignoring the bits i've highlighted in red as im just trying to discuss our views and I have never been one to make a case either way for if Garlick or any of our over directors are good people and fans. I agree with you that these people who build them up as saints rather than business men are a bit silly so whether its Kilby, Garlick or Pace I look at the results we produce and not the morality of the person behind it.

Also this give them a chance means nothing to me as again I dont prejudge anyone good or bad so its not a case of giving them a chance or piling on to them for me but wait and see. That said there's nothing wrong with people discussing whats going on even of some do go to the extremes at both side

So that leaves me with what you actually said that is relevant to our discussion and again I dont think you are representing the situation fairly and accurately. The bit about once down we can sell off our assets to pay off the debt is potentially a big disadvantage to if we went down with Garlick still in charge with no debt and £50m in the bank.

With no debt and money in the bank we can afford to keep onto our good players and if we have to sell some because they have outgrown us then we can invest in players to get us back up. Its what happened last time we went down where we kept a lot of players and were able to spend what was a lot of money at the time for us and the Championship on Gray who was key to getting us up that season.

If we go down and sell all our best players to pay off the debt and lower the wage bill then the chances of us being in a position to bounce back is a lot less likely.

Now all the above is based on going down and that might not happen. My view is we are less likely to go down under the new ownership than under Garlick so I can understand for some people that being braver and rolling the dice to stay up is a preferred option.

I just remember over the last 5 or 6 years how one of the things most Burnley fans stood behind was that w are going to go down eventually and when we do lets not end up like a Bolton or a Portsmouth. Well rolling the dice does now put us in a position whereby a few bad decisions and some mistakes thats where we could end up.

In summary for me it seems that we are taking a bit of a risk that we can leverage the club in the short term to build for a better and stronger future but at the risk of if we do go down we may run into some serious financial trouble.

How it will pan out who knows and which one of the two options you prefer is down to personal preference. Im still no real feeling or care for which of the two strategys I prefer so I really am the archetypal wait and see person but the bit I like is the discussion and debate. Whether it be the interesting sensible stuff, the people who are either ridiculously positive or ridiculously negative or those who just like a good old argument it definitely makes this board a bit more interesting to read

The difficulty for some to comprehend (or accept) is that the club is being leveraged for the talent in the boardroom, and not to invest in the club in a financial sense that the majority of us would understand. The challenge is for that talent, having effectively removed the ability to leverage the assets of the club to invest in their strategy and having no known additional monies to invest is to find a revenue uplift to do so (or investment partners - hence the talk of a partial flip). This follows the same paths of Checketts previous two attempts at owning a sports franchise, he ultimately failed in both (though both were in better positions structurally and organisationally on his exit), he performed much better on the second effort but ultimately found he could not finance his plans and had to step aside, the first time he was forced to sell up by the league. Time will tell if enough relevant lessons have been learnt and are suitable to be applied to English Football

I have repeatedly spoken against debt in football, though I fully accept that it is an important tool for business development (as has been clearly detailed by KateR and aggi a number of times), I would be less apprehensive if the debt was being used to to invest in projects that would lead to a planned increase in revenues such as stand or retail development. This debt and reduction of the cash holding is a the cost of bringing a willingness for a different kind of risk to the boardroom combined with a wider range of talents. That seems an expensive burden, if you wanted the talents at executive level you could argue that the £6m+ we are hearing is the cost of servicing the interest on the debt could have been spent on recruiting that talent and vision. Of course that would still leave Mike Garlick as Chairman, and it has seemed apparent that would encourage the manager to leave at the opportunity and whim of his choosing with a reportedly toxic atmosphere seeping through the club in the meantime.

For now the manager has got his wish on the player contract front, and seems content to be working with a different person, he has effectively been given the power to dethrone the board and with so much resting on his shoulders from a performance and marketing perspective you wonder what may happen if he becomes unhappy with the limitations of the club?

There is much to ponder, much to wish for and much to worry about, we have had our sliding doors trigger event and now must watch on and hope for a happy ending

[dsr]

Please can someone in the know comment on this?

Burnley fc do not have a large debt. Burnley fc haven’t borrowed any money.! The debt is with ultimate parent. If they went bust we would then be owned by a company controlled by a man with a personal net worth of 41 billion dollars.

It's not true. If the parent company went bust then we would be owned by a bankrupt company and Burnley FC would be legally obliged to pay at least some of that company's debts. That parent company's administrators would sell the assets (ie. Burnley FC) to the highest bidders, regardless of who they are, unless money was still owed to Garlick in which he would get the shares back for nothing.

The $41bn owner would have no obligation to do anything apart from appoint the liquidators.

[Stockbrokerbelt]

We all need to take into account this has been stirred up by a US lawyer who is representing the Newcastle buy out group, it pays them to make suggestions & muddy the water in their battle with the PL.

[aggi]

You make it sound so easy, as though Burnley were run by a couple of lads who set up a corner shop. They were ran by very successful businessmen, who made far more correct decisions, than wrong in their tenure. There's a difference between thinking big, and being able to deliver big. Plenty in football have thought big, very few have delivered big.

The New York Times journalist made a similar (slightly sarcastic) point

[aggi]

Please can someone in the know comment on this?

Burnley fc do not have a large debt. Burnley fc haven’t borrowed any money.! The debt is with ultimate parent. If they went bust we would then be owned by a company controlled by a man with a personal net worth of 41 billion dollars.

It's possibly true.

The debt has security over BFC Holdings. BFC Holdings' main asset is the shares in the football club. If the debt was defaulted on then it is possible that they would take the shares and effectively own the club. They may think they could build the value up and make a profit on sale or maybe MSD have always wanted to own a football club (although this seems unlikely or else they'd have probably bought one).

On the other hand, they also have security over the ground, training ground, trade receivable and other debts (likely to be TV money, money owed on player sales, etc) and that is likely to be an easier route to getting their money back.

Like most of this discussion, anything that is presented as a certainty is probably wrong to some extent.

[KRBFC]

People have spent a while now wanting more investment in the club, whinging every transfer window when we don't purchase a number of players for certain positions that they feel needs filling.

But what you're missing is ALK don't have the money to invest in the squad, they don't even have the money to buy their own shares.