ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Nori1958]

We've got a lot of clues. Just no answers.

Well put

[Paul Waine]

The possibility is that someone paid them £88m for a share of the holding company of Burnley FC and that the original owners, Pace and friends, are going to take it out in cash dividends.

Basically, Pace and co may have sold part of the company to some more profit-seekers but the club itself doesn't get any profit, in the same was as the club itself didn't profit financially (quite the reverse!) when Garlick sold his shares to Pace.

I'm only guessing, but I think it fits the facts as known.

Hi dsr,

No one has paid £88 million for 1 share. We know that ALK Capital LLC and Velocity Sports Partners LLC are the two entities that own Kettering Capital, Calder Vale and almost all the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited. We know that Velocity Sports Partners LLC exists to enable US investors to invest in the corporate structure, while Alan Pace and colleagues own ALK Capital LLC - and are the managers of the corporate structure. We know that it was Alan Pace's intention to attract investors into VSP (US) and, as CP has stated, these investors most likely were not added as quickly and easily as we guess Alan Pace et al hoped. (We shouldn't forget that covid-19 was still full on when ALK bought the club). We have been introduced to a small number of investors in Velocity Sports Partners LLC, Maurice Jenkins, J and Kealia Watt, Dude Perfect. The Mission to Burnley documentary hinted at some other investors, not least with the clip it showed of Vincent Kompany reporting to a group of people on a video call, plus the mention of some incoming cash that changed the balance outstanding on the new £40 m (approx) loan that replaced the remaining balance on loan from MSD.

So, we know that some investors have joined VSP (US) - but we don't know how much has been invested. We also should understand that investors in VSP (US) can choose to remain private and confidential. They've no need to declare that they are an investor - or how much they have invested.

It is perfectly possible that the £88 million that was paid for one share in Kettering Capital - and the same £88 million that was paid for one share in Calder Vale - represents some or all of the investments made by a number of individuals in VSP (US).

We recall that BFCHL accounts for year end 31st July 2022 included £115 million owed by related parties to BFCHL group. The accounts discuss the "Recoverability of group balances" (page 27) - this was in the context that Calder Vale/Kettering didn't at the time, absent reporting their own financial accounts, appear to have £115 million to repay the debt. (As we know, BFCHL accounts said that BFCHL could pay dividends to Calder Vale and so recover the loan by the declaration of dividends.

The club were active in the most recent transfer window. The club had also arranged a working capital facility with Macquarrie (no amounts specified so far as I recall). No doubt the club has spent money and taken on further commitments with the transfer activity.

We won't see the club's 31st July 2023 until April/May 2024. During the period while these accounts are being prepared and audited it would be normal for discussion to take place once more into the "recoverability of group balances." No doubt these discussions will be more easily concluded satisfactorily given that Calder Vale is now holding £88 million. (Remember also that the Premier League now require to receive the audited accounts by 31st December, rather than 31st March).

[Paul Waine]

On the other hand, dividends can be paid to one or more class of shareholders and exclude other classes, or shareholders can waive their dividends. If the owners don't make anything clear, then we can only guess. When £88m is sloshing about, who knows what complexities might help save tax or get round other legal difficulties.

Sorry, dsr, what you say is not correct. The rights of shareholders of different classes of shares is as determined when those shares are created. No shareholders can be excluded if their shares given them a right to ordinary dividends. The structure set up by Alan Pace, including both ALK Capital (US) and Velocity Sports Partnership (US) is set up to manage US tax requirements plus UK tax requirements - and all legally.

[Paul Waine]

Is it fair to say again, nobody on here has a clue what's going on??

Lots of clues, Nori. I've tried (above) to provide a few answers - and exclude some of the more "imaginative speculations."

[Big Vinny K]

Is it fair to say again, nobody on here has a clue what's going on??

I’d say it’s fairer to say that some have more of a clue than others !
But get your point that there’s lots of unknowns.

Setting their companies up in Delaware was a big clue that it was always going to be difficult to get some of the background details of the initial deal, directors etc.

It’s a shame that the club owners do not provide an update on the big transactions like the £88m. I get some investors might want to keep certain things confidential but they could still provide some detail without disclosing specifics. If we have for example found new investment then why not share what is presumably good news ?

[ClaretPete001]

Hi dsr,

No one has paid £88 million for 1 share. We know that ALK Capital LLC and Velocity Sports Partners LLC are the two entities that own Kettering Capital, Calder Vale and almost all the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited. We know that Velocity Sports Partners LLC exists to enable US investors to invest in the corporate structure, while Alan Pace and colleagues own ALK Capital LLC - and are the managers of the corporate structure. We know that it was Alan Pace's intention to attract investors into VSP (US) and, as CP has stated, these investors most likely were not added as quickly and easily as we guess Alan Pace et al hoped. (We shouldn't forget that covid-19 was still full on when ALK bought the club). We have been introduced to a small number of investors in Velocity Sports Partners LLC, Maurice Jenkins, J and Kealia Watt, Dude Perfect. The Mission to Burnley documentary hinted at some other investors, not least with the clip it showed of Vincent Kompany reporting to a group of people on a video call, plus the mention of some incoming cash that changed the balance outstanding on the new £40 m (approx) loan that replaced the remaining balance on loan from MSD.

So, we know that some investors have joined VSP (US) - but we don't know how much has been invested. We also should understand that investors in VSP (US) can choose to remain private and confidential. They've no need to declare that they are an investor - or how much they have invested.

It is perfectly possible that the £88 million that was paid for one share in Kettering Capital - and the same £88 million that was paid for one share in Calder Vale - represents some or all of the investments made by a number of individuals in VSP (US).

We recall that BFCHL accounts for year end 31st July 2022 included £115 million owed by related parties to BFCHL group. The accounts discuss the "Recoverability of group balances" (page 27) - this was in the context that Calder Vale/Kettering didn't at the time, absent reporting their own financial accounts, appear to have £115 million to repay the debt. (As we know, BFCHL accounts said that BFCHL could pay dividends to Calder Vale and so recover the loan by the declaration of dividends.

The club were active in the most recent transfer window. The club had also arranged a working capital facility with Macquarrie (no amounts specified so far as I recall). No doubt the club has spent money and taken on further commitments with the transfer activity.

We won't see the club's 31st July 2023 until April/May 2024. During the period while these accounts are being prepared and audited it would be normal for discussion to take place once more into the "recoverability of group balances." No doubt these discussions will be more easily concluded satisfactorily given that Calder Vale is now holding £88 million. (Remember also that the Premier League now require to receive the audited accounts by 31st December, rather than 31st March).

Hi Paul, I am right in assuming you are saying that in your view this is the group putting £88 million into Calder Vale to appease the auditors requirement to see evidence that the club is a going concern due to the size of the intercompany loans generated when ALK took cash out of the club and the MSD loan to buy it.

And there is little evidence as to where it has come from other than we know the club receives advanced broadcast revenue and has additional bank loans etc.

But at this point there is little to no evidence of substantive external investment?

[Nori1958]

I’d say it’s fairer to say that some have more of a clue than others !
But get your point that there’s lots of unknowns.

Setting their companies up in Delaware was a big clue that it was always going to be difficult to get some of the background details of the initial deal, directors etc.

It’s a shame that the club owners do not provide an update on the big transactions like the £88m. I get some investors might want to keep certain things confidential but they could still provide some detail without disclosing specifics. If we have for example found new investment then why not share what is presumably good news ?

I think the owners only tell what they have to, the rest is nobody elses business..... After all.... And several pages... Even the "experts" don't agree with what may, or may not have gone on, and if it is actually good news or not

Intriguing I admit, but history shows it may have to stay at that for some considerable time

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul, I am right in assuming you are saying that in your view this is the group putting £88 million into Calder Vale to appease the auditors requirement to see evidence that the club is a going concern due to the size of the intercompany loans generated when ALK took cash out of the club and the MSD loan to buy it.

And there is little evidence as to where it has come from other than we know the club receives advanced broadcast revenue and has additional bank loans etc.

But at this point there is little to no evidence of substantive external investment?

Hi Pete, can you clarify what you are asking/saying?

Why do you mention "advanced broadcast revenue an additional bank loans?" Broadcast revenue is paid by the Premier League to the club. The £88 million paid into Kettering Capital and from KC to Calder Vale has come from their respective shareholders.

What do you mean "there is little to no evidence of substantive external investment?" We know of a number of investors (other than Alan Pace et al) since we were first introduced to Malcolm Jenkins (in Nov 2021, wasn't it). I've named some above. It's likely that the new board director, Vlad Torgovnik, also indicates a new investor. We've now seen any money flow from Velocity Sports Partnership LLC when each of Malcolm Jenkins, JJ and Kealia Watt and Dude Perfect were announced as investors. It's very likely that the £88 million represents some of the money invested by the investors we know, plus a number of others that we don't know. For illustration, if there are 20 investors and they each invest US$5 million (dollars because these guys are in US), then that is $100 million. I'd call that "substantial" (I'm proposing that "substantial" is a more meaningful term than "substantive" when we are speaking of £88 million investment in Kettering Capital and Calder Vale).

I'd argue - absent all the other relevant financial facts in the respective books of account - that £88 million on the balance sheet of Calder Vale will demonstrate to the auditors that the related party loans totalling £115 million are "good." (I'm not sure where in the relevant accounting and auditing standards that says that auditors can be "appeased").

[aggi]

Hi Paul, I am right in assuming you are saying that in your view this is the group putting £88 million into Calder Vale to appease the auditors requirement to see evidence that the club is a going concern due to the size of the intercompany loans generated when ALK took cash out of the club and the MSD loan to buy it.

And there is little evidence as to where it has come from other than we know the club receives advanced broadcast revenue and has additional bank loans etc.

But at this point there is little to no evidence of substantive external investment?

I can't speak for Paul but I don't think this is a particular issue from a going concern perspective. The club has been promoted which means a hefty uptick in revenue with an increase in costs that won't be matched by an increase in costs at the moment.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi Pete, can you clarify what you are asking/saying?

Why do you mention "advanced broadcast revenue an additional bank loans?" Broadcast revenue is paid by the Premier League to the club. The £88 million paid into Kettering Capital and from KC to Calder Vale has come from their respective shareholders.

What do you mean "there is little to no evidence of substantive external investment?" We know of a number of investors (other than Alan Pace et al) since we were first introduced to Malcolm Jenkins (in Nov 2021, wasn't it). I've named some above. It's likely that the new board director, Vlad Torgovnik, also indicates a new investor. We've now seen any money flow from Velocity Sports Partnership LLC when each of Malcolm Jenkins, JJ and Kealia Watt and Dude Perfect were announced as investors. It's very likely that the £88 million represents some of the money invested by the investors we know, plus a number of others that we don't know. For illustration, if there are 20 investors and they each invest US$5 million (dollars because these guys are in US), then that is $100 million. I'd call that "substantial" (I'm proposing that "substantial" is a more meaningful term than "substantive" when we are speaking of £88 million investment in Kettering Capital and Calder Vale).

I'd argue - absent all the other relevant financial facts in the respective books of account - that £88 million on the balance sheet of Calder Vale will demonstrate to the auditors that the related party loans totalling £115 million are "good." (I'm not sure where in the relevant accounting and auditing standards that says that auditors can be "appeased").

OK so I take your point about the auditors albeit I think the word 'appease' and 'demonstrate to the auditors' is an issue of semantics but the word appease is a bit loaded.

Vlad Torgovnik is an employee. Malcolm Jenkins and the Watts could afford £5 million but it's a big chunk of their alleged net worth - they aren't billionaires. I'm not sure Dude Perfect's contribution is financial but it could be.

I see little evidence to suggest that there has been substantial investment albeit there could have been. We have names but no amounts.

We know that the club is probably fine for cash because of all the things I mention above. And as Aggi says, promotion and the fact that the intercompany loan has been on the accounts for 2 years and caused relatively little concern because it is just that - an intercompany loan suggests that you maybe right but may not be.

I go back to the big picture diluting your holding in an investment to spend on short term intangible assets is not a great strategy. If it was, as Palace did, to fund a new stadium and increase year on year organic revenue I could get it. That increases the value of the business long term both in terms of capital structure and ongoing revenue.

In 17/18 the revenue was £138 million four years later it was £123 million and we know that the commercial revenue has dropped... (I accept Covid was in-between).

I don't see any signs of exponential growth for clubs like ours in the short to medium term to warrant such a dilution of equity for shareholders (if that is what has happened). Unless, of course the investors are gambling £5 million on profits and divis.

On the other hand, I guess New Claret could be right and this is the new fashionable thing that is exciting people.

I guess to us old fashioned business is business types it's all a mystery.

[dsr]

There's only one class of share and they are all owned by the same entity so couldn't be waived.

I'm fully prepared to believe that the money may not be going down to the club, I just can't see it being brought into the country to go straight back out again.

Chester Perry said (see post on 11.10.23, 10.17 am) that Velocity Sports Ltd. had four categories of share, and that company is one in the chain of holding companies of BFC.

[dsr]

Sorry, dsr, what you say is not correct. The rights of shareholders of different classes of shares is as determined when those shares are created. No shareholders can be excluded if their shares given them a right to ordinary dividends. The structure set up by Alan Pace, including both ALK Capital (US) and Velocity Sports Partnership (US) is set up to manage US tax requirements plus UK tax requirements - and all legally.

I don't think we know what rights the different categories of shares in Velocity Sports have, do we? In any case, if the shareholders agree that they will waive a dividend, there is no problem in doing it. It is perfectly possible that the £88m deal could involve a waiver of dividend. No evidence that it does or it doesn't, but it's possible.

[aggi]

Chester Perry said (see post on 11.10.23, 10.17 am) that Velocity Sports Ltd. had four categories of share, and that company is one in the chain of holding companies of BFC.

But we're talking about Kettering Capital which only has one class and one shareholder. Suggesting that these things could be done in Velocity Sport (a Jersey company) reinforces my point that there would be no point in bringing the money into the UK only to send it straight back out again.

[ClaretPete001]

But we're talking about Kettering Capital which only has one class and one shareholder. Suggesting that these things could be done in Velocity Sport (a Jersey company) reinforces my point that there would be no point in bringing the money into the UK only to send it straight back out again.

If Paul is correct and the auditors are quibbling or wanting a demonstration that the club can meet it's obligations as an ongoing business, however you want to phrase it, over the size of the inter-company loan that would be one reason to do it.

And it may have been related to the solvency notices.

[aggi]

If Paul is correct and the auditors are quibbling or wanting a demonstration that the club can meet it's obligations as an ongoing business, however you want to phrase it, over the size of the inter-company loan that would be one reason to do it.

And it may have been related to the solvency notices.

The solvency notices are a statutory requirement for releasing the share premium reserve, have to be done regardless of the position of the company.

One mechanism for repaying that inter-company loan is by the club making profits and paying dividends which reduce it, it's a bit counter-intuitive but you can assess one element of the recoverability of it without any reference to the assets in Calder Vale/Kettering. Given the current position of the club I struggle to see the club not making profits (both paper and cash) at the moment (unless we are paying massive wages or have decided to pay all transfers up-front, both of which seem unlikely) which gives some comfort.

[dsr]

But we're talking about Kettering Capital which only has one class and one shareholder. Suggesting that these things could be done in Velocity Sport (a Jersey company) reinforces my point that there would be no point in bringing the money into the UK only to send it straight back out again.

We don't have enough information to be sure that there is no benefit to sending money into the UK as capital and back out, possibly to a different destination, as income. Unless we know the tax and other legal rules of both source and destination - wherever they may be - we're just guessing.

If the cash appears in BFC's accounts, then I'll be happy. But don't rely on it because there are other reasons why this may be done.

[Paul Waine]

Vlad Torgovnik is an employee. Malcolm Jenkins and the Watts could afford £5 million but it's a big chunk of their alleged net worth - they aren't billionaires. I'm not sure Dude Perfect's contribution is financial but it could be.

I see little evidence to suggest that there has been substantial investment albeit there could have been. We have names but no amounts.

May I comment on just these little bits, Pete?

BFC announced Vlad Torgovnik as a new member of the board of directors on 2nd August - and, since confirmed with paperwork submitted to Companies House in September. The club's announcement made no mention of Torgovnik becoming an employee. His LinkedIn profile continues to show him as the Chief Information Officer of Millenium in New York.

Agree, Malcolm Jenkins, JJ Watt and Kealia Watt are not billionaires. The whole idea of the investor structure Alan Pace set up is that no one needs to be a billionaire to invest in Burnley via Velocity Sports Partnership LLC. If estimates of JJ Watt's net worth found on google are reasonably accurate, US$5 million invested in BFC would likely be less than 10% of his wealth. Don't forget the Watt's were announced as minority investors in the club.

I don't expect the £88 million represents a single new "substantial investment." It's much more likely to be the results of many small investors investing US$5m (and maybe smaller amounts).

The investment value for BFC will come from the growth in the investment value of all Premier League clubs. That's what US sports investors see in putting their money into English football. English football undervalued relative to the high values of US sports franchises, so opportunity to make bigger returns through investing in English football than they can make in US sports franchises. That's what explains the value of BFC when Mike Garlick, John B and all the other directors at that time sold their shares to Calder Vale. That's what explains the share price offer to BFC small shareholders. Alan Pace and his ALK colleagues aren't diluting their shareholdings and investment opportunity when they bring in investors into Velocity Sports Partnership, that's what the corporate structure was set up to do.

[ClaretPete001]

The solvency notices are a statutory requirement for releasing the share premium reserve, have to be done regardless of the position of the company.

One mechanism for repaying that inter-company loan is by the club making profits and paying dividends which reduce it, it's a bit counter-intuitive but you can assess one element of the recoverability of it without any reference to the assets in Calder Vale/Kettering. Given the current position of the club I struggle to see the club not making profits (both paper and cash) at the moment (unless we are paying massive wages or have decided to pay all transfers up-front, both of which seem unlikely) which gives some comfort.

Indeed but if Paul is correct and this is related to auditors then it may then be required for the solvency notice, which I realise is not a statement of solvency as such but may require the club to take some action related to the intercompany loans.

Just taking Paul's point to some kind of conclusion and also bringing in DSRs.

If it was the case that this is being done for the auditors unrelated to the accounts (because it's been there for 2 years previously) then could it be related to the solvency notice? It would also be a reason why you would ship money in and then out again for want of a better phrase.

I've no idea tbh but it brings a number of the points together in some way.

[Paul Waine]

We don't have enough information to be sure that there is no benefit to sending money into the UK as capital and back out, possibly to a different destination, as income. Unless we know the tax and other legal rules of both source and destination - wherever they may be - we're just guessing.

If the cash appears in BFC's accounts, then I'll be happy. But don't rely on it because there are other reasons why this may be done.

But, we do know the international tax and legal rules, dsr. Believe me, there's no benefit in doing the sort of money shifting that you describe.

[dsr]

But, we do know the international tax and legal rules, dsr. Believe me, there's no benefit in doing the sort of money shifting that you describe.

That's unduly sweeping. If I've sold a share for £88m, are there literally no benefits possible for me in taking the money out of the company? How about the benefit of getting £88m in my bank account?

There is definitely a possible benefit in converting £88m share capital in a company, into £88m distributable income. It means you can take it out.

[ClaretPete001]

Indeed but if Paul is correct and this is related to auditors then it may then be required for the solvency notice, which I realise is not a statement of solvency as such but may require the club to take some action related to the intercompany loans.

Just taking Paul's point to some kind of conclusion and also bringing in DSRs.

If it was the case that this is being done for the auditors unrelated to the accounts (because it's been there for 2 years previously) then could it be related to the solvency notice? It would also be a reason why you would ship money in and then out again for want of a better phrase.

I've no idea tbh but it brings a number of the points together in some way.

On reflection that might be putting the cart before the horse.

[Paul Waine]

That's unduly sweeping. If I've sold a share for £88m, are there literally no benefits possible for me in taking the money out of the company? How about the benefit of getting £88m in my bank account?

There is definitely a possible benefit in converting £88m share capital in a company, into £88m distributable income. It means you can take it out.

My comment was responding to your earlier comment.

If you are now saying that Calder Vale selling a share to Kettering Capital for £88 million including £88 million (less 1 penny) into distributable reserves, then of course I agree that that is a benefit to Calder Vale and the shareholder(s) of Calder Vale. (And, exactly the same if it was Kettering Capital that sold a share to Kettering Capital's shareholder). That isn't what you said in your earlier comment; "sending money into the UK as capital and back out, possibly to a different destination, as income..."

[Nori1958]

Is it fair to say again, nobody on here has a clue what's going on??

Anything to contridict this since yesterday..... I've seen a lot of what, ifs and maybes

[ClaretPete001]

May I comment on just these little bits, Pete?

BFC announced Vlad Torgovnik as a new member of the board of directors on 2nd August - and, since confirmed with paperwork submitted to Companies House in September. The club's announcement made no mention of Torgovnik becoming an employee. His LinkedIn profile continues to show him as the Chief Information Officer of Millenium in New York.

Agree, Malcolm Jenkins, JJ Watt and Kealia Watt are not billionaires. The whole idea of the investor structure Alan Pace set up is that no one needs to be a billionaire to invest in Burnley via Velocity Sports Partnership LLC. If estimates of JJ Watt's net worth found on google are reasonably accurate, US$5 million invested in BFC would likely be less than 10% of his wealth. Don't forget the Watt's were announced as minority investors in the club.

I don't expect the £88 million represents a single new "substantial investment." It's much more likely to be the results of many small investors investing US$5m (and maybe smaller amounts).

The investment value for BFC will come from the growth in the investment value of all Premier League clubs. That's what US sports investors see in putting their money into English football. English football undervalued relative to the high values of US sports franchises, so opportunity to make bigger returns through investing in English football than they can make in US sports franchises. That's what explains the value of BFC when Mike Garlick, John B and all the other directors at that time sold their shares to Calder Vale. That's what explains the share price offer to BFC small shareholders. Alan Pace and his ALK colleagues aren't diluting their shareholdings and investment opportunity when they bring in investors into Velocity Sports Partnership, that's what the corporate structure was set up to do.

Hi Paul, I don't disagree with any of your points but equally, at the same time, while each point is true, the central premise is implausible.

By the way, my point about Vlad Torgovnik is that he is an employee not a wealthy individual person.

The problem is I don't really buy it. You can say that they are undervalued but again big picture - there is a huge difference between investing in US Sports and the English pyramid.

If you take MLS for example, there are 29 teams mostly representing big metropolitan areas miles away from the competition. In the English pyramid, there are 92 teams many in small towns surrounded by lots of competition.

New York has a population of 9 million with two teams neither of whom get attendances as big as ours. I can see that New York City, for example, at some future point could easily get 75,000 in a new purpose built stadium and become a 5 billion dollar franchise playing Man Utd in the World Soccer series with a clantily clad American pop singer called Lady BahBah or something singing at half time their latest hit - Wham bam I fell in love with a Herdwick Ram or whatever it might be - in future times.

I can see New York City funded by the City group and other billionaires exponentially growing. Even me with my limited imagination, techie mindset and old fashioned attitudes can see that....

What I can't see is a football club in a town of 190,000 surrounded by some of the biggest clubs in the world doing the same. I can get on the Accy by pass today and see 3 towns with professional teams: two of them in the top two tiers of the pyramid.

And then you have relegation..... where a club like ours can lose 80 per cent of its income in 3 years.

I feel bad because I just don't have that much imagination...

[Corway]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808)

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul, I don't disagree with any of your points but equally, at the same time, while each point is true, the central premise is implausible.

By the way, my point about Vlad Torgovnik is that he is an employee not a wealthy individual person.

The problem is I don't really buy it. You can say that they are undervalued but again big picture - there is a huge difference between investing in US Sports and the English pyramid.

If you take MLS for example, there are 29 teams mostly representing big metropolitan areas miles away from the competition. In the English pyramid, there are 92 teams many in small towns surrounded by lots of competition.

New York has a population of 9 million with two teams neither of whom get attendances as big as ours. I can see that New York City, for example, at some future point could easily get 75,000 in a new purpose built stadium and become a 5 billion dollar franchise playing Man Utd in the World Soccer series with a clantily clad American pop singer called Lady BahBah or something singing at half time their latest hit - Wham bam I fell in love with a Herdwick Ram or whatever it might be - in future times.

I can see New York City funded by the City group and other billionaires exponentially growing. Even me with my limited imagination, techie mindset and old fashioned attitudes can see that....

What I can't see is a football club in a town of 190,000 surrounded by some of the biggest clubs in the world doing the same. I can get on the Accy by pass today and see 3 towns with professional teams: two of them in the top two tiers of the pyramid.

And then you have relegation..... where a club like ours can lose 80 per cent of its income in 3 years.

I feel bad because I just don't have that much imagination...

Pete, my responses to your comments:

1) Vlad Torgovnik is a director of Burnley FC Holdings Ltd. He is employed by Millenium in New York. He has worked for investment banks and other financial companies in US all his career. I don't know of any information that says he is an investor in ALK/VSL, but there's no reason to think that he isn't wealthy enough to invest in ALK/VSL. There must be a reason why he has recently been appointed as a director of BFCHL. (Do you have any link to BFC that supports your claim that Vlad Torgovnik is an employee of BFC)?

2) You are comparing US soccer teams with English football teams. The US investors in English Premier League clubs are often investors in other sports franchises in the US, NFL, NBA, Baseball, Ice Hockey. It is their view, not mine, that they see investment opportunities in English clubs in the Premier League and those lower in the pyramid that may have aspirations to achieve and hold onto a Premier League place (or maybe there will be future restructuring in English/European football and new growth opportunities will emerge...). Ownership of an English football club is about ownership of an entity in the "all boats will rise" view of the future - or at least, if you do nothing wrong, it won't be your boat that is sinking while the rising tide of valuations of Premier League clubs floats all investable boats upwards.

3) Population of Burnley in 2021 census, 94,700. Yes, I know you've added some other boroughs to get to a population of more than double Burnley's population. Which ones are you adding to reach your number of 190,000?

[NewClaret]

1) Vlad Torgovnik is a director of Burnley FC Holdings Ltd. He is employed by Millenium in New York. He has worked for investment banks and other financial companies in US all his career. I don't know of any information that says he is an investor in ALK/VSL, but there's no reason to think that he isn't wealthy enough to invest in ALK/VSL. There must be a reason why he has recently been appointed as a director of BFCHL. (Do you have any link to BFC that supports your claim that Vlad Torgovnik is an employee of BFC)?

I’ll be amazed if Vlad Torgovnik‘s presence is anything other than it being a condition of investment from Millenium.

[dsr]

All company directors are by definition employees of a company, even if they don't get a salary.

[Paul Waine]

All company directors are by definition employees of a company, even if they don't get a salary.

Not so, dsr.

www.gov.uk/employment-status/director

Director
Company directors run limited companies on behalf of shareholders.

Directors have different rights and responsibilities from employees, and are classed as office holders for tax and National Insurance contribution purposes.

If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights.

[Paul Waine]

I’ll be amazed if Vlad Torgovnik‘s presence is anything other than it being a condition of investment from Millenium.

If Millenium have invested and it's a more significant amount than other investors in VSP (US) then it would be logical to include the appointment of a director. It is possible that Vlad Torgovnik is Millenium's appointed director, however, as he is Millenium's Chief Information Officer VT doesn't appear to have the expected profile of an investment manager that would normally fulfil these roles on behalf of Millenium's investors.

Maybe we should be following Millenium to see if they reference an investment in Premier League football.

[claptrappers_union]

Regarding JJ Watt, it wouldn't surprise me if he has actually invested a substantial amount of money into BFC, but instead, his role is to be an ambassador for the club to influence American sports fans to engage with him; same with Dude Perfect and the youth.

[Sleeping Cat]

Regarding JJ Watt, it wouldn't surprise me if he has actually invested a substantial amount of money into BFC, but instead, his role is to be an ambassador for the club to influence American sports fans to engage with him; same with Dude Perfect and the youth.

I believe it might actually be the opposite. It's very common in the US for high profile celebs to be given equity in companies in exchange for their profile and promotion of the product (not specifically a cash investment). They're called equity partnerships, aimed at utilising celeb profiles to expand a brand into new markets. Might not be the case here, but if the Watts had invested a significant amount I would expect them to want a) greater control over their investment (certainly a position higher than club ambassador) & b) greater recognition of that investment in the public domain than being referred to a minority investor/stakeholder.

The fact he's on talk shows in the US having a bene and talking about Burnley makes me think it's the former.

[dsr]

Not so, dsr.

www.gov.uk/employment-status/director

Director
Company directors run limited companies on behalf of shareholders.

Directors have different rights and responsibilities from employees, and are classed as office holders for tax and National Insurance contribution purposes.

If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights.

For tax and national insurance purposes, there is a distinction between employees and directors, but for accounts purposes directors are also employees. In any case, who cares? Perhaps you're right and the post several days ago used the wrong word employee when it should have said director. So be it.

[ClaretPete001]

Pete, my responses to your comments:

1) Vlad Torgovnik is a director of Burnley FC Holdings Ltd. He is employed by Millenium in New York. He has worked for investment banks and other financial companies in US all his career. I don't know of any information that says he is an investor in ALK/VSL, but there's no reason to think that he isn't wealthy enough to invest in ALK/VSL. There must be a reason why he has recently been appointed as a director of BFCHL. (Do you have any link to BFC that supports your claim that Vlad Torgovnik is an employee of BFC)?

2) You are comparing US soccer teams with English football teams. The US investors in English Premier League clubs are often investors in other sports franchises in the US, NFL, NBA, Baseball, Ice Hockey. It is their view, not mine, that they see investment opportunities in English clubs in the Premier League and those lower in the pyramid that may have aspirations to achieve and hold onto a Premier League place (or maybe there will be future restructuring in English/European football and new growth opportunities will emerge...). Ownership of an English football club is about ownership of an entity in the "all boats will rise" view of the future - or at least, if you do nothing wrong, it won't be your boat that is sinking while the rising tide of valuations of Premier League clubs floats all investable boats upwards.

3) Population of Burnley in 2021 census, 94,700. Yes, I know you've added some other boroughs to get to a population of more than double Burnley's population. Which ones are you adding to reach your number of 190,000?

Hi Paul

1. I didn't say he was an employee of Burnley FC - I said he was an 'employee' not a billionaire. Employees might make a million or two but generally speaking they don't have millions to throw at PL football clubs.

Like you - I don't know. Unlike you - I tend to think employees don't have that kind of money but I could be wrong.

2. I think there are Chinese investors at clubs like Barnsley who bought clubs in the lower tier with the view of using a little investment to exponentially grow the value of the business. You can increase your revenue by 80 per cent by gaining promotion to the PL just as you can lose it by getting relegated.

The issue here is that ALK bought at the top and could flip it now or soon and make tens of millions.

The objection I have to your boats analogy is that it assumes the club will secure a long term future in the PL. Historically speaking this is unlikely for a club like ours but it could happen.

Or alternatively, as you allude, it is possible they intend to develop a sports franchise and buy up lots of clubs and Burnley is just one of them. I think that's a long game and has implications for the club.

3. 190,500 is the figure quoted for Burnley by 'Centre for Cities' and includes Burnley and Pendle

I admit your guess is as good as mine, I just have a sceptics gene. As Rene Descartes, rather dramatically I have to say put it "I will suppose... that some evil demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies to deceive me" - no doubt with a swish of his arm and a furrowing of his 17th century brow.

[ClaretPete001]

I believe it might actually be the opposite. It's very common in the US for high profile celebs to be given equity in companies in exchange for their profile and promotion of the product (not specifically a cash investment). They're called equity partnerships, aimed at utilising celeb profiles to expand a brand into new markets. Might not be the case here, but if the Watts had invested a significant amount I would expect them to want a) greater control over their investment (certainly a position higher than club ambassador) & b) greater recognition of that investment in the public domain than being referred to a minority investor/stakeholder.

The fact he's on talk shows in the US having a bene and talking about Burnley makes me think it's the former.

I tend to agree....

[Chester Perry]

there is still time for month end filings to trickle though, of course, but it would seem strange to change a period end date (for an already late) second set of accounts for ALK Capital Limited and then miss the filling date



as for those ALK owned entities more directly associated with the club there are still no 1st account fillings or 2nd set of accounts filings all of which remain somewhat overdue

ALK Capital Limited's 2nd set of accounts are in the process of being posted at Companies House - much closer to the new filing date then others we know of (though of course it is only 3 weeks since they shoved the period end date out by 3 months. I will say that I am not expecting to much information to be given in them.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

[aggi]

To add to the confusion, Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Limited has just issued a share for £79,293,574.49.

This company has previously been a bit of a curiosity in the structure. It was set up earlier this year rather than at the time of takeover but didn't seem to do much in terms of ownership of other companies.

The initial shares in the company were bought by Velocity Sports Limited (the Jersey Capital that owns Kettering Capital).

No clue as to who has bought the share. It could be Velocity Sports, it could be Calder Vale (tallying with the money that has come in there) or someone entirely different.

I assume we may soon see a reduction in the Share Premium account which may give further clues.

[Big Vinny K]

As you said the transaction amounts are all tallying.
Looks like some restructuring of the various companies but all pointing to a pretty significant new investment (which could also be a few big ones rather than a single investor) and diluting of the existing share holdings.

Said this before but if this does turn out to be new investment I’m not really sure why the owners are not more transparent about this as it sounds like attracting investment was always part of their strategy - so it’s good news. It maybe of course because any new investors want this keeping confidential for now or contractual / commercial reasons for holding back the details.

It was definitely a lot easier to understand our finances under Garlick !!

[gandhisflipflop]

If our competitors know we have money, won’t they put the prices up on players? I’d rather they didn’t know.


Or maybe the Qatari guy has switched his attention from Man Utd to us

[dsr]

As you said the transaction amounts are all tallying.
Looks like some restructuring of the various companies but all pointing to a pretty significant new investment (which could also be a few big ones rather than a single investor) and diluting of the existing share holdings.

Said this before but if this does turn out to be new investment I’m not really sure why the owners are not more transparent about this as it sounds like attracting investment was always part of their strategy - so it’s good news. It maybe of course because any new investors want this keeping confidential for now or contractual / commercial reasons for holding back the details.

It was definitely a lot easier to understand our finances under Garlick !!

But the crucial question still remains - is it a new investment in Burnley FC, or is it a new investment in Alan Pace and friends? None of these documents, so far, indicate cash coming in to BFC so far as I can see.

[Big Vinny K]

But the crucial question still remains - is it a new investment in Burnley FC, or is it a new investment in Alan Pace and friends? None of these documents, so far, indicate cash coming in to BFC so far as I can see.

Who knows ?
With £100m of transfer spend I can see an argument for this being funded within our existing finances based on the spend being allocated over 3 or 4 years and the reduction in the wage bill I believe has been achieved under VK.

But my own view is that for us to afford this level of spend is marginal and probably too much of a risk (spending it all in one window ; potential relegation etc) and that’s why I believe this money is new investment into the club.

Might be completely wrong - I have been before plenty of times !!

[aggi]

Who knows ?
With £100m of transfer spend I can see an argument for this being funded within our existing finances based on the spend being allocated over 3 or 4 years and the reduction in the wage bill I believe has been achieved under VK.

But my own view is that for us to afford this level of spend is marginal and probably too much of a risk (spending it all in one window ; potential relegation etc) and that’s why I believe this money is new investment into the club.

Might be completely wrong - I have been before plenty of times !!

There's also the Macquarie facility based on something like the next 3 years of TV money that would make it less of an immediate risk.

[aggi]

As you said the transaction amounts are all tallying.
Looks like some restructuring of the various companies but all pointing to a pretty significant new investment (which could also be a few big ones rather than a single investor) and diluting of the existing share holdings.

Said this before but if this does turn out to be new investment I’m not really sure why the owners are not more transparent about this as it sounds like attracting investment was always part of their strategy - so it’s good news. It maybe of course because any new investors want this keeping confidential for now or contractual / commercial reasons for holding back the details.

It was definitely a lot easier to understand our finances under Garlick !!

There is a missing £8m between the two which, like everything, may or may not be indicative.

To be fair there was a lot less scrutiny/interest before. Our shareholders under Garlick still involved a significant number of shareholdings by overseas companies.

And going even further back, the directors sold the Turf off to a company based in the British Virgin Isles and it was months until I happened across it and it became public knowledge. Imagine the outcry if that happened now.

[Big Vinny K]

There's also the Macquarie facility based on something like the next 3 years of TV money that would make it less of an immediate risk.

Yep
Still carries the same level of risk though in terms of consequences if we get relegated…in fact probably more given how expensive these kind of facilities usually are.
But if we are taking TV monies early for anywhere near 3 years then this could easily negate the need for new investment to pay for the last transfer window.

Lots of potential variations but we have definitely stepped it up in terms of our spend and how we finance this.

[Paul Waine]

ALK Capital Limited's 2nd set of accounts are in the process of being posted at Companies House - much closer to the new filing date then others we know of (though of course it is only 3 weeks since they shoved the period end date out by 3 months. I will say that I am not expecting to much information to be given in them.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

ALK Capital Limited's accounts for year ended 31st December 2022 are now available to view.

In simple terms "nothing to see here." Company hasn't traded, no income, no profits or losses.

[Paul Waine]

If our competitors know we have money, won’t they put the prices up on players? I’d rather they didn’t know.


Or maybe the Qatari guy has switched his attention from Man Utd to us

Our competitors will know BFC spent money in the summer transfer window, a sizeable amount for BFC. Our competitors will also know that we arranged a facility with Macquarrie secured against Premier League tv money, including parachute payments. The amount Macquarrie will advance will be nowhere near all the tv money it is secured against.

[Chester Perry]

To add to the confusion, Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Limited has just issued a share for £79,293,574.49.

This company has previously been a bit of a curiosity in the structure. It was set up earlier this year rather than at the time of takeover but didn't seem to do much in terms of ownership of other companies.

The initial shares in the company were bought by Velocity Sports Limited (the Jersey Capital that owns Kettering Capital).

No clue as to who has bought the share. It could be Velocity Sports, it could be Calder Vale (tallying with the money that has come in there) or someone entirely different.

I assume we may soon see a reduction in the Share Premium account which may give further clues.

The number is the most intriguing and exacting part in all of this - it reminds me of the sums used to pay off MSD - not in value just the exacting (non rounded number)

[claretandy]

Could it be because the investment was a foreign currency amount?

[randomclaret2]

Could it be because the investment was a foreign currency amount?

$100m ?

[4:20]

Our competitors will know BFC spent money in the summer transfer window, a sizeable amount for BFC. Our competitors will also know that we arranged a facility with Macquarrie secured against Premier League tv money, including parachute payments. The amount Macquarrie will advance will be nowhere near all the tv money it is secured against.

Reply number 12345