ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Of course I can see that - the point is that it isn't like some gold standard metric to judge the board as making some grand inroads into making BFC some sort of global player like you seem to make it out to be.

I just referred to an area of growth

That many people don’t understand it isn’t my problem

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I've said before, the (relatively) easy part of social media is getting the engagement. The tricky part, that we have yet to demonstrate, is how to monetise that. It's not just a football issue but it is particularly exaggerated in football as a lot of larger revenue streams by which you can engage with the club are fairly fixed (matchday revenue and tv money).

You can argue that maybe it increases sponsor revenue but last season we had our away shirt sponsored by a non-existent company and this season we're back on the usual gambling companies.

Also, it's not like we're massively outperforming our peers. Instagram/twitter we've got about the same number of followers as Bournemouth or Sunderland, about half as many as Wolves, way fewer than Leicester and absolutely dwarfed by the big clubs.

We started from way back though because our previous owners didn’t want to bother with it

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It is also fair to say that after two years of significant growth in all platforms on social media, follower numbers have almost stayed flat since the summer instead of the previous steady growth

the other thing to remember is that while the growth of our number has been substantial and in multiples - overall in football terms it is still Championship quantity at best

The question remains - just how many have signed up for the reveals of new transfers, a field which others are starting to encroach on, we also cannot keep signing new players at the rate we have been doing in the last 3 windows - that in itself means less of such content - though theoretically should lead to a higher quality of that type of content

We started from way back and grew quickly

We’re having a poor season so that will cause numbers to stagnate

Others have cottoned on to what we do, I agree, so now our social media team need to up their game

It’s been interesting to see what we did and what will happen next

[steve1264b]

Ive just been on Asset Match, can't find our entry, is it me?

Our auction should have started 15 Dec?

[Chester Perry]

Ive just been on Asset Match, can't find our entry, is it me?

Our auction should have started 15 Dec?

I am not finding it either - these are the auctions/markets that are currently open (

https://www.assetmatch.com/app/OurCompanies/

[aggi]

Ive just been on Asset Match, can't find our entry, is it me?

Our auction should have started 15 Dec?

Obviously it also needs people to have put their shares up for sale. That's probably a pretty small pool given the small number of active minority shareholders.

[Paul Waine]

I am not finding it either - these are the auctions/markets that are currently open (

https://www.assetmatch.com/app/OurCompanies/

Interesting to look at Asset Match site. If I understand correctly, of the 63 different auctions listed, 30 of them are historic, i.e. the auctions have already closed, some as far back as 2016/2017. Everton, Arsenal and Tottenham all have assets listed, either shares or debentures. One of the Asset Match team, Stuart Lucas, has posted a blog. He identifies himself as a Tottenham fan and shareholder. He also discusses the money small shareholders have made from their Arsenal shares/debentures.

[dsr]

I’m not worried about inter-company loans. Obviously I have no idea f any of the debts due to the club have been repaid, although the existence of £88m & £80m in the parent companies gives me some hope there’s a lot of cash floating around (of which might be the same cash, but a very healthy sum nevertheless). Even if the original £88m were the total sum, that’s still a lot more than the original debt we took and we know half of that was repaid.

I would be worried about any external debt we may hold, but we don’t know whether we have any so I’m not worrying about that either. I’d very much like and appreciate some more transparency from ALK on that front though, given our impending relegation.

I do accept that investors invest to make money, but surely you also accept the only real way to do that is to nurture and grow the club - or they lose it all. And I’m not really sure what alternative you’re proposing? Fan ownership? All football clubs are owned by investors, we’re no different basically.

I think Alan Pace seems a genuine guy and has made himself accessible to the fans and contributed to a lot of community work. I think we could do a whole lot worse.

Some football clubs (eg. Brighton) are owned by fans who put money into the club. Some (eg. Norwich) are owned by fans who don't put money in but don't take it out either. Still others (eg. Man United) are owned by businessmen who take money out. It's easier to compete in the football world with an owner who puts money in, not takes it out.

As at July 2022 we owed about £66m to third parties - bank and other loans, HP and leases, factored player sales. The equivalent creditor in 2020 was £nil. In the year ended 2022 we paid £8m in interest payments. The equivalent in 2022 was £nil. That's one way the owners are taking money from the club - they have borrowed that money from BFC at zero interest, and made BFC pay interest on the loans BFC had to borrow to fund the directors' own personal spending.

Another way they take out money is by charging fees of £1.5m in year end 2022.

And of course there is the loan of £115m that the directors/owners owe to the football club. I think it's highly unlikely that the club will get any of that back, not least because the holding company doesn't have any assets other than the club. (We presume. As Chester has frequently pointed out, the directors appear to have opted out of all legal requirements to file holding their accounts. Has the holding company pocketed a lot of cash? If so, has any of it come the club's way? The 2023 accounts, already prepared but which won't be released until at least April, might give some clues.)

The best way for an investor is to grow and nurture the club, but if that fails, another way is to sell everything that can be sold and take what cash they can. I am not convinced that they wouldn't do that to maximise profit at the expense of the future of the club. They have taken so much already that I cannot be convinced they won't take more, if it all goes pear-shaped on the field.

[aggi]

We started from way back though because our previous owners didn’t want to bother with it

But we are still at the fundamental issue of how do you monetise it?

Wolves have hundreds of thousands of followers more than we do on social media and there's no talk about how good that is for them and their revenue.

[aggi]

Quite possibly.

But regardless, £88m or £168m are incredible sums of money that at least give question to whether any net debt exists at all. But staggers me that fans talk about debt as if it’s fact when actually we know very little about it, other than, if any does exist, it’s not secured on the club so somebody is taking a huge risk (and therefore must be pretty comfortable with the plans).

Obviously things are pretty opaque due to the non-filing at Kettering and Calder Vale (which is very curious) and the lag in accounts filing.

So far as we are aware, Calder Vale (i.e. ALK) owed the football club £115m.

As at around May 2023, the football club also had external debt of ~ £40m.

This was probably, although not definitively, with Macquarie with Turf Moor, Gawthorpe, etc as security. There is also a further loan facility against future premier league TV money.

It appears that a few months back £88m went into Kettering Capital through a share issue and this was then used to fund a share issue in Calder Vale of the same amount. There is no suggestion either way whether this amount then went into the football club.

There was then a share issue in Velocity Sports (UK) of ~ £80m. Maybe this was new money, maybe this was from Calder Vale. There is no suggestion either way whether this amount then went into the football club.

Recently, the ownership switched from Calder Vale to Velocity Sports (UK), still the same ultimate owner so it is unclear why this is happening.

It is possible that £168m has gone into the club, the loan with Calder Vale has been paid off and the external loan has been paid off. I would be surprised if that was the case.

It is also possible that £80m has gone into the club to fund something.

It is also possible that no further money has gone into the club (which is more in line with the fact that the loan was refinanced with a UK lender and a loan facility was agreed with charges over the club's assets).

when actually we know very little about it, other than, if any does exist, it’s not secured on the club so somebody is taking a huge risk (and therefore must be pretty comfortable with the plans). I'm not sure why you think we know this. There are definitely charges over the club's assets, it just isn't clear what loan they relate to.

[aggi]

What I actually came on here to post was this snippet from twitter today. It was Shaun Harvey being questioned by a select committee about Leeds' ownership and this first paragraph stuck out to me given the current levels of opacity:

[Chester Perry]

What I actually came on here to post was this snippet from twitter today. It was Shaun Harvey being questioned by a select committee about Leeds' ownership and this first paragraph stuck out to me given the current levels of opacity:

For the sake of clarity these questions were asked in early May of 2011 and referred to the Leeds United under the presumed ownership of Ken Bates and Burnley FC under the Chairmanship of Mike Garlick

Serious questions remain despite Bates takeover of Leeds, says MP
Damian Collins claims issue still lacks transparency
'Supporters have a right to know who owns their club'
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ons-remain
https://archive.ph/Yov2Q

[aggi]

For the sake of clarity these questions were asked in early May of 2011 and referred to the Leeds United under the presumed ownership of Ken Bates and Burnley FC under the Chairmanship of Mike Garlick

Ah yes, me explaining that would have made things clearer. Barry Kilby was also one of the ones giving evidence which is why there was reference to Burnley.

[Chester Perry]

What I actually came on here to post was this snippet from twitter today. It was Shaun Harvey being questioned by a select committee about Leeds' ownership and this first paragraph stuck out to me given the current levels of opacity:

A very timely reminder aggi, it just makes the lack of wider curiosity about the situation at our club that bit more bewildering really

of course Shaun Harvey went on to lead the EFL and under his watch we witnesses the financial recklessness at Derby, Sunderland, Bolton and Bury amongst a number of others

When Harvey left the EFL Kieran Maguire launched the Shaun Harvey Appreciation Thread #SHAT to which everyone was invited to list what they thought of his achievements

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 9426355200 unfortunately you have to be a member of twitter to read the contributions (thanks Elon)

Harvey, is now at Wrexham, whose owners have been very grateful of his knowledge and ways to manage the rules under which the club has to operate

[Chester Perry]

Actually the above select committee hearing was on March 15 2011, it being one of a number that led to this report

House of Commons
Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Football Governance
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 2/792i.pdf

The latest such report from the DCMS came earlier this year (there have been a number of others)

A Sustainable Future
Reforming Football Club Governance
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Paper.pdf

[Chester Perry]

Ah yes, me explaining that would have made things clearer. Barry Kilby was also one of the ones giving evidence which is why there was reference to Burnley.

I have just remembered that this particular hearing actually took place at Turf Moor, imagine similar questioning of the current group by a DCMS hearing on the club's premises

[Chester Perry]

I am not finding it either - these are the auctions/markets that are currently open (

https://www.assetmatch.com/app/OurCompanies/

Asset Match auction for Burley FC Holdings Limited is on there now - £300 a share is the current (starting?) bid price

apparently the intention is for an auction every quarter once this one is complete

https://assetmatch.com/news/archive/202 ... set-match/

[ClaretTony]

Ah yes, me explaining that would have made things clearer. Barry Kilby was also one of the ones giving evidence which is why there was reference to Burnley.

The references to Burnley were probably because it was held at Turf Moor. A friend of mine attended and he was mightily impressed with the buffoon Harvey (not).

[Chester Perry]

By way of emphasising the contrast to the above, what we see in the detail and transparency of Jim Radcliffe's acquisition of a minor stake in Manchester United is a very rare insight within the world of football - and all thanks to the US Securities and Exchange Commission - somewhat surprisingly it is US government agencies that have become the soucre of much of the greatest detail of financial practices and dealing in world football.

Here is the 241 page filing that Manchester United made

https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/ ... 0001549107

and for those who have not the desire or will to wafe through that, the Athletic have kindly produced the highlights for us

Man Utd hand INEOS transfer plan and early say over Ten Hag – new details of Ratcliffe deal
https://archive.ph/0bWSq

[Paul Waine]

By way of emphasising the contrast to the above, what we see in the detail and transparency of Jim Radcliffe's acquisition of a minor stake in Manchester United is a very rare insight within the world of football - and all thanks to the US Securities and Exchange Commission - somewhat surprisingly it is US government agencies that have become the source of much of the greatest detail of financial practices and dealing in world football.

Hi CP, you know, of course, that the disclosures Manchester United owners are making is because their class A shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and, therefore, come under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Similar disclosure requirements would apply if ManU (or any other football club) were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

It shouldn't be surprising to any of us that the US financial markets require the most extensive financial disclosures of any company that lists their shares or bonds on the US stock markets, they are, after all, the most active financial markets in the world.

Yes, this contrasts with the rules that prevail for businesses, whether football clubs or any other business entity, that do not trade shares and bonds on public stock exchanges.

[Big Vinny K]

By way of emphasising the contrast to the above, what we see in the detail and transparency of Jim Radcliffe's acquisition of a minor stake in Manchester United is a very rare insight within the world of football - and all thanks to the US Securities and Exchange Commission - somewhat surprisingly it is US government agencies that have become the soucre of much of the greatest detail of financial practices and dealing in world football.

Here is the 241 page filing that Manchester United made

https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/ ... 0001549107

and for those who have not the desire or will to wafe through that, the Athletic have kindly produced the highlights for us

Man Utd hand INEOS transfer plan and early say over Ten Hag – new details of Ratcliffe deal
https://archive.ph/0bWSq

Tbh CP whilst they’re maybe more transparency with United their financial dealings in the last few decades haven’t exactly endeared themselves to their fans.
I’d rather not know the background of people like the Glazers if they owned my club.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi CP, you know, of course, that the disclosures Manchester United owners are making is because their class A shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and, therefore, come under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Similar disclosure requirements would apply if ManU (or any other football club) were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

It shouldn't be surprising to any of us that the US financial markets require the most extensive financial disclosures of any company that lists their shares or bonds on the US stock markets, they are, after all, the most active financial markets in the world.

Yes, this contrasts with the rules that prevail for businesses, whether football clubs or any other business entity, that do not trade shares and bonds on public stock exchanges.

That is where the PL and the EFL should step in because the reason why there is such transparency is to protect investors and the markets.

It's the legacy of 19th century capitalism and the way society thinks of business as a private venture for the rich of not much interest to anyone else.

And to make a political point, the Left has also found it in its own interests to allow business to be portrayed as a 'thing in itself' mainly for the rich to be distrusted and kept at arms length. As usual the Left or probably more accurately the liberal middle classes are trojan horses for capital.

Business is central to everything that occurs in society and its stakeholders are far more diverse than rich investors and financial institutions. Football is a microcosm of the problems Western capitalism is facing because of 50 years of neo-liberalism and a failure to renew capitalism in a meaningful way.

It should be ethically self-evident that a small number of individuals should not be able to own the central structures of a communities lifeblood without risk to themselves and then construct opaque entities in domiciles designed to frustrate transparency.

That's my New Year rant out of the way two days early.

[Chester Perry]

That is where the PL and the EFL should step in because the reason why there is such transparency is to protect investors and the markets.

It's the legacy of 19th century capitalism and the way society thinks of business as a private venture for the rich of not much interest to anyone else.

And to make a political point, the Left has also found it in its own interests to allow business to be portrayed as a 'thing in itself' mainly for the rich to be distrusted and kept at arms length. As usual the Left or probably more accurately the liberal middle classes are trojan horses for capital.

Business is central to everything that occurs in society and its stakeholders are far more diverse than rich investors and financial institutions. Football is a microcosm of the problems Western capitalism is facing because of 50 years of neo-liberalism and a failure to renew capitalism in a meaningful way.

It should be ethically self-evident that a small number of individuals should not be able to own the central structures of a communities lifeblood without risk to themselves and then construct opaque entities in domiciles designed to frustrate transparency.

That's my New Year rant out of the way two days early.

with regard to your final point - we are another month along and still no financial reports for Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited (both 1st and 2nd sets are overdue at each of these entities, in case anyone is unaware)- both companies were established in October 2020 and until last month formed a significant conduit to the offshore entities that control our club, and seemingly served no other purpose. The ALK/VSL ownership/control of our club began its 4th year over the weekend yet there are few that appear to demonstrate the slightest amount of concern about this series of events

[spt_claret]

with regard to your final point - we are another month along and still no financial reports for Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited (both 1st and 2nd sets are overdue at each of these entities, in case anyone is unaware)- both companies were established in October 2020 and until last month formed a significant conduit to the offshore entities that control our club, and seemingly served no other purpose. The ALK/VSL ownership/control of our club began its 4th year over the weekend yet there are few that appear to demonstrate the slightest amount of concern about this series of events

I've noticed that people just avoid this thread now as if they're afraid of facing reality or being reminded of the concerns. Yet we'll still get people all over the board insisting ALK are transparent and open and even aren't in it to make money.

I can see both these companies being wound up without ever releasing accounts. That worries me greatly as to what's going on. It should worry any genuine fan. I can't understand how people can be so blase about this level of financial opacity around the club they support which is a pillar of the local community and town economy.

[ClaretPete001]

with regard to your final point - we are another month along and still no financial reports for Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited (both 1st and 2nd sets are overdue at each of these entities, in case anyone is unaware)- both companies were established in October 2020 and until last month formed a significant conduit to the offshore entities that control our club, and seemingly served no other purpose. The ALK/VSL ownership/control of our club began its 4th year over the weekend yet there are few that appear to demonstrate the slightest amount of concern about this series of events

When I think of this club the distrust of owners and directors was embedded in the DNA of the town from Bob Lord onwards. Said it before - it's almost like a different town...

[Chester Perry]

ALK/VSL filing at Companies house carries on with it's bizarre somewhat erratic course

Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd the entity that only last month became the major shareholder in Burnley Football Club has had its company address posted as being at Companies House in Cardiff after it appears (and that is a guess on my part) that the proposed address (at incorporation in April 2023) was not properly registered

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

[IanMcL]

What is being hidden?

That is what this skulduggery breeds.

[Chester Perry]

What is being hidden?

That is what this skulduggery breeds.

If I am right it is just an 'administration error' in registering the address - I am not sure that Companies House could force an address change if something untoward was gong on - which I do not think is the case

[Burnleyareback2]

I've noticed that people just avoid this thread now as if they're afraid of facing reality or being reminded of the concerns. Yet we'll still get people all over the board insisting ALK are transparent and open and even aren't in it to make money.

I can see both these companies being wound up without ever releasing accounts. That worries me greatly as to what's going on. It should worry any genuine fan. I can't understand how people can be so blase about this level of financial opacity around the club they support which is a pillar of the local community and town economy.

I think it’s got to the stage where 99% of people have absolutely no idea what’s going on. Suspect the same 99% are reading the thread.

Much more panic about the change of font on the strip would probably confirm this.

[Nori1958]

I think it’s got to the stage where 99% of people have absolutely no idea what’s going on. Suspect the same 99% are reading the thread.

Much more panic about the change of font on the strip would probably confirm this.

I prefer concentrating on the game, 20 minutes before kick off, which is when CP posted the last update, so it was never getting a lot of replies whether we understood it or not

[Paul Waine]

ALK/VSL filing at Companies house carries on with it's bizarre somewhat erratic course

Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd the entity that only last month became the major shareholder in Burnley Football Club has had its company address posted as being at Companies House in Cardiff after it appears (and that is a guess on my part) that the proposed address (at incorporation in April 2023) was not properly registered

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

This is all a little curious. Companies House filing shows Form RP05 Change of Registered Office Address to Default Address.

"Google/Bing (I think with CoPilot/AI) gives following response: "RP05 isn't a form that According to the UK government’s official website, Companies House, form RP05 is not listed among the forms that a limited company can file with Companies House 1. Therefore, it is not used by Companies House."

Obviously, CoPilot is not completely accurate - that's one of the failings of AI systems - because we can see the RP05 form on Companies House filing. However, RP05 is not a form that can be filed by anyone other than Companies House.

Google comes up with RP07, with instructions how to file RP07. The form can be completed by either a Private Individual or company where address is being used without permission or a Service Provider who had a contract with the company that is now terminated.

Companies House then processes the form and, if form RP07 is accepted communicates with the limited company who may either agree or disagree with the change. If the limited company doesn't respond within 28 days Companies House files the Default Address (using RP05 - though RP05 isn't named in the RP07 instructions).

The original proposed registered address on form IN01 was: One Mayfair Place Level 1 Devonshire House Mayfair London United Kingdom W1J 8AJ. This address still appears as the Correspondence Address for the 3 directors on the Companies House records.

[Nori1958]

This is all a little curious. Companies House filing shows Form RP05 Change of Registered Office Address to Default Address.

"Google/Bing (I think with CoPilot/AI) gives following response: "RP05 isn't a form that According to the UK government’s official website, Companies House, form RP05 is not listed among the forms that a limited company can file with Companies House 1. Therefore, it is not used by Companies House."

Obviously, CoPilot is not completely accurate - that's one of the failings of AI systems - because we can see the RP05 form on Companies House filing. However, RP05 is not a form that can be filed by anyone other than Companies House.

Google comes up with RP07, with instructions how to file RP07. The form can be completed by either a Private Individual or company where address is being used without permission or a Service Provider who had a contract with the company that is now terminated.

Companies House then processes the form and, if form RP07 is accepted communicates with the limited company who may either agree or disagree with the change. If the limited company doesn't respond within 28 days Companies House files the Default Address (using RP05 - though RP05 isn't named in the RP07 instructions).

The original proposed registered address on form IN01 was: One Mayfair Place Level 1 Devonshire House Mayfair London United Kingdom W1J 8AJ. This address still appears as the Correspondence Address for the 3 directors on the Companies House records.

Well, that's made it clear
Thanks for trying though Paul

[aggi]

If I am right it is just an 'administration error' in registering the address - I am not sure that Companies House could force an address change if something untoward was gong on - which I do not think is the case

Companies House can force an address change.

Probably the most common scenario is where a company has been paying a professional services firm to use them as your registered office and you stop paying the bill for it.

Another, less common, one is fraudulent use of an address, I can't imagine that's the case here though.

Companies House would normally notify the company before changing the address to default, although there are some scenarios where they don't (and of course it can be difficult to notify them because Companies House may just have the incorrect registered office address).

[Chester Perry]

Companies House can force an address change.

Probably the most common scenario is where a company has been paying a professional services firm to use them as your registered office and you stop paying the bill for it.

Another, less common, one is fraudulent use of an address, I can't imagine that's the case here though.

Companies House would normally notify the company before changing the address to default, although there are some scenarios where they don't (and of course it can be difficult to notify them because Companies House may just have the incorrect registered office address).

The thing is the proposed address for Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd was and remains the current registered address for Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited

of course there have been a lot of legislative changes to increase the powers at Companies House recently (https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/) which includes actions around P.O. Box addresses, though I am not sure any of them are in play here.

[Paul Waine]

The thing is the proposed address for Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd was and remains the current registered address for Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited

of course there have been a lot of legislative changes to increase the powers at Companies House recently (https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/) which includes actions around P.O. Box addresses, though I am not sure any of them are in play here.

OK, here's a thought about what is going on.

Velocity Capital (UK) was set up in 2023. Kettering Capital (and I assume Calder Vale - I've not checked) changed registered address to One Mayfair Place" in 2021. So, we can assume that both companies have filed their registered address correctly.

But, Correspondence Addresses for Velocity and Kettering are different. Velocity (as above) "One Mayfair Place" while Kettering is "8 The Green...Delaware."

Then add in the new Companies House "verification" powers. Maybe Companies House has started writing to companies that have been set up in 2023 - with a computer program set up for this purpose. Maybe Companies House computer program wrote to Velocity company secretary/director at "One Mayfair Place" because that's the Correspondence Address. Maybe the "28 days to respond" deadline has been reached and so the Companies House computer program says "no response, so RP05 Default Address.." Maybe Companies House computer program doesn't know that December includes the "holiday season." Maybe a lot of Companies House mail has arrived at "One Mayfair Place." Maybe there's no one working in the office - everyone's working from home, apart from a few priority matters. Maybe someone handling the mail received at "One Mayfair Place" has already forwarded the mail re Velocity to Turf Moor or whatever other address they have for the Company Secretary/Directors. Maybe, again, Christmas postal delays means the letter has not been received, or maybe the letter has not yet been responded to. Maybe the response has been sent to Companies House, but it's not yet been handled by Companies House - again, because it's the "holiday season" and most/all Companies House staff are WFH and no one is due back in the office until Monday 8th January (or later..)

I received 2 Christmas cards on Friday 5th January, one from USA the other from Switzerland, both postmarked well before Christmas. Maybe similar postal delays have impacted correspondence re Velocity and whatever verification procedures Companies House has introduced.

[aggi]

OK, here's a thought about what is going on.

Velocity Capital (UK) was set up in 2023. Kettering Capital (and I assume Calder Vale - I've not checked) changed registered address to One Mayfair Place" in 2021. So, we can assume that both companies have filed their registered address correctly.

But, Correspondence Addresses for Velocity and Kettering are different. Velocity (as above) "One Mayfair Place" while Kettering is "8 The Green...Delaware."

Then add in the new Companies House "verification" powers. Maybe Companies House has started writing to companies that have been set up in 2023 - with a computer program set up for this purpose. Maybe Companies House computer program wrote to Velocity company secretary/director at "One Mayfair Place" because that's the Correspondence Address. Maybe the "28 days to respond" deadline has been reached and so the Companies House computer program says "no response, so RP05 Default Address.." Maybe Companies House computer program doesn't know that December includes the "holiday season." Maybe a lot of Companies House mail has arrived at "One Mayfair Place." Maybe there's no one working in the office - everyone's working from home, apart from a few priority matters. Maybe someone handling the mail received at "One Mayfair Place" has already forwarded the mail re Velocity to Turf Moor or whatever other address they have for the Company Secretary/Directors. Maybe, again, Christmas postal delays means the letter has not been received, or maybe the letter has not yet been responded to. Maybe the response has been sent to Companies House, but it's not yet been handled by Companies House - again, because it's the "holiday season" and most/all Companies House staff are WFH and no one is due back in the office until Monday 8th January (or later..)

I received 2 Christmas cards on Friday 5th January, one from USA the other from Switzerland, both postmarked well before Christmas. Maybe similar postal delays have impacted correspondence re Velocity and whatever verification procedures Companies House has introduced.

I would be very surprised if this was all automated

[Big Vinny K]

OK, here's a thought about what is going on.

Velocity Capital (UK) was set up in 2023. Kettering Capital (and I assume Calder Vale - I've not checked) changed registered address to One Mayfair Place" in 2021. So, we can assume that both companies have filed their registered address correctly.

But, Correspondence Addresses for Velocity and Kettering are different. Velocity (as above) "One Mayfair Place" while Kettering is "8 The Green...Delaware."

Then add in the new Companies House "verification" powers. Maybe Companies House has started writing to companies that have been set up in 2023 - with a computer program set up for this purpose. Maybe Companies House computer program wrote to Velocity company secretary/director at "One Mayfair Place" because that's the Correspondence Address. Maybe the "28 days to respond" deadline has been reached and so the Companies House computer program says "no response, so RP05 Default Address.." Maybe Companies House computer program doesn't know that December includes the "holiday season." Maybe a lot of Companies House mail has arrived at "One Mayfair Place." Maybe there's no one working in the office - everyone's working from home, apart from a few priority matters. Maybe someone handling the mail received at "One Mayfair Place" has already forwarded the mail re Velocity to Turf Moor or whatever other address they have for the Company Secretary/Directors. Maybe, again, Christmas postal delays means the letter has not been received, or maybe the letter has not yet been responded to. Maybe the response has been sent to Companies House, but it's not yet been handled by Companies House - again, because it's the "holiday season" and most/all Companies House staff are WFH and no one is due back in the office until Monday 8th January (or later..)

I received 2 Christmas cards on Friday 5th January, one from USA the other from Switzerland, both postmarked well before Christmas. Maybe similar postal delays have impacted correspondence re Velocity and whatever verification procedures Companies House has introduced.

Hi Paul

Not my understanding of how it works.
STP (Straight through processing) is not something I associate with companies house, HMRC or tbh any government agency or website.

The front end website you see now on websites like Companies House and Gov.co.uk are much improved for sure but back end processes are nothing like that and most of it hangs together by things like exception reporting. It’s all still pretty bobbins !

[Paul Waine]

I would be very surprised if this was all automated

[quote="Big Vinny K"
Hi Paul

Not my understanding of how it works.
STP (Straight through processing) is not something I associate with companies house, HMRC or tbh any government agency or website.

The front end website you see now on websites like Companies House and Gov.co.uk are much improved for sure but back end processes are nothing like that and most of it hangs together by things like exception reporting. It’s all still pretty bobbins !
[/quote]

We know Companies House has taken on new responsibilities to improve and safeguard the integrity of Companies House records including identifying identities of directors and owners and reducing moneylaundering, scams and fraud by misuse of Companies House records.

We know it's fairly easy these days to create an API that interfaces with Companies House records.

So, how do you make a start on tackling these new responsibilities and demonstrate some progress? - Don't forget they've known this is coming for some time. -

I'd write a simple API: write to all registered office addresses, ask for personal ID/passports of directors. Test process by only selecting companies registered in last year. Require responses in format that computer can read (that's standard stuff these days). How do you deal with "no responses?" Move them to Default Address. Genuine companies will sort out their records promptly. Other exceptions can be followed up. How do you deal with variations in director's names? We all know that Alan Pace is recorded as both "Alan Pace" and "Alan Gary Pace." So, match passport numbers and require name as on passport. "Bit by bit, little by little," the Companies House data base will improve in quality. It will be more reliable at the margins. Undesirables won't find it as easy to present themselves as legit. Because of the numbers, it's still a massive task, but de-risking at the margins will be a start.

[aggi]

[

We know Companies House has taken on new responsibilities to improve and safeguard the integrity of Companies House records including identifying identities of directors and owners and reducing moneylaundering, scams and fraud by misuse of Companies House records.

We know it's fairly easy these days to create an API that interfaces with Companies House records.

So, how do you make a start on tackling these new responsibilities and demonstrate some progress? - Don't forget they've known this is coming for some time. -

I'd write a simple API: write to all registered office addresses, ask for personal ID/passports of directors. Test process by only selecting companies registered in last year. Require responses in format that computer can read (that's standard stuff these days). How do you deal with "no responses?" Move them to Default Address. Genuine companies will sort out their records promptly. Other exceptions can be followed up. How do you deal with variations in director's names? We all know that Alan Pace is recorded as both "Alan Pace" and "Alan Gary Pace." So, match passport numbers and require name as on passport. "Bit by bit, little by little," the Companies House data base will improve in quality. It will be more reliable at the margins. Undesirables won't find it as easy to present themselves as legit. Because of the numbers, it's still a massive task, but de-risking at the margins will be a start.

Unless they have launched all this in secret, which would be bizarre, then we'd have heard about it. I'd have certainly had a briefing note from cosec and compliance teams on it.

It's also an absolutely huge undertaking. My firm incorporated nigh on 100 companies that are registered at our address and chasing details for those would be a hassle. Across the country it was nearly 1m companies incorporated last year ...

[Chester Perry]

A new Charge on Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited to MGG LUX SV 1 S.À R.L of Luxembourg

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 4jx4wLRBbc

[Chester Perry]

A new Charge on Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited to MGG LUX SV 1 S.À R.L of Luxembourg

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 4jx4wLRBbc

I looks from the charge note that their will be further charges on Burnley FC Holdings Limited, Longside Properties Limited and Burnley FC Women Limited

[Hedontplayforyou]

I looks from the charge note that their will be further charges on Burnley FC Holdings Limited, Longside Properties Limited and Burnley FC Women Limited

What exactly does this mean?

[aggi]

A new Charge on Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited to MGG LUX SV 1 S.À R.L of Luxembourg

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 4jx4wLRBbc

Looks like they have also been involved at Palace in a similar capacity.

[Chester Perry]

Looks like they have also been involved at Palace in a similar capacity.

Given that the properties mentioned in the Charge appear to be already covered by one to Macquarie - could this Luxembourg entity be Macquarie, though if so, why the switch?

[aggi]

What exactly does this mean?

At a guess, we've got a loan from these guys
https://mgginv.com/

[Chester Perry]

At a guess, we've got a loan from these guys
https://mgginv.com/

Lovely language in the Charge Note - we are their Claret Compartment

[aggi]

Given that the properties mentioned in the Charge appear to be already covered by one to Macquarie - could this Luxembourg entity be Macquarie, though if so, why the switch?

I wouldn't say so. Look to be entirely separate. There is obviously history at not correctly updating charges.

[Chester Perry]

At a guess, we've got a loan from these guys
https://mgginv.com/

Some additional info on MGG from The Hedge Fund Journal

MGG: Niche Direct Lending
Sweet spots in mid-market
https://thehedgefundjournal.com/mgg-nic ... t-lending/
https://archive.ph/i4sDB

[Chester Perry]

I wouldn't say so. Look to be entirely separate. There is obviously history at not correctly updating charges.

reading that article I posted it seems the MGG will have likely replaced all our other lenders sp we await those charges being closed - obviously that will not include the factoring loans for Premier league TV monies and the on3 on the sale of Collins and Pope (the Wood completed last February but the Charge has still not been registered as satisfied - quelle shock!!

[Chester Perry]

I wouldn't say so. Look to be entirely separate. There is obviously history at not correctly updating charges.

Clever people this MGG chaps - they have covered the outstanding charges with signed off communications in their own Charge Note - they now have primary call on the assets described in the note

I also not that they have a historic record of collecting profit on every loan made and in the normal course at very hefty rates, which I am reasonably sure ALK/VSL would describe as being both reasonable and manageable, in the same way they did with MSD

Also worth noting that the documents were signed off on the ALK/VSL side by Morgan Edwards whose occupation is described as partner in ALK. Of course finding this kind of finance is a historic speciality of Edwards if you look at his LinkedIN profile