ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

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.

I am guessing that you would say It is looking increasingly unlikely that these monies monies at Calder Vale and Velocity Capital have reached the club after the latest filings at Companies House

[Chester Perry]

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

What I failed to mention here is that while Morgan Edwards is a Partner in ALK Capital LLC he is not a Director of Burnley FC Holdings Limited, Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited, Longside Properties Limited or Burnley FC Women Limited and actually the same applies to Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd (which we are told now owns the controlling shareholding in our club) or either of Kettering Capital Limited or Calder Vale Holdings Limited (which used to own the controlling shareholding in our club).

[FeedTheArf]

So for the financial simpletons among us, the £88 million (I think it was), that came in before, is that likely to have been this lot from Luxembourg as opposed to minority investors like JJ?

[123EasyasBFC]

The guys on this thread with good financial understanding do you echo Maguire as in saying it’s neither good or bad news?

[123EasyasBFC]

Is this new loan to keep us a float for the rest of the season or is it a January transfer window gamble?

[Nori1958]

Is this new loan to keep us a float for the rest of the season or is it a January transfer window gamble?

Iam just guessing like most... But is not just moving an existing loan from one provider to another and not an extra loan?

[Spike]

Is this another episode of the Borrowers or is it just moving existing loans?

[Big Vinny K]

The guys on this thread with good financial understanding do you echo Maguire as in saying it’s neither good or bad news?

Don’t really see any point guessing as to whether this is a new loan or simply refinancing existing debt.

We should find out in due course - frustrating as to the lack of transparency under this ownership with financial information but it’s also a situation that it is a good while since we have been in debt and of course we have never in our history had loans to these levels.

Our accounts and ownership model under Garlick and those before him were relatively simple and straightforward compared to the current one - so might not really be that much of a case of transparency but just easier for people to understand. I am pretty sure we were the exception back then whereas now most clubs have very complex ownership and financial structures.

Think fans now need to get used to the fact that it’s very unlikely you can make an informed view on our finances until it’s probably too late for it to be relevant - ie we will always be 18 months or 2 years behind the curve when audited accounts are produced. That’s especially the case with these new owners as they are constantly restructuring and making significant changes like the ones we have seen this week.

[Chester Perry]

It appears that this involves a transfer of a loan from Macquarie to MGG, however there is also the unsecured circa £40m loan from November 2022 that should also be considered as reports suggest that MGG like to be the sole lender.

We know that:
- the November 2022 loan had a hugely attractive rate of 7.5%
- MtB suggested the November 2022 loan was being paid down (an outstanding balance figure of £33m was stated towards the end of last season
- the Macquarie loan looked like an overdraft and the MGG Charge clearly indicates that the Macquarie one has effectively been settled
- MGG like/demand to be the only lender to their client and have a history of making above market returns on their loans, it appears they always get their money back and their margin

so why would ALK/VSL go down what would appear to be amore expensive route at this time, especially when the UK entity that holds all the shares in the club appears to be so cash rich and the ownership group owe the club so much money (£114.8m in the last published accounts)?

lots of ideas and questions bouncing around in my head but little by the way of facts to work with. So I will start with these questions

Was the November 2022 loan on a short term agreement that required a quick settlement?

Have Macquarie decided that the prospect of relegation leaves them overexposed?
or
are the club looking to borrow yet more monies to either:
- settle the November 2022 loan
- fund more transfer activity
- meet existing commitments
- a combination involving any of the above

lots of work to be done including trying to find any bond notes or such like in the way we found with MSD

-

[Big Vinny K]

Admire your tenacity and hard work to try and shed some light on this CP but on a number of the questions above I strongly suspect you will never get the answers (though do accept that it might help get us to a direction of travel or better educated view)

[Chester Perry]

Admire your tenacity and hard work to try and shed some light on this CP but on a number of the questions above I strongly suspect you will never get the answers (though do accept that it might help get us to a direction of travel or better educated view)

I am inclined to agree on the never getting answers, but we do need to improve the direction on travel towards a better educated view

[Big Vinny K]

I am inclined to agree on the never getting answers, but we do need to improve the direction on travel towards a better educated view

Yep get that but do you not think that fans at most premier league (and a few championship clubs too) are pretty much in the same boat ?

I can’t think of a premier league club that has not had a pretty complex takeover / change of ownership in the last decade or so. Possibly West Ham - though they are probably going to face one soon and maybe Luton (a club I’ve never really looked at in terms of ownership or finances).

It’s one of the many downsides of the Premier League and the vast sums of money involved. The valuation of clubs has gone through the roof but this does not seem to have deterred suitors in buying clubs (even though it’s hard to see in some cases how they will ever get their investment back).

We were under Garlick very much an exception in having no debt and pretty much an ownership model of local businessmen. This kind of model will become few and far between it’s sad to say and with that brings debt for most football clubs, complex overseas ownership, lack of transparency and much more risk for most clubs.

Hardly any wonder traditional lenders are largely no longer interested in this sector and we have the new specialist lenders ready and waiting (charging much higher rates of interest and extortionate commission charges)

[123EasyasBFC]

It appears that this involves a transfer of a loan from Macquarie to MGG, however there is also the unsecured circa £40m loan from November 2022 that should also be considered as reports suggest that MGG like to be the sole lender.

We know that:
- the November 2022 loan had a hugely attractive rate of 7.5%
- MtB suggested the November 2022 loan was being paid down (an outstanding balance figure of £33m was stated towards the end of last season
- the Macquarie loan looked like an overdraft and the MGG Charge clearly indicates that the Macquarie one has effectively been settled
- MGG like/demand to be the only lender to their client and have a history of making above market returns on their loans, it appears they always get their money back and their margin

so why would ALK/VSL go down what would appear to be amore expensive route at this time, especially when the UK entity that holds all the shares in the club appears to be so cash rich and the ownership group owe the club so much money (£114.8m in the last published accounts)?

lots of ideas and questions bouncing around in my head but little by the way of facts to work with. So I will start with these questions

Was the November 2022 loan on a short term agreement that required a quick settlement?

Have Macquarie decided that the prospect of relegation leaves them overexposed?
or
are the club looking to borrow yet more monies to either:
- settle the November 2022 loan
- fund more transfer activity
- meet existing commitments
- a combination involving any of the above

lots of work to be done including trying to find any bond notes or such like in the way we found with MSD

-

I think this is quite an interesting point ‘Have Macquarie decided that the prospect of relegation leaves them overexposed?’

We may of had to move the loan rather than actually wanting to move it

[Chester Perry]

Yep get that but do you not think that fans at most premier league (and a few championship clubs too) are pretty much in the same boat ?

I can’t think of a premier league club that has not had a pretty complex takeover / change of ownership in the last decade or so. Possibly West Ham - though they are probably going to face one soon and maybe Luton (a club I’ve never really looked at in terms of ownership or finances).

It’s one of the many downsides of the Premier League and the vast sums of money involved. The valuation of clubs has gone through the roof but this does not seem to have deterred suitors in buying clubs (even though it’s hard to see in some cases how they will ever get their investment back).

We were under Garlick very much an exception in having no debt and pretty much an ownership model of local businessmen. This kind of model will become few and far between it’s sad to say and with that brings debt for most football clubs, complex overseas ownership, lack of transparency and much more risk for most clubs.

Hardly any wonder traditional lenders are largely no longer interested in this sector and we have the new specialist lenders ready and waiting (charging much higher rates of interest and extortionate commission charges)

Yes things were much more straight forward under Garlick, but people forget the complicated finances - mainly loans we have had down the years - Companies House only shows the detail of the last couple of decades but be we had multiple corporate lenders even under Kilby's tenure - though a number of them were inherited from Teasdale's.

It took a long time and some good fortune to unravel it all

[Big Vinny K]

Yes things were much more straight forward under Garlick, but people forget the complicated finances - mainly loans we have had down the years - Companies House only shows the detail of the last couple of decades but be we had multiple corporate lenders even under Kilby's tenure - though a number of them were inherited from Teasdale's.

It took a long time and some good fortune to unravel it all

Not sure we did have that under Kilby tbh - nothing bearing any resemblance to today both in terms of amounts and complexity.
Can’t remember when it was exactly but I was asked by the club to look at moving all their banking and debt to the bank I worked. Think it may I have been pre ITV digital and seem to remember they were with TSB. There were no loans I can recall but there was an overdraft facility. It was a non starter from memory because they had a very good historical deal with TSB on their processing of cash etc

Do remember under Kilby having to set up the subsidiary companies and transfer the ground etc and also the directors loan / input from Flood which did all get pretty complex - especially when the impact of the global crash on the commercial property market and having to repay the loans from Modus. But actually a lot of this was surprisingly transparent compared to now !

[Chester Perry]

Not sure we did have that under Kilby tbh - nothing bearing any resemblance to today both in terms of amounts and complexity.
Can’t remember when it was exactly but I was asked by the club to look at moving all their banking and debt to the bank I worked. Think it may I have been pre ITV digital and seem to remember they were with TSB. There were no loans I can recall but there was an overdraft facility. It was a non starter from memory because they had a very good historical deal with TSB on their processing of cash etc

Do remember under Kilby having to set up the subsidiary companies and transfer the ground etc and also the directors loan / input from Flood which did all get pretty complex - especially when the impact of the global crash on the commercial property market and having to repay the loans from Modus. But actually a lot of this was surprisingly transparent compared to now !

Loans that come to mind under Kilby, that were not related to the directors (of which there were a number) we also had regular share sales to raise capital just to allow the club to operate

2002 from the PFA
2003 from Gerling Insurance
2008 from Daniel Thwaites

we can add in loans and factoring deals (mainly season ticket sales) with the aforementioned TSB, who we were with for a long time

[bfc8]

Takeover was something like £170m for 84%, largely financed by borrowing, leveraged.
Game plan is something like selling for much more, say £340m, with loans repaid and profit of say £170m.
Precise figures will vary but think that's the plan.
Needs Burnley in the PL I think, for a few years.

If not difficult to repay loans let alone make a profit.

[Big Vinny K]

Loans that come to mind under Kilby, that were not related to the directors (of which there were a number) we also had regular share sales to raise capital just to allow the club to operate

2002 from the PFA
2003 from Gerling Insurance
2008 from Daniel Thwaites

we can add in loans and factoring deals (mainly season ticket sales) with the aforementioned TSB, who we were with for a long time

All pretty small loans and not that complex. Our issue back then was the collapse of itv digital and working out some short term stuff to cope with a cost base built on a different revenue stream than we ended up with post tv collapse. As you know we were like a lot of other clubs in trouble and never really got out of the precarious position until we got promoted under Coyle. If we would not have got promoted that season I think we could well have gone into administration.

[dsr]

Takeover was something like £170m for 84%, largely financed by borrowing, leveraged.
Game plan is something like selling for much more, say £340m, with loans repaid and profit of say £170m.
Precise figures will vary but think that's the plan.
Needs Burnley in the PL I think, for a few years.

If not difficult to repay loans let alone make a profit.

Even if the club were to finish bankrupt and worthless, I think they might be hoping to take out enough in fees etc. over a few years, to cover their limited capital investment.

[Chester Perry]

All pretty small loans and not that complex. Our issue back then was the collapse of itv digital and working out some short term stuff to cope with a cost base built on a different revenue stream than we ended up with post tv collapse. As you know we were like a lot of other clubs in trouble and never really got out of the precarious position until we got promoted under Coyle. If we would not have got promoted that season I think we could well have gone into administration.

In current terms I agree

but at the time monies were very tight, incomes were low and losses were our normal course of business - directors were literally writing personal cheques so running costs could be met at times.

the loans I mentioned were not cleared until the 1st Premier League season and it was much later when the buyback of Longside Properties was fully paid up and the monies borrowed to enable it were settled

People also forget that by the time Dyche arrived debt had returned and was at record levels, only surpassed under the current ownership and then not for the benefit of the club

[aggi]

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

Not sure what you mean by this. The previous charge can't be unilaterally revoked.

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

They do seem to be operating in a similar space to MSD. Although that Hedge Fund Journal piece strikes me as more of a PR piece than something to rely on.

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

Isn't Morgan Edwards just witnessing this (which you need for it to be executed as a deed)?

[aggi]

I am guessing that you would say It is looking increasingly unlikely that these monies monies at Calder Vale and Velocity Capital have reached the club after the latest filings at Companies House

It would seem strange for another ~ £90m to have come into the club and there still to be significant loans.

[Chester Perry]

Not sure what you mean by this. The previous charge can't be unilaterally revoked.

there are letters in the MGG Charge note that appear to confirm that MGG now have the senior claim on the assets and Macquarie have ceded ability to claim

Isn't Morgan Edwards just witnessing this (which you need for it to be executed as a deed)?

Surely, it should be witnessed by a director of the club. It may have been, but we do not know from this debenture. Of course Edwards could have authority assigned to him by the club, but again we have no visible evidence of it

[aggi]

there are letters in the MGG Charge note that appear to confirm that MGG now have the senior claim on the assets and Macquarie have ceded ability to claim

The boilerplates at the end? They're just going to be proformas. Exactly the same were in the Crystal Palace charge and they didn't have any extant charges.

Surely, it should be witnessed by a director of the club. It may have been, but we do not know from this debenture. Of course Edwards could have authority assigned to him by the club, but again we have no visible evidence of it

No, normally it's preferable for it to be someone who is relatively independent.

[Paul Waine]

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

Isn't Morgan Edwards signing off as witness, rather than director of the chargor?

[Paul Waine]

Isn't Morgan Edwards signing off as witness, rather than director of the chargor?

OK. See I've joined this latest information later than others. Need for document to be witnessed and this being separate from director signing to indicate agreement to terms of document already discussed above.

[Big Vinny K]

OK. See I've joined this latest information later than others. Need for document to be witnessed and this being separate from director signing to indicate agreement to terms of document already discussed above.

What do you think Paul ?
New debt or refinancing existing debt ?
More inclined to think it’s the latter on the assumption that the previous facility may have had some kind of fixed term at the reduced interest rate.

Or maybe that’s more in hope that we are not increasing our debt by another sizeable chunk !

[Paul Waine]

What do you think Paul ?
New debt or refinancing existing debt ?
More inclined to think it’s the latter on the assumption that the previous facility may have had some kind of fixed term at the reduced interest rate.

Or maybe that’s more in hope that we are not increasing our debt by another sizeable chunk !

Purely my opinion, I've no facts. This is much more likely to be replacing existing debt with a new relationship and one which better suits the club's current situation.

The unsecured - or, at least, no charge ever filed - Nov 2022 £40m debt was very likely on shorter end. Better deal than original MSD £65m, especially after relegation and revised debt repayment terms. Macquarie July 2023, secured, no amounts declared, possibly revolving, finance for return to Premier League. Difficult first half of the season, possible that MGG is simply a better fit for ALK team than Macquarie.

I expect we have a number of months before we will see 31-July-2023 accounts. If the directors' sign off of the accounts follow the same timelines as previous years, they will be signed off shortly before submitting to Companies House. But, Premier League required to receive these accounts by 31-December 2023 - and, this may require the auditors and the directors to approve and sign off the accounts by 31st Dec 2023 at the latest. If it's the latter, then maybe July-2023 accounts won't mention anything about the MGG loan, because it was entered into early January. If accounts signed off in April 2024, the loan from MGG will be included in post balance sheet events, I think.

I should also add, it will be interesting to see what is planned with the equity in the companies higher up the ALK structure.

[Chester Perry]

... But, Premier League required to receive these accounts by 31-December 2023 - and, this may require the auditors and the directors to approve and sign off the accounts by 31st Dec 2023 at the latest. If it's the latter, then maybe July-2023 accounts won't mention anything about the MGG loan, because it was entered into early January. If accounts signed off in April 2024, the loan from MGG will be included in post balance sheet events, I think.

I posted this on the MMT last week

For those who believe that all clubs have deposited their 2022/23 accounts with the Premier League by December 31 2023 I suggest you read rules E.47 and E.48 in the latest edition of the Premier League Handbook (https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... final-.pdf). The early (December) submissions only apply to those clubs whose T-1 and T-2 accounts result in an aggregate loss. Given the large profit in 2021/22 I suspect that we will be in aggregate profit over that year and last season. Consequently we will not pass accounts to the Premier League until March 31.

there is also no specific requirement for December 31 submissions to have had final sign off, but they must have been audited

[Paul Waine]

I posted this on the MMT last week

For those who believe that all clubs have deposited their 2022/23 accounts with the Premier League by December 31 2023 I suggest you read rules E.47 and E.48 in the latest edition of the Premier League Handbook (https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... final-.pdf). The early (December) submissions only apply to those clubs whose T-1 and T-2 accounts result in an aggregate loss. Given the large profit in 2021/22 I suspect that we will be in aggregate profit over that year and last season. Consequently we will not pass accounts to the Premier League until March 31.

there is also no specific requirement for December 31 submissions to have had final sign off, but they must have been audited

Thanks, CP. So, not all clubs are required to submit their latest accounts. What is the consequences of a club not submitting and then learning that they should have submitted? There are only 20 clubs, I wouldn't have left a "loop hole" for a club not to submit accounts and then discover their loss was sufficient to require filing early.

Auditors will never, ever sign their audit report without the directors first signing off their accounts. Director won't sign off accounts until the Board of Directors have approved the accounts and minuted at Board meeting. Both signatures will be added at the same time, always director first then the auditor's report. It's to avoid any "misunderstanding" about the accounts the auditor's report applies to. It ensures all required post-balance sheet events are included. If anything "untoward" happens the day after the accounts are signed there is no ambiguity in what was and what wasn't reflected in the accounts at the time they were signed.

[Chester Perry]

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

As expected the MGG charge is now appearing against Burnley FC Holdings Limited, I still expect Burnley FC Women Limited and Longside Properties Limited to follow

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

[forzagranata]

Could Chester or someone clarify for this non-accountant what the situation is with Turf Moor and Gawthorpe? Are the loans secured against them?

[Chester Perry]

Could Chester or someone clarify for this non-accountant what the situation is with Turf Moor and Gawthorpe? Are the loans secured against them?

exactly that, but so are the loans from Macquarie which are still listed as outstanding at Companies House - interestingly these properties are actually owned by Longside Properties Limited which Macquarie did not post a charge to but MGG have

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 19/charges

[Chester Perry]

As expected the MGG charge is now appearing against Burnley FC Holdings Limited, I still expect Burnley FC Women Limited and Longside Properties Limited to follow

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

That is a full house of companies with a charge for MGG now as Burnley FC Women Limited joins Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited, Burnley FC Holdings Limited and Longside Properties Limited being covered with the same charge though only Longside Properties Limited actually owns the properties named.

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

[Quickenthetempo]

How can you borrow money against Burnley ladies team. They don't have their own ground/facilities.
Do we have players worth millions they could force us to sell?

Or is it to stop complications if they kick us out of the training ground and the ladies team claim rights to use it?

[Big Vinny K]

How can you borrow money against Burnley ladies team. They don't have their own ground/facilities.
Do we have players worth millions they could force us to sell?

Or is it to stop complications if they kick us out of the training ground and the ladies team claim rights to use it?

Just registering the charge against our various limited companies who presumably have rights to the facilities in some form or other.

[Chester Perry]

So, I am finding the reporting of this interesting, particularly in the context on persistent non-reporting at Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings (who it has to be said have not done any of the date changing mentioned here, they have just not fulfilled their legal obligation. Is the issue one of not filing or one of ways to avoid filing?

from The Times

Emma Raducanu delays filing her company accounts
Sports finance expert offers explanation for why tennis star is exploiting accounting loophole and shortening firm’s financial year end date by a single day
https://archive.ph/vN4iJ

[Paul Waine]

So, I am finding the reporting of this interesting, particularly in the context on persistent non-reporting at Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings (who it has to be said have not done any of the date changing mentioned here, they have just not fulfilled their legal obligation. Is the issue one of not filing or one of ways to avoid filing?

from The Times

Emma Raducanu delays filing her company accounts
Sports finance expert offers explanation for why tennis star is exploiting accounting loophole and shortening firm’s financial year end date by a single day
https://archive.ph/vN4iJ

Hi CP, I saw that and thought about posting here. All it demonstrates is that private limited companies like to maintain their privacy, within the rules and when the private limited company isn't asking other businesses to take financial risks by providing them with credit. Good luck to Emma Raducanu. She's won one big prize. Given many a thrill with her achievement. Let's hope she can progress her sporting career.

[dsr]

So, I am finding the reporting of this interesting, particularly in the context on persistent non-reporting at Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings (who it has to be said have not done any of the date changing mentioned here, they have just not fulfilled their legal obligation. Is the issue one of not filing or one of ways to avoid filing?

from The Times

Emma Raducanu delays filing her company accounts
Sports finance expert offers explanation for why tennis star is exploiting accounting loophole and shortening firm’s financial year end date by a single day
https://archive.ph/vN4iJ

I think there might be an error in Ziegler's article. It says that Raducanu's accounts were wrongly stated as being to 28th February 2022 when the official year end was 26th February 2022, but that's not necessarily an error - you can produce accounts up to 7 days either side of the year end and still count them correct for Companies House filing purposes. So accounts dated 28th can be field for an official year end of 26th.

He also implies that she can keep on delaying the accounts for 3 months every time she changes the date. Not true. Each annual accounts can get a 3 month delay by changing the date, but only 3 months. Next time she changes the date is for the following year.

It's true that the main reason for doing it is because the accounts aren't ready.

(I suspect there is another mistake in Ziegler's article. He says that Raducanu's 2021 US Open win would be reflected in the 2022 accounts, but as the Corporation Tax payable is only £90k and the company has no employees, I suspect that the tennis income and expenses are dealt with in a different financial structure, corporate or personal. No way would she have £2m+ tennis income and not offset the cost of her team.)

[bfcjg]

My goodness, how simpler and less worrying was it under Barry Kilby even Garlic etc.

[forzagranata]

I was just thinking. If someone wanted to buy the club from Pace and Co, it would obviously be a very complex deal but, do we have any idea of what the number would be to clear our debts?

The asking price for the club would obviously depend on how much ALK were hoping to make, but for the sake of argument, they just wanted to leave without making a loss, how much would we be talking at the moment?

[Chester Perry]

I was just thinking. If someone wanted to buy the club from Pace and Co, it would obviously be a very complex deal but, do we have any idea of what the number would be to clear our debts?

The asking price for the club would obviously depend on how much ALK were hoping to make, but for the sake of argument, they just wanted to leave without making a loss, how much would we be talking at the moment?

Break even on shares bought and debt to the club is around £180m - £190m

[forzagranata]

Break even on shares bought and debt to the club is around £180m - £190m

Thanks.

[Chester Perry]

Thanks.

that doesn't include the shareholding of Vladimir Torgovnik - interestingly the shares he bought from Mike Garlick in June are of a value that approximates the difference between the capital sum invested in first Kettering Capital and the Calder Vale Holdings in September and the capital sum invested in Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings in October - just another something to think about with chin in hand, even if it is not true.

[ClaretPete001]

Break even on shares bought and debt to the club is around £180m - £190m

Yes, the debt and the external investors all start to take chunks out of any returns but also raise the price of the club to the type of investor who wants to buy the club to invest in it.

I'm yet to see a business model that makes any sense and is sustainable.

[Chester Perry]

Yes, the debt and the external investors all start to take chunks out of any returns but also raise the price of the club to the type of investor who wants to buy the club to invest in it.

I'm yet to see a business model that makes any sense and is sustainable.

That is where it all gets interesting (and complex). The break even I suggested is the sum paid to the previous shareholders, not necessarily what new "investors" in ALK/VSL have paid, Though from what we can gather those individuals/families/groups have invested in ALK/VSL possibly with shares issued to them in Velocity Sports (Jersey) whose only publicly acknowledged owned asset is those shares in Burnley FC Holdings

[ClaretPete001]

That is where it all gets interesting (and complex). The break even I suggested is the sum paid to the previous shareholders, not necessarily what new "investors" in ALK/VSL have paid, Though from what we can gather those individuals/families/groups have invested in ALK/VSL possibly with shares issued to them in Velocity Sports (Jersey) whose only publicly acknowledged owned asset is those shares in Burnley FC Holdings

Indeed, I was just making a general point about debt and investment. The more there is of: (1) either or (2) both the less return there potentially is - if ALK cannot increase the organic performance of the club or indeed reduce it by getting relegated.

You only get one go at debt until you have paid it off and in reality unless you are growing the value of the club investment is capped to the perceived value of the club otherwise you just give away any potential return.

I think the only value in the investment is the money taken out of the club and I have some doubts as to whether there really has been any external investment albeit there is some evidence there has been.

I just think there are and always have been business realities that as yet I see no sign of being resolved.

I am a bit of a stuck record really.

[aggi]

Break even on shares bought and debt to the club is around £180m - £190m

I'm not sure if it would be this much now. The club has effectively paid off a fair chunk of that purchase price when they partially repaid the loans used to fund it.

Of course we don't know if there have been further loans or further investment so it's a bit of a shot in the dark.

[Chester Perry]

I'm not sure if it would be this much now. The club has effectively paid off a fair chunk of that purchase price when they partially repaid the loans used to fund it.

Of course we don't know if there have been further loans or further investment so it's a bit of a shot in the dark.

The number explicitly refers to the publicly stated debt ALK/VSL have with the club and what they have spent on shares in the club. The club's external debt is not a factor in the answer I provided or the question asked.

[aggi]

The number explicitly refers to the publicly stated debt ALK/VSL have with the club and what they have spent on shares in the club. The club's external debt is not a factor in the answer I provided or the question asked.

They said "clear our debts" which I assume is referring to the football club's debts, not ALK's debts to the club.