ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

these "minority" share holders are brought in to increase profile in overseas territory, in terms of financial they are bringing very little. including JJ in that

There is indeed a large amount of 'influencer' element that we are seeing at the moment - and there will be a wide range of views about that. It seems the club are still very much in the 'brand awareness' phase of it's strategy.

[NewClaret]

There is indeed a large amount of 'influencer' element that we are seeing at the moment - and there will be a wide range of views about that. It seems the club are still very much in the 'brand awareness' phase of it's strategy.

This guys though are a few thousand followers on social media, some not even anywhere near that.

We’ll need some much bigger hitters to even scratch the surface in those territories.

[Chester Perry]

This guys though are a few thousand followers on social media, some not even anywhere near that.

We’ll need some much bigger hitters to even scratch the surface in those territories.

it depends on who you are trying to influence - these guys are well connected in their business communities and know plenty of others of similar wealth.

[NewClaret]

it depends on who you are trying to influence - these guys are well connected in their business communities and know plenty of others of similar wealth.

Okay, I see your point. I thought you were talking about influencing fan base growth.

[aggi]

Not really clear to me how anyone can view our current ownership with anything other than dread and upset.

In the scale of football club owners I'd say that ours aren't that high up on the dread and upset scale.

It's not an ideal structure (although I think many people had a very rosy view of what being taken over by private equity meant) but we're a long way from absentee owners or those facing swathes of legal cases.

Look at Everton and 777 if you really want dread and upset.

[daveisaclaret]

In the scale of football club owners I'd say that ours aren't that high up on the dread and upset scale.

It's not an ideal structure (although I think many people had a very rosy view of what being taken over by private equity meant) but we're a long way from absentee owners or those facing swathes of legal cases.

Look at Everton and 777 if you really want dread and upset.

I'm a Burnley fan. Everton's ownership is of no consequence or comfort to me.

[Chester Perry]

In the scale of football club owners I'd say that ours aren't that high up on the dread and upset scale.

It's not an ideal structure (although I think many people had a very rosy view of what being taken over by private equity meant) but we're a long way from absentee owners or those facing swathes of legal cases.

Look at Everton and 777 if you really want dread and upset.

fully concur

I'm a Burnley fan. Everton's ownership is of no consequence or comfort to me.

and this is the laissez faire approach that too many have that has caused problems across the game - only asking the How? and Why? questions when your own club is affected while laughing at others (Venky's anyone) has done the game no favours.

[daveisaclaret]

and this is the laissez faire approach that too many have that has caused problems across the game - only asking the How? and Why? questions when your own club is affected while laughing at others (Venky's anyone) has done the game no favours.

I think this is a bit silly to be honest Chester. Whatever very limited means I have of opposing problems with the Burnley ownership, I simply do not have when it comes to Everton or other clubs. Me being concerned online about a football club that I don't care about would not have stopped any problems across the game.

[dsr]

True. I’m not sure how this differs from our previous investors who also wanted to, and did, benefit from massive profits.

It doesn't. Garlick took tens of millions of pounds out of the club, and the new people have done the same, and in both cases it isn't doing the club any good. These owners are financial investors and they want profit. This puts us at a disadvantage as against other PL club owners who are willing to let the club reinvest its profits, or who even put money in rather than taking it out.

[steve1264b]

Im guessing there is probably a tiered ownership model, depending on how much you put in.

However the more diverse in business and talent the better. JJ whatever you think has used his social media/sport industry skills to raise the profile in USA. Every club needs this, it might get us better sponsorship deals in the future.

These guys from the asian continent might not be as high profile as JJ but do seem well connected so might bring some soft influence towards deal in that territory.

What is interesting is that these are investing at a time when they know we are going down.

[NewClaret]

It doesn't. Garlick took tens of millions of pounds out of the club, and the new people have done the same, and in both cases it isn't doing the club any good. These owners are financial investors and they want profit. This puts us at a disadvantage as against other PL club owners who are willing to let the club reinvest its profits, or who even put money in rather than taking it out.

There’s very few of those, I would say. Tony Bloom? The Venkys? Maybe the Coates’?

[dsr]

There’s very few of those, I would say. Tony Bloom? The Venkys? Maybe the Coates’?

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to add a couple more. Whoever it is that owns Bournemouth, too. And Leicester and Forest, and for that matter Andy Holt at Accrington Stanley. The blokes at Wrexham, and Salford. It's not uncommon.

[ClaretTony]

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to add a couple more. Whoever it is that owns Bournemouth, too. And Leicester and Forest, and for that matter Andy Holt at Accrington Stanley. The blokes at Wrexham, and Salford. It's not uncommon.

On the subject of Bournemouth, I saw an interview with their owner Bill Foley a couple of weeks ago on Sky. He said the last thing he wanted to do when he came in was start changing things and upsetting people. He wanted to embrace the club as it was and from there try to improve it.

[NewClaret]

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to add a couple more. Whoever it is that owns Bournemouth, too. And Leicester and Forest, and for that matter Andy Holt at Accrington Stanley. The blokes at Wrexham, and Salford. It's not uncommon.

So on Saudi and Qatar, they bought the asset themselves but I don’t think they have kept funding the clubs since their purchase. They’ll both want

I think the Leicester chap did fund the club initially, then his family not so after. Now they’re up the creek which sort of illustrates the risks with being a billionaires plaything too.

Forest I’m unsure who’s stumping up the massive transfer fees they’ve been paying. I very much doubt it’ll be the owner who’s buying the players though. I imagine that’s debt on the club and Forest will be carrying both the PSR can and any debts if he gets bored.

I don’t really think Forest and Leicester are great examples of better ownership models when the former got a points deduction that could yet send them down and the latter are on the verge of financial crisis with a points deduction pending.

The Bournemouth chap I’m not sure about.

Andy Holt I take your point on. I do think he’s done it more for the community/good of the club but well publicised he’s desperate to get shut and I think only really viable at a small club.

Wrexham had very wealthy investors chip in tiny sums comparative to their wealth. Again, to buy the club, I’m not aware of any ongoing support they provide and it remains to be seen whether they’ll further put their hands in their pockets as they progress. Again, like Wrexham, easy to do when you’re small.

My point is that I think if you looked across the 92, or maybe more the top leagues of European football I think there’s very few clubs not owned by ‘investors’ hoping to profit from their investment at some stage. I don’t think that has changed from our previous owners to new. All that’s changed is we used to have no debt and now we have some (like most other clubs).

[ClaretTony]

I think the Leicester chap did fund the club initially, then his family not so after. Now they’re up the creek which sort of illustrates the risks with being a billionaires plaything too.

To be fair they were funded significantly by Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha and by his family but their King Power company was very badly hit by the pandemic which has meant they've not had the funds to continue at the level they had previously.

[dsr]

My point is that I think if you looked across the 92, or maybe more the top leagues of European football I think there’s very few clubs not owned by ‘investors’ hoping to profit from their investment at some stage. I don’t think that has changed from our previous owners to new. All that’s changed is we used to have no debt and now we have some (like most other clubs).

I certainly agree that Forest and Leicester are bad ownership models, not least because they have ploughed large amounts into their clubs and blown it. Their points deductions are in large part because their owners have stuffed too much money down their gills.

From post-Lord up to and including Kilby, the club was run by directors with the best interest of the club first, profits remaining in the club. Garlick may not have run it from day 1 with the intention of bleeding funds out of the club, but ultimately that's what he did. The current owners, from their day 1, have been in it for what they can get out.

[randomclaret2]

I certainly agree that Forest and Leicester are bad ownership models, not least because they have ploughed large amounts into their clubs and blown it. Their points deductions are in large part because their owners have stuffed too much money down their gills.

From post-Lord up to and including Kilby, the club was run by directors with the best interest of the club first, profits remaining in the club. Garlick may not have run it from day 1 with the intention of bleeding funds out of the club, but ultimately that's what he did. The current owners, from their day 1, have been in it for what they can get out.

The period you reference was the worst in the club's history, with its very existence in question at times. How often did the club make a profit for it to remain in the club ?

[NewClaret]

To be fair they were funded significantly by Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha and by his family but their King Power company was very badly hit by the pandemic which has meant they've not had the funds to continue at the level they had previously.

Yes, I think they’re an example of one club that was funded by their owner (well done on the spelling, I didn’t even dare attempt). He stood out as a genuine, well intentioned (and rich) owner who was understandably adored by the fans but sadly impacted by tragic circumstances.

I’d classify the Venkys in the same boat. I have no idea why them lot are throwing tennis balls on the pitch when they’ve ploughed £300m in to keep them afloat.

I think those types who put in with no expectation of a return are pretty few and far between though.

[aggi]

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to add a couple more. Whoever it is that owns Bournemouth, too. And Leicester and Forest, and for that matter Andy Holt at Accrington Stanley. The blokes at Wrexham, and Salford. It's not uncommon.

I think I'd prefer Burnley to be owned by some businessmen looking to make a profit than Saudi Arabi.

Personally (and this has been a long running debate) I'd prefer football clubs to be sustainable rather than constantly needing owner funding and all the problems that gives. Look at Bolton (or Gretna) for what happens when the taps turn off.

[NewClaret]

I certainly agree that Forest and Leicester are bad ownership models, not least because they have ploughed large amounts into their clubs and blown it. Their points deductions are in large part because their owners have stuffed too much money down their gills.

From post-Lord up to and including Kilby, the club was run by directors with the best interest of the club first, profits remaining in the club. Garlick may not have run it from day 1 with the intention of bleeding funds out of the club, but ultimately that's what he did. The current owners, from their day 1, have been in it for what they can get out.

I disagree there in the sense I have not seen or heard anything from ALK that discusses them profiting from Burnley as their primary objective.

I’ll say this for absolute certain and hopefully it’s a perspective you will consider in this assessment:

There are thousands of ways to make money more easily than investing in a football club and certainly one like Burnley. Not only ways that would make them more money but with FAR less risk, uncertainty and access to their profits as they’re generated. And more quickly.

These are clever guys who’ve worked in investment banking for good portions of their life. They’ll be incredibly well connected. If all they wanted to do is make money they’d have a choice of any number of hedge funds and investment instruments they could put money in and get returns in a shorter timeframe. While sat on their arse enjoying life.

So on that basis I think there has to be some additional motivation beyond money that makes them move their family here and slog their guts out running a club for probably 10 years before they make any kind of profits. Running a club will be hard graft and stressful no doubt. When they do I imagine they’ll feel it’s been hard earned.

If you ask me what those motivations might be, I’d say most likely building the club, moving it forward and leaving a positive legacy. Thats why I’d love to run a club, anyway, and I say it because Alan has picked on Garlicks Forever Forward slogan and is pushing it.

I agree though that up until now we’ve had a different type of owner and we were lucky to have them, albeit in eras pre-commercialisation of football that now means their kind are the rarest of breeds and not really a feasible option for us going forward. Whether having owners with different motivations and pressures will drive the club forward or backwards remains to be seen.

[Goliath]

I'd be interested to know how much the exposure Leicester get in Thailand has lead to an increase in revenue from the Asian markets.
If they've not managed to turn it into anything tangible then it's probably a waste of time us trying.

[NewClaret]

I'd be interested to know how much the exposure Leicester get in Thailand has lead to an increase in revenue from the Asian markets.
If they've not managed to turn it into anything tangible then it's probably a waste of time us trying.

I’d like to know as well.

I’m not sure your assessment is entirely true though.

Firstly I think our approach might be different, partnering with JJ and DP to cover different demographics and reach them in a different way than I’d imagine Leicester did.

Secondly I imagine reach and brand awareness abroad may not immediately monetise but it probably increases the value of the club if you have more people watching games abroad, following socials and interacting with the club in some way.

[Rileybobs]

I disagree there in the sense I have not seen or heard anything from ALK that discusses them profiting from Burnley as their primary objective.

I’ll say this for absolute certain and hopefully it’s a perspective you will consider in this assessment:

There are thousands of ways to make money more easily than investing in a football club and certainly one like Burnley. Not only ways that would make them more money but with FAR less risk, uncertainty and access to their profits as they’re generated. And more quickly.

They’re obviously not going to state that their primary objective is to profit from BFC are they.

As for thousands of ways to make money easier than owning a football club… do I remember correctly Chester Perry saying he believes ALK have already made a return on their initial investment? If so this method seems like a fairly easy way to make money to me, and obviously without the risk that comes from gambling your own wealth.

As you say, they’re no doubt very clever guys so I’m sure this method of generating large returns for minimal personal risk has been well calculated. The idea they bought BFC with a primary objective that is anything but for making a profit is incredibly naive.

[Jakubclaret]

Yes, I think they’re an example of one club that was funded by their owner (well done on the spelling, I didn’t even dare attempt). He stood out as a genuine, well intentioned (and rich) owner who was understandably adored by the fans but sadly impacted by tragic circumstances.

I’d classify the Venkys in the same boat. I have no idea why them lot are throwing tennis balls on the pitch when they’ve ploughed £300m in to keep them afloat.

I think those types who put in with no expectation of a return are pretty few and far between though.

I’d classify the Venkys in the same boat. I have no idea why them lot are throwing tennis balls on the pitch when they’ve ploughed £300m in to keep them afloat.

Let me help you out with that 1. For years for they got too used to jack walkers money when the footballing landscape was far different & more evenly matched & the success that brought & some still refuse to accept that's gone he's gone & the footballing world is far different now than it was back then.

[NewClaret]

I’d classify the Venkys in the same boat. I have no idea why them lot are throwing tennis balls on the pitch when they’ve ploughed £300m in to keep them afloat.

Let me help you out with that 1. For years for they got too used to jack walkers money when the footballing landscape was far different & more evenly matched & the success that brought & some still refuse to accept that's gone he's gone & the footballing world is far different now than it was back then.

Fair point. I was accounting for them having some intelligence, but you’re right that’s an incorrect and unrealistic assumption.

[Jakubclaret]

Fair point. I was accounting for them having some intelligence, but you’re right that’s an incorrect and unrealistic assumption.

It could be the trend for the day with naive assumptions alongside primary objectives.

[Quickenthetempo]

I'd be interested to know how much the exposure Leicester get in Thailand has lead to an increase in revenue from the Asian markets.
If they've not managed to turn it into anything tangible then it's probably a waste of time us trying.

Every team in the Premier league tried breaking Asia.

When I went to Thailand (about 10 years ago) it was Liverpool and Man Utd stuff everywhere. Their fake shirts all over market stalls for 2 or 3 quid.

Without winning a league title I'm not sure how you attract overseas fans in numbers. To turn them away from the big clubs.
Then you have to get them to part with some dosh.

They're not going to pay 60 quid for a shirt when the fake ones are only a few quid.

[ClaretTony]

Every team in the Premier league tried breaking Asia.

When I went to Thailand (about 10 years ago) it was Liverpool and Man Utd stuff everywhere. Their fake shirts all over market stalls for 2 or 3 quid.

Without winning a league title I'm not sure how you attract overseas fans in numbers. To turn them away from the big clubs.
Then you have to get them to part with some dosh.

They're not going to pay 60 quid for a shirt when the fake ones are only a few quid.

John B has business interests in the far east, certainly in Thailand and Singapore. He told me they really are only interested in the really big clubs and mainly Liverpool & Man U.

[ClaretTony]

They’re obviously not going to state that their primary objective is to profit from BFC are they.

As for thousands of ways to make money easier than owning a football club… do I remember correctly Chester Perry saying he believes ALK have already made a return on their initial investment? If so this method seems like a fairly easy way to make money to me, and obviously without the risk that comes from gambling your own wealth.

As you say, they’re no doubt very clever guys so I’m sure this method of generating large returns for minimal personal risk has been well calculated. The idea they bought BFC with a primary objective that is anything but for making a profit is incredibly naive.

Totally agree with this.

[NewClaret]

They’re obviously not going to state that their primary objective is to profit from BFC are they.

As for thousands of ways to make money easier than owning a football club… do I remember correctly Chester Perry saying he believes ALK have already made a return on their initial investment? If so this method seems like a fairly easy way to make money to me, and obviously without the risk that comes from gambling your own wealth.

As you say, they’re no doubt very clever guys so I’m sure this method of generating large returns for minimal personal risk has been well calculated. The idea they bought BFC with a primary objective that is anything but for making a profit is incredibly naive.

Obviously they’re not going to come out and say it. But in all the interviews Alan & JJ (plus Ball, Williams, etc) have done, the documentary, the shows JJ has done, the social media content, etc etc - nothing has given any suggestion that profit is front and centre of their minds. They certainly haven’t let it slip or give any indication it’s what they’re about.

CP has said that and to be honest I’m not sure how. They invested ~£10m I think. The rest was debt or whatever. When they invested the ~£10m the club was valued at £170m. I very much doubt it is now, although these new investors might be paying a premium for smaller lots. I have no idea how they would’ve got their money back bar the ‘management fees’ which won’t total £10m and are effectively wages I think (if they hadn’t been investing their time at BFC they would have been earning elsewhere and probably a lot more in the type of role Alan was in). Chester will have to explain his maths to me on that one.

I maintain that for a group of wealthy rich guys from the US there are far easier ways of making money than running a football club day to day in rainy Lancashire, turning up at the Dyche before matches and facing the scrutiny of fans. All from palm beach while sipping cocktails. Thats not to say they don’t want and expect to make money too, just I can’t see them dedicating their lives to it for 5-10 years if it’s their only motivation.

[Rileybobs]

Obviously they’re not going to come out and say it. But in all the interviews Alan & JJ (plus Ball, Williams, etc) have done, the documentary, the shows JJ has done, the social media content, etc etc - nothing has given any suggestion that profit is front and centre of their minds. They certainly haven’t let it slip or give any indication it’s what they’re about.

CP has said that and to be honest I’m not sure how. They invested ~£10m I think. The rest was debt or whatever. When they invested the ~£10m the club was valued at £170m. I very much doubt it is now, although these new investors might be paying a premium for smaller lots. I have no idea how they would’ve got their money back bar the ‘management fees’ which won’t total £10m and are effectively wages I think (if they hadn’t been investing their time at BFC they would have been earning elsewhere and probably a lot more in the type of role Alan was in). Chester will have to explain his maths to me on that one.

I maintain that for a group of wealthy rich guys from the US there are far easier ways of making money than running a football club day to day in rainy Lancashire, turning up at the Dyche before matches and facing the scrutiny of fans. All from palm beach while sipping cocktails. Thats not to say they don’t want and expect to make money too, just I can’t see them dedicating their lives to it for 5-10 years if it’s their only motivation.

What do you honestly think motivates them to spend their days in rainy Lancashire rather than sipping cocktails on Palm Beach?

[taio]

Of course they are in it to make money.

[Goliath]

What do you honestly think motivates them to spend their days in rainy Lancashire rather than sipping cocktails on Palm Beach?

A pint of fosters at the Royal Dyche?

[Rileybobs]

A pint of fosters at the Royal Dyche?

I don’t think Mormons drink, but Fosters is probably weak enough to be exempt.

[Goliath]

Every team in the Premier league tried breaking Asia.

When I went to Thailand (about 10 years ago) it was Liverpool and Man Utd stuff everywhere. Their fake shirts all over market stalls for 2 or 3 quid.

Without winning a league title I'm not sure how you attract overseas fans in numbers. To turn them away from the big clubs.
Then you have to get them to part with some dosh.

They're not going to pay 60 quid for a shirt when the fake ones are only a few quid.

Yep the reason I mention Leicester was because of the amount of exposure they had in Thailand. They literally had a big club shop and merchandise all over Bangkok airport when I was there. It was unbelievable and made me realise who actually owned them.

If it's not made much difference to their status as a club in Asia after winning the league as well then what chance do we have

[aggi]

What do you honestly think motivates them to spend their days in rainy Lancashire rather than sipping cocktails on Palm Beach?

I'm sure they are in it to make money and that's a significant motivation. I'd hope that they are also bright enough to realise that the best way of making money is for the club to be successful.

In terms of some of the smaller "co-owners" I suspect a reasonable chunk of motivation there is being part of owning a football team, being able to tell people you're going to see "your" team, being treated as an owner, an added interest, etc. Like a horseracing syndicate where there's a pretty slim chance of making a profit but you're investing for the involvement.

It could pay off handsomely for Pace etc al (I'm not convinced by CP's theory that they have already recovered their investment without something to back it up) but if profit was the only motivator I suspect they wouldn't be investing in football,

[Goliath]

I don’t think Mormons drink, but Fosters is probably weak enough to be exempt.

I'd probably turn Mormon if I had to drink Fosters

[NewClaret]

What do you honestly think motivates them to spend their days in rainy Lancashire rather than sipping cocktails on Palm Beach?

I answered this above: I think in Alan’s case most likely the opportunity to be involved in the sport industry and football particularly given what he’s said about his time in Barcelona, the chance to be involved in the best league in the world, help build the brand around it, move it forward (Forever Forward), leave a legacy, etc.

I’d have to have some passion for what I was doing beyond just making money. He could do all his financial engineering by running a hedge fund from his computer.

[aggi]

Every team in the Premier league tried breaking Asia.

When I went to Thailand (about 10 years ago) it was Liverpool and Man Utd stuff everywhere. Their fake shirts all over market stalls for 2 or 3 quid.

Without winning a league title I'm not sure how you attract overseas fans in numbers. To turn them away from the big clubs.
Then you have to get them to part with some dosh.

They're not going to pay 60 quid for a shirt when the fake ones are only a few quid.

Every time Spurs play at home you'll see hundreds of South Korean fans getting shirts and match balls and the like from the club shop.

But realistically that kind of thing is more likely to happen due to the players we have rather than the owners. A lot of foreign fans seem to follow the players as much as the clubs.

[Rileybobs]

I answered this above: I think in Alan’s case most likely the opportunity to be involved in the sport industry and football particularly given what he’s said about his time in Barcelona, the chance to be involved in the best league in the world, help build the brand around it, move it forward (Forever Forward), leave a legacy, etc.

I’d have to have some passion for what I was doing beyond just making money. He could do all his financial engineering by running a hedge fund from his computer.

I didn’t read anything into the Barcelona story other than that was how he came to like football.

I don’t doubt that he’s got passion etc and of course there will be various other motivations for him buying BFC. But as I said, it would take a naive person to think that making money wasn’t the main driver for ALK’s acquisition of BFC.

[Quickenthetempo]

Yep the reason I mention Leicester was because of the amount of exposure they had in Thailand. They literally had a big club shop and merchandise all over Bangkok airport when I was there. It was unbelievable and made me realise who actually owned them.

If it's not made much difference to their status as a club in Asia after winning the league as well then what chance do we have

They have half a chance with having Thai owners and winning the league but I'm not sure it will benefit them that much.

[Rileybobs]

I'm sure they are in it to make money and that's a significant motivation. I'd hope that they are also bright enough to realise that the best way of making money is for the club to be successful.

In terms of some of the smaller "co-owners" I suspect a reasonable chunk of motivation there is being part of owning a football team, being able to tell people you're going to see "your" team, being treated as an owner, an added interest, etc. Like a horseracing syndicate where there's a pretty slim chance of making a profit but you're investing for the involvement.

It could pay off handsomely for Pace etc al (I'm not convinced by CP's theory that they have already recovered their investment without something to back it up) but if profit was the only motivator I suspect they wouldn't be investing in football,

Yes, I’m sure they realise that the club being successful is the best chance of them realising a profit. But their idea of success may be very different to ours. We may place a higher value on winning the FA cup whereas they may place a higher value on selling a player purchased for £2m for £50m.

In terms of the motivations for their investment in football. My understanding is that they have manufactured a way to make a significant amount of money for a relatively small personal outlay. Would you agree? When Pace bought the club I recall him saying how amazed people would be when they saw how clever their deal was (or words to those effects). It does seem like a very clever deal from their point of view but not necessarily one I would expect fans to be so enthusiastic about.

I must stress, I don’t have a problem with the owners expecting to benefit financially from buying and running the club. I’m just disagreeing with people who, in my opinion, seem to think that this is some form of altruistic pursuit.

[Chester Perry]

Yes, I’m sure they realise that the club being successful is the best chance of them realising a profit. But their idea of success may be very different to ours. We may place a higher value on winning the FA cup whereas they may place a higher value on selling a player purchased for £2m for £50m.

In terms of the motivations for their investment in football. My understanding is that they have manufactured a way to make a significant amount of money for a relatively small personal outlay. Would you agree? When Pace bought the club I recall him saying how amazed people would be when they saw how clever their deal was (or words to those effects). It does seem like a very clever deal from their point of view but not necessarily one I would expect fans to be so enthusiastic about.

I must stress, I don’t have a problem with the owners expecting to benefit financially from buying and running the club. I’m just disagreeing with people who, in my opinion, seem to think that this is some form of altruistic pursuit.

this is what he said

"I don't mean to be over-dramatic on it because I can't explain it, but if you knew you would be
'oh my goodness, this is incredible'.”
Alan Pace, January 5 2021, introductory press conference – a response to a question about the financial structure of the takeover

[Rileybobs]

this is what he said

"I don't mean to be over-dramatic on it because I can't explain it, but if you knew you would be
'oh my goodness, this is incredible'.”
Alan Pace, January 5 2021, introductory press conference – a response to a question about the financial structure of the takeover

Thanks for digging that out. I can only assume that the incredible bit is how he managed to buy a football club with the opportunity to make huge amounts of money by putting very little on the line. What’s your take?

[NewClaret]

this is what he said

"I don't mean to be over-dramatic on it because I can't explain it, but if you knew you would be
'oh my goodness, this is incredible'.”
Alan Pace, January 5 2021, introductory press conference – a response to a question about the financial structure of the takeover

I think he has a different idea of what would find incredible

Maybe naive reading anything in to that, but it has played a role in my assuming there’s more to the structure and financial side of things that we know. I’m hoping that means Garlick didn’t leave us in as bad a state as it would first appear.

[Chester Perry]

this is what he said

"I don't mean to be over-dramatic on it because I can't explain it, but if you knew you would be
'oh my goodness, this is incredible'.”
Alan Pace, January 5 2021, introductory press conference – a response to a question about the financial structure of the takeover

This is what happened

The sale transaction was negotiated in the main by Mike Garlick and his representatives, John Banaszkiewicz was brought in late and the other directors were presented with the deal as a fait accompli at the last minute and given 24 hours to confirm they would sell their shares - any who didn't would be voted off the board and the shares they didn't sell would be replaced from the retained (otherwise to be ringfenced) holdings of those who did agree to sell.

The directors were told that ALK Capital had a billionaire backer who was named, after they asked, as Michael Dell, we now know this backing was actually a £65m loan the liability for which was to be placed upon the club, there is no evidence that Michael Dell was even party to that loan agreement. No one actually knows if Mike Garlick was party to that ruse or was also taken in by it.

The vote to sanction the sale was close 4:3 with those in favour being Mike Garlick, John Banaszkiewicz, Brendan Flood and a deeply embarrassed and somewhat reluctant Barry Kilby who had no choice but to vote with Garlick as a result of a years earlier binding legal agreement to sell his shares to him when he turned 75.

December 23 2020 Calder Vale Holdings Limited take out a £65m loan from MSD Holdings UK Ltd (Charges were filed against Calder Vale holdings and Kettering Capital Limited at Companies House), I believe the cash it provided was used to prove that ALK Capital LLC had funds for the takeover which they told the clubs then directors was money provided by their billionaire backer Michael Dell.

Immediately following the takeover on December 30 2020 the loan agreement is transferred to Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited who then (on paper at least) immediately loan the total sum to Calder Vale Holdings (there is a separate loan of circa £23m in the same direction between the same parties at the same time) these funds are used to pay for a capital injection into Kettering Capital (along with £10m of ALK/VSL's own funds) the total of circa £98m is then paid as the down payment to the selling share holders.

[Goliath]

That worries me that Kilby was against it. He's the one who truly has the clubs interests at heart. He deserves more acknowledgement as a legend of the club and the town than he ever gets not just for football but for how many lives he's probably saved aswell

[Rileybobs]

December 23 2020 Calder Vale Holdings Limited take out a £65m loan from MSD Holdings UK Ltd (Charges were filed against Calder Vale holdings and Kettering Capital Limited at Companies House), I believe the cash it provided was used to prove that ALK Capital LLC had funds for the takeover which they told the clubs then directors was money provided by their billionaire backer Michael Dell.

Great summary, thanks. However, would the alleged events in the quoted paragraph not be fraudulent?

[Chester Perry]

Great summary, thanks. However, would the alleged events in the quoted paragraph not be fraudulent?

I said - I believe that is what happened with that bit

[Chester Perry]

That worries me that Kilby was against it. He's the one who truly has the clubs interests at heart. He deserves more acknowledgement as a legend of the club and the town than he ever gets not just for football but for how many lives he's probably saved aswell

I think Kilby's position has been known for quite some time, he talks about some elements of it here (in October 2021) and you can read between the lines for the rest- the whole interview is quite well done and Kilby talks about many aspects of his time at the club and the way the game was going

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzmUJBdykYk