ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Paul Waine]

As someone who does not really get how these things work, is it normal for the lawyer to be made a director of the purchasing company? People suggesting further up Farnell is involved in Staunch Partners as a director? Does this mean he will have an active part in running the club?
More information required on Farnell's involvement in all this.

There are two separate aspects:

1) It is very normal for a lawyer to be the director of a company if that lawyer has set up the company. Staunch Partners registered office address is Farnell's office in Hale - so, very likely that CF set up the company. (I've not checked Companies House - but easy to do).

I'm not fully up to speed with what CF did wrong with respect to EFL directors and officers test - reports are he forgot to tick a box saying he was a director, for a short time, of a relevant company. I guess we can establish these facts with a further search of Companies House - "which companies has CF been a director of..."

2) If CF is a director of Staunch Partners and this company buys Burnley FC it is possible that CF will become a director of Burnley FC - but, this would be a decision of the (new) owners of the club and isn't necessarily the case.

Directors don't need to be "executive directors" - the latter would have executive responsibilities - whereas a non-executive director is a board member without any executive responsibilities.

[fidelcastro]

Michael Knighton

I thought he was very good as Batman.

[aggi]

Interesting. Some of us would have thought the club was losing money because Mike Garlick told us all in April that covid-19 would cost the club £50m.

I think that was could cost £50m rather than would. It was a worst case scenario with no matches at all.

[aggi]

...

1) It is very normal for a lawyer to be the director of a company if that lawyer has set up the company. Staunch Partners registered office address is Farnell's office in Hale - so, very likely that CF set up the company. (I've not checked Companies House - but easy to do).
...

Agreed that it's not unusual for them to be a director initially. It is unusual though for them to be a shareholder, particularly with Significant Control.

[dsr]

That’s not correct - we only ever made £30m BECAUSE of the sale of players. Check out the last accounts and we virtually broke even.
Fast forward 13 months to the July 20 year end figures and it will be similar in terms of net spend impact of player sales and purchases and then factor in a wage bill of around £95m (because of the 13 month period) and the loss of match day revenue and TV rebate and it could be anywhere between £20m and £30m losses (or possibly more)

It is correct. If you look at the operating income and costs before taking into account player sales, plater purchases, and amortisation, we make £30+ profit each year. It's because that goes on other items - principally player purchases - that the accounts profit is different.

2018-19: Income £139m, Wages £86m, Other admin costs £15m, Tax £1m, Operating Profit £37m.
2017-18: Income £140m, Wages £82m, Other admin costs £15m, Tax £8m, Operating Profit £35m.
2016-17: Income £122m, Wages £61m, Other admin costs £12m, Tax £5m, Operating Profit £44m.

In those three years we spent total £119m on transfer fees and got back £44m. That's where the money goes.

But in terms of whether we are struggling to pay the bills or whether we can get by, it's the operating profit figures that matter. Amortisation is irrelevant - whether we paid £x million a year or two back does not affect current income and running costs.

[TVC15]

It is correct. If you look at the operating income and costs before taking into account player sales, plater purchases, and amortisation, we make £30+ profit each year. It's because that goes on other items - principally player purchases - that the accounts profit is different.

2018-19: Income £139m, Wages £86m, Other admin costs £15m, Tax £1m, Operating Profit £37m.
2017-18: Income £140m, Wages £82m, Other admin costs £15m, Tax £8m, Operating Profit £35m.
2016-17: Income £122m, Wages £61m, Other admin costs £12m, Tax £5m, Operating Profit £44m.

In those three years we spent total £119m on transfer fees and got back £44m. That's where the money goes.

But in terms of whether we are struggling to pay the bills or whether we can get by, it's the operating profit figures that matter. Amortisation is irrelevant - whether we paid £x million a year or two back does not affect current income and running costs.

You’re original statement is not correct but honestly I can’t be bothered going back and forth when you’ve added new things in above and start talking about other things.

I never said we were or were not struggling to pay any bills.
But it is a fact that we only made £30m level type profits because of player sales.
If things are all fine with our finances why do you think Garlick is trying trying to get our wage bill reduced by so much and spent so little in the transfer market ? Surely it can’t be in relation to the take over if things are going so well.

[Rodleydave]

The Egyptian deal has a whiff of the Peter Shackleton about it...does the money really exist... questionable lawyers... chasing the deal for months... where is the money coming from...

[claptrappers_union]

The Egyptian deal has a whiff of the Peter Shackleton about it...does the money really exist... questionable lawyers... chasing the deal for months... where is the money coming from...

There's proof of funds, whatever that entails...

[Rodleydave]

Shackleton always said he had proof of funds.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Out of interest would there be this much hysteria if it was just the Egyptian and there was no mention of the lawyer?

[Colburn_Claret]

Very worrying times, it might be fear over nothing, but there is so much about this that sounds questionable.

One can only hope that Mike Garlic does his due diligence better than the authorities normally do, and that his support of BFC will not allow him to sell us down the river.
Though after the dogs abuse he receives every transfer window, you couldn't blame him.

[arise_sir_charge]

Very worrying times, it might be fear over nothing, but there is so much about this that sounds questionable.

One can only hope that Mike Garlic does his due diligence better than the authorities normally do, and that his support of BFC will not allow him to sell us down the river.
Though after the dogs abuse he receives every transfer window, you couldn't blame him.

Dogs abuse, really? Has he ever been challenged in the ground by the crowd, I can't recall. He's had a fairly easy ride if anything.

[dsr]

You’re original statement is not correct but honestly I can’t be bothered going back and forth when you’ve added new things in above and start talking about other things.

I never said we were or were not struggling to pay any bills.
But it is a fact that we only made £30m level type profits because of player sales.
If things are all fine with our finances why do you think Garlick is trying trying to get our wage bill reduced by so much and spent so little in the transfer market ? Surely it can’t be in relation to the take over if things are going so well.

Actually the operating profit before taking account of player purchases and sales does not depend on player sales. The accounts profit, which is a different thing and which I did not quote because it is less relevant to day to day running costs, does take account of player sales.

[TVC15]

Actually the operating profit before taking account of player purchases and sales does not depend on player sales. The accounts profit, which is a different thing and which I did not quote because it is less relevant to day to day running costs, does take account of player sales.

You are picking up some bad habits dsr.
Where have I said “operating” profits take into account player sales ?
You are the one who keeps on changing the wording and the subject.
Those are the kind of traits of one of the more infamous posters on this board - as is ignoring the question I posed and talking about something else !

Let’s not pretend you have a better understanding of accounting standards than me - that will just embarrass you.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I think Mike Garlick can do whatever the hell he wants, it just seems strange for this poster to come criticising the fans for being “seduced by money” when if anyone’s been seduced by money it’s Garlick and co.

I don’t even know why I ever respond to ClaretontheCoast, he’s clearly an angry old man with nothing better to do than sit on here moaning and trolling.

calm down kid

[clansman]

At the risk of repetition Mr El Kashashy appears to be let’s say economical with the truth about his background and business interests. His linked-in page says he is managing partner of Beta-Infra based in USE and Uk. No such company exists either in UK Egypt or UAE
I found a website page for a law firm in Egypt called Kashash , without the y on end.the photo of the Chairman was the spitting image of El Kashashy! UK embassy in Egypt couldn’t find any trace of such a firm.
It is all a big con and wasting the time of those involved with the ALK deal. If Mr Farnell or Mr Karshashy or their advisors wish to dispute any of this let them state clearly which firm or group of investors Mr Karshashy works for or represents.

[whentheballmoves]

Agreed, Clansman.
No need for any cloak and dagger tactics from either party.
The ones being most transparent and honest for me, please.

[Chester Perry]

let them state clearly which firm or group of investors Mr Karshashy works for or represents.

Perhaps it is fortunate that this is something that the Premier League will be very focused on establishing, if this summers proposed takeover of Newcastle by the Saudi's is anything to go by - it was on trying to get to the bottom of this very point that the Saudi's walked away. just who has the ultimate control

[Danieljwaterhouse]

At the risk of repetition Mr El Kashashy appears to be let’s say economical with the truth about his background and business interests. His linked-in page says he is managing partner of Beta-Infra based in USE and Uk. No such company exists either in UK Egypt or UAE
I found a website page for a law firm in Egypt called Kashash , without the y on end.the photo of the Chairman was the spitting image of El Kashashy! UK embassy in Egypt couldn’t find any trace of such a firm.
It is all a big con and wasting the time of those involved with the ALK deal. If Mr Farnell or Mr Karshashy or their advisors wish to dispute any of this let them state clearly which firm or group of investors Mr Karshashy works for or represents.

The state. How many times do posters have to be redirected back to this thread. The answers are ALL there, various posters have inputted including Tony. Go and do your own ‘due diligence’ before you post.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Agreed, Clansman.
No need for any cloak and dagger tactics from either party.
The ones being most transparent and honest for me, please.

You’ve obviously never bought, sold or brokered any sort of sale/purchase.

Business is ALL cloak and dagger

[clansman]

Daniel
That’s nonsense! If the Egyptian State are behind the deal which ministry or state bank or investment fund is behind it. ? Doesn’t have to be cloak and dagger. Who does Me Kashashy work for. If it’s someone trying to invest the states money illegally then deal will fail as Chester says under PL scrutiny

[dsr]

You are picking up some bad habits dsr.
Where have I said “operating” profits take into account player sales ?
You are the one who keeps on changing the wording and the subject.
Those are the kind of traits of one of the more infamous posters on this board - as is ignoring the question I posed and talking about something else !

Let’s not pretend you have a better understanding of accounting standards than me - that will just embarrass you.

I certainly haven't mastered the "I am clever so I am right and you are stupid so you are wrong" approach. That's something I could learn from you if I wanted to come across like you. I may not bother.

The point of my original post was that I was answering a general opinion voiced among others by nonayforever that the club must be struggling for cash for the week to week needs. The figures I quoted are the income and expenditure figures stripping out costs of player acquisition and disposal. This is because player amortisation and player sale proceeds are not relevant to our week to week running costs. Nor, for that matter, does the change of accounting date affect the day to day running costs.

[Vegas Claret]

have we signed Beckham yet ?

[scouseclaret]

You’re original statement is not correct but honestly I can’t be bothered going back and forth when you’ve added new things in above and start talking about other things.

I never said we were or were not struggling to pay any bills.
But it is a fact that we only made £30m level type profits because of player sales.
If things are all fine with our finances why do you think Garlick is trying trying to get our wage bill reduced by so much and spent so little in the transfer market ? Surely it can’t be in relation to the take over if things are going so well.

That isn't right. You said in your original post we only made £30m because of player sales and you've reiterated that here but, as DSR says, the £35m operating profit stated in the accounts is AFTER player trading. It is virtually wiped out by amortisation of contracts, but that's a non-cash item.

[scouseclaret]

The state. How many times do posters have to be redirected back to this thread. The answers are ALL there, various posters have inputted including Tony. Go and do your own ‘due diligence’ before you post.

Which thread? This one or an earlier one?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

There’s been threads throughout the last year, this one has a lot of information on, there’s some in the transfer thread, Chesters, and so on.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Daniel
That’s nonsense! If the Egyptian State are behind the deal which ministry or state bank or investment fund is behind it. ? Doesn’t have to be cloak and dagger. Who does Me Kashashy work for. If it’s someone trying to invest the states money illegally then deal will fail as Chester says under PL scrutiny

It may well fail scrutiny as Newcastle did.

Doesn’t mean that there’s not a power battle in the Middle East.

[Chester Perry]

lovely nugget in this report from Sky this morning

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... l-kashashy

"Farnell is still being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority about his actions during his time involved with Charlton earlier in the year."

[ClaretTony]

It may well fail scrutiny as Newcastle did.

I seriously hope so from what I've gleaned so far about these two

[TVC15]

That isn't right. You said in your original post we only made £30m because of player sales and you've reiterated that here but, as DSR says, the £35m operating profit stated in the accounts is AFTER player trading. It is virtually wiped out by amortisation of contracts, but that's a non-cash item.

I never mentioned operating profit....dsr brought that into the debate.

I was talking about our bottom line profit - the one that is the most commonly reported one.
We did only make this level of profit because of player sales.
Even the accounts mention our bottom line profit was as such because of the player sales of Keane and Gray.

Given what most of the debate has been on this board during the transfer window around our finances not really sure why all of a sudden operating profit is a better indication of our finances than bottom line profit.

But since we are now debating the state of our operating position if we are in the healthy state dsr referenced why would the chairman be trying to reduce our wage bill by so much ?

[claretonthecoast1882]

I seriously hope so from what I've gleaned so far about these two

You would imagine that someone launching a bid would put their best presentable people out first. Makes you wonder the kind of people lurking in the background along with these, for some people anyway some aren't arsed if they don't know who else is involved.

[scouseclaret]

It may well fail scrutiny as Newcastle did.

Doesn’t mean that there’s not a power battle in the Middle East.

So are you saying this Kashashy fella is a front for a sovereign wealth fund?

[NewClaret]

There’s been threads throughout the last year, this one has a lot of information on, there’s some in the transfer thread, Chesters, and so on.

So the Egyptian and/or Dubai state are behind their bid?

If so, why not use official funds rather than a shell company run by an apparent nobody/dodgy character (and his Lawyer)?

Very worrying for me that the club haven’t responded to the SPA reports. If they have committed to sell the club surely fans have a right to know? If not, why not set the record straight?

[ClaretTony]

So the Egyptian and/or Dubai state are behind their bid?

If so, why not use official funds rather than a shell company run by an apparent nobody/dodgy character (and his Lawyer)?

Very worrying for me that the club haven’t responded to the SPA reports. If they have committed to sell the club surely fans have a right to know? If not, why not set the record straight?

The CEO said he would speak to fans and stakeholders when there was anything to say. The club have opted not to comment which therefore suggests that there is nothing confirmed to say.

[TVC15]

I certainly haven't mastered the "I am clever so I am right and you are stupid so you are wrong" approach. That's something I could learn from you if I wanted to come across like you. I may not bother.

The point of my original post was that I was answering a general opinion voiced among others by nonayforever that the club must be struggling for cash for the week to week needs. The figures I quoted are the income and expenditure figures stripping out costs of player acquisition and disposal. This is because player amortisation and player sale proceeds are not relevant to our week to week running costs. Nor, for that matter, does the change of accounting date affect the day to day running costs.

Oh I don’t know you seem to have mastered that pretty well yourself down the years !

Back to the point I never mentioned operating profit but I do know what it means thanks. Of course the change in date has no relevance to day to day expenses but as said a number of times already I did not bring it up in relation to operating profit - it was clearly in relation to bottom line profit.

But on the point you mentioned about whether we are struggling to cover our day to day expenses - that includes players wages right ? So why do you think the board has reduced our total wage bill by so much during the last 6 months ? It must be around at least a 10% reduction in our total wage bill based on the players we have let go.

[Chester Perry]

I seriously hope so from what I've gleaned so far about these two

It has been my line of greatest hope since it became evident that this bid was a front for some other MENA (Middle East/North Africa) entity.

I have posted mountains of information on the proxy wars being fought in football by states in this region on the MMT thread over the years including speculation about how the Northern clubs in particular seemed embroiled in it

Qatar
- forever being linked with Leeds - there is a personal and business relationship with the Leeds owner

Saudi Arabia
- a minor prince owns Sheffield United
- the state tried to buy Newcastle though it has long been believed that they covet Manchester United the most

Abu Dhabi
- Manchester City

Dubai/Egypt
Burnley?

that is a hell of a pincer movement on Leeds, Simon Chadwick a global respected authority on sport business and geo politics was talking about this last year (it didn't include Burnley Dubai/Egypt then)

I ask myself - is it a coincidence that all these clubs have a traditional loathing of Leeds?

[scouseclaret]

I never mentioned operating profit....dsr brought that into the debate.

I was talking about our bottom line profit - the one that is the most commonly reported one.
We did only make this level of profit because of player sales.
Even the accounts mention our bottom line profit was as such because of the player sales of Keane and Gray.

Given what most of the debate has been on this board during the transfer window around our finances not really sure why all of a sudden operating profit is a better indication of our finances than bottom line profit.

But since we are now debating the state of our operating position if we are in the healthy state dsr referenced why would the chairman be trying to reduce our wage bill by so much ?

Completely wrong. The bottom line profit of £4.5m includes just +£7m profit on player sales and -£37m of amortisation of contracts - which is essentially the depreciation of transfer fees paid in previous periods. That is purely an accounting number and is pretty meaningless in cash terms as it assumes every player we've bought will end up leaving for nothing, which is generally something we try to avoid. In cash terms (a cashflow statement would be nice!) the operating profit is a better reflection of the position.

Also, Keane was sold in the summer of 2017 and Gray some time before that, so they have nothing to do with last year's numbers.

[dsr]

Oh I don’t know you seem to have mastered that pretty well yourself down the years !

Back to the point I never mentioned operating profit but I do know what it means thanks. Of course the change in date has no relevance to day to day expenses but as said a number of times already I did not bring it up in relation to operating profit - it was clearly in relation to bottom line profit.

But on the point you mentioned about whether we are struggling to cover our day to day expenses - that includes players wages right ? So why do you think the board has reduced our total wage bill by so much during the last 6 months ? It must be around at least a 10% reduction in our total wage bill based on the players we have let go.

The main reason wages have reduced is because we couldn't get the players we wanted to replace Hendrick and Lennon. I doubt it will be as much as 10% reduction, because other players' wages have no doubt gone up.

As for saving money, it's probably a transfer budget. Just because they couldn't find players that fit Dyche's profile and fit the wage bill, doesn't mean they didn't try. It just means they didn't succeed.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

It has been my line of greatest hope since it became evident that this bid was a front for some other MENA (Middle East/North Africa) entity.

I have posted mountains of information on the proxy wars being fought in football by states in this region on the MMT thread over the years including speculation about how the Northern clubs in particular seemed embroiled in it

Qatar
- forever being linked with Leeds - there is a personal and business relationship with the Leeds owner

Saudi Arabia
- a minor prince owns Sheffield United
- the state tried to buy Newcastle though it has long been believed that they covet Manchester United the most

Abu Dhabi
- Manchester City

Dubai/Egypt
Burnley?

that is a hell of a pincer movement on Leeds, Simon Chadwick a global respected authority on sport business and geo politics was talking about this last year (it didn't include Burnley Dubai/Egypt then)

I ask myself - is it a coincidence that all these clubs have a traditional loathing of Leeds?

Thanks Chester, that’s a good overview. Nothing to add.

[Charlton Boy]

Chaps do you honestly think for one second if this man was a reputable businessman or backed by the state as some of you discuss, that he/they would be working with a lawyer who has just failed the fit and proper persons test and who has his offices broken into by Charlton fans just two months ago to confront him.

[jrgbfc]

Is it really that much better to become a plaything or propaganda machine for some Arab state? Not really what I want from my club tbh, even if it brought a little bit of success.

[TVC15]

Completely wrong. The bottom line profit of £4.5m includes just +£7m profit on player sales and -£37m of amortisation of contracts - which is essentially the depreciation of transfer fees paid in previous periods. That is purely an accounting number and is pretty meaningless in cash terms as it assumes every player we've bought will end up leaving for nothing, which is generally something we try to avoid. In cash terms (a cashflow statement would be nice!) the operating profit is a better reflection of the position.

Also, Keane was sold in the summer of 2017 and Gray some time before that, so they have nothing to do with last year's numbers.

Why don’t you read the actual thread a bit more closely ?
Where did I say that Keane and Gray sales was included in the last reported accounts ?
It’s obvious that we were nearer to a break even position in the last accounts because the Gray and Keane money had gone into previous years accounts and inflating our bottom line profits to nearer to the £30m mark.

Go and argue with someone else please.

[clansman]

The Middle East state involvement argument is slightly daft when if you consider how much money they are supposed to have and they want trophy clubs they end up trying to buy Charlton and Burnley!!!

[Stockbrokerbelt]

So going by this board over the last few weeks, get GarlicK out & get investment in, back Dyche with investment, shocking the lack of investment, we should be buying players 20/30 mil. Here we now have an offer of investment & it turns out we now only want a certain type of investment! It’s the real world & football is like any other business & money talks. The Egyptian bid fronted by a corner shop owner & dodgy solicitor have already been cast as the villains in a panto, ALK are the posse riding to our rescue but we’re not sure who sent the posse or providing the posse’s money but that’s alright? I’m pretty certain if we hang on to our premiere place & have owners who splash the cash it will be all smiles & munching the match day pie with utter glee. That is until we lose a couple & the usual suspects will want Dyche out & if we lose money it will be demanding why we were sold & what a great job Garlick was doing & why did he sell to such bad owners. This board is such great reading & should be acting as consultancy basis in the world of football.

[scouseclaret]

Why don’t you read the actual thread a bit more closely ?
Where did I say that Keane and Gray sales was included in the last reported accounts ?
It’s obvious that we were nearer to a break even position in the last accounts because the Gray and Keane money had gone into previous years accounts and inflating our bottom line profits to nearer to the £30m mark.

Go and argue with someone else please.

I will after this coz I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. When you look at a profit & loss statement, it covers the specific accounting year the statement refers to - in this case June 2019. Sales of players in previous years may have had a historic influence on cash in the bank, but have nothing to do with last year's profit. May I respectfully suggest that it you don't have a basic understanding of accounts you don't pick such arguments?

[TVC15]

The main reason wages have reduced is because we couldn't get the players we wanted to replace Hendrick and Lennon. I doubt it will be as much as 10% reduction, because other players' wages have no doubt gone up.

As for saving money, it's probably a transfer budget. Just because they couldn't find players that fit Dyche's profile and fit the wage bill, doesn't mean they didn't try. It just means they didn't succeed.

Of course that is possible. I’ve never said we did not try and bring players in.
Personally I think we have cut around £8m to £10m off our wage bill which I think would have peaked at around £90m (for a 12 month period)

Do you not believe our total revenue has reduced during the last 12 months by at least £10m ?
And more importantly than historical information which lets face it is pretty irrelevant (especially from 14 months ago) what do you think our chairman is forecasting in terms of the 2021 accounts in terms of falls in revenue / income ? And beyond that he has to also factor in the general consensus that the next TV deals are going to be lower.

[BurnleyFC]

Interesting read

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/exclusiv ... solicitor/

And the guy in the picture looks remarkably like mohamed El Kashashy below.

image_400x400.jpg

That’s not El Kashashy. That’s Matt Lucas with a tan.

[scouseclaret]

So going by this board over the last few weeks, get GarlicK out & get investment in, back Dyche with investment, shocking the lack of investment, we should be buying players 20/30 mil. Here we now have an offer of investment & it turns out we now only want a certain type of investment! It’s the real world & football is like any other business & money talks. The Egyptian bid fronted by a corner shop owner & dodgy solicitor have already been cast as the villains in a panto, ALK are the posse riding to our rescue but we’re not sure who sent the posse or providing the posse’s money but that’s alright? I’m pretty certain if we hang on to our premiere place & have owners who splash the cash it will be all smiles & munching the match day pie with utter glee. That is until we lose a couple & the usual suspects will want Dyche out & if we lose money it will be demanding why we were sold & what a great job Garlick was doing & why did he sell to such bad owners. This board is such great reading & should be acting as consultancy basis in the world of football.

Just because we want investment in the club doesn't mean you get into bed with any shysterwho turns up claiming to have a few quid. We all know where that ends up.

[KateR]

The Middle East state involvement argument is slightly daft when if you consider how much money they are supposed to have and they want trophy clubs they end up trying to buy Charlton and Burnley!!!

not really, all depends on why you want to buy, look at Peak6 sports (billionaire owners) who bought a League of Ireland club, why I have no idea, they previously owned 25% of Bournemouth, so while on the surface it seems daft, I don't think it is because we don't know the why they want to, that's the big unknown for me.

[Colburn_Claret]

I seriously hope so from what I've gleaned so far about these two

Is there anything we can do as fans to put our two penneth in. Is there a contact address or phone number for Mike Garlic, not wanting to hound him obviously, but someway we can let the people involved know, that the due diligence into the backgrounds of these people needs to be trawled with a fine toothcomb. Maybe even ringing the club line and leaving messages.
These people fill me with fear for our future, and I don't think the Prem will give a rats arse if Burnley go under.