ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[ClaretPete001]

ALK will only make large amounts of money by growing the business/club.
If they don't then they'll only make a certain amount because the value of the club will increase just by being in the PL for an extended period of time

Of course the club plateaued under Garlick, he'd reached the limit of his ownership, that's it and then the club came back down to the lower part of the PL
The club hasn't peaked with that 7th placed finish.

Why didn't we have a queue of potential buyers?
We aren't a fashionable club, it required work/vision to change the image and then to grow the brand to take it to the next level which is regular mid table finishes with semi regular efforts to get into Europe.


ALK saw the potential for growth, but you seem to think they didn't and weren't looking to grow the club overall, which is a bizarre thing to think
They're business men, with experience the financial sector which is all about growing a product/portfolio to make money, not to sit on it and hope for the best.

If it goes to plan, they'll make a lot more money than Garlick did.

I thought I'd highlight the one or two points in your statement that are not true - sadly, when I looked at it - it was every sentence.

"ALK will only make large amounts of money by growing the business/club" - Not true - if their plan comes to fruition they will buy a considerable asset with the club's money. Gordon Gekko aside, I think most would think tens of millions return on minimal investment is making lots of money

"If they don't then they'll only make a certain amount because the value of the club will increase just by being in the PL for an extended period of time" - Not true - the value of the club in a leveraged buyout is not in growth I've explained this several times

"Of course the club plateaued under Garlick, he'd reached the limit of his ownership, that's it and then the club came back down to the lower part of the PL" - Not true - we finished 15th the year after because of Europe but 10th in 19/20. After that they had decided to sell the club. It was clearly the decision to sell that affected the performance of the club not anything intrinsic to the previous ownership's stewardship of the club. The evidence for that is the £50 million in the clubs bank accounts spent on shares and nothing spent on players in 20/21.

"We aren't a fashionable club" - Not true, there is demand for smaller clubs because some think that is where the value lies outside the big clubs (Chien Lee). The fact we are an unfashionable football club is not greatly of interest to businessmen or investors.

"ALK saw the potential for growth, but you seem to think they didn't and weren't looking to grow the club overall," - Not true, I said the primary value in a leveraged buyout is the cash in the business to buy the asset - growth is a secondary factor"

"They're business men, with experience the financial sector which is all about growing a product/portfolio to make money, not to sit on it and hope for the best." - Not true Alan Pace was a Sales Director in an investment bank so they are primarily investors and investors often look for undervalued companies they can add value too without too much effort in growing the business. Or indeed, think Richard Gere in Pretty Women sometimes the bits of a company are worth more than the whole

[Paul Waine]

So, simple question, was anyone else interested in buying the club other than ALK?......

Indeed, the intelligent question is why there was no one interested not whether there was anyone interested.

I think there's a simple, factual answer to the question you both ask in the Subject of this thread: "ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashasy takeover."

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Ok so ALK just purchased the club on a whim, to not grow the overall business and they're going to be content with making tens of millions....

Not much else to say because batting.this back and forth with someone like Pete is tiresome, have fun gang.

[Nori1958]

Ok so ALK just purchased the club on a whim, to not grow the overall business and they're going to be content with making tens of millions....

Not much else to say because batting.this back and forth with someone like Pete is tiresome, have fun gang.

I realise that now and have surrendered.....

[Paul Waine]

I thought I'd highlight the one or two points in your statement that are not true - sadly, when I looked at it - it was every sentence.

"They're business men, with experience the financial sector which is all about growing a product/portfolio to make money, not to sit on it and hope for the best." - Not true Alan Pace was a Sales Director in an investment bank so they are primarily investors and investors often look for undervalued companies they can add value too without too much effort in growing the business. Or indeed, think Richard Gere in Pretty Women sometimes the bits of a company are worth more than the whole

Hi Pete, I recommend you take another look at Alan Pace's role at Citigroup, he was not a "Sales Director." I also recommend you take a look at what Citigroup says it does - you should find some information on Citi's own website: "About us" or "What we do" or something similar, at a guess, will be on their website.

As you said "highlight points in your statement that are not true..."

You have an odd idea that "investment" and "business" are somehow different things. It's more typical to consider that they are the same thing.

While I remember, earlier on this thread, you've expressed views on "capitalisation" and "debt." Traditionally, capital employed in a business is split between equity and debt. In other words, debt is just as much a part of the capital in a business as is equity. The distinction that can matter is how much equity and how much debt. Leverage is generally spoken of as the balance between the two.

Hope you find my comments helpful.

[steve1264b]

Question Chesterperry.

My dad ran a small manufactoring company. He always said when cash got tight get more product out.

The owners did that last season by winning the league.

In terms of football i take that mean to stay in the premier as long as possible to finance/pay off the debt.

I dont want to put words in your mouth but i think you are suggesting (and i agree) that there isnt a point in the future where we will be financially secure and our debts will just grow until they become the thing that kills us.

Or can you see some escape act where the owners clear the debt?

[steve1264b]

Ps i didnt sell my shares as i thought the club might need a well organised shareholders group in the future, althought i do accept they might become worthless!

[roperclaret]

I thought I'd highlight the one or two points in your statement that are not true - sadly, when I looked at it - it was every sentence.

"ALK will only make large amounts of money by growing the business/club" - Not true - if their plan comes to fruition they will buy a considerable asset with the club's money. Gordon Gekko aside, I think most would think tens of millions return on minimal investment is making lots of money

"If they don't then they'll only make a certain amount because the value of the club will increase just by being in the PL for an extended period of time" - Not true - the value of the club in a leveraged buyout is not in growth I've explained this several times

"Of course the club plateaued under Garlick, he'd reached the limit of his ownership, that's it and then the club came back down to the lower part of the PL" - Not true - we finished 15th the year after because of Europe but 10th in 19/20. After that they had decided to sell the club. It was clearly the decision to sell that affected the performance of the club not anything intrinsic to the previous ownership's stewardship of the club. The evidence for that is the £50 million in the clubs bank accounts spent on shares and nothing spent on players in 20/21.

"We aren't a fashionable club" - Not true, there is demand for smaller clubs because some think that is where the value lies outside the big clubs (Chien Lee). The fact we are an unfashionable football club is not greatly of interest to businessmen or investors.

"ALK saw the potential for growth, but you seem to think they didn't and weren't looking to grow the club overall," - Not true, I said the primary value in a leveraged buyout is the cash in the business to buy the asset - growth is a secondary factor"

"They're business men, with experience the financial sector which is all about growing a product/portfolio to make money, not to sit on it and hope for the best." - Not true Alan Pace was a Sales Director in an investment bank so they are primarily investors and investors often look for undervalued companies they can add value too without too much effort in growing the business. Or indeed, think Richard Gere in Pretty Women sometimes the bits of a company are worth more than the whole

You’re so sure of yourself aren’t you. Do you ever even entertain the thought you may be wrong?

[NewClaret]

Or can you see some escape act where the owners clear the debt?

It’s a good question.

Firstly, from what I can understand nobody now knows our debt levels. Being honest, I think this Macquarie loan proves PW’s argument that the MSD loan was paid off by MG/Clarets Go Large, and most likely that’s now been paid back by Macquarie. I personally hope that involves a reduction in the £39m debt but I very much doubt it. But lets be honest, we don’t know if we’re now at the same, lower or higher debt levels.

They basically need one sell one of our recent signings for £40-£60m and the debt is cleared. Or more likely 3x£20m+

Judging by the quality we’ve signed this year I think we’re pretty safe on that front if we have a good year in the PL this year. So no worries from this perspective from me.

The way I see it is this: Garlick seemed to like accumulating cash in the bank and everyone felt all safe (including me). But we went down. Pace & ALK instead like our assets to be on the pitch and not in a bank account. Which if you think about it is the right way around for a football club but we don’t feel safe (including me).

My hope is that we start to bridge that gap, rebuild with better players on the pitch whilst reducing our debt. I’ll be disappointed if we’ve borrowed more than the £39m we were previously in debt, but I expect to be disappointed. If ALK chip away at it and pay it off over time I’ll be good with it. But it’ll take time to reposition where we were (cash rich but woefully underinvested on the pitch) to where we’d like to be on the pitch AND the debt paid off. We’ll have to be patient.

[Quickenthetempo]

It’s a good question.

Firstly, from what I can understand nobody now knows our debt levels. Being honest, I think this Macquarie loan proves PW’s argument that the MSD loan was paid off by MG/Clarets Go Large, and most likely that’s now been paid back by Macquarie. I personally hope that involves a reduction in the £39m debt but I very much doubt it. But lets be honest, we don’t know if we’re now at the same, lower or higher debt levels.

They basically need one sell one of our recent signings for £40-£60m and the debt is cleared. Or more likely 3x£20m+

Judging by the quality we’ve signed this year I think we’re pretty safe on that front if we have a good year in the PL this year. So no worries from this perspective from me.

The way I see it is this: Garlick seemed to like accumulating cash in the bank and everyone felt all safe (including me). But we went down. Pace & ALK instead like our assets to be on the pitch and not in a bank account. Which if you think about it is the right way around for a football club but we don’t feel safe (including me).

My hope is that we start to bridge that gap, rebuild with better players on the pitch whilst reducing our debt. I’ll be disappointed if we’ve borrowed more than the £39m we were previously in debt, but I expect to be disappointed. If ALK chip away at it and pay it off over time I’ll be good with it. But it’ll take time to reposition where we were (cash rich but woefully underinvested on the pitch) to where we’d like to be on the pitch AND the debt paid off. We’ll have to be patient.

They haven't got the money to keep paying debts off like the Venkys or Davies at Bolton.
If it gets out of hand they will have to sell.

[Paul Waine]

It’s a good question.

Firstly, from what I can understand nobody now knows our debt levels. Being honest, I think this Macquarie loan proves PW’s argument that the MSD loan was paid off by MG/Clarets Go Large, and most likely that’s now been paid back by Macquarie. I personally hope that involves a reduction in the £39m debt but I very much doubt it. But lets be honest, we don’t know if we’re now at the same, lower or higher debt levels.

They basically need one sell one of our recent signings for £40-£60m and the debt is cleared. Or more likely 3x£20m+

Judging by the quality we’ve signed this year I think we’re pretty safe on that front if we have a good year in the PL this year. So no worries from this perspective from me.

The way I see it is this: Garlick seemed to like accumulating cash in the bank and everyone felt all safe (including me). But we went down. Pace & ALK instead like our assets to be on the pitch and not in a bank account. Which if you think about it is the right way around for a football club but we don’t feel safe (including me).

My hope is that we start to bridge that gap, rebuild with better players on the pitch whilst reducing our debt. I’ll be disappointed if we’ve borrowed more than the £39m we were previously in debt, but I expect to be disappointed. If ALK chip away at it and pay it off over time I’ll be good with it. But it’ll take time to reposition where we were (cash rich but woefully underinvested on the pitch) to where we’d like to be on the pitch AND the debt paid off. We’ll have to be patient.

Hi New, do you mind if I add my own current thinking - many of us will be familiar with "if the facts change, I will change my mind.."

The MSD loan was repaid in Nov 2022 by a new loan of £39 million at significantly lower interest rate than the MSD loan. The provider of the new loan has not registered any security for the new loan and, as to be effective the security must be registered with (I think) 21 days, the provider of the new loan has no security. So, Clarets Go Large is one possible lender...

The Macquarie loan is described as a Facility - this is often taken to mean an agreement that allows the borrower to borrow money when required, to the extend required. Macquarie has registered security for the Facility. We should expect the interest rates for Macquarie are much closer to the interest rates charged by MSD. Meaning that borrowing from Macquarie will cost the club more than borrowing from the unknown lender.

It is possible that the unknown lender has been repaid, but we don't know this. The little information we have states that this is lower interest rate than the Macquarie facility is likely to be. It is equally possible that the unknown lender's loan has not been repaid and the Macquarie facility is in addition to the £39 million loan.

The club is back in the Premier League. Vincent Kompany wants to be a successful manager in the Premier League. It appears Alan Pace and the club are prepared to back Vincent Kompany. We will know a lot more as the transfer window progresses.

My current view is that the Macquarie facility is in addition to the unknown lender's £39 million loan. How much in addition I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was an additional £30 million.

12 months ago, when Vincent Kompany joined BFC there was mention of the club's ambitions. It wasn't just getting back into the Premier League. I think Europe in 5 years was mentioned. The squad needs to be strengthened to take on the challenge of the Premier League. Borrowing against Premier League tv money is necessary to follow these ambitions.

[aggi]

Hi New, do you mind if I add my own current thinking - many of us will be familiar with "if the facts change, I will change my mind.."

Snipped for brevity.

Personally I don't buy this. What's this money being used for? Are we expecting an explosion in wages, straight back up to £100m+?

[claretonthecoast1882]

You’re so sure of yourself aren’t you. Do you ever even entertain the thought you may be wrong?

Ha, no he doesn’t. Takes some balls though to constantly talk about something like an expert when he has no idea what he’s on about, it is though always an entertaining read.

It’s like his football knowledge when he claimed the only decent signings we made were on loan and all the others aren’t up to much. He doesn’t like the owners maybe he’s top of the list of local club for local people and he never will do any chance to put the boot in he will do

[claretandy]

Personally I don't buy this. What's this money being used for? Are we expecting an explosion in wages, straight back up to £100m+?

With the players that we are being strongly linked with, we could easily smash our previous total window spend. I know the fees are spread over a number of years, but it could still come to a significant amount.

[ClaretPete001]

You’re so sure of yourself aren’t you. Do you ever even entertain the thought you may be wrong?

No, because I present a hypothesis based upon the evidence that fits.

To name one other person: Chester offers another similar but different one that also fits the evidence.

Wrong is only when you present a hypothesis that makes no sense of the evidence.

So, I can't be wrong because I don't claim to be right I just claim to make sense.

[ClaretPete001]

Personally I don't buy this. What's this money being used for? Are we expecting an explosion in wages, straight back up to £100m+?

You'll have to explain it to me as well Aggi. If they used the £39 million to pay off MSD and now have a £30 million facility where are the big funds coming from to fund a 5 year PL campaign that ends up in Europe?

[ClaretPete001]

It’s a good question.

Firstly, from what I can understand nobody now knows our debt levels. Being honest, I think this Macquarie loan proves PW’s argument that the MSD loan was paid off by MG/Clarets Go Large, and most likely that’s now been paid back by Macquarie. I personally hope that involves a reduction in the £39m debt but I very much doubt it. But lets be honest, we don’t know if we’re now at the same, lower or higher debt levels.

They basically need one sell one of our recent signings for £40-£60m and the debt is cleared. Or more likely 3x£20m+

Judging by the quality we’ve signed this year I think we’re pretty safe on that front if we have a good year in the PL this year. So no worries from this perspective from me.

The way I see it is this: Garlick seemed to like accumulating cash in the bank and everyone felt all safe (including me). But we went down. Pace & ALK instead like our assets to be on the pitch and not in a bank account. Which if you think about it is the right way around for a football club but we don’t feel safe (including me).

My hope is that we start to bridge that gap, rebuild with better players on the pitch whilst reducing our debt. I’ll be disappointed if we’ve borrowed more than the £39m we were previously in debt, but I expect to be disappointed. If ALK chip away at it and pay it off over time I’ll be good with it. But it’ll take time to reposition where we were (cash rich but woefully underinvested on the pitch) to where we’d like to be on the pitch AND the debt paid off. We’ll have to be patient.

To be fair NEW, ALK have spent most of the money on shares and not on playing assets. That is a fact...

Garlick and Co ran the club very well for a period. No one would think it is a good idea to have £80 million in the bank so to assume that was a default ideology I think is probably not right and given what happened there is an explanation that better fits the evidence.

I agree at this point there is every chance that we can pay off the debt and be successful.

However, at best that just leaves the club where it was at the point ALK bought the club. In two of the three season prior to the purchase we had top ten finishes. You have to assume that the complete lack of investment in 20/21 when there was money in the bank caused the problems that led to relegation

[aggi]

With the players that we are being strongly linked with, we could easily smash our previous total window spend. I know the fees are spread over a number of years, but it could still come to a significant amount.

I've not really seen any huge fee/large wages players linked (but haven't been paying that much attention). To require additional loans though we're probably looking at something like a £90m wage bill and £90m transfer spend which doesn't seem likely to me.

[claretandy]

I've not really seen any huge fee/large wages players linked (but haven't been paying that much attention). To require additional loans though we're probably looking at something like a £90m wage bill and £90m transfer spend which doesn't seem likely to me.

I could quite easily see us spending 90m

[Big Vinny K]

I could quite easily see us spending 90m

We may well do but the unlikely one for me is allowing our wage bill to go back up to £90m given we had got it down to the late twenty millions.
We just don’t have that senior experienced player legacy we had under Dyche where the vast majority of the team / squad had played in the premier league, renegotiated their contracts etc. A big chunk of the team that got relegated in Dyche’s last season will have been on anywhere between £35k and £60k a week (possibly more). Last season we had maybe 4 or 5 of these on the books and even since then we’ve released 2 of them in Barnes and Westy.

So rough back of a fag packet stuff I accept but even if our wage bill increases to between £60m and £70m next season and we spend day £80m to £90m on transfer fees with the transfers being allocated over 3 or 4 years we should still be making roughly the same amount of small profit (or roughly break even) as we were when our wage bill was at its peak.

And final point is that given the relatively low wages of the squad that got us promoted probably gives us leeway to bring in players on salaries getting closer to that £35k to £50k a week type band (which if we buy overseas players again will often be a lot higher than they are getting paid at their old clubs)

[ClaretPete001]

I could quite easily see us spending 90m

I can see £90 million over 3 years as we use the Macquarie loan and benefit from PL income and Championship contracts but not this summer unless ALK really do have external funding.

After that we will have a PL wage bill and I guess we will have the go back to lenders...

But there can be no slip ups - we can't spend £30 million on Matej Vydra and Ben Gibson and Joe Hart as we did in 18/19.

And £30 million a season is decent but no guarantee....It's similar to what we spent in 16/17 and 17/18 but there is a stark contrast in the quality we bought in those two season compared to 18/19.

[Chester Perry]

I've not really seen any huge fee/large wages players linked (but haven't been paying that much attention). To require additional loans though we're probably looking at something like a £90m wage bill and £90m transfer spend which doesn't seem likely to me.

If we look at the last accounts there is reason to suppose that the new loan/draw down facility is as much to do with cash flow as anything - the club closed its last overdraft facility in January 2020 having not used it for several years

The period end of July 31 2022 date for BFACL showed that there was just £12.873m in cash 2 days into the new season even as post tax profits of £31.213m were being declared - that cash position will have included the upfront Parachute payment of £15m+ (which was probably closer to £20m). Most of our signings came after that date.

we know that promotion brings additional costs of bonuses and conditional transfer payments (one imagines the majority of the 16 new signings transfer agreements contained those). Add to that the costs of infrastructure upgrades for the new TV deal - which the club recently confirmed, the upgrades in the Jimmy Mac (and no doubt elsewhere including Gawthorpe) along with the transfer fee stage payments, built in upgrades to salaries from July 1st.

Another interesting feature in the last accounts is that once you discount the factored fee payments for Nathan Collins and Nick Pope (£5m and £2.33m) it appears we are due to get the bulk of the Dwight McNeil fee anytime now - at least that is the only way I can explain the £33.059m due in incoming transfers this final year. It could be that we actually got nothing up front for a number of our player sales last summer - Collins, Pope and McNeil are the deals I am looking at, though there will be residual from Ben Gibson, Jimmy Dunne and Josh Benson plus some of the Academy players sold last year.

[ClaretPete001]

If we look at the last accounts there is reason to suppose that the new loan/draw down facility is as much to do with cash flow as anything - the club closed its last overdraft facility in January 2020 having not used it for several years

The period end of July 31 2022 date for BFACL showed that there was just £12.873m in cash 2 days into the new season even as post tax profits of £31.213m were being declared - that cash position will have included the upfront Parachute payment of £15m+ (which was probably closer to £20m). Most of our signings came after that date.

we know that promotion brings additional costs of bonuses and conditional transfer payments (one imagines the majority of the 16 new signings transfer agreements contained those). Add to that the costs of infrastructure upgrades for the new TV deal - which the club recently confirmed, the upgrades in the Jimmy Mac (and no doubt elsewhere including Gawthorpe) along with the transfer fee stage payments, built in upgrades to salaries from July 1st.

Another interesting feature in the last accounts is that once you discount the factored fee payments for Nathan Collins and Nick Pope (£5m and £2.33m) it appears we are due to get the bulk of the Dwight McNeil fee anytime now - at least that is the only way I can explain the £33.059m due in incoming transfers this final year. It could be that we actually got nothing up front for a number of our player sales last summer - Collins, Pope and McNeil are the deals I am looking at, though there will be residual from Ben Gibson, Jimmy Dunne and Josh Benson plus some of the Academy players sold last year.

As I said above, I think cashflow is the only plausible explanation to Paul's theory that there was a Nov 22 bridging loan/loan to pay off MSD (if indeed it happened).

How much do you actually think we made on transfers in the end given that I guess we wouldn't get the full fees for Nathan Collins and Cornet and we spent quite heavily in January?

It might be a lot less than some think....

[Chester Perry]

Question Chesterperry.

My dad ran a small manufactoring company. He always said when cash got tight get more product out.

The owners did that last season by winning the league.

In terms of football i take that mean to stay in the premier as long as possible to finance/pay off the debt.

I dont want to put words in your mouth but i think you are suggesting (and i agree) that there isnt a point in the future where we will be financially secure and our debts will just grow until they become the thing that kills us.

Or can you see some escape act where the owners clear the debt?

There are a number of different things going on at the club that might confuse peoples perception of the debt picture

it is best to park the owners £114.8m debt to the club from this discussion, as it is unlikely to be repaid in a manner that meaningfully improves the cash balance at BFACL (where all that debt will now sit following the November 2022 re-financing)

so we know that the club is carrying an external debt of £39.7m and that as of June 9th 2023 there is a new facility - which given the security provided in the debenture agreement does not appear to be a replacement if that November 2022 loan, rather it appears to be a supplement that could be a flexible draw down agreement (with a maximum value) to be used when required - it is entirely possible that nothing has been drawn from it at this point in time.

the combined total credit value of these two agreements is unlikely to greatly exceed the value of the MSD loan made December 30 2020. That was always believed to be well within the manageable cost capabilities of the club when in the Premier League - given growth in Premier League and club revenues that should remain the case, particularly if we believe that the new 'facility' is to be used for club revenue development purposes rather than the owners share buying commitments that the £39.7m November 2022 refinancing covered. We are able to consider such a belief because the owners considerably reduced the clubs ongoing contribution to such costs in the last accounts,

While the advancement of Premier League monies involves a credit agreement (and indeed a cost) most would not consider it a loan, which may seem a little strange as it is a kind of a payday loan about which we hear so many horror stories, particularly about users of such getting into a locked in negative spiral. Factoring with Macquarie is not so dramatic as the payday money is given to them directly by the Premier League and the charges for the advance are deducted from the advance with no further interest to be accrued. What it actually does is reduce future instalments from the Premier League and it is that element that requires the stringent budget discipline to prevent repeating the process each season Premier League status is retained.

The terms of all these agreements are not known, apart from the end date for the factoring agreement. With the £39.7m having such favourable terms it is unlikely that there will be a repayment in the short to medium term. The new facility is the one about which we know least, but if we are able to consider it as being more like an overdraft facility (and I recognise there is speculation in this) then we can consider that exercising of it will be variable - though a future relegation is likely to see the maximum credit value allowed substantially reduced

Ps i didnt sell my shares as i thought the club might need a well organised shareholders group in the future, althought i do accept they might become worthless!

It could be argued that the club has needed a well organised shareholders group for decades, all the way back to the Bob Lord years - and it would be interesting to see pressure applied by such a group in the current climate given the reduced information made available to shareholders and the stonewalling faced by those shareholders that do try to exercise their rights under the 2006 Companies Act, the more that want to get together as a shareholders association the better I would say.

I would say that it would take a pretty extreme set of circumstances for your shares to become worthless, circumstances which I do not see occurring under the current administration. For now they hold considerably more value than was paid for them.

[Chester Perry]

shameless from the Burnley Express - claiming an interview with Kieran Maguire re the new loan and actually regurgitating word for word what was said on yesterday's Price of Football Podcast with all the errors included and there were some real clangers

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... an-4193211

[ClaretTony]

shameless from the Burnley Express - claiming an interview with Kieran Maguire re the new loan and actually regurgitating word for word what was said on yesterday's Price of Football Podcast with all the errors included and there were some real clangers

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... an-4193211

Sounds like how it is now at that publication.

I use the old copies of the Burnley Express on microfilm at the library often to get content for articles. In years to come no one will be able to do that when looking back for news from the recent time.

[Chester Perry]

Tick Tock - and there we have it

8 months late officially and 11 months late from the original due date

we are just 1 month away from the 2nd set of accounts for CVHL being due for filing at Companies House

we are now almost 7 months on from BDO being appointed as auditors and 6 months to the day this statement was given to LancsLive by an ALK Capital spokesman:

“This is an administrative error that has come to our attention and is being addressed and resolved with immediacy."
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-25646266

As of today the accounts for Kettering Capital Limited are officially 8 months late and 11 months after their original due filing date

those for Calder Vale Holdings Limited will be officially 9 months late this coming Saturday July 1st 2023 or 12 months after their original due date, which in normal circumstances would be when we would expect a second set of accounts for this entity (though is expect that date to change to the end of July given a period end date of 31st October 2022).

BDO, the new auditors have been in place for 229 days now - that excuse has worn more than a little thin

One more thing to look for - the second set of accounts for ALK Capital Ltd are due this coming Saturday July 1st 2023

[bfcjg]

Sounds concerning bordering on worrying ?

[aggi]

Sounds concerning bordering on worrying ?

It's weird but I'm not sure how concerning it is.

The reason I say that is Companies House don't seem to be taking strong steps on this which suggests they have been provided with something to allay their fears.

[Chester Perry]

It's weird but I'm not sure how concerning it is.

The reason I say that is Companies House don't seem to be taking strong steps on this which suggests they have been provided with something to allay their fears.

It is indeed an interesting one - and Companies House are maintaining their reticence in dealing with enquiries on the matter. I am aware of at least 1 MP who is trying to get some information on the situation.

[Paul Waine]

It is indeed an interesting one - and Companies House are maintaining their reticence in dealing with enquiries on the matter. I am aware of at least 1 MP who is trying to get some information on the situation.

Hi CP, am I understanding what you've typed correctly, an MP has the time and interest to make enquiries at Companies House re the non-filing/late filing of accounts by Calder Vale and Kettering Capital? Has the said MP already called Alan Pace and asked him when the accounts will be filed? Or, is it more about Companies House fulfilling Companies House role? Is the MP involved in the football regulator proposals? Or, is the MP doing this on behalf of Burnley fans?

[Chester Perry]

Hi CP, am I understanding what you've typed correctly, an MP has the time and interest to make enquiries at Companies House re the non-filing/late filing of accounts by Calder Vale and Kettering Capital? Has the said MP already called Alan Pace and asked him when the accounts will be filed? Or, is it more about Companies House fulfilling Companies House role? Is the MP involved in the football regulator proposals? Or, is the MP doing this on behalf of Burnley fans?

An MP is seeking details from the Business Minister and their office as to why the registrar of Companies House does not appear to be following due process with CVHL and KCL. this comes following following communications with a constituent - the enquiry is about the actions (or otherwise) that Companies House are taking re the late filings (technically criminal breaches that can come with escalating and unlimited fines) of CVHL and KCL, and making clear that CVHL is the majority owner of a Premier League club. The significance of the Premier League membership being the the huge global audience and reach that the UK government often uses in its Soft Power/Sports Washing presentation of itself across the globe (it is surprising how often it does so)

[123EasyasBFC]

So what your saying is an MP is looking to see if there has been any criminal activity from our ownership group?

[Chester Perry]

So what your saying is an MP is looking to see if there has been any criminal activity from our ownership group?

No

I am saying that an MP is trying to find out what the Regulator of Companies House is doing re their own prescribed processes

technically the criminal breech has already occurred

[Nori1958]

An MP is seeking details from the Business Minister and their office as to why the registrar of Companies House does not appear to be following due process with CVHL and KCL. this comes following following communications with a constituent - the enquiry is about the actions (or otherwise) that Companies House are taking re the late filings (technically criminal breaches that can come with escalating and unlimited fines) of CVHL and KCL, and making clear that CVHL is the majority owner of a Premier League club. The significance of the Premier League membership being the the huge global audience and reach that the UK government often uses in its Soft Power/Sports Washing presentation of itself across the globe (it is surprising how often it does so)

Should details between constituents and MPs not be confidential?

[Chester Perry]

Should details between constituents and MPs not be confidential?

you will notice I have not named anyone

[Nori1958]

you will notice I have not named anyone

The very fact there are enquiries ongoing should be confidential, unless the parties involved release details....are you one of the parties?

[Paul Waine]

An MP is seeking details from the Business Minister and their office as to why the registrar of Companies House does not appear to be following due process with CVHL and KCL. this comes following following communications with a constituent - the enquiry is about the actions (or otherwise) that Companies House are taking re the late filings (technically criminal breaches that can come with escalating and unlimited fines) of CVHL and KCL, and making clear that CVHL is the majority owner of a Premier League club. The significance of the Premier League membership being the the huge global audience and reach that the UK government often uses in its Soft Power/Sports Washing presentation of itself across the globe (it is surprising how often it does so)

I know I've posted this before on this thread, the maximum penalty for late filing of private company accounts is £1,500.

I'm not sure why you haven't found and posted this link yourself, CP.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -penalties

Yes, the link also states the following:

Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence - and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts.

Failing to pay your late filing penalty can result in enforcement proceedings. Any criminal proceedings for not filing confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is separate from (and in addition to) any late filing penalties issued by Companies House against the company.

There’s no penalty for filing your confirmation statements or annual returns late - but the registrar could take steps to strike off your company.

With a quick google search I've learnt that in 2014 3,360 directors were successfully prosecuted by Companies House for late filing offences in addition to collecting £81 million late filing penalties. A firm called Forbes Burton (lawyers, I guess) report that the maximum fine a director could face for late filing is £5,000.

These are not big issues.

Can you tell us who the MP is? I guess it's public domain information or should be if a question has been directed to a government minister.

[123EasyasBFC]

No

I am saying that an MP is trying to find out what the Regulator of Companies House is doing re their own prescribed processes

technically the criminal breech has already occurred

Ahh makes sense now, so MP asking the question was to why nothing has been done by companies house

[Chester Perry]

I know I've posted this before on this thread, the maximum penalty for late filing of private company accounts is £1,500.

I'm not sure why you haven't found and posted this link yourself, CP.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -penalties

Yes, the link also states the following:

Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence - and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts.

Failing to pay your late filing penalty can result in enforcement proceedings. Any criminal proceedings for not filing confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is separate from (and in addition to) any late filing penalties issued by Companies House against the company.

There’s no penalty for filing your confirmation statements or annual returns late - but the registrar could take steps to strike off your company.

With a quick google search I've learnt that in 2014 3,360 directors were successfully prosecuted by Companies House for late filing offences in addition to collecting £81 million late filing penalties. A firm called Forbes Burton (lawyers, I guess) report that the maximum fine a director could face for late filing is £5,000.

These are not big issues.

Can you tell us who the MP is? I guess it's public domain information or should be if a question has been directed to a government minister.

This is where I got my information from

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... rd%20scale.

note the last element of 4 re unlimited fines

CA2006 Sec 451.png (754.81 KiB) Viewed 1578 times

[Chester Perry]

As of today the accounts for Kettering Capital Limited are officially 8 months late and 11 months after their original due filing date

those for Calder Vale Holdings Limited will be officially 9 months late this coming Saturday July 1st 2023 or 12 months after their original due date, which in normal circumstances would be when we would expect a second set of accounts for this entity (though is expect that date to change to the end of July given a period end date of 31st October 2022).

BDO, the new auditors have been in place for 229 days now - that excuse has worn more than a little thin

One more thing to look for - the second set of accounts for ALK Capital Ltd are due this coming Saturday July 1st 2023

The second set of accounts for ALK Capital Limited were supposed to be published later today - a quick check at Companies House shows that the directors have successfully filed for a 3 month extension (I suppose that Covid rule is still in place) - They have until September 30 2023 to file them now - a shame given how little was in the first set published a few weeks ago - interesting how they can request extensions in a timely manner

ALK Capital Ltd account publish date.JPG (93.9 KiB) Viewed 1394 times

Still Saturday also marks a full year since the original due date for the accounts of CVHL (though that moved to October 1 2022 after using the protocol mentioned above - it would be nice to finally see something

[Swizzlestick]

The Covid 19 extension, whereby companies could just essentially tick a box and be granted a three month extension, is now no longer in place. To get the extension, they must have given a plausible reason to be granted it.

[Chester Perry]

The Covid 19 extension, whereby companies could just essentially tick a box and be granted a three month extension, is now no longer in place. To get the extension, they must have given a plausible reason to be granted it.

thank you

[aggi]

I see a Compulsory strike-off notice has popped back up again for Kettering Capital ...

Suggests that maybe things aren't as resolved as it looked.

Screenshot 2023-07-05 092811.jpg (154.31 KiB) Viewed 1162 times

[Spijed]

I see a Compulsory strike-off notice has popped back up again for Kettering Capital ...

Suggests that maybe things aren't as resolved as it looked.

Screenshot 2023-07-05 092811.jpg

Isn't the "satisfaction of charge" just another way of saying your bill has been paid in full for the time being?

So why has this latest notice appeared?

[dsr]

Isn't the "satisfaction of charge" just another way of saying your bill has been paid in full for the time being?

So why has this latest notice appeared?

This is late filing of accounts (again). They should have been filed by 26th October last year. Nothing to do with the charges, I shouldn't think.

[aggi]

Isn't the "satisfaction of charge" just another way of saying your bill has been paid in full for the time being?

So why has this latest notice appeared?

The satisfaction of charge relates to the MSD loan that was paid off.

The Compulsory strike-off notice relates, I would assume, to the very overdue filing of accounts.

[Spijed]

This is late filing of accounts (again). They should have been filed by 26th October last year. Nothing to do with the charges, I shouldn't think.

Is the late filing likely to become a problem?

[Chester Perry]

Is the late filing likely to become a problem?

we don't know until something happens, is the simple and truthful answer

we keep getting told that there is nothing to see here by posters on this thread and that it is a simple administration error that will be resolved with immediacy once the auditors are bedded in by the club - The auditors were appointed November 9 2022, close to 8 months ago.

In the meantime we should look out for the same First Gazette Notice for CVHL - it feels unlikely that they are being managed differently by the dame group of directors

the second sets of Accounts for both KCL and CVHL are due by the end of this month, it would be some high wire act to see them granted publication extensions (not totally impossible) like we saw at the weekend for ALK Capital Limited

[dsr]

Is the late filing likely to become a problem?

Probably not. Even if they forget to file the accounts at all, and the company is struck off, they can resurrect it without losing any assets (apart from the cash that it costs to do it!). I've known a trading company where they forgot to file any paperwork including change of address and found themselves struck off, but they got themselves back on and it made no practical difference that they were trading when they didn't exist!

In theory they can prosecute the directors, but if it's only a paperwork error (to whatever degree), they probably won't. With companies where proper crime is going on they would no doubt stick failing to file accounts on the charge sheet, but not normally for simple incompetence.