Is Pace on a salary?

[KRBFC]

Stop this nonsense - I have broken my weekend's radio silence to put an end to these blatant untruths. it close to being libellous



The common story has it that the former directors have been paid £102m so far with a reported £12m+ of that coming from the incoming directors, with circa £60m in loans from MSD and circa £30m in loans from the club

so £90M of the clubs money, not £120M? Who do you think is paying back the loans......

[Chester Perry]

so £90M of the clubs money, not £120M? Who do you think is paying back the loans......

I understand and empathise with your anguish but you must be more careful with your inflammatory rhetoric

It is circa £30m of the clubs money as it stands, which may or may not be paid back to the club (Sunderland's last owners wrote off such a loan to their business, before selling the club), but is currently a loan from the club to the owners business. The rest is a loan secured against the club's assets, this just limits our ability to raise further credit should we desire too.

It is well documented that I do not favour such practices, particularly in football but as things stand nothing has been taken, assets have been leveraged and cash holdings have been used for purposes that we may not like but they have not currently been taken.

The payback on the MSD loan remains unknown, we do not know if ALK plan to pay down the principal, if they do then it is likely that will be the same as the servicing, it will be the customers and commercial partners of the Premier League and Burnley Football Club, who provide the club with it's income. Yes it is a cost burden to the club, that equates to 2 or more players wages or the infrastructural support services that Sean Dyche has recently talked about as the next thing he is looking for from the club, the owners are expecting to drive revenues to cover those costs.

The payback of the clubs loan to ALK, is much more difficult to predict - though I suspect it will be written down over the coming years, which would mean it was taken from the club, but that has not yet happened and may not ever occur.

On the question of the OP, I fully expect that Pace, Smith and Hunt will all be extracting some form of funding/income for their efforts in running the club and that may well include their housing in the locality. Though again we will have no evidence of this until the next accounts are published. It will be interesting to see how much they value themselves and their contributions

[KRBFC]

I understand and empathise with your anguish but you must be more careful with your inflammatory rhetoric

It is circa £30m of the clubs money as it stands, which may or may not be paid back to the club (Sunderland's last owners wrote off such a loan to their business, before selling the club), but is currently a loan from the club to the owners business. The rest is a loan secured against the club's assets, this just limits our ability to raise further credit should we desire too.

It is well documented that I do not favour such practices, particularly in football but as things stand nothing has been taken, assets have been leveraged and cash holdings have been used for purposes that we may not like but they have not currently been taken.

The payback on the MSD loan remains unknown, we do not know if ALK plan to pay down the principal, if they do then it is likely that will be the same as the servicing, it will be the customers and commercial partners of the Premier League and Burnley Football Club, who provide the club with it's income. Yes it is a cost burden to the club, that equates to 2 or more players wages or the infrastructural support services that Sean Dyche has recently talked about as the next thing he is looking for from the club, the owners are expecting to drive revenues to cover those costs.

The payback of the clubs loan to ALK, is much more difficult to predict - though I suspect it will be written down over the coming years, which would mean it was taken from the club, but that has not yet happened and may not ever occur.

On the question of the OP, I fully expect that Pace, Smith and Hunt will all be extracting some form of funding/income for their efforts in running the club and that may well include their housing in the locality. Though again we will have no evidence of this until the next accounts are published. It will be interesting to see how much they value themselves and their contributions

I said with the money used for the takeover NOT taken

Instead of taking out a loan to fund ALK, MG could've loaned that money(£60M) from MSD and along with the £30M (from the club coffers) used in the takeover and bought Harry Kane.

I never said ALK took anything, just that the club paying back loans for a takeover is the same as club paying back yearly installments on a transfer fee.

[Chester Perry]

I said with the money used for the takeover NOT taken

Instead of taking out a loan to fund ALK, MG could've loaned that money(£60M) from MSD and along with the £30M (from the club coffers) used in the takeover and bought Harry Kane.

I never said ALK took anything, just that the club paying back loans for a takeover is the same as club paying back yearly installments on a transfer fee.

Spurs value Lane at north of £150m - more to a Premier League club - then there are his wages and agents fees - you would be looking at circa £250m for that deal in total- the club was not valued close to that when it was sold

[KRBFC]

Spurs value Lane at north of £150m - more to a Premier League club - then there are his wages and agents fees - you would be looking at circa £250m for that deal in total- the club was not valued close to that when it was sold

I'm not sure about £150M for Kane in the current market,
The point remains though, just insert different player.

[Spike]

Stop this nonsense - I have broken my weekend's radio silence to put an end to these blatant untruths. it close to being libellous



The common story has it that the former directors have been paid £102m so far with a reported £12m+ of that coming from the incoming directors, with circa £60m in loans from MSD and circa £30m in loans from the club



Mike Garlick became Executive Chairman in December 2019/January 2020 - The accounts published recently ran from 1st July 2019 until July 31st 2020 - there was no director pay in those accounts, no dividends either

Garlick did not take a wage ever
No matter how much people make up fake news it won’t change the fact that no directors before January 2021 have been salaried

[tim_noone]

And of course the conspiracy theorists who like to hint that there's some kind of fraud going on.

Well the gates were always a bit dodgy back in the day...

[Paul Waine]

So to sum up:

Before the takeover, the club had £50m in the bank and no liabilities. And no interest to pay next year.

After the takeover, the club has no spare cash and owes £60m, but has the possibility that the owners might have £110m in the bank if they haven't used it to pay Garlick. £7m of next year's income is to pay interest.

Exciting times indeed. It's exciting like driving downhill in the snow on an unfenced road.

Hi dsr, sorry, your "summing up" is incorrect.

So far as we know, BFC don't owe anyone £60 million. MSD are understood to have loaned £60m to ALK. BFC and BFC assets are part of the security for that loan. ALK are able to pledge BFC and BFC assets because ALK own BFC. If ALK loan that money to BFC, let's say to buy players and pay players wages, then BFC will be due to pay interest on their loan from ALK, which, of course, will assist ALK in paying whatever interest is due from ALK to MSD. However, we should recall that "payment-in-kind" is mentioned with respect to the MSD loan. Thus, any interest due to MSD that ALK doesn't have the cash to pay can be paid by "rolling up the interest" into additional debt (subject to the loan's other terms and conditions).

If BFC has passed cash (that isn't needed by BFC) to ALK, then BFC will have a debtor for that cash - and will receive appropriate interest from ALK in respect of that loan to ALK. We can assume that ALK has borrowed that cash from BFC to assist ALK's cash flow, including ALK's obligation to make payments for the shares acquired from BFC's former directors. We should also be aware that BFC's current directors have a legal responsibility to assure themselves that that is a reasonable use of BFC's cash and that ALK will have the means to repay that loan at the appropriate time. Directors are not allowed, by law, to give money to another company and especially not another company that they also have an interest in if it has the risk that the loan cannot be repaid and the other creditors of BFC will lose out as a result of a deficit in BFC.

You will understand that it is exciting to ski downhill in the snow (it's hard to ski up hill and even harder to ski if there is no snow). If we are travelling down hill, we are safely and securely in the middle of the piste and there are safety barriers on the side where the mountain slope falls away. We may be on a red slope but it's not too icy. We will complete the run in style.

Exciting times.

UTC

[dsr]

Hi dsr, sorry, your "summing up" is incorrect.

So far as we know, BFC don't owe anyone £60 million. MSD are understood to have loaned £60m to ALK. BFC and BFC assets are part of the security for that loan. ALK are able to pledge BFC and BFC assets because ALK own BFC. If ALK loan that money to BFC, let's say to buy players and pay players wages, then BFC will be due to pay interest on their loan from ALK, which, of course, will assist ALK in paying whatever interest is due from ALK to MSD. However, we should recall that "payment-in-kind" is mentioned with respect to the MSD loan. Thus, any interest due to MSD that ALK doesn't have the cash to pay can be paid by "rolling up the interest" into additional debt (subject to the loan's other terms and conditions).

If BFC has passed cash (that isn't needed by BFC) to ALK, then BFC will have a debtor for that cash - and will receive appropriate interest from ALK in respect of that loan to ALK. We can assume that ALK has borrowed that cash from BFC to assist ALK's cash flow, including ALK's obligation to make payments for the shares acquired from BFC's former directors. We should also be aware that BFC's current directors have a legal responsibility to assure themselves that that is a reasonable use of BFC's cash and that ALK will have the means to repay that loan at the appropriate time. Directors are not allowed, by law, to give money to another company and especially not another company that they also have an interest in if it has the risk that the loan cannot be repaid and the other creditors of BFC will lose out as a result of a deficit in BFC.

You will understand that it is exciting to ski downhill in the snow (it's hard to ski up hill and even harder to ski if there is no snow). If we are travelling down hill, we are safely and securely in the middle of the piste and there are safety barriers on the side where the mountain slope falls away. We may be on a red slope but it's not too icy. We will complete the run in style.

Exciting times.

UTC

Look at substance over form.

Legally, BFC don't owe the money to MSD. In that you're right. ALK owe the money to MSD and ALK will use their assets to repay it; their only asset is BFC, so BFC will have to pay it. In law, there's a difference. In practice, is there really a significant difference between BFC using its profits to repay a loan, or BFC using its profits to pay to someone else who will use them to repay that loan?

Secondly, I am interested to hear that BFC will be receiving interest from ALK. This is the first time I have seen that mentioned. Have you a link?

Thirdly, I can't believe you still don't see the drawback as far as transfers are concerned. Suppose we wanted to buy a player for £20m. Before ALK, we could have rung the bank, done a bank transfer mandate, and the money would be paid in five minutes. That would put us in a very strong position for buying players ahead of those teams that are strapped for cash.

Now, we need to negotiate credit terms with someone. We haven't got the cash, so we need a loan, and getting a loan would be expensive because we are already in hock for £60m of someone else's money. We would be trying to increase our borrowings up to £80m. Parachute money doesn't cover that; future season ticket sales don't cover that. Who is going to lend? What rate of interest? Can you not even imagine there might be a difficulty?

PS - having ski'ed all the way to the bottom of the hill, what happens if we don't have the cash to pay for the ski lift back up?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Majority of transfers have always been paid over the duration of the players first contract with his new club last I checked.

[dsr]

Majority of transfers have always been paid over the duration of the players first contract with his new club last I checked.

I presume you missed the point on purpose.

[Paul Waine]

Look at substance over form.

Legally, BFC don't owe the money to MSD. In that you're right. ALK owe the money to MSD and ALK will use their assets to repay it; their only asset is BFC, so BFC will have to pay it. In law, there's a difference. In practice, is there really a significant difference between BFC using its profits to repay a loan, or BFC using its profits to pay to someone else who will use them to repay that loan?

Secondly, I am interested to hear that BFC will be receiving interest from ALK. This is the first time I have seen that mentioned. Have you a link?

Thirdly, I can't believe you still don't see the drawback as far as transfers are concerned. Suppose we wanted to buy a player for £20m. Before ALK, we could have rung the bank, done a bank transfer mandate, and the money would be paid in five minutes. That would put us in a very strong position for buying players ahead of those teams that are strapped for cash.

Now, we need to negotiate credit terms with someone. We haven't got the cash, so we need a loan, and getting a loan would be expensive because we are already in hock for £60m of someone else's money. We would be trying to increase our borrowings up to £80m. Parachute money doesn't cover that; future season ticket sales don't cover that. Who is going to lend? What rate of interest? Can you not even imagine there might be a difficulty?

PS - having ski'ed all the way to the bottom of the hill, what happens if we don't have the cash to pay for the ski lift back up?

Hi dsr, great, you are starting to think about the issues that all clubs must face to finance their club. Don't you think Alan Pace, an experienced investment banker, knows all about these issues. It has always been about planning how to finance the club's activities. Don't you think these issues were discussed with MSD when ALK arranged the loan from them - and that includes working out whether the club has the cash "to pay for the ski lift back up."

Have a great day.

UTC

[dsr]

Hi dsr, great, you are starting to think about the issues that all clubs must face to finance their club. Don't you think Alan Pace, an experienced investment banker, knows all about these issues. It has always been about planning how to finance the club's activities. Don't you think these issues were discussed with MSD when ALK arranged the loan from them - and that includes working out whether the club has the cash "to pay for the ski lift back up."

Have a great day.

UTC

I'm sure Pace has considered how to balance one objective of keeping the club in existence with his other objective of taking out many millions of pounds. But objective one would be easier if objective two didn't exist.

Remember Pace's primary objective is to make money. I would rather have an owner whose primary objective is to do what is best for the club. If the club's accumulated profits over the past few years hadn't been taken away, then planning how to finance it in future would be a whole lot easier.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I presume you missed the point on purpose.

Nope, you're the one going on about bank transfers etc to enable us to sign a player, when we don't need any such thing.
Payments would be made directly from the clubs account which is where the money is kept.

Like I said, fees are generally spread across the duration of a players initial contract, yes some clubs demand x amount up front but it isn't common.

[dsr]

Nope, you're the one going on about bank transfers etc to enable us to sign a player, when we don't need any such thing.
Payments would be made directly from the clubs account which is where the money is kept.

Like I said, fees are generally spread across the duration of a players initial contract, yes some clubs demand x amount up front but it isn't common.

I will try and make the point more simply, then.

A club with £50m in the bank is in a better position to buy players than a club with no spare cash and mortgages of £60m. This is equally true whether payment has to be made all up front, or whether payment is made in instalments.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I will try and make the point more simply, then.

A club with £50m in the bank is in a better position to buy players than a club with no spare cash and mortgages of £60m. This is equally true whether payment has to be made all up front, or whether payment is made in instalments.

Yet we regularly struggle to get deals over the line and/or we have to wait until later in the window to get deals confirmed.... Strange that considering we had cash in the bank.

Clubs with masses of debts and wages bills that exceed revenue manage to regularly buy players all the time though.
The only reason we would be in a better position with cash in the bank would be if there was a major shift from installments to upfront payments and that isn't going to happen.

In theory we shouldn't have anymore issues than normal in signing players, with or without cash in the bank because clubs are used to having payments in instalments.

[dsr]

Yet we regularly struggle to get deals over the line and/or we have to wait until later in the window to get deals confirmed.... Strange that considering we had cash in the bank.

Clubs with masses of debts and wages bills that exceed revenue manage to regularly buy players all the time though.
The only reason we would be in a better position with cash in the bank would be if there was a major shift from installments to upfront payments and that isn't going to happen.

In theory we shouldn't have anymore issues than normal in signing players, with or without cash in the bank because clubs are used to having payments in instalments.

You're assuming that Garlick wasn't deliberately holding back the cash because he wanted to get his own hands on the cash? Because that's what eventually happened.

There is a simple reason why clubs with large amounts of debt and owners who put money into the club, are good at signing players. It is because the owners are putting money into the club.

There is also a good reason why clubs with large amounts of debt and owners who don't put money into the club, go bust. It's because they spend money they haven't got and can't afford to pay it back. Can you name any club with an owner who doesn't pay into the club, which goes heavily into debt, and has wages bills exceeding revenue and it all ended happily?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You're assuming that Garlick wasn't deliberately holding back the cash because he wanted to get his own hands on the cash? Because that's what eventually happened.

There is a simple reason why clubs with large amounts of debt and owners who put money into the club, are good at signing players. It is because the owners are putting money into the club.

There is also a good reason why clubs with large amounts of debt and owners who don't put money into the club, go bust. It's because they spend money they haven't got and can't afford to pay it back. Can you name any club with an owner who doesn't pay into the club, which goes heavily into debt, and has wages bills exceeding revenue and it all ended happily?

You're making an unfounded allegation about the actions of Garlick.

We've had a number of windows long before the takeover where we haven't spent a lot of money, so you're insinuating that Garlick etc have been intentionally harming the club for a while now, can't wait to see your supporting evidence.

The last club I know of to go bust was Bury.
Before that it would be someone lower down the league.
Even Bolton managed to avoid that by the skin of their teeth..
Wigan got pretty close, but that was down to some real shady behavior by their foreign owner.

We bucked the trend of not sinking ourselves with a stupid wage bill, much to the chagrin of some on here, and that was down to good ownership, not the actions of someone more arsed with lining his own pockets.

[dsr]

You're making an unfounded allegation about the actions of Garlick.

We've had a number of windows long before the takeover where we haven't spent a lot of money, so you're insinuating that Garlick etc have been intentionally harming the club for a while now, can't wait to see your supporting evidence.

The last club I know of to go bust was Bury.
Before that it would be someone lower down the league.
Even Bolton managed to avoid that by the skin of their teeth..
Wigan got pretty close, but that was down to some real shady behavior by their foreign owner.

We bucked the trend of not sinking ourselves with a stupid wage bill, much to the chagrin of some on here, and that was down to good ownership, not the actions of someone more arsed with lining his own pockets.

I'm not making an allegation at all. Until last year, I believed that Garlick was saving pots of cash within the club because he didn't see value in spending it and it would have more value to the club later on.

On 31st December 2020, it is undeniably true that Garlick felt the better use for all that money Burnley Football Club had saved was in his own bank account. So that is where it finished up.

I have no idea when or whether he changed his mind. It may be that it was always the plan for him to take the money; it may be that it was only in the last few days of last year that he decided to do that. Perhaps some journalist could ask him what his intentions were all along.

[milkcrate_mosh]

Like I said, fees are generally spread across the duration of a players initial contract, yes some clubs demand x amount up front but it isn't common.

I think you might be talking about amortisation here, that's an accounting practice which spreads the cost over the length of the contract but doesn't reflect when the fee was actually paid. A lot of transfer fees are paid upfront with installments being common but usually over a couple of years. I suspect for example, we are not still receiving money for Andre Gray and Michael Keane despite the fact they'll still be included in their clubs accounts under amortisation.

Couple of videos talking about it here and here.

On 31st December 2020, it is undeniably true that Garlick felt the better use for all that money Burnley Football Club had saved was in his own bank account. So that is where it finished up.

Surely Garlick received payment for the value of his shares from the buyers (ALK) for the same amount as if he'd accepted one from a buyer that could pay in cash, isn't your issue ALK for offsetting that cost with the acquired club money?

[Paul Waine]

I'm not making an allegation at all. Until last year, I believed that Garlick was saving pots of cash within the club because he didn't see value in spending it and it would have more value to the club later on.

On 31st December 2020, it is undeniably true that Garlick felt the better use for all that money Burnley Football Club had saved was in his own bank account. So that is where it finished up.

I have no idea when or whether he changed his mind. It may be that it was always the plan for him to take the money; it may be that it was only in the last few days of last year that he decided to do that. Perhaps some journalist could ask him what his intentions were all along.

Hi dsr, it's more accurate to report that Mike Garlick and the other directors agreed to sell their shares to ALK Capital. At that point new directors were appointed, including Alan Pace with 84% of the shares owned by ALK Capital. The new directors, led by Alan Pace as Chairman then took decisions about how they would run the club's affairs. Yes, MG and JB have continued as directors with 4,000 shares each, but it wasn't their decision how the new directors managed the club's assets.

UTC

[dsr]

Hi dsr, it's more accurate to report that Mike Garlick and the other directors agreed to sell their shares to ALK Capital. At that point new directors were appointed, including Alan Pace with 84% of the shares owned by ALK Capital. The new directors, led by Alan Pace as Chairman then took decisions about how they would run the club's affairs. Yes, MG and JB have continued as directors with 4,000 shares each, but it wasn't their decision how the new directors managed the club's assets.

UTC

I'm sure that Pace and friends took decisions on how to pay for the shares before the deal was finalised on 31st December, and I'm sure also that Garlick knew what those plans were and approved of them, both in his capacity of seller of the shares and of director of the company. When Garlick (and the others) sold their shares, they did so in full knowledge of where their cash was coming from.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Still doesn't equate to Garlick etc spending the previous few years intentionally not signing players so they could then take money out of the club.

Unfounded allegations as I've said.