yTib wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:03 pm

source?

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:57 pm

Our beloved Burnley Football Club traded like a bit of tat on Ebay. How the F did this happen ? How the F was this allowed to happen ?

Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:25 am

sometimes I feel like a dopey Lancastrian in a rain soaked flat cap, and a woodbine dangling from my lips, as all around me corporate and smiling people, with NO grasp of what my world is about, do their poxy accounts in league with faceless money lenders. I love Burnley, and football, but this is ****.

minnieclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:01 pm

This should get a few necks throbbing.
9611671A-7A9A-44B4-8569-9EE505C17BDE.jpeg

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:15 am

Mike Garlick: King of the Clause!

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:53 pm

Not sure this is true.

I think it was common knowledge that the club would return to the previous ownership should ALK not meet the payments. I had been told they’ve had to renegotiate the deal which has given them an extension way beyond this season or even next.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:09 am

I'm far from a financial expert but the debt the club has is for Pace and Co to have the club from Garlick.

If they give the club back because they haven't paid up then Garlick won't be owed anything in cash. He just gets the club (asset).
Unless they have loans out or debts to outsiders then we should have a clean slate.

Or am I completely wrong?

dsr wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:35 am

I'm afraid you're wrong. Burnley have borrowed or guaranteed umpty millions and lent that money to Pace/ALK. If ALK can't repay Burnley, then Burnley still have to repay the loan to the bank.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 am

Let's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.

The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.

My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).

So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.

We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.

Exciting times.

UTC

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:01 pm

The more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:01 pm

The more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:01 pm

The more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.

Culmclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm

I’ve always said it was relatively low risk for ALK. They get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage. The whole think stank from the start and all the warm words from Pace are simply window dressing.

Culmclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm

I’ve always said it was relatively low risk for ALK. They get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage. The whole think stank from the start and all the warm words from Pace are simply window dressing.

Culmclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm

They get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage.

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:22 pm

The relationship between Dyche and Garlic was strained at best, if he got control again Dyche would quit I reckon.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:31 am

The article does pose some new questions though, it suggests there are two clauses in the contract. 1 - that if the club are relegated Garlick can purchase the club back at a set price. 2 - if the instalments are not paid it defaults back to Garlick.

Item 1 is new in my opinion, I have never seen that reported any where else.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 am

Let's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.

The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.

My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).

So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.

We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.

Exciting times.

UTC

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:44 am

By far the most interesting stat within the above table is Brentfords 50 players in / 45 players out with a net profit of £22m.
We can never compete to win trophies or the league but we try to emulate the selling club / make a profit whilst maintaining PL status.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 am

Let's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.

The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.

My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).

So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.

We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.

Exciting times.

UTC

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:20 am

We can assume that MSD have all the facts about the club and the structure of the deal between ALK and MG. Yes, the MSD loan of £60 million is secured by club assets. That's all in the public domain - Companies House filings.

But, you don't lend someone £60 million and take the chance that a few footballers can be sold for £25m and more to repay it. Tarks running down his contract is one very good reason why not.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 am

Exciting times.

UTC