Exciting times

[Rileybobs]

I’m sure the extra 5m acted as a workaround! Nice try

If Newcastle paid more than the release clause then they didn’t trigger it did they.

[Jakubclaret]

If Newcastle paid more than the release clause then they didn’t trigger it did they.

I simply believe Simon Jordan over the club, I hope & trust that’s sufficient, good evening.

[Rileybobs]

I simply believe Simon Jordan over the club, I hope & trust that’s sufficient, good evening.

Good evening. I know, you seem to have a bit of a thing going with Jordan. Kinda odd.

[claretandy]

Wilder would know Pace from his time at SU whilst Pace was looking to do a deal there.

And ? You think that he was sat in the directors box (while being Middlesbrough manager" ?

[BabylonClaret]

Interesting pre match report from the Southampton writer at the Athletic -
What if ALK had bought Southampton?

link avoids the paywall
https://archive.ph/7wnZF

not everyone knows the story about Southampton on the campaign by the board member (an Investment banker no less) to block any bid that involved borrowing

In the massive argument about release clauses this post from CP seems to have been lost. Bump!

Interesting article fri someone ostensibly neutral that has a couple of takeaways

1. The writer thi ks they dodged a massive bullet
2. The owners at Southampton took a look at Pace and thought "no thanks" - according to the writer due to there being no appetite for a leveraged buy out from someone with v little wealth to back it up
3. The writer thinks Pace is all mouth and no trousers (as they say) - he's not over impressed with the actual delivery
4. He also thinks ALK have shipped out folks to reinforce their own power base.

[aggi]

Nobody from the club or Sean dyche did lie, the release clause was activated the only bit which was conveniently omitted was that the release clause didn’t apply until the summer, it’s naughty but in fairness that direct question wasn’t pressed.

I had a private bet with myself whether you'd accept you were wrong or come up with an ever more complicated reason as to why the facts were wrong. I won.

I think we can just add contracts to the things that you don't understand and move on.

[aggi]

In the massive argument about release clauses this post from CP seems to have been lost. Bump!

Interesting article fri someone ostensibly neutral that has a couple of takeaways

1. The writer thi ks they dodged a massive bullet
2. The owners at Southampton took a look at Pace and thought "no thanks" - according to the writer due to there being no appetite for a leveraged buy out from someone with v little wealth to back it up
3. The writer thinks Pace is all mouth and no trousers (as they say) - he's not over impressed with the actual delivery
4. He also thinks ALK have shipped out folks to reinforce their own power base.

I thought it seemed a bit of a nothing article, mainly due to Sport Republic not really announced much so it's a bit short of comparisons.

I don't think Burnley fans would have been that keen on this part either:
Sport Republic, on the other hand, is yet to discuss its plans in public, other than the initial takeover statement. There is a belief among the investment group it would be better served adding another club to its footballing portfolio before standing up and discussing its multi-club model.

A leveraged takeover is undoubtedly not a good thing (although mayber not as bad as some make out) but I'm not sure if everything has been as disastrous as some suggest.

[Jakubclaret]

And ? You think that he was sat in the directors box (while being Middlesbrough manager" ?

He’s supposedly good pals with dyche so why would it be a problem if he was in 1 of the hospitality boxes, doesn’t mean we was buttering him up he is allowed to spectate away from the riverside.

[Jakubclaret]

I had a private bet with myself whether you'd accept you were wrong or come up with an ever more complicated reason as to why the facts were wrong. I won.

I think we can just add contracts to the things that you don't understand and move on.

I believe Simon Jordan & you don’t it’s as simple as that, you can accept that or you don’t it’s not my problem.

[Chester Perry]

I thought it seemed a bit of a nothing article, mainly due to Sport Republic not really announced much so it's a bit short of comparisons.

I don't think Burnley fans would have been that keen on this part either:
Sport Republic, on the other hand, is yet to discuss its plans in public, other than the initial takeover statement. There is a belief among the investment group it would be better served adding another club to its footballing portfolio before standing up and discussing its multi-club model.

A leveraged takeover is undoubtedly not a good thing (although mayber not as bad as some make out) but I'm not sure if everything has been as disastrous as some suggest.

true enough so for that lets use these from the same writer - quite different experiences I would say - all links avoid the paywall by using an archive

One hundred days of Sport Republic at Southampton

https://archive.ph/AGl8X

This is an interview with the Southampton CEO at the time of the takeover
‘They have the same ideas we have’ – Martin Semmens on Liebherr’s future, the MSD loan and recruitment under new owners

https://archive.ph/WtiYR

This is the article about the suitors including ALK that were turned away by Southampton
‘Better late than never’: Two years and 24 unsuccessful buyers later, Southampton have finally been sold

https://archive.ph/o7cj4

[BabylonClaret]

Thanks for the links CP. They make interesting reading. Did I read right that Soton were sold at 100m for 80% ????

That's either low or we were overpriced if that's right?

[Chester Perry]

Thanks for the links CP. They make interesting reading. Did I read right that Soton were sold at 100m for 80% ????

That's either low or we were overpriced if that's right?

The overall valuation at sale for Southampton including taking on the debt is £220m interestingly the overall valuation of Crystal Palace when they sold 40% of the club (all in a new share issue ) to John Textor was just short of £219m his £87.5m of real cash was used to significantly reduce the £57.5m of debt the club had built up

Both those valuations, emerging from Covid and enhanced revenues make you think our takeover was over priced

[spt_claret]

The overall valuation at sale for Southampton including taking on the debt is £220m interestingly the overall valuation of Crystal Palace when they sold 40% of the club (all in a new share issue ) to John Textor was just short of £219m his £87.5m of real cash was used to significantly reduce the £57.5m of debt the club had built up

Both those valuations, emerging from Covid and enhanced revenues make you think our takeover was over priced

If our takeover was over-priced as you say, what does that mean for our debt obligation to MSD? Is that debt essentially overvalued beyond what we can pay (without survival or signifcant asset-stripping)? Or is it cause for optimism rather than concern ie. judgment that we have greater value or growth potential than others?

[Chester Perry]

If our takeover was over-priced as you say, what does that mean for our debt obligation to MSD? Is that debt essentially overvalued beyond what we can pay (without survival or signifcant asset-stripping)? Or is it cause for optimism rather than concern ie. judgment that we have greater value or growth potential than others?

neither really - as a Premier League club the MSD loan is eminently serviceable particularly given the increase in revenues in the next cycle - as the other costs are with the new owners not against the assets covered by the charge (literally everything you can possibly think of and the mystery Guarantor.

Of course if you spend more than one season in the Championship then the clubs value will fall - which is why I believe that relegation has a repayment trigger for part of the loan not all of it (as West Ham have confirmed exists in their MSD agreement)

[spt_claret]

neither really - as a Premier League club the MSD loan is eminently serviceable particularly given the increase in revenues in the next cycle - as the other costs are with the new owners not against the assets covered by the charge (literally everything you can possibly think of and the mystery Guarantor.

Of course if you spend more than one season in the Championship then the clubs value will fall - which is why I believe that relegation has a repayment trigger for part of the loan not all of it (as West Ham have confirmed exists in their MSD agreement)

So essentially, if we stay up all is well, if not, problems might arise. Probably some people's idea of exciting, but not mine.

[JarrowClaret]

The release clause wasn’t applicable in that window, it’s been done to death, it was a summer release clause by all accounts according to SJ.

I am lost here why would Simon Jordan know more about our Player contracts than Burnley Football Club who announced his release clause has been triggered, Sean Dyche or Chris Wood himself who all mentioned the clause being triggered or similar wording? I like Simon Jordan and I think he talks a lot of sense but don’t use what he says about our Club when he has none or very little inside information on BFC as gospel and a stick to beat the Club with.

[Chester Perry]

So essentially, if we stay up all is well, if not, problems might arise. Probably some people's idea of exciting, but not mine.

without significant additional revenues we will always be fighting a losing battle against the richer and bigger clubs - it only takes a slight change or a single recruiting error for clubs our size and relegation is a reality - for others they can get away with a few each season

[Wile E Coyote]

for all of us laymen, put simply it means we are all dimwitted morons who pay small fortunes for tickets to see our team and show loyalty, whilst in the shadows filthy rich businessmen with no base of football culture whatsoever treat us like dirt in order to profit.
Previous generations of footballing families would be turning in their graves to know we have capitulated and permitted this . More fool us. I am embarrassed to be a Burnley fan in this era.

[Jakubclaret]

I am lost here why would Simon Jordan know more about our Player contracts than Burnley Football Club who announced his release clause has been triggered, Sean Dyche or Chris Wood himself who all mentioned the clause being triggered or similar wording? I like Simon Jordan and I think he talks a lot of sense but don’t use what he says about our Club when he has none or very little inside information on BFC as gospel and a stick to beat the Club with.

It’s not in dispute that the release clause was activated I’m not quite sure how many times I have to repeat that! Chris wood when questioned would not comment when the release clause was applicable probably bound by some confidentiality agreement.

https://theathletic.com/news/new-newcas ... Ajb/?amp=1

Not quite sure why he wouldn’t clarify if everything was normal but hey ho.

[claretandy]

He’s supposedly good pals with dyche so why would it be a problem if he was in 1 of the hospitality boxes, doesn’t mean we was buttering him up he is allowed to spectate away from the riverside.

Jordan was insinuating that Wilder was there behind Dyche's back.

[Jakubclaret]

Jordan was insinuating that Wilder was there behind Dyche's back.

He could have been for all we know, regarding the other poster saying what does Simon Jordan know about the club, he’s been in the game for years he’ll talk to directors, managers, ex managers, players, ex players you name it he’ll know people throughout the football industry, we aren’t talking about somebody who’s come from a window cleaning background straight into talkSPORT.

[Burnley1989]

Jordan was insinuating that Wilder was there behind Dyche's back.

Then he is absolutely brain dead, he was sat next to the players family box, don’t you think Dyche and the TV cameras would pick up on him?!? As said before he’s a pal of Sean Dyche, I think this is arguably the stupidest rumour of the lot, as poaching a manager without the clubs permission would also land them in trouble.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Burnley feature in the Price of Money podcast today.

It sounds like the club will be under scrutiny again soon. I found it interesting that there’s only three other clubs that have yet to issue figures yet.

[NewClaret]

neither really - as a Premier League club the MSD loan is eminently serviceable particularly given the increase in revenues in the next cycle - as the other costs are with the new owners not against the assets covered by the charge (literally everything you can possibly think of and the mystery Guarantor.

Of course if you spend more than one season in the Championship then the clubs value will fall - which is why I believe that relegation has a repayment trigger for part of the loan not all of it (as West Ham have confirmed exists in their MSD agreement)

What’s the increase due to PL clubs in the next cycle CP?

And what’s this talk of a mystery guarantor?

Thx

[aggi]

Burnley feature in the Price of Money podcast today.

It sounds like the club will be under scrutiny again soon. I found it interesting that there’s only three other clubs that have yet to issue figures yet.

The sacking of Dyche has, unsurprisingly, drawn attention.

Nothing too surprising about not having issued figures yet. We changed our year end due to COVID so they are due later than most (and of course some clubs are listed too).

[Paul Waine]

Burnley feature in the Price of Money podcast today.

It sounds like the club will be under scrutiny again soon. I found it interesting that there’s only three other clubs that have yet to issue figures yet.

Re "issuing figures" aka publishing their accounts, the due dates are set by the respective clubs year end date. BFC moved date back to 31st July in the 2019/20 season, to include all of that season - delayed by covid-19, you will remember. I'd imagine that is also the case for the other 2 (who are they, btw). Other clubs year ends will be 30 June, so had to be filed by 31 March.

[Paul Waine]

What’s the increase due to PL clubs in the next cycle CP?

And what’s this talk of a mystery guarantor?

Thx

The "Guarantor" is mentioned in the Debenture documentation filed at Companies House between Calder Vale and MSD. It also mentions a "Loan Term Agreement." However, the LTA is not in public domain, so no further details about who or what Guarantor is. The Guarantor is not Burnley Football Club or any assets of BFC.

[Chester Perry]

What’s the increase due to PL clubs in the next cycle CP?

And what’s this talk of a mystery guarantor?

Thx

It is expected/believed that total Premier League media revenues will be at record levels - thanks to certain overseas agreements particularly in USA and the Nordics - there are also new commercial deals (including a prospective one for NFT's - though that market is collapsing fast in football at least) - the other area of growth is betting data.

I was recently suggesting that in certain markets the broadcast markets could increase as a result of betting company integration - even linked the latest 'The Bundle podcast' from Unofficial Partner (https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... -bundle-16) which touched on the subject - then this week the hugely loss-making DAZN announced how it is going to be profitable in the future - DAZN Bet - gambling paired with streaming - I mean just who would have guessed https://www.sportspromedia.com/categori ... d-product/

[aggi]

The "Guarantor" is mentioned in the Debenture documentation filed at Companies House between Calder Vale and MSD. It also mentions a "Loan Term Agreement." However, the LTA is not in public domain, so no further details about who or what Guarantor is. The Guarantor is not Burnley Football Club or any assets of BFC.

I think that it's just a boilerplate agreement. There doesn't have to be a "mystery" guarantor, the Loan Term Agreement may be silent on it or say there isn't one (or the guarantor may be Calder Vale).

[NewClaret]

The "Guarantor" is mentioned in the Debenture documentation filed at Companies House between Calder Vale and MSD. It also mentions a "Loan Term Agreement." However, the LTA is not in public domain, so no further details about who or what Guarantor is. The Guarantor is not Burnley Football Club or any assets of BFC.

Thank you PW. So there’s a guarantor of the loan but it’s not BFC and no knowledge as to who it is?

Blooming interesting!!

[NewClaret]

It is expected/believed that total Premier League media revenues will be at record levels - thanks to certain overseas agreements particularly in USA and the Nordics - there are also new commercial deals (including a prospective one for NFT's - though that market is collapsing fast in football at least) - the other area of growth is betting data.

I was recently suggesting that in certain markets the broadcast markets could increase as a result of betting company integration - even linked the latest 'The Bundle podcast' from Unofficial Partner (https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... -bundle-16) which touched on the subject - then this week the hugely loss-making DAZN announced how it is going to be profitable in the future - DAZN Bet - gambling paired with streaming - I mean just who would have guessed https://www.sportspromedia.com/categori ... d-product/

Thanks CP. Any best guesses from you on how much that might increase average TV revenues for a club like BFC? I’m guessing we get £100m today? So just wondering if it’s £10m, £20m uplift?

[Chester Perry]

Thank you PW. So there’s a guarantor of the loan but not BFC and no knowledge as to who it is?

Blooming interesting!!

it is such a passing standardised reference that aggi could be right in his 'boilerplate' thinking - like so much in this deal it remains an unknown - doesn't stop it being a tantalising notion

We have learned that there is a Guarantor at Derby, and there does not seem to have been to great a concern from MSD about how that has dragged on. There are people involved at West Ham and Southampton certainly had the assets to be Guarantor's on their respective loans - so it is not unreasonable to expect one at Burnley, you would expect assets of the VSL partners to be able to cover it these guys would have made strong earnings previously

[Paul Waine]

Thank you PW. So there’s a guarantor of the loan but it’s not BFC and no knowledge as to who it is?

Blooming interesting!!

Hi New, to be fair, what aggi says (above) may or may not be true. I wasn't thinking about a "pro-forma Debenture" when I read the Calder Vale filing. However, if I was involved with MSD and lending the buyers of a football club £60 million (assuming it is £60m) then I'd not be comfortable crossing out "guarantor" and saying that wasn't needed in this case. (MSD's security with respect to Derby/Pride Park etc, as revealed by Derby administration, is very extensive and the loan in that case was only £20m).

[Chester Perry]

Thanks CP. Any best guesses from you on how much that might increase average TV revenues for a club like BFC? I’m guessing we get £100m today? So just wondering if it’s £10m, £20m uplift?

it is hard to say - there is promise in uplift in the equal share in the International right's with some obesrvers suggesting that is between £7 - £9m - that also has a direct positive impact on the current parachute payment and solidarity payment formulas

if the NFT deal comes off (assuming equal share - which is not guaranteed) that could be another £5m

their will also be an increase in the merit payments from the overseas rights

it will come down to the other agreements that the Premier League has in place and what the still ongoing negotiations with the EFL (under the watchful eye of the DCMS - there is already the £100m extra to the football family for the roll over domestic agreement (which effectively broke competition law - with government approval). Rick Parry has not given up https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 60875.html which is interesting as he was one of the 'clever men' who created this mess in the first place - though the Football League did turn down his offer of a 20% revenue share with the Premier League (Parry's idea) in the early to mid 90's - Parry now wants 25%

[NewClaret]

it is hard to say - there is promise in uplift in the equal share in the International right's with some obesrvers suggesting that is between £7 - £9m - that also has a direct positive impact on the current parachute payment and solidarity payment formulas

if the NFT deal comes off (assuming equal share - which is not guaranteed) that could be another £5m

their will also be an increase in the merit payments from the overseas rights

it will come down to the other agreements that the Premier League has in place and what the still ongoing negotiations with the EFL (under the watchful eye of the DCMS - there is already the £100m extra to the football family for the roll over domestic agreement (which effectively broke competition law - with government approval). Rick Parry has not given up https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 60875.html which is interesting as he was one of the 'clever men' who created this mess in the first place - though the Football League did turn down his offer of a 20% revenue share with the Premier League (Parry's idea) in the early to mid 90's - Parry now wants 25%

Cheers mate.

Depresses me even more that we’re likely exiting at a period where we might’ve stood to benefit from the extra revenues.

[Guller Bull]

I'm pretty excited to have something to play for tonight.

[Chester Perry]

Cheers mate.

Depresses me even more that we’re likely exiting at a period where we might’ve stood to benefit from the extra revenues.

it is all relative - so does everyone else at the table, and they have bigger matchday and commercial revenues too - in some ways it just makes you more dependent - the key factor is the increase in merit based payments - clubs will just pull away ever further add in the UEFA Co-efficient payments and the slog we have witnessed recently will not break without a real disruption from us on the commercial front - unfortunately we are not seeing any signs of it

[aggi]

The overall valuation at sale for Southampton including taking on the debt is £220m interestingly the overall valuation of Crystal Palace when they sold 40% of the club (all in a new share issue ) to John Textor was just short of £219m his £87.5m of real cash was used to significantly reduce the £57.5m of debt the club had built up

Both those valuations, emerging from Covid and enhanced revenues make you think our takeover was over priced

I don't think you can directly equate buying 40% of a club to buying control of one, the latter is going to attract a premium.

Obviously without the inside story it's hard to tell but I wouldn't say Burnley was particularly overpriced. The risk of relegation possibly makes it look that way but that was always a risk and the reason why it was a pretty low multiple compared to profits and revenue.

[Chester Perry]

I don't think you can directly equate buying 40% of a club to buying control of one, the latter is going to attract a premium.

Obviously without the inside story it's hard to tell but I wouldn't say Burnley was particularly overpriced. The risk of relegation possibly makes it look that way but that was always a risk and the reason why it was a pretty low multiple compared to profits and revenue.

my thinking on this includes but is not limited too
- Palace and Southampton sales (the latter being 80% of the holding) occurred with a known return to a closer schedule adherence and matchday attendances
- Infrastructure at Southampton (less so at Palace, who opened a new £25m academy last summer) is in advance of ours as is match day earning capacity
- Bringing through and developing players - both clubs have a better record (Palace have one of Europe's richest sources of talent as part of their immediate catchment area)
- Both have been in the Premier League (current stay) longer than us
- Both those deals sought to reduce/erradicate the debt taken on board to maintain competitiveness during Covid

[aggi]

it is such a passing standardised reference that aggi could be right in his 'boilerplate' thinking - like so much in this deal it remains an unknown - doesn't stop it being a tantalising notion

We have learned that there is a Guarantor at Derby, and there does not seem to have been to great a concern from MSD about how that has dragged on. There are people involved at West Ham and Southampton certainly had the assets to be Guarantor's on their respective loans - so it is not unreasonable to expect one at Burnley, you would expect assets of the VSL partners to be able to cover it these guys would have made strong earnings previously

Who's the extra guarantor at Derby? Assume you mean someone outside of the various group cos (club, academy, stadium, holding, etc)

I saw today that MSD had lent Derby an additional £3.5m to keep them going during administration so I assume they are pretty confident of getting it back.

[aggi]

my thinking on this includes but is not limited too
- Palace and Southampton sales (the latter being 80% of the holding) occurred with a known return to a closer schedule adherence and matchday attendances
- Infrastructure at Southampton (less so at Palace, who opened a new £25m academy last summer) is in advance of ours as is match day earning capacity
- Bringing through and developing players - both clubs have a better record (Palace have one of Europe's richest sources of talent as part of their immediate catchment area)
- Both have been in the Premier League (current stay) longer than us
- Both those deals sought to reduce/erradicate the debt taken on board to maintain competitiveness during Covid

All fair points. I was thinking more of the financial side. Cost bases at Palace and Southampton are higher and it isn't driving particularly higher revenues. They're going to have the same kind of issue as Burnley do in attempting to push up their revenue. The raw figures aren't particularly different to Burnley's.

The main difference is the chance of going down where arguably (at the moment) we are struggling more than them.

[ClaretPete001]

All fair points. I was thinking more of the financial side. Cost bases at Palace and Southampton are higher and it isn't driving particularly higher revenues. They're going to have the same kind of issue as Burnley do in attempting to push up their revenue. The raw figures aren't particularly different to Burnley's.

The main difference is the chance of going down where arguably (at the moment) we are struggling more than them.

In the Premiership the relative difference is not significant but in the Championship it would be. As far as I recall Palace's non matchday revenues are around £28 million, which reflects their high average attendances and London base while Southampton is around £31 million. Both competitive in the Championship.

Ours would be around £20 million, which is not competitive given clubs like Rovers and PNE get significant additional funding from billionaire owners.

Depending on the extent of the due diligence this would make quite a difference to risk upon relegation.

In terms of revenue generation, I can only see a point where the the Premiership seeks to end it's relationship with the EFL.

The pressure from the big 6 will be constant and I see little signs that these mid-sized clubs are based upon realistic business propositions because as you say where is the revenue growth for mid-sized clubs coming from other than broadcasting revenue?

On the other side the inflationary pressures of the Premiership is driving up costs. Our wage bill has increased £40 million in the last few years without a real improvement in depth or quality of the squad (arguably the reverse).