Burnley Football Club - first accounts under ALK

[spt_claret]

I think you'd very disappointed! I'd wager most people were questioning why we were making £Xm profits and not buying players. Certainly that's the gist you'd get from many people on social media, phone-ins, article comments etc, including on here.

In isolation, hearing "we're making a profit" sounds like we have money available and in honesty I thought similar back in 2018- I couldn't understand why we didn't spend more to make a go of Europe, speculate to accumulate etc. But at the time I also had no idea just how much that pushed up our ratio of playing costs to turnover, it was well publicised that we had a healthy turnover the year before and I naively assumed that any squad bonuses or wage rises would be more than offset over the season by the money for reaching Europe.

I'm also not automatically against incurring debt to either grow revenues tangibly (offsetting the debt longterm) or gain playing assets that can in theory be sold at breakeven or profit if necessary. But these are tricky tasks for any club and have very clearly been beyond either our capacity or willingness for several years.

It's horrible to look in hindsight and think that longterm we would have probably been better off not reaching Europe, selling Tarkowski a year or two ago and selling McNeil back when United and Villa were linked. Sets a real ceiling on achievement.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The flip side of this is that with the owners likely to be less risk averse than the predecessors if we do go down they may try to hang onto players that would get us to bounce back. Even with our midfield we have a mid table PL team, that much is clear, we were underperforming. Like Fulham with Mitrovic, hang onto players it can make a difference, and we are far better now than Fulham were then, and the points tally proves it.

There are words in the accounts to the effect of some of the loan being repayable the following season after relegation and some straight away. Seems to me there is some wiggle room to take a risk with assets who may not lose much more value in that further 6-12 months.

I remain inclined to give them a chance, even if we go down. Bouncing back in year 1 would seem essential though.

[ClaretPete001]

Thanks Paul

Im not sure if I am asking the right question then as I was looking for clarity around the funding of the takeover which was in this period.

If there is circa £37m of cash reduction in the bank and a £65m loan from MSD. Is this the money that has funded the purchase?

I'm not clear on what has been paid for the club up to this point and what is still yet to pay for - or how it is being financed ?

Is there a way of explaining this simply with what the accounts show at this stage? If not, no worries?

There is another £102 million (less the the £37 million) in inter company debts.

But remember BFC did not buy BFC there may well be other aspects of the purchase reported in the holding company accounts.

[spt_claret]

It's pure conjecture on both our parts.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that £25 million is a lot of money for two players. The ancillary costs would make that figure even higher.

And the point is high speed churn is not going to happen because we haven't got the seed money to make that happen. 4 players of similar quality would be £50 - £60 million to buy and if one failed (like Gibson) the profits could be gone.

And we have 10 OOC players.

In other words, it's easy to talk about buying young and selling at a profit but the cost, timescales involved in increasing their value sufficiently and the problem of constantly replacing them and integrating them into a team makes it difficult as a business model.

I fully agree on all this. I just think that if we wanted to this summer we could probably see a profit on Cornet and Collins- they have gone from Ligue 1 talent and Championship youngster to a PL eyecatcher and hugely promising talent respectively.

[ClaretPete001]

The flip side of this is that with the owners likely to be less risk averse than the predecessors if we do go down they may try to hang onto players that would get us to bounce back. Even with our midfield we have a mid table PL team, that much is clear, we were underperforming. Like Fulham with Mitrovic, hang onto players it can make a difference, and we are far better now than Fulham were then, and the points tally proves it.

There are words in the accounts to the effect of some of the loan being repayable the following season after relegation and some straight away. Seems to me there is some wiggle room to take a risk with assets who may not lose much more value in that further 6-12 months.

I remain inclined to give them a chance, even if we go down. Bouncing back in year 1 would seem essential though.

They've made it clear they would have to sell players. I know this is hard for people to accept but I suspect they would protect their investment before the club. And they are not necessarily the same thing..

Agreed bouncing back in year 1would be essential because of the additional loss of broadcast revenue in years 2 and 3.

[Chester Perry]

I remain inclined to give them a chance, even if we go down. Bouncing back in year 1 would seem essential though.

Given the level to which we can actually affect things we have to wish them well and hope their quest for new investors, initiatives for revenue uplift and new approaches on the footballing side all bear positive fruition

[eastanglianclaret]

Just read this on the BBC website which made me feel a tad uncomfortable. Does anyone have any idea what the final comment means? At first reading it seems a bit dodgy. "The accounts also state that following the end of the reporting period, Burnley advanced £10m to a "fellow group company"." Apologies if this has already been addressed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61317194

[spt_claret]

I know this is hard for people to accept but I suspect they would protect their investment before the club. And they are not necessarily the same thing..

I think this point,and the points users like even Blakesboots have made about the purchase being about more than football and PL owners getting a seat at the table with some real movers and shakers, are ones that more people need to consider.
It's easy to assume that the owners have the same priorities as fans, when for decades those owners have been fans. That has changed.

[dsr]

They've made it clear they would have to sell players. I know this is hard for people to accept but I suspect they would protect their investment before the club. And they are not necessarily the same thing..

Agreed bouncing back in year 1would be essential because of the additional loss of broadcast revenue in years 2 and 3.

The only thing against that is that if we stay in the Championship, whether near the top or at the bottom, their investment is lost. They only invested £15m and they can't get that back without paying off the creditors first, ie. Garlick etc for £60m and BFC for £102m. They only way they could get their money back is by getting back to the PL.

So their "best" way of protecting their investment might be to push the boat out and spend money to the max. If it doesn't work, they accept they have lost the £15m and they walk away. It makes no difference, financially, to our owners if the club is like Luton or like Bury - either way, their investment gets no return.

[joey13]

Given the level to which we can actually affect things we have to wish them well and hope their quest for new investors, initiatives for revenue uplift and new approaches on the footballing side all bear positive fruition

The quest for new investors which will saddle the club with even more debt , the initial deal stinks no matter how many words you write on the subject.

[dsr]

Just read this on the BBC website which made me feel a tad uncomfortable. Does anyone have any idea what the final comment means? At first reading it seems a bit dodgy. "The accounts also state that following the end of the reporting period, Burnley advanced £10m to a "fellow group company"." Apologies if this has already been addressed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61317194

It means that as at July 2021, BFC had lent £102m to the holding company (Calder Vale Holdings, I think) (which was to fund the purchase of the club) and since then, they have lent another £10m. This is probably to fund the minority shareholders purchase, but it may alternatively be to fund other expenses of the holding company such as director's fees and admin fees to their owners.

[spt_claret]

The quest for new investors which will saddle the club with even more debt , the initial deal stinks no matter how many words you write on the subject.

I would imagine the investment sought is more along the lines of sponsorships, payments to incorporate aspects of a business eg. technology/digital innovation, etc. as opposed to loans or funds with a presumption of being paid back at a profit. Chester has alluded to this sort of thing even if it hasn't materialised.
If we are reliant on the latter we would need an obscene increase in transfer profit or enormous prize/rights money to see the creditors in profit. We don't make enough profit to siphon off like that as it is.
There's no real option beyond hope the owners either find that investment or can repeatedly pull rabbits out of the hat in the transfer market- which is where the analytics driven approach comes in, unfortunately we likely have a long way to go to catch up with Brentford's model.

[RVclaret]

The quest for new investors which will saddle the club with even more debt , the initial deal stinks no matter how many words you write on the subject.

Not necessarily even more debt.

John Textor put in circa £90m at Palace last summer and £50m was used to REDUCE debt.

[Chester Perry]

The quest for new investors which will saddle the club with even more debt , the initial deal stinks no matter how many words you write on the subject.

The point of the new investors in VSL is to drive down the related company loans/make stage payments and assume responsibility (at time of payment) for the principal of the MSD loan - none of which is about increasing debt, it actually is about returning money to the club so it can invest in it's growth and meet it's obligations

I have consistently stated I do not like the deal, it does not stop me from writing about it and seeking to understand it more deeply

You are appearing to suggest that I am a ALK/VSL supporter or even a Garlick supporter and I have explained my position on those points a number of times also

This reminds me that there is a Burnley FC board member from the noughties who is apparently convinced I am an ALK associate - which I just find absurd but there you go

[Sleeping Cat]

The flip side of this is that with the owners likely to be less risk averse than the predecessors if we do go down they may try to hang onto players that would get us to bounce back. Even with our midfield we have a mid table PL team, that much is clear, we were underperforming. Like Fulham with Mitrovic, hang onto players it can make a difference, and we are far better now than Fulham were then, and the points tally proves it.

There are words in the accounts to the effect of some of the loan being repayable the following season after relegation and some straight away. Seems to me there is some wiggle room to take a risk with assets who may not lose much more value in that further 6-12 months.

I remain inclined to give them a chance, even if we go down. Bouncing back in year 1 would seem essential though.

The point being that relegation already see's a huge drop off in revenue from the drop in TV money, but will also have a huge chunk of debt repayable as well. There's little to no chance that we would be able to hold onto players, they would have to sell and then some to pay debt, cut wages, restructure the squad accordingly. There would be no quick road back.

[fatboy47]

If we get relegated, what are the chances of a bankrupt club outside the PL in a smallish catchment area, being sold for £160m?

Garlick couldn't shift it when it was a relatively secure Prem Club with £60m in the safe. Not without dreaming up a convoluted deal with a firm of fairly small-time venture capitalists. (who must have thought it was their birthday)

Any value placed on the club after relegation would undoubtedly start with the word "minus" followed by a fairly large number.

[Chester Perry]

Not a measure to everyone's tastes - particularly accountants, but from a business owner perspective (Garlick was the key budgetary input on these last accounts) what the club has achieved through the pandemic is astounding when compared to our competitors

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1521 ... 2zxZ4qAAAA

[joey13]

The point of the new investors in VSL is to drive down the related company loans/make stage payments and assume responsibility (at time of payment) for the principal of the MSD loan - none of which is about increasing debt, it actually is about returning money to the club so it can invest in it's growth and meet it's obligations

I have consistently stated I do not like the deal, it does not stop me from writing about it and seeking to understand it more deeply

You are appearing to suggest that I am a ALK/VSL supporter or even a Garlick supporter and I have explained my position on those points a number of times also

This reminds me that there is a Burnley FC board member from the noughties who is apparently convinced I am an ALK associate - which I just find absurd but there you go

Maybe it doesn’t need to be understood more deeply, it is what it is .

[Chester Perry]

I would imagine the investment sought is more along the lines of sponsorships, payments to incorporate aspects of a business eg. technology/digital innovation, etc. as opposed to loans or funds with a presumption of being paid back at a profit. Chester has alluded to this sort of thing even if it hasn't materialised.
If we are reliant on the latter we would need an obscene increase in transfer profit or enormous prize/rights money to see the creditors in profit. We don't make enough profit to siphon off like that as it is.
There's no real option beyond hope the owners either find that investment or can repeatedly pull rabbits out of the hat in the transfer market- which is where the analytics driven approach comes in, unfortunately we likely have a long way to go to catch up with Brentford's model.

Those types of investment are being sought but he key one is for ownership - VSL are looking for ownership partners, they have been trying to sell equity stakes since the get go - I have posted plenty of times about this type of ownership approach that is fast becoming the norm due to the costs and risks involved (it is also a very natural approach for financiers)

[spt_claret]

Those types of investment are being sought but he key one is for ownership - VSL are looking for ownership partners, they have been trying to sell equity stakes since the get go - I have posted plenty of times about this type of ownership approach that is fast becoming the norm due to the costs and risks involved (it is also a very natural approach for financiers)

That is a little concerning. I'm not sure how they intend to sell a vision of growth/profit to attract this kind of ownership. Seems we really will be reliant on some astonishing transfer dealings to keep everyone happy.

[CrosspoolClarets]

They've made it clear they would have to sell players. I know this is hard for people to accept but I suspect they would protect their investment before the club. And they are not necessarily the same thing..

Agreed bouncing back in year 1would be essential because of the additional loss of broadcast revenue in years 2 and 3.

They will have to sell players but whether that is one, two, some or all remains to be seen (and hopefully, not seen with us staying up). The point I was making was that I can see a scenario where maybe those demanding to go if we are relegated go (Pope, Cornet, McNeil probably) but the club try to hold onto others, OR set a high transfer fee, which gives us a chance.

Given the level to which we can actually affect things we have to wish them well and hope their quest for new investors, initiatives for revenue uplift and new approaches on the footballing side all bear positive fruition

Indeed.

The level to which we can affect things is normally whether we buy a season ticket, mine is renewed but I’m observing closely. That’s what I mean by giving them a chance. The degree to which I judge things is whether I feel my interests as a paying customer travelling a long distance is taken into account. I wouldn’t continue watching if we had a fire sale of Blackpool standards, too many years watching lower level dross to do that again, and my judgement of the accounts is that would be possible but not certain in the event of relegation. So I’m sat on the fence a bit.

[aggi]

Not a measure to everyone's tastes - particularly accountants, but from a business owner perspective (Garlick was the key budgetary input on these last accounts) what the club has achieved through the pandemic is astounding when compared to our competitors

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1521 ... 2zxZ4qAAAA

Our heavy increase in WACC is going to scupper that in years to come.

[Chester Perry]

Our heavy increase in WACC is going to scupper that in years to come.

It would seem so

some background on Weighted Average Cost of Capital for those (like me) who do not know much about such things

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wacc.asp

[Chester Perry]

That is a little concerning. I'm not sure how they intend to sell a vision of growth/profit to attract this kind of ownership. Seems we really will be reliant on some astonishing transfer dealings to keep everyone happy.

all things I have been saying for quite some time now

[aggi]

...

not quite - there is definitely a tiered structure to bonus payments and for the first time these accounts confirm tha tthe merit based payment is shared in significant part with the football staff - when you add in European qualification (and I imagine a cup win) it becomes troublesome
...

I don't really buy this. When you look at our wages they are still very much lower end of the Premier League. Whether it is the bonus structure or the basic salary we're still going to end up with a similar level of spend. There is nothing to suggest that bonuses, on top of the staying up bonus, outweigh the additional payments for where we finish.

[ClaretPete001]

The only thing against that is that if we stay in the Championship, whether near the top or at the bottom, their investment is lost. They only invested £15m and they can't get that back without paying off the creditors first, ie. Garlick etc for £60m and BFC for £102m. They only way they could get their money back is by getting back to the PL.

So their "best" way of protecting their investment might be to push the boat out and spend money to the max. If it doesn't work, they accept they have lost the £15m and they walk away. It makes no difference, financially, to our owners if the club is like Luton or like Bury - either way, their investment gets no return.

Why would they have to pay off creditors? Couldn't they just pay it off in salaries, dividends, management and consultancy fees etc?

I've met business people who wouldn't think twice.

[aggi]

That is a little concerning. I'm not sure how they intend to sell a vision of growth/profit to attract this kind of ownership. Seems we really will be reliant on some astonishing transfer dealings to keep everyone happy.

In part they will be trying to sell Burnley, but in a large part they will be selling the Premier League and buying into a share of the revenues that are being pulled along by Liverpool, Man City, etc. There's still plenty of areas ripe for exploitation in the next 5 or 10 years with increased revenue to go with them.

A lot of people seem to have ruled out the possibility of any additional investment, full stop. It may not be easy but it isn't something that should necessarily be viewed as the door permanently closed.

Obviously this does require us to be in the Premier League.

[Vegas Claret]

I would not sell Collins for less than £30m, he's certainly increased in value as far as I am concerned. I cannot name you many centre backs playing as well as him at the age he is in this league, if any. Cornet has been hit and miss but I think his goals might lead to someone from the lower reaches thinking he is better than he actually is, I can see us being able to make a profit on him and get around £20m.

when you consider Everton paid 40 million for Ben Godfrey............

[aggi]

Why would they have to pay off creditors? Couldn't they just pay it off in salaries, dividends, management and consultancy fees etc?

I've met business people who wouldn't think twice.

Doing that kind of and then leaving an insolvent business at the end is frowned upon (and, depending how egregious, can result in things like the directors being personally responsible for the debts).

[ClaretPete001]

when you consider Everton paid 40 million for Ben Godfrey............

Ben Godfrey had played well over a 100 professional games when he was signed for Everton and the fee was closed to £20 million according to most sources I can find.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Ben Godfrey had played well over a 100 professional games when he was signed for Everton and the fee was closed to £20 million according to most sources I can find.

Not bad for a player that Norwich only paid £160k for plus a further £2.5 million due to the sell on clause.

[ClaretPete001]

Doing that kind of and then leaving an insolvent business at the end is frowned upon (and, depending how egregious, can result in things like the directors being personally responsible for the debts).

According to the Times Sean Dyche was paid over £3 million a year for managing the club. Surely a management team could feasibly charge as much for running the club?

I would expect that the ALK team are being handsomely remunerated in one way or another - they are running a £100 million business in an industry that pays millions as a norm.

But take your point - they are probably not doing it....!

[Chester Perry]

I don't really buy this. When you look at our wages they are still very much lower end of the Premier League. Whether it is the bonus structure or the basic salary we're still going to end up with a similar level of spend. There is nothing to suggest that bonuses, on top of the staying up bonus, outweigh the additional payments for where we finish.

I don't think I suggested that - they do take up a solid proportion and the Euro qualification added to that - many had previously assumed the large merit payment was just profit it isn't - we notice it more because overall matchday and commercial revenues have not shown much growth, the latter is a key area of opportunity if we wear our positive goggles

as a side step interesting on bonuses in the Athletic today - we are not mentioned

https://archive.ph/EJRhk

[ClaretPete001]

Not bad for a player that Norwich only paid £160k for plus a further £2.5 million due to the sell on clause.

Again we are back to discussing one player but yes Mc Neil would probably be in the same category.

However, if you took Godfrey as an example and we sold Collins for £25 million at the point he has 100 odd games under his belt we would not have made that much money once agents fees and the other costs have been incurred in buying him and then again in the associated costs of replacing him.

Like the club found with Tarks, it's cheaper to run down the contract than try to replace a player as good as he is when you have already incurred the cost of the transfer and initial agents fees.

[ClaretPete001]

And apart from anything else can you imagine the uproar on this board if we kept selling our best players every couple of seasons.

[Lancasterclaret]

And apart from anything else can you imagine the uproar on this board if we kept selling our best players every couple of seasons.

Dunno

Some of us know its the only way we compete at this level, but I do take your point!

[gandhisflipflop]

And apart from anything else can you imagine the uproar on this board if we kept selling our best players every couple of seasons.

Blake, Little, Andy Gray, lafferty, Jay rod, akinbiyi. It’s nothing new.

[claretandy]

I don't really buy this. When you look at our wages they are still very much lower end of the Premier League. Whether it is the bonus structure or the basic salary we're still going to end up with a similar level of spend. There is nothing to suggest that bonuses, on top of the staying up bonus, outweigh the additional payments for where we finish.

To me, it looks like the merit payments are split 66/33 to the players.

[ClaretPete001]

Blake, Little, Andy Gray, lafferty, Jay rod, akinbiyi. It’s nothing new.

My point isn't that you can't sell players at a profit but that making a profit on player sales is not the norm

Since coming into the Premiership our net spend is £60 million. None of the mainstays in the Premier league make money from player sales and many have a net spend of £200 million or more. The bigger clubs it is closer to half a billion.

So, yes it's possible but you can't easily do it and maintain a Premiership place because you are effectively having to replace your best players with young players every 2 or so seasons.

Anyway I'm in danger of enhancing my Dr Doom reputation so I'll add - we can but hope for the best ...!

[RVclaret]

My point isn't that you can't sell players at a profit but that making a profit on player sales is not the norm

Since coming into the Premiership our net spend is £60 million. None of the mainstays in the Premier league make money from player sales and many have a net spend of £200 million or more. The bigger clubs it is closer to half a billion.

So, yes it's possible but you can't easily do it and maintain a Premiership place because you are effectively having to replace your best players with young players every 2 or so seasons.

Anyway I'm in danger of enhancing my Dr Doom reputation so I'll add - we can but hope for the best ...!

That's the model which Brentford basically have used for the past seasons, in fact, to a greater extent as they sold a key player every season, not every 2! For clubs our and Brentford's size I see it as the only way to deliver sustainable success. There of course has to be a balance, not every signing can be a 22 year old gem but not every signing should be a 28+ year old with no resale value.

[DCWat]

And apart from anything else can you imagine the uproar on this board if we kept selling our best players every couple of seasons.

I’d guess that most of us would see this as a necessity and happily accept it. Buying decent young players and selling at a big profit should be our aim - quality on the pitch and a decent return on the investment off it.

I’d happily have great young players playing for us, who see us as a stepping stone to bigger things. It’s a win win, if you can identify them and don’t get burnt with too many who don’t achieve the levels first expected.

Much easier said than done, unfortunately.

[KRBFC]

The club isn’t buying ALKs talent, ALK have bought the club. The complex parts of the deal are completely unknown to us but I can tell you now that it is not the club which owes the debt, it is ALK. You can’t buy a business with the business’ own cash reserves.

Nobody on the internet has a clue what the deal between ALK and the old board entails but there sure is a lot of rubbish spouted about it. Only time will tell.

Also, the last accounts with roughly £80 million in was due to the sale and boosting of cash to increase clubs value with some clever accounting. I remember at the time people saying the true cash in the bank at the time was around £50m.

You're miles off the mark here, it's fine saying ALK owe money to Garlick and MSD, but they don't have any cash to speak of and the debt is tied to the clubs assets. Also the £80m figure isn't due to clever accounting, it just hadn't taken out wages for a certain period.

ALK have bought the club, with it's own cash and debts stacked against the club. It's a fact.

[spt_claret]

In part they will be trying to sell Burnley, but in a large part they will be selling the Premier League and buying into a share of the revenues that are being pulled along by Liverpool, Man City, etc. There's still plenty of areas ripe for exploitation in the next 5 or 10 years with increased revenue to go with them.

A lot of people seem to have ruled out the possibility of any additional investment, full stop. It may not be easy but it isn't something that should necessarily be viewed as the door permanently closed.

Obviously this does require us to be in the Premier League.

I'm not ruling it out. I actually think the crypto/NFT noise is interesting and forward thinking even if I don't understand how we'd apply it and I am extremely onboard with a data driven approach modelled on Brentford, who generally have been turning transfer profits. I just worry the latter will take too long to implement, or that in general the risk level is high- we are reliant on the new board knocking it out of the park repeatedly on either investment deals or transfers, the latter of which is generally unusual/tricky to profit on at least at at premier league level, and if there's struggles,setbacks or mishits it impacts us a lot now.
I'm not worried about the club's continued existence but I am worried this deal is too risky for an already financially squeezed/volatile club, and that Owen Coyle may yet be proven right about Bolton being ten years ahead of us, for all the wrong reasons.

[spt_claret]

That's the model which Brentford basically have used for the past seasons, in fact, to a greater extent as they sold a key player every season, not every 2! For clubs our and Brentford's size I see it as the only way to deliver sustainable success. There of course has to be a balance, not every signing can be a 22 year old gem but not every signing should be a 28+ year old with no resale value.

I'd be delighted if we can successfully emulate Brentford, I really would. Or a hybrid with Palaces successful youth setup. They're probably the model clubs for clubs like us. But both took a long time to get there and I'm worried this deal might not give us the time needed to do it, or leeway if there's setbacks like relegation.

[ClaretPete001]

That's the model which Brentford basically have used for the past seasons, in fact, to a greater extent as they sold a key player every season, not every 2! For clubs our and Brentford's size I see it as the only way to deliver sustainable success. There of course has to be a balance, not every signing can be a 22 year old gem but not every signing should be a 28+ year old with no resale value.

Agreed Brentford have done it but are not an established PL side. One of the problems of the Premiership is that the costs are inflated by the competing power of other Premiership clubs.

So, for example we spent £50 of the £60 million in the first 3 years in the Premiership when we had Championship costs and Premiership income and we were making substantive profits.

Brentford is a good shout though..

[KRBFC]

I think that's a bit of an overreaction to say the least.

If a chunk of the 65m loan is due, let's assume half of it, call it 35m.

Cornet / Pope sales in summer would cover that. Any other sales provide funds, alongside the parachute payments, to rebuild in the Championship.

ALK bought the club when we were sitting just above the relegation places last season.

To suggest the entire clubs future is at risk is simply fear-mongering.

And where does the other £30m come from the pay the MSD loan? do we just forget about that and leave it lingering over our heads? while we spend all of our income and gamble?

Our matchday income will take a huge hit with fans on credit.
We will still be paying MSD yearly interest of £6m.

And you're completely forgetting money we owe Garlick still.

£65m MSD + £47m from club = £112m.

What was the initial takeover reported at? 84% for £178m?

So it's safe to assume we still owe Garlick £60m+?

[joey13]

That's the model which Brentford basically have used for the past seasons, in fact, to a greater extent as they sold a key player every season, not every 2! For clubs our and Brentford's size I see it as the only way to deliver sustainable success. There of course has to be a balance, not every signing can be a 22 year old gem but not every signing should be a 28+ year old with no resale value.

You do know Brentfords owner has put in over £100 million into the club don’t you ?

[RVclaret]

And where does the other £30m come from the pay the MSD loan? do we just forget about that and leave it lingering over our heads? while we spend all of our income and gamble?

Our matchday income will take a huge hit with fans on credit.
We will still be paying MSD yearly interest of £6m.

And you're completely forgetting money we owe Garlick still.

£65m MSD + £47m from club = £112m.

What was the initial takeover reported at? 84% for £178m?

So it's safe to assume we still owe Garlick £60m+?

Firstly we don’t know what clauses are in place to Garlick if relegated. CP has speculated on a few possible outcomes, one of them being him regaining control. Secondly, we won’t still be paying £6m interest as it would be circa 9% on a £30m balance so that’s under £3m a year.

We’d have a go at getting back up year 1, and if we don’t, we should still have saleable assets to keep chipping down the £30m remainder. Who knows, what if someone like Richardson bursts onto the scene and bags for fun in the Champ attracting a £15-20m fee (or anyone for that matter). 75% goes to the loan repayment, 25% kept for reinvestment. I don’t know, just speculating.

[KRBFC]

Firstly we don’t know what clauses are in place to Garlick if relegated. CP has speculated on a few possible outcomes, one of them being him regaining control. Secondly, we won’t still be paying £6m interest as it would be circa 9% on a £30m balance so that’s under £3m a year.

We’d have a go at getting back up year 1, and if we don’t, we should still have saleable assets to keep chipping down the £30m remainder. Who knows, what if someone like Richardson bursts onto the scene and bags for fun in the Champ attracting a £15-20m fee (or anyone for that matter). 75% goes to the loan repayment, 25% kept for reinvestment. I don’t know, just speculating.

relying on someone bursting onto the scene in the Championship to pay a loan seems like an incredibly dangerous way to approach it.

[RVclaret]

relying on someone bursting onto the scene in the Championship to pay a loan seems like an incredibly dangerous way to approach it.

Like I said, could be anyone. That was just an example. The squad would still have saleable assets. Collins for example. I’d hope he’d stay year 1 in the Champ, he’ll probably stand out and get snapped up for over 20/25m.

The report mentions the forecasting of player trading as a key part of paying back the loan.