Burnley Football Club - first accounts under ALK

[Chester Perry]

Strange terminology from Kieran Maguire in the I in regards to the relegation clause on the MSD loan - West Ham have it also
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/burn ... bt-1610411
Burnley accounts reveal ‘nasty’ debt clause that could force club to sell players if relegated
Demotion to the Championship would probably see a £65m debt secured against the club called up, meaning they would probably have to sell players to raise the capital

By Mark Douglas - Northern Football Correspondent
May 4, 2022 4:18 pm(Updated 4:21 pm)

Relegation to the Championship will compel Burnley to pay back a significant proportion of a £65million loan taken out as part of ALK Capital’s leveraged buy-out – throwing into sharp focus the need to complete their great escape.

The club’s accounts revealed the repayment clause, which is the headline figure from financials that also confirm the impact on the Clarets of the leveraged buy-out that transferred ownership to Alan Pace’s ALK Capital group. The club’s cash reserves had reduced from £80m to £50m, while Burnley have collected £102m of debt.

But it is the loan repayment which is the eye-catching takeaway from the accounts, emphasising the need to stay out of the bottom three. Recent form under caretaker boss Mike Jackson has lifted them to 16th with three Premier League fixtures to play.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire said the clause was “nasty” and would be likely to hit Burnley’s ability to replicate Fulham’s immediate return to the Premier League if they went down, as well as forcing them to sell players.

ALK Capital took out the loan from MSD Holdings to finance the buy out and currently pay only interest – at 8 per cent – on it. The full amount is due to be repaid in 2025.

But the club’s accounts reveal that the repayment schedule would be brought forward if they drop into the Championship, with a most of the loan required to be paid off at the end of the season.

Burnley declined to comment when contacted by i.

Football finance expert Maguire said: “It’s a nasty clause and would have a big impact in the event of relegation.

“We’ve just seen Fulham and Bournemouth bounce back up but both have wealthy owners prepared to absorb a loss in the Championship to get promotion again. They’re trophy assets to those owners but Alan Pace doesn’t give off that impression that he sees the club in the same way.”

Burnley chairman Pace faced scrutiny at the time because of the way the buy out was financed and Maguire said the terms of the loan repayment reflect the downside of a takeover structured in that way.

“Leveraged buy-outs are high risk. If they work out, it’s high benefit but if it doesn’t the downside is also significant,” he said.

“Effectively what MSD Holdings are doing is saying ‘we are not taking on that risk if you do get relegated’. They’re saying they want the parachute payments and also the club would likely be compelled to sell a player like Dwight McNeil to cover that payment.

“For MSD Holdings, lending Burnley £65m in the Premier League is fine but £65m in the Championship is a significant amount of money and they’re protecting themselves against that risk.”

Ironically the Clarets remain one of the best run clubs in the Premier League, as revealed by the small £3m loss posted in their accounts. Other Premier League clubs have been posting much more significant losses in a year seriously disrupted by the pandemic.

“Burnley are historically one of the best run clubs in the Premier League – they have good wage control and a low wage bill,” Maguire said.

Meanwhile, club sources insist it’s business as usual for manager Jackson ahead of Burnley’s home game against Aston Villa.

[RVclaret]

West Ham’s risk of relegation is far less than ours though isn’t it. I think it is a nasty clause. Certainly contrary to what some were speculating here that perhaps the loan might even have some lenience if relegated.

[randomclaret2]

Couple of little errors there...we have 4 games left not 3, and Fulham and Bournemouth havent both "bounced back up" ; this is Bournemouth's second season since relegation.

[Chester Perry]

West Ham’s risk of relegation is far less than ours though isn’t it. I think it is a nasty clause. Certainly contrary to what some were speculating here that perhaps the loan might even have some lenience if relegated.

It is exactly what you would expect of an organisation like MSD (or even a bank) they have to protect themselves - it seems perfectly commensurate with projected income levels - even down to having a second payment if we do not bounce back up at first attempt - it means we do not put all our eggs in one basket and that is a good and balanced way to be in the circumstances

as for making the payment it seems we have at least 3 viable options
- parachute monies
- player sales
- share buyback from the sellers

and 1 increasingly challenging option
- a new investor

everyone wants the 4th but a combination of 1 and 2 looking the most likely (should we actually be relegated)

[Chester Perry]

Kieran Maguire now churning out his graphs on our financial results

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 7903948809

[Vegas Claret]

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.

I was sure it was reported as 40 at the time - maybe that's what Villa paid for Buendia. My bad. Either way he was way overpriced

[Murger]

I wonder if that Coates lass who was here the other week has an eye on investing?

[Rileybobs]

Oh completely agree. I don’t have a problem with that. What’s quite frustrating is that, let’s say we make 50/60m in sales from our players, most of that is going to pay off a loan used to buy the club, rather than reinvest in the playing staff to get us straight back up.

So from two angles you’ve got underinvestment due to this deal. Firstly, the clubs cash reserves used (37m) to finance the takeover - this could have seen us have at least 3 decent standard new players, and we might not be in this relegation threat. Secondly, a limitation on reinvestment if we go down due to the loan repayment as just described.

Also, you’ve been quite vocal on other threads saying there ARE funds to spend this summer and people would be eating their hats. Not sure how you know this but now you’ve seen the accounts, have you changed you’re mind on this?

Just catching up on this thread and appreciate there are a lot of subsequent posts. But I’ve seen it mentioned a couple of times now that the £37m could have been used to sign a few players. It’s really not as simple as that is it. Players are paid a salary - lets say £2.5m per year for 4 years, that’s £10m. Notice how your £37m doesn’t go quite as far as you think.

That’s not to say that we couldn’t have improved this squad with additional funds, but those funds were needed to facilitate the sale of the club, which I thought most people realised was necessary for the club to progress.

[RVclaret]

Just catching up on this thread and appreciate there are a lot of subsequent posts. But I’ve seen it mentioned a couple of times now that the £37m could have been used to sign a few players. It’s really not as simple as that is it. Players are paid a salary - lets say £2.5m per year for 4 years, that’s £10m. Notice how your £37m doesn’t go quite as far as you think.

That’s not to say that we couldn’t have improved this squad with additional funds, but those funds were needed to facilitate the sale of the club, which I thought most people realised was necessary for the club to progress.

Well if wages from the likes of Lennon, Walters and Bardsley were used instead on 3 x £10m signings (just to simplify it) then we’d have had the same wage bill as already reported, but 3 better players and probably younger with resale value.

[Rileybobs]

Well if wages from the likes of Lennon, Walters and Bardsley were used instead on 3 x £10m signings (just to simplify it) then we’d have had the same wage bill as already reported, but 3 better players and probably younger with resale value.

Well not really, because a player on a one year contract will cost a lot less over the duration of said contract than a player on a four year contract. And £10m doesn’t exactly get you a guaranteed improvement at this level does it.

[RVclaret]

Well not really, because a player on a one year contract will cost a lot less over the duration of said contract than a player on a four year contract. And £10m doesn’t exactly get you a guaranteed improvement at this level does it.

The mentioned players all have had contracts longer than 1 year. Stephens is probably a better example. £20m would have bought us a PL standard centre mid. Probably cost another £5m over the course of the contract. Still have £10m left of the 37m after agent fees etc. As it happens that 37 is seemingly 53m according to CP as 53m has left Burnley’s cash flows to fund the takeover.

[Rileybobs]

The mentioned players all have had contracts longer than 1 year. Stephens is probably a better example. £20m would have bought us a PL standard centre mid. Probably cost another £5m over the course of the contract. Still have £10m left of the 37m after agent fees etc. As it happens that 37 is seemingly 53m according to CP as 53m has left Burnley’s cash flows to fund the takeover.

Weren’t we looking to buy Kalvin Phillips for around £20m only a couple of seasons ago?

The point is that the ‘cash in the bank’ was necessary for the club to be sold. It’s a simple as that.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I was sure it was reported as 40 at the time - maybe that's what Villa paid for Buendia. My bad. Either way he was way overpriced

Yeah that's what Villa paid for Buendia.

Godfrey - less than what they paid for Keane and he's been quite steady for them but they're also guilty of not developing him.

[dsr]

Just catching up on this thread and appreciate there are a lot of subsequent posts. But I’ve seen it mentioned a couple of times now that the £37m could have been used to sign a few players. It’s really not as simple as that is it. Players are paid a salary - lets say £2.5m per year for 4 years, that’s £10m. Notice how your £37m doesn’t go quite as far as you think.

That’s not to say that we couldn’t have improved this squad with additional funds, but those funds were needed to facilitate the sale of the club, which I thought most people realised was necessary for the club to progress.

we had £37m spare cash and wanted to improve the team. Which gives us a better chance of improving the team - spending it on players, or giving it to the owner?

£37m might not go as far as you think, but it goes a lot further than £zero. (And that's before the reduction in borrowing potential caused by the £65m loan. £102m has been given to the owners past and present, and if you think the purchase of Alan Pace was better value than the purchase of £102m in players and their wages, good luck to you.)

[Rileybobs]

we had £37m spare cash and wanted to improve the team. Which gives us a better chance of improving the team - spending it on players, or giving it to the owner?

£37m might not go as far as you think, but it goes a lot further than £zero. (And that's before the reduction in borrowing potential caused by the £65m loan. £102m has been given to the owners past and present, and if you think the purchase of Alan Pace was better value than the purchase of £102m in players and their wages, good luck to you.)

Where have I said I prefer the purchase of Alan Pace to the purchase of players? I’ve already acknowledged that the cash could have been used to improve the team.

But Garlick wanted to sell the club, it seemed most supporters also wanted him to sell the club. For that to happen, the club’s cash reserves needed to be used and debt needed to be taken on.

I was one of those happy with Garlick’s prudent approach and took satisfaction in the club being run as a profitable business. It seemed a lot of people expected us to be taken over by a sugar daddy who would pump their own money in and run us benevolently. They’re now surprised that the club is in a riskier position than it was.

FWIW, the use of the clubs funds is similar to the likes of Arsenal and Spurs recently prioritising their spending on constructing new stadia above player investment. The idea being a short term hit for longer term success. BFC is now being run in such a way, but the risks are clearly amplified due to the status of the club.

[KRBFC]

I was one of those happy with Garlick’s prudent approach and took satisfaction in the club being run as a profitable business. It seemed a lot of people expected us to be taken over by a sugar daddy who would pump their own money in and run us benevolently. They’re now surprised that the club is in a riskier position than it was.

You keep taking this kind of angle on everything just to argue, despite god knows how many times being told otherwise. There's a difference between a normal takeover in football, a sugar daddy and a leveraged buyout. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, you're more than capable of doing so, you just chose not to, to continue arguing.

[Rileybobs]

You keep taking this kind of angle on everything just to argue, despite god knows how many times being told otherwise. There's a difference between a normal takeover in football, a sugar daddy and a leveraged buyout. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, you're more than capable of doing so, you just chose not to, to continue arguing.

Being accused of looking for an argument by the resident troll is a new one.

Not sure how I’ve taken this kind of angle on everything, maybe I’ve made the same points on another thread, but I wouldn’t say that I’m unique in doing such a thing.

Of course their are different types of takeovers in football. But it appears that Garlick only had two options, both of which involved using club funds to leverage the deal.

Other than a sugar daddy, what kind of takeover in your ‘football expert’ opinion would have led to the club having significantly more funds to spend on transfers without taking on debt?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Being accused of looking for an argument by the resident troll is a new one.

Not sure how I’ve taken this kind of angle on everything, maybe I’ve made the same points on another thread, but I wouldn’t say that I’m unique in doing such a thing.

Of course their are different types of takeovers in football. But it appears that Garlick only had two options, both of which involved using club funds to leverage the deal.

Other than a sugar daddy, what kind of takeover in your ‘football expert’ opinion would have led to the club having significantly more funds to spend on transfers without taking on debt?

Didn’t he have a third option of not to sell to a deal structured in this way which according to some on here puts the club at risk?

[Rileybobs]

Didn’t he have a third option of not to sell to a deal structured in this way which according to some on here puts the club at risk?

Yes of course, he didn’t have to sell. But he wanted to sell and the fans wanted him out. Things were already getting a little bit nasty so I can only imagine how toxic the situation could have been another 12/24 months down the line, particularly if Dyche walked due to their public rift.

Your response kind of sums my point up. I am certain that some of the people complaining about the current situation were also the same people who wanted Garlick out, and are the same people who would have turned nasty had he pulled the plug on the sale.

[KRBFC]

Being accused of looking for an argument by the resident troll is a new one.

Not sure how I’ve taken this kind of angle on everything, maybe I’ve made the same points on another thread, but I wouldn’t say that I’m unique in doing such a thing.

Of course their are different types of takeovers in football. But it appears that Garlick only had two options, both of which involved using club funds to leverage the deal.

Other than a sugar daddy, what kind of takeover in your ‘football expert’ opinion would have led to the club having significantly more funds to spend on transfers without taking on debt?

Name me another leveraged takeover in football other than Man United....

The normal takeover in football isn't a sugar daddy, the normal takeover is where the incoming owner buys shares with their own capital. Nobody on here wanted the club to put itself at financial risk to sign players in the transfer market, nobody on here wanted debt to sign players, yet we've now done both for new owners and not new players.

Your stance ''It seemed a lot of people expected us to be taken over by a sugar daddy who would pump their own money in and run us benevolently.'' is false, people wanted a normal takeover, someone to come in and buy the shares with their own money.

[Rileybobs]

Just to add. All business deals are risky to some extent. Every player transaction, in or out, is a risk. Every staff appointment is a risk. Setting season ticket prices is a risk.

What we had under Garlick was extremely low risk, in relative terms. The major risk was losing our Premier League status, but this eventuality didn’t put us under extensive financial risk, or put any undue threat on the long term future of the club.

Any deal was almost certain to lead to an increase in risk. Clearly the mechanism of this takeover has gone beyond a lot of people’s risk threshold, including my own. But the idea that someone was going to buy the club, spend significantly more money on players (whilst still retaining our best players as we invariably did under Garlick) and not take on debt is the stuff of fantasies. Which is why quite a few people warned that the grass isn’t always greener, and to be careful what you wish for.

[Chester Perry]

Name me another leveraged takeover in football other than Man United....

Liverpool
Huddersfield Town
Sunderland

off the top of my head

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Just to add. All business deals are risky to some extent. Every player transaction, in or out, is a risk. Every staff appointment is a risk. Setting season ticket prices is a risk.

What we had under Garlick was extremely low risk, in relative terms. The major risk was losing our Premier League status, but this eventuality didn’t put us under extensive financial risk, or put any undue threat on the long term future of the club.

Any deal was almost certain to lead to an increase in risk. Clearly the mechanism of this takeover has gone beyond a lot of people’s risk threshold, including my own. But the idea that someone was going to buy the club, spend significantly more money on players (whilst still retaining our best players as we invariably did under Garlick) and not take on debt is the stuff of fantasies. Which is why quite a few people warned that the grass isn’t always greener, and to be careful what you wish for.

I get the ‘be careful what you wish for’ but then there was only one Burnley fan who took the decision to sell. Not sure either how many fans actually wanted him out of the club difference between moaning on a messageboard about lack of spending to actually wanting him out. Hardly experienced the abuse levels of some of our past chairmen!

[Down_Rover]

I cannot agree with a single point of that

No need to be rude

[Rileybobs]

Name me another leveraged takeover in football other than Man United....

The normal takeover in football isn't a sugar daddy, the normal takeover is where the incoming owner buys shares with their own capital. Nobody on here wanted the club to put itself at financial risk to sign players in the transfer market, nobody on here wanted debt to sign players, yet we've now done both for new owners and not new players.

Your stance ''It seemed a lot of people expected us to be taken over by a sugar daddy who would pump their own money in and run us benevolently.'' is false, people wanted a normal takeover, someone to come in and buy the shares with their own money.

Hardly any Premier League clubs are profitable. We were one of a few making a profit or breaking even. I believe Norwich and Newcastle were two others - we can see where that leaves Norwich, and Ashley wasn’t particularly popular with Newcastle fans because he ran the club sustainably. Still they can be happy with their non-leveraged takeover by the altruistic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

So I can see why people were not expecting the bank balance to be drained to facilitate the sale, but as I’ve already explained, this was necessary given the lack of options on the table. But once someone had bought the club with their own money (not sure how many people have £200m liquid btw), how were you expecting the club to be financially run?

[Down_Rover]

It is exactly what you would expect of an organisation like MSD (or even a bank) they have to protect themselves - it seems perfectly commensurate with projected income levels - even down to having a second payment if we do not bounce back up at first attempt - it means we do not put all our eggs in one basket and that is a good and balanced way to be in the circumstances

as for making the payment it seems we have at least 3 viable options
- parachute monies
- player sales
- share buyback from the sellers

and 1 increasingly challenging option
- a new investor

everyone wants the 4th but a combination of 1 and 2 looking the most likely (should we actually be relegated)
[/quote




You forgot cash at bank and negotiating longer payment terms as options. The loan is not repayable immediately upon relegation but on terms To be agreed

[Rileybobs]

I get the ‘be careful what you wish for’ but then there was only one Burnley fan who took the decision to sell. Not sure either how many fans actually wanted him out of the club difference between moaning on a messageboard about lack of spending to actually wanting him out. Hardly experienced the abuse levels of some of our past chairmen!

Well firstly there wasn’t just one Burnley fan who took the decision to sell, let’s make that clear.

It seems fairly common knowledge that Dyche and Garlick’s relationship had broken down. The board of directors, seeing the enormous value of the club in relation to their initial investment, and considering their own limitations probably agreed it was a good time to sell. The noise against Garlick was getting significantly louder by the month, let’s not pretend otherwise.

We weren’t at protest stage, but why would he risk it getting to that - which I would bet my bottom dollar would have happened had Dyche walked. It could have gotten pretty nasty pretty quickly.

The board only had two (at max) credible options on the table. I think that Garlick et al thought that the shift in risk was in the best interests of the club and the individuals concerned, all things considered. The alternative was probably to lose Dyche and be relegated, which is ironically pretty much where we find ourselves anyway.

[KRBFC]

Hardly any Premier League clubs are profitable. We were one of a few making a profit or breaking even. I believe Norwich and Newcastle were two others - we can see where that leaves Norwich, and Ashley wasn’t particularly popular with Newcastle fans because he ran the club sustainably. Still they can be happy with their non-leveraged takeover by the altruistic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

So I can see why people were not expecting the bank balance to be drained to facilitate the sale, but as I’ve already explained, this was necessary given the lack of options on the table. But once someone had bought the club with their own money (not sure how many people have £200m liquid btw), how were you expecting the club to be financially run?

Gradual upscale key areas, smart business in the window targeting younger players with resale value, nobody was expecting a sugar daddy to be interested in Burnley and spend fortunes on players. It was more the ability to invest the money we earn, with a safety net owner in place if required. If required in the Championship, the current owners don't have the financial means to write off £20m, like the Venkys, they don't have the financial capabilities to pay MSD either.

Nobody wanted this model takeover, nobody, so get that argumentative thought out of your head.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://thecharltondossier.com/mohamed-el-kashasy/

EL-Kashasy was the other person trying to buy Burnley from Garlick and the other shareholders.
Going off this well written piece it would seem we did well not ending up in his hands.

So ALK or this Egyptian bloke, or stay owned by Garlick etc.
Those were the options.

[Rileybobs]

Gradual upscale key areas, smart business in the window targeting younger players with resale value, nobody was expecting a sugar daddy to be interested in Burnley and spend fortunes on players. It was more the ability to invest the money we earn, with a safety net owner in place if required. If required in the Championship, the current owners don't have the financial means to write off £20m, like the Venkys, they don't have the financial capabilities to pay MSD either.

Nobody wanted this model takeover, nobody, so get that argumentative thought out of your head.

Where have I said that anybody wanted this model of takeover? Stop putting words into my mouth.

The most vocal people on here wouldn’t have accepted Garlick-level investment on players and relegation to the Championship. Let’s not pretend that those who wanted Garlick out would have accepted that.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Where have I said that anybody wanted this model of takeover? Stop putting words into my mouth.

The most vocal people on here wouldn’t have accepted Garlick-level investment on players and relegation to the Championship. Let’s not pretend that those who wanted Garlick out would have accepted that.

I've just been scrolling back through UTC from prior to the takeover and there are numerous comments where people are whinging about the transfer business, calling Garlick a number of names and wanting him gone.
January 2019 was interesting for that.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Well firstly there wasn’t just one Burnley fan who took the decision to sell, let’s make that clear.

It seems fairly common knowledge that Dyche and Garlick’s relationship had broken down. The board of directors, seeing the enormous value of the club in relation to their initial investment, and considering their own limitations probably agreed it was a good time to sell. The noise against Garlick was getting significantly louder by the month, let’s not pretend otherwise.

We weren’t at protest stage, but why would he risk it getting to that - which I would bet my bottom dollar would have happened had Dyche walked. It could have gotten pretty nasty pretty quickly.

The board only had two (at max) credible options on the table. I think that Garlick et al thought that the shift in risk was in the best interests of the club and the individuals concerned, all things considered. The alternative was probably to lose Dyche and be relegated, which is ironically pretty much where we find ourselves anyway.

Where was the noise against Garlick getting bigger each month?

Well within his rights to sell to whoever he wanted to as the majority shareholder. He met Pace and obviously decided he trusted him to take over the running of the club and was happy with the structure of the deal. Maybe Pace needs to buy a round of drinks for fans at our next away game!

[Rileybobs]

Where was the noise against Garlick getting bigger each month?

On here and other social media platforms for starters. And I presume those same people vocalise their views too.

[Rileybobs]

I've just been scrolling back through UTC from prior to the takeover and there are numerous comments where people are whinging about the transfer business, calling Garlick a number of names and wanting him gone.
January 2019 was interesting for that.

It’d certainly be hypocritical if the same people were now complaining about who he sold the club to.

[boyyanno]

Just catching up on this thread and appreciate there are a lot of subsequent posts. But I’ve seen it mentioned a couple of times now that the £37m could have been used to sign a few players. It’s really not as simple as that is it. Players are paid a salary - lets say £2.5m per year for 4 years, that’s £10m. Notice how your £37m doesn’t go quite as far as you think.

That’s not to say that we couldn’t have improved this squad with additional funds, but those funds were needed to facilitate the sale of the club, which I thought most people realised was necessary for the club to progress.

I agree with most of what you've said but I can't agree that the funds were "needed" to facilitate the sale. They were needed from Garlicks point of view to get maximum value, but that's about it.

It turned out that the fans had every right to be a little disgruntled with Garlick, he was doing what was levelled at him- not investing in the playing squad. Garlick could have waited for the right deal for BFC and not himself imo.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

On here and other social media platforms for starters. And I presume those same people vocalise their views too.

People moaning on a messageboard and social media (especially Burnley fans!) is hardly the noise was getting bigger against him each month. The same people will have been moaning for not spending enough when we got to Europe!

[Rileybobs]

I agree with most of what you've said but I can't agree that the funds were "needed" to facilitate the sale. They were needed from Garlicks point of view to get maximum value, but that's about it.

It turned out that the fans had every right to be a little disgruntled with Garlick, he was doing what was levelled at him- not investing in the playing squad. Garlick could have waited for the right deal for BFC and not himself imo.

I can understand fans not being happy with the way the funds were used, I’m one of them.

But Garlick, and the other shareholders (let’s not keep leaving them out of it), were never going to sell the club for significantly less than its value. Why would they. They structured the deal in such a way that payments owed to them were staged and obviously dependent on the club’s success. They haven’t just sold up and done a runner.

And it seems like they waited quite a while for the right deal for BFC, and ALK’s was the best of the bunch. Of course they could have waited longer, but I’ve explained the reasons why this wasn’t a particularly good option above.

[Rileybobs]

People moaning on a messageboard and social media (especially Burnley fans!) is hardly the noise was getting bigger against him each month. The same people will have been moaning for not spending enough when we got to Europe!

Not sure how you can ignore the noise made on social media sites. It’s how the majority of football fans communicate these days.

And I’m staggered that anyone doesn’t think that the mood towards Garlick wasn’t turning sour quite quickly.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It’d certainly be hypocritical if the same people were now complaining about who he sold the club to.

There's more than a few that weren't happy with how Garlick was running the club and calling him some interesting names and are now not happy with what ALK are doing.

[boyyanno]

I can understand fans not being happy with the way the funds were used, I’m one of them.

But Garlick, and the other shareholders (let’s not keep leaving them out of it), were never going to sell the club for significantly less than its value. Why would they. They structured the deal in such a way that payments owed to them were staged and obviously dependent on the club’s success. They haven’t just sold up and done a runner.

And it seems like they waited quite a while for the right deal for BFC, and ALK’s was the best of the bunch. Of course they could have waited longer, but I’ve explained the reasons why this wasn’t a particularly good option above.

Don't get me wrong I agree that the situation was turning a bit sour towards the end, but my point is that Garlick contributed to that because as it turned out there was some money we could have invested in the playing squad, I'd say all the noise that people made about him was due to this. Some fans had unrealistic expectations as is the norm with all clubs, but the majority of us just wanted an extra bit of quality. It sounds like Dyche was of the same opinion.

I'm of the personal opinion that had Garlick not been looking to sell the club and had instead invested some money in to the team then the majority of fans would have remained onside, and possibly Dyche too, and the accounts would seem to show that we could have continued under that model until a deal could be reached that would have helped us step to the next level. We didn't need to bet the ranch, sell the club or do anything differently, just invested a little bit more and things would have ticked along nicely.

I just think we've ended up down this route and it really didn't have to be this way- but that's hindsight for you.

But if we stay up and everything works out them I couldn't give a monkeys, only time will tell!

[NewClaret]

So ALK or this Egyptian bloke, or stay owned by Garlick etc.
Those were the options.

I’d have chosen to keep Garlick with the money used to finance this deal (£37m) invested in the team, although accept Rileybobs’ point that it seemed his relationship with Dyche had deteriorated. But I’d question to what extent that’d have occurred had there been more willingness to invest/take risks/“stretch the model”.

In the end, we might’ve lost the best possible pair to take us forward due to their own failure to adapt their styles - Garlick with the purse strings and Dyche with his tactics.

[Rileybobs]

Don't get me wrong I agree that the situation was turning a bit sour towards the end, but my point is that Garlick contributed to that because as it turned out there was some money we could have invested in the playing squad, I'd say all the noise that people made about him was due to this. Some fans had unrealistic expectations as is the norm with all clubs, but the majority of us just wanted an extra bit of quality. It sounds like Dyche was of the same opinion.

I'm of the personal opinion that had Garlick not been looking to sell the club and had instead invested some money in to the team then the majority of fans would have remained onside, and possibly Dyche too, and the accounts would seem to show that we could have continued under that model until a deal could be reached that would have helped us step to the next level. We didn't need to bet the ranch, sell the club or do anything differently, just invested a little bit more and things would have ticked along nicely.

I just think we've ended up down this route and it really didn't have to be this way- but that's hindsight for you.

But if we stay up and everything works out them I couldn't give a monkeys, only time will tell!

That’s the crux of it really. If we stay up and we’re sat in 10th position next season with a new manager and a younger exciting squad then there will be less noise. The risk level has increased as I said in another post. The takeover probably increased our chance of becoming more established at this level whilst simultaneously increasing our chances of ending up in financial difficulties.

Football fans are impatient though.

[Rileybobs]

I’d have chosen to keep Garlick with the money used to finance this deal (£37m) invested in the team, although accept Rileybobs’ point that it seemed his relationship with Dyche had deteriorated. But I’d question to what extent that’d have occurred had there been more willingness to invest/take risks/“stretch the model”.

In the end, we might’ve lost the best possible pair to take us forward due to their own failure to adapt their styles - Garlick with the purse strings and Dyche with his tactics.

Wasn’t one of the reasons for Dyche’s fall out with Garlick that Garlick wouldn’t offer new contracts to the likes of Lennon during the covid-interrupted season where we were in very little danger of ever being relegated?

[NewClaret]

Wasn’t one of the reasons for Dyche’s fall out with Garlick that Garlick wouldn’t offer new contracts to the likes of Lennon during the covid-interrupted season where we were in very little danger of ever being relegated?

It’s only speculation that there was an issue. We don’t know there was, or the reasons. Dyche was always very professional in that respect, although it seemed obvious to me that there were frustrations and CT’s information tallied.

As I said, I think they were both too stubborn to adapt and evolve, which is bad news for us as they were both otherwise excellent at their respective roles.

[Conroy92]

I'm seeing a lot suggest we will need to sell to

A) service the debt
B) To avoid financial difficulty if we are to get relegated.

Most are saying that we will be looking to sign youthful players with resale value.

If we had changed our model under Garlick and gone for youth with a resale value we could

A) have no debt
B) actually be increasing our funds at bank (if player sales were working-a big if)
C) Maybe still in the same position on the field with relegation/survival in the balance.

Before people jump in and shoot me down, I've seen Riley's comment above, I know 37m might not translate to 3 world beaters and that wages ect play apart. Had it been used to sign even one player young with resale value we'd still have 50m at bank, another asset added to BFC with a good worth and potential profit. We only lost 3m in an extremely tough period, heck had we signed some players with resale value or cashed in on Tarks Garlick would have made profit again!

Personally I don't think we needed a takeover, we just needed a change in model.

[joey13]

There's more than a few that weren't happy with how Garlick was running the club and calling him some interesting names and are now not happy with what ALK are doing.

Where you support both Garlick and ALK and slag off any fans who have a different opinion.

[dsr]

It’d certainly be hypocritical if the same people were now complaining about who he sold the club to.

It certainly would not be hypocritical to complain about who he sold to. Total nonsense.

Yes, the people (if any) who said that they want Garlick to sell and they don't care if it leads to penury and relegation, they would be hypocrites to complain. Were there any such people? The majority of Garlick-outers, if offered the choice between Garlick staying or Garlick leaving but the club being £112m (so far) the poorer, would have said "wait for a third option". It's not hypocrisy to say "this deal stinks" unless you supported the deal in advance. Could you find any posters 2019 or prior who said it would be worth £100m+ if Garlick would only step down to being an ordinary director and he wouldn't own the shares?

I suspect there were other options available, but not at a price Garlick was happy with. If he had sold out for £100m instead of £180m, he could (I dare say) found a buyer willing to run the club profitably and debt-free rather than deep, deep in debt. But Garlick wanted more money and if the club is in Dicky's meadow as a result, does he care? The evidence suggests not.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Sell for less to potentially find an owner to run us in the same manner he had been doing?
It was getting harder and harder to compete in the PL being ran in that way and yes more and more fans were showing their displeasure in use being ran that way.

[KRBFC]

I've just been scrolling back through UTC from prior to the takeover and there are numerous comments where people are whinging about the transfer business, calling Garlick a number of names and wanting him gone.
January 2019 was interesting for that.

You're just a wind up merchant, of course fans were complaining when we signed only Dale Stephens in the summer window despite having £80m in the bank, £47m of which was used for the sale that could've went towards players. You were another back then making up bullshit excuses just to argue about how we didn't have money due to covid bla bla bla. You literally argue white is black on here, I dont understand why, is it a personality trait?

[dsr]

Sell for less to potentially find an owner to run us in the same manner he had been doing?
It was getting harder and harder to compete in the PL being ran in that way and yes more and more fans were showing their displeasure in use being ran that way.

You seem to be assuming that if you don't strip out every penny from the club like Pace, then you must be hoarding every penny like Garlick. You could perhaps step back a bit, look at the broader view, and look at the middle way.

Some clubs' approach is to spend what they have, sign some players, try not to be too heavily overdrawn so they can recover if they go down. You needn't assume that everyone who disapproves of the Pace way is a fully-fledged supporter of Garlick. As they say in the adverts, other investment policies are available.