Burnley FC Accounts 2022/23

[Chester Perry]

I don’t like these owners, I couldn’t care less where they come from, but don’t be fooled by Garlick and John B either. They fattened the pig as best they could then filled their pockets. By the sound of it, Barry couldn’t stop it as his shares were tied into an arrangement with either Garlick or John B.

You would be surprised by how much money those two passed over to enable the takeover to complete - yes they profited very substantially from the sale but they did not extract all the profit that was available to them when the takeover was signed off on December 30 2020

[Goliath]

How was it not putting the club at risk? They allowed ALK to use the clubs own funds to buy it. The ‘rainy day’ fund gone and for what? Perfectly legal, morally corrupt.

They didn’t do well for us. They should just thank their lucky stars they had the foresight/luck to hire Sean Dyche. He was the magic that kept us in the Prem for so long on relative peanuts.

Dyche was a brilliant appointment and they reaped the rewards for that. They also backed him when he needed it. Remember when he made a mess of his forward recruitment when we were relegated. Henning and vossen wasn't it. They then went out and splashed 6 million on Andre Gray. I very much Dyche would ever have managed in the Premier league again but for that bit of backing.at that time.

[ClaretPete001]

Dyche was a brilliant appointment and they reaped the rewards for that. They also backed him when he needed it. Remember when he made a mess of his forward recruitment when we were relegated. Henning and vossen wasn't it. They then went out and splashed 6 million on Andre Gray. I very much Dyche would ever have managed in the Premier league again but for that bit of backing.at that time.

They were all signed at the same time. And they didn't really do much more than the bare minimum to back him

[ClaretPete001]

You would be surprised by how much money those two passed over to enable the takeover to complete - yes they profited very substantially from the sale but they did not extract all the profit that was available to them when the takeover was signed off on December 30 2020

I think most would be surprised Chester but that doesn't necessarily make it true .

[DCWat]

It might have been wiser to better manage the risk at the outset. Recruiting a balanced squad and ensuring that each position was adequately covered, in the summer, would have been a good starting point.

[Chester Perry]

I think most would be surprised Chester but that doesn't necessarily make it true .

I believe it to be so, I was quite surprised by it when I learned of it

[ClaretPete001]

I believe it to be so, I was quite surprised by it when I learned of it

With all due respect Chester, how much credence would you give someone on here making vague claims that seems to run counter to the evidence - if it wasn't you doing it?

[ClaretPete001]

Basically, “the group” will give them money if necessary. I think the group has more cash than we realise.

Based upon what?

[Chester Perry]

With all due respect Chester, how much credence would you give someone on here making vague claims that seems to run counter to the evidence - if it wasn't you doing it?

trust is earned and those who have been given it have to treat it with care, more so in an environment such as a message board - I like to think I have done both, by separating what I consider to be fact and what I speculate about, I accept that not everyone will trust me, in the end it is down to personal choice

[ClaretPete001]

trust is earned and those who have been given it have to treat it with care, more so in an environment such as a message board - I like to think I have done both, by separating what I consider to be fact and what I speculate about, I accept that not everyone will trust me, in the end it is down to personal choice

I think we all suffer from bias and the more you accept your own bias the less inclined you are to expect people or even want people to trust you.

But yes, your contributions on the finances have made this forum an informed and reliable source of information.

But do I trust you on Garlick? I guess it's a matter of subjectivity. If they did have to move mountains to grease the wheels of the deal it is likely because ALK brought even less to the party than expected rather than anything altruistic.

The accounts show no signs of the debt being paid off or external investment received as has been suggested throughout the past year.

[mybloodisclaret]

FWIW - probably very little in the grand scheme, but as someone who is not accounts trained, I very much value the input of Chester Perry, Aggi and Royboy to this message board, and others such as Paul Waine who also provides very useful insight into corporate finance.

From me chaps, thanks.... keep the info flowing (in English please) you won't make everyone happy all of the time, but that's just life. Thanks all.

[Chester Perry]

I think we all suffer from bias and the more you accept your own bias the less inclined you are to expect people or even want people to trust you.

But yes, your contributions on the finances have made this forum an informed and reliable source of information.

But do I trust you on Garlick? I guess it's a matter of subjectivity. If they did have to move mountains to grease the wheels of the deal it is likely because ALK brought even less to the party than expected rather than anything altruistic.

The accounts show no signs of the debt being paid off or external investment received as has been suggested throughout the past year.

It was absolutely this, and like I said it enabled the the full takeover to reach its end, and a boost to ALK/VSL coffers.

I agree, there is still no sign of monies from ALK/VSL being returned to the club or money being brought into the club - other than that intriguing £1m loan which is still hanging around. the question is why not deduct it from the £9.3m borrowed from the club by Calder Vale Holdings?

[jojomk1]

Not looked at the accounts

But is there any info as to how much Pace and Co paid themselves

[Goliath]

They were all signed at the same time. And they didn't really do much more than the bare minimum to back him

Not sure that's true..we started the season badly and had 0 pace. Gray was signed late as was window. They spent a lot of money that summer to ensure Dyche had the squad to take us back up

[FeedTheArf]

Not looked at the accounts

But is there any info as to how much Pace and Co paid themselves

Looks like it is part of the £2.5m ‘management fees’.

[getbennyon]

You would be surprised by how much money those two passed over to enable the takeover to complete - yes they profited very substantially from the sale but they did not extract all the profit that was available to them when the takeover was signed off on December 30 2020

Sssh, please don't try and add some iq digits to the idiots on here who continue to think it was fine that Dyche took tens of millions out of the club but not the owners.

Owners are not supposed to take a penny out of the club like erm erm erm Pace

[AotearoaClaret]

Basically, “the group” will give them money if necessary. I think the group has more cash than we realise.

I always tread carefully when someone starts a sentence with “Basically”, usually means they are pretending to be an expert in a field they have little expertise.

I stand to be corrected NewClaret!

Looking forward to your updates Chester Perry - I hope people don’t forget that you are a supporter first and foremost.

I’m concerned!

[GetIntoEm]

For someone who is not a financial expert you have assimilated those quickly and come to a conclusion.

you dont need to be an expert to read a set of accounts and come to a conclusion.

[ClaretPete001]

Not sure that's true..we started the season badly and had 0 pace. Gray was signed late as was window. They spent a lot of money that summer to ensure Dyche had the squad to take us back up

He was signed late but not to the extent that you could say he was signed because the others were failures.

I think Garlick ran the club very prudently until 2018/19 but PL broadcast revenue is well over a £100 million and PL clubs have to spend a lot of money, which we haven't until this summer. And even then we now have 4 loanees in the first 11.

I only disagree on nuance not substantively.

[ClaretPete001]

you dont need to be an expert to read a set of accounts and come to a conclusion.

True, but you need to spend some time and have a certain amount of expertise to come to a reasoned conclusion.

[ClaretPete001]

It was absolutely this, and like I said it enabled the the full takeover to reach its end, and a boost to ALK/VSL coffers.

I agree, there is still no sign of monies from ALK/VSL being returned to the club or money being brought into the club - other than that intriguing £1m loan which is still hanging around. the question is why not deduct it from the £9.3m borrowed from the club by Calder Vale Holdings?

No idea, I'm still going through the figures tbh.

[Chester Perry]

He was signed late but not to the extent that you could say he was signed because the others were failures.

I think Garlick ran the club very prudently until 2018/19 but PL broadcast revenue is well over a £100 million and PL clubs have to spend a lot of money, which we haven't until this summer. And even then we now have 4 loanees in the first 11.

I only disagree on nuance not substantively.

you could add that he returned to his prudent approach thereafter - which allowed the club to deal with Covid without having to borrow monies and of the minor losses posted the main source was a resultant costs of servicing the new owners debt-fuelled takeover- even though the club lost around £28m in income as a result of Covid.

Very few acknowledge that Burnley was the only club in the 92 that was able to get through that period under its own steam.

[Clovius Boofus]

If the transfer market collapsed - we wouldn't be the only ones up the creek without a paddle.

Anyhow, best to carry on catastrophising about things you have absolutely no control over and might never happen.

[aggi]

The long and short:

The auditors have confirmed that there is a risk we would not be a going concern as per note 2.4 in our accounts (as posted by aggi above)

Essentially the board has stated the main risk to us is relegation from the PL (and the reduced revenue as a result) but if that happened it would be reasonable to expect reduction in outgoings by a lower wage bill, including relegation clauses which are already in place. We would also expect player sales to contribute to cash flow but admit that the transfer market cannot be predicted, even though it is healthy now.

If (a very big IF) the transfer market collapsed and BFC did not make the predicted sales, the club would face a risk but the owners are confident they would still be able to secure adequate funding (In the event that the group's financial performance varies or is less than that modelled, the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary.)

Give this to a ******* reporter and he’ll spin it into what he has tweeted.

Hope this helps.

I think this is a smaller IF than you are suggesting. One side of it is the market being depressed, the other side of it is players playing badly (which isn't being the realms of possibility for a relegated team) and not selling for what is hoped for.

It's a disclosure that wouldn't have been taken lightly. There will have been a lot of discussion on it and the owners will have pushed back against it. The basics behind it are that the auditors don't think that a fair picture of the business can be had without warning about this issue. It doesn't appear in that many clubs' financial statements.

For those who are interested, it's defined as:
An uncertainty related to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, where the magnitude of its potential impact and likelihood of occurrence is such that appropriate disclosure of the nature and implications of the uncertainty is necessary for:

i. In the case of a fair presentation financial reporting framework, the fair presentation of the financial statements; or

ii. In the case of a compliance framework, the financial statements not to be misleading.

Kieran Maguire is a journalist who knows his stuff in this area, I think his tweet is pretty fair.

[Dyched]

If the transfer market collapsed - we wouldn't be the only ones up the creek without a paddle.

Anyhow, best to carry on catastrophising about things you have absolutely no control over and might never happen.

This. Also, most clubs who’ve spent the majority or all of the past 10/15 years in the PL would be a bit ****** with 2+ years in the Championship.

[BigGaz]

This is the wording from the accounts. There's a risk, it's probably not that big a risk:

These financial statements are prepared on a going concern basis. The directors have reasonable expectation that the group will continue in operation existence for the foreseeable future. The directors are aware certain uncertainties which could cause doubt on the group’s ability to continue as a going concern if they were to arise and remain unremedied.
The group prepares forecasts which take into consideration various scenarios, including the risk of the club being relegated from the Premier League. In the event of relegation, the group as with all such clubs will incur a significant reduction in turnover
as Premier League broadcasting revenue is replaced with parachute payments. The group will be required to take steps to reduce costs and borrowings to a level more sustainable for a Championship club. In this scenario the group would expect significant reduction in wages and salaries, which will be
largely achieved by contractual means existing in player and employee contracts and player transfers.
The group has also forecast a net inflow of cash from player trading, as is common for many clubs relegated from the Premier League. In such a case, to support the group’s obligations, the directors will consider and utilise financing options available, including but not limited to, player receivable financing. In the event that the group's financial performance varies or is less than that modelled, the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if
this was absolutely necessary. The current football transfer market remains strong, and the group believes that future potential player trading consistent with forecasts is reasonably achievable. The underlying models contain key judgments about future player trading which are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty, along with other variables. If player trading results were to be materially less than forecasts, and the operating budget modeled otherwise remained unchanged, the resulting conditions if unresolved
would indicate a material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the group’s ability to continue as a
going concern if unresolved and therefore that it may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its
liabilities in the normal course of business. The financial statements do not include the adjustments
that would be necessary should the going concern basis of preparation no longer be appropriate.
The directors have considered the financial stability of the group for the next 12 months from the date
of signing these financial statements. They have assessed financial performance and are satisfied
that it will have sufficient resources available to be able to meet its obligations as they become due
and therefore remain confident it will continue to be a going concern

Basically the owners don't have deep enough pockets to keep us afloat if we don't manage to sell off players for a decent amount of money. But for that to happen we'd have to take some significant hits in the transfer market

I am not keen on ALK/Pace in general but even I'm willing to concede that this statement is a bit of a nothing passage.

If I have a sandwich shop it's akin to my auditors saying

'if this kid is unable to make sandwiches, or is unable to procure stock to make said sandwiches, or the premises falls down so that he can't sell sandwiches, or he loses motivation to make sandwiches, then there might be an issue with his company being able to continue selling sandwiches'.

Well, yeah.

[Cooclaret]

I am not keen on ALK/Pace in general but even I'm willing to concede that this statement is a bit of a nothing passage.

If I have a sandwich shop it's akin to my auditors saying

'if this kid is unable to make sandwiches, or is unable to procure stock to make said sandwiches, or the premises falls down so that he can't sell sandwiches, or he loses motivation to make sandwiches, then there might be an issue with his company being able to continue selling sandwiches'.

Well, yeah.

I vote Gaz to be in charge of turning all the of the valuable Chester and others insight's into Northern people analogies we can all understand.

[Big Vinny K]

Not sure why Maguire has chose to post this.
He’s usually really good at reporting and analysing football finances. Does great summary and analysis on Twitter when clubs release their accounts.

Got a really good reputation too so doesn’t really need to post headline grabbing nonsense like this.

[Swizzlestick]

Maguure has got plenty of previous for stuff like this.

[NewClaret]

Based upon what?

Well, two things. Firstly this specific sentence from the accounts:

In the event that the group's financial performance varies or is less than that modelled, the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary.

Secondly, the £88m/£80m (which we assume is the same money moved around, but may not be), deposited in the “group” businesses late last year. Whatever that was/has been used for is unknown and debatable, but it shows there’s some cash floating around “the group” particularly given that it came after we know previous owners were paid off. Even if it did find its way back up the chain to Shareholders it’s reasonable to assume that those shareholders therefore have access to that sort of cash if needed.

[BigGaz]

I vote Gaz to be in charge of turning all the of the valuable Chester and others insight's into Northern people analogies we can all understand.

Happy to be of assistance

Point on Maguire: a lot of people confuse him with Matt Slater. He was the one who wrote the disparaging article about club finances that I believe most people are referring to, not Maguire.

Maguire doesn't really get into speculation or doom mongering. He just generally reports the facts as they are and responds with his interpretations when asked. He's very informative and the information he puts out is useful for the average Joe to understand what's going on.

In short, if you're mad at him for reporting on bfc finances, you're not actually mad at him - you're mad at the club ownership.

[ClaretPete001]

you could add that he returned to his prudent approach thereafter - which allowed the club to deal with Covid without having to borrow monies and of the minor losses posted the main source was a resultant costs of servicing the new owners debt-fuelled takeover- even though the club lost around £28m in income as a result of Covid.

Very few acknowledge that Burnley was the only club in the 92 that was able to get through that period under its own steam.

Yes but that's where we disagree. I think prudence also means spending enough money to ensure the viability of the playing assets. The protestations that the cost of Covid, around £50 million, could ruin the club looked somewhat hollow when he sold to ALK who immediately took £50 million out of the bank to give the former owners.

In the end, it cost us our PL place because the squad was full of 30 somethings at the end of their contracts.

You somehow seem to see the former owners as passive bystanders in the takeover, which defies logic.

The prudence that the former owners showed on behalf of the club went out of the window when they sold out to a group pursuing a very risky strategy. And as you allude to above, they were complicit with it to the extent of bending over backwards to make the deal go through.

[bumba]

At least the fans suggesting we'll retain the squad and add to it upon relegation won't have as much of a shock now when there's another fire sale in the summer...
Said it before our best chance for the clubs future was survival this year, going down will offer no guarantees

[aggi]

I am not keen on ALK/Pace in general but even I'm willing to concede that this statement is a bit of a nothing passage.

If I have a sandwich shop it's akin to my auditors saying

'if this kid is unable to make sandwiches, or is unable to procure stock to make said sandwiches, or the premises falls down so that he can't sell sandwiches, or he loses motivation to make sandwiches, then there might be an issue with his company being able to continue selling sandwiches'.

Well, yeah.

It's a nice analogy but not particularly useful. Otherwise every football club would be having this in their report.

[Goliath]

Yes but that's where we disagree. I think prudence also means spending enough money to ensure the viability of the playing assets. The protestations that the cost of Covid, around £50 million, could ruin the club looked somewhat hollow when he sold to ALK who immediately took £50 million out of the bank to give the former owners.

In the end, it cost us our PL place because the squad was full of 30 somethings at the end of their contracts.

You somehow seem to see the former owners as passive bystanders in the takeover, which defies logic.

The prudence that the former owners showed on behalf of the club went out of the window when they sold out to a group pursuing a very risky strategy. And as you allude to above, they were complicit with it to the extent of bending over backwards to make the deal go through.

What choice did they have. The other guy who wanted to buy us looked a lot worse.

[Big Vinny K]

you dont need to be an expert to read a set of accounts and come to a conclusion.

I think you need a decent amount of knowledge to understand our current ownership structure and the financial model we seem to be operating. Both of these areas impact a number of areas in our audited accounts.

Even though there is a format and accounting reporting standards to how the accounts are presented which a lot of people are familiar with (and at a high level understand terms such as revenue, debtors, creditors etc) analysing these accounts to identify direction of travel, areas of risk etc is completely different.

I’d suggest anyone who thinks that there were no surprises in these accounts or that everything is rosy does not understand how to read or analyse Financial information.

[ClaretPete001]

What choice did they have. The other guy who wanted to buy us looked a lot worse.

I don't want to point out the obvious but the way the deal was done generated a lot of money for the former owners but may have precluded others from being interested.

[Sleeping Cat]

Well, two things. Firstly this specific sentence from the accounts:

In the event that the group's financial performance varies or is less than that modelled, the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary.

Secondly, the £88m/£80m (which we assume is the same money moved around, but may not be), deposited in the “group” businesses late last year. Whatever that was/has been used for is unknown and debatable, but it shows there’s some cash floating around “the group” particularly given that it came after we know previous owners were paid off. Even if it did find its way back up the chain to Shareholders it’s reasonable to assume that those shareholders therefore have access to that sort of cash if needed.

All well and good, but the ALK model is borrowing, so they might be able to get funds from "the group" to cover losses, but only by adding more and more debt onto the club and interest will be charged. At some point that will become unsustainable.

Kicking the can down the round.

[NewClaret]

I always tread carefully when someone starts a sentence with “Basically”, usually means they are pretending to be an expert in a field they have little expertise.

I stand to be corrected NewClaret!

Looking forward to your updates Chester Perry - I hope people don’t forget that you are a supporter first and foremost.

I’m concerned!

Not sure if you’ve read any of my previous posts on this topic but I don’t think you would surmise that I pretend to hold any expertise in this field if you had, because there’s plenty of times I’ve explicitly said I don’t… or been clear I don’t understand points made by CP and others.

On this specific point though, I don’t think that there are very many people on here (arguably any) who really understand how or who is financing us. I would say aggi is the appears to have accountancy experience and CP our resident investigative journalist with most knowledge of the takeover, structure, etc.

As I’ve posted above, there’s two reasons I made that statement:

1. It’s what it says in the accounts: “the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary” — so I was really just quoting that specific paragraph from the report… had you read that?

2. We know after the accounting period this report covers, we had £88m and £80m cash injections to the two holding companies that sit above BFC. This is assumed to only be an £88m cash injection with £80m of it recycled in to the other and I agree that’s the most likely explanation, but it’s not impossible this is different money (i.e. £168m in total - which to me is also coincidentally quite similar to the alleged total t/o value). Anyhow, those cash injections are what gives me some confidence that some cash exists within the “group” and would therefore provide that the basis of that statement in the accounts. Out of interest, were you aware of all this?

[Goliath]

I don't want to point out the obvious but the way the deal was done generated a lot of money for the former owners but may have precluded others from being interested.

I wasn't aware that the owners had said they would only sell with that structure of deal. It jusr suited all parties really as ALK clearly didn't have the money to pay upfront

[Big Vinny K]

Yes but that's where we disagree. I think prudence also means spending enough money to ensure the viability of the playing assets. The protestations that the cost of Covid, around £50 million, could ruin the club looked somewhat hollow when he sold to ALK who immediately took £50 million out of the bank to give the former owners.

In the end, it cost us our PL place because the squad was full of 30 somethings at the end of their contracts.

You somehow seem to see the former owners as passive bystanders in the takeover, which defies logic.

The prudence that the former owners showed on behalf of the club went out of the window when they sold out to a group pursuing a very risky strategy. And as you allude to above, they were complicit with it to the extent of bending over backwards to make the deal go through.

100% this.
I do not understand at all why some fans have the current owners as the bad guys and the last owners as the good guys.
They are both the “bad guys” !!
Bad guys as in they are just like 99% of owners of all football clubs - fuelled by massive egos and greed.

Garlick just operated a different model - arguably a better model as it meant we were debt free for his tenure. Something very rare in football and in particular the top 2 leagues. I don’t know whether their plan was always to sell the club or not. But we do know from a certain point in time it definitely was his plan to sell the club and quite naturally maximise how much they were going to make from this.

Garlick was extremely successful at maximising how much he made. His plan worked to perfection really. Holding back spend on the team, building up cash reserves etc and then finding a buyer prepared to pay the best part of £200m for what in relative terms is a pretty small football club.

But let’s not pretend that Garlick and the others cared about where this would leave the club after they left in terms of the ownership and financial structure. They cared not one jot that it was going to be the polar opposite of their own model.

[BigGaz]

It's a nice analogy but not particularly useful. Otherwise every football club would be having this in their report.

I don't find their statement particularly useful, that's kind of the point. We have cash flow issues, have had cash flow issues, and will continue to have cash flow issues like possibly 90% of the rest of the pyramid does.

[Big Vinny K]

I don't find their statement particularly useful, that's kind of the point. We have cash flow issues, have had cash flow issues, and will continue to have cash flow issues like possibly 90% of the rest of the pyramid does.

Our cash balance has increased to over £20m.
Not sure we have cash flow issues.

I do agree we have other issues though and I’m not happy with the underlying travel of direction. Not convinced either about the ability to use “group” resources. Without further clarity on exactly what this means I just see it as a way of pulling on short term funding (1 to 2 years). And all that will do is increase our debt exposure.

[Chester Perry]

Yes but that's where we disagree. I think prudence also means spending enough money to ensure the viability of the playing assets. The protestations that the cost of Covid, around £50 million, could ruin the club looked somewhat hollow when he sold to ALK who immediately took £50 million out of the bank to give the former owners.

In the end, it cost us our PL place because the squad was full of 30 somethings at the end of their contracts.

You somehow seem to see the former owners as passive bystanders in the takeover, which defies logic.

The prudence that the former owners showed on behalf of the club went out of the window when they sold out to a group pursuing a very risky strategy. And as you allude to above, they were complicit with it to the extent of bending over backwards to make the deal go through.

Not hollow at all, given the length of the shut out, the only reason it didn't get to £50m of lost revenue is because of all the games in the 2020/21 season being screened domestically, a further TV rebate and additional loss of commercial revenue would have contributed towards that total, which was given before the agreement for the 2020/21 season was made,

I do not think Garlick and Banaszkiewicz were passive bystanders, and have stated such numerous times, even providing additional information as to their complicity that was previously unknown to most.

[ClaretPete001]

Well, two things. Firstly this specific sentence from the accounts:

In the event that the group's financial performance varies or is less than that modelled, the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary.

Secondly, the £88m/£80m (which we assume is the same money moved around, but may not be), deposited in the “group” businesses late last year. Whatever that was/has been used for is unknown and debatable, but it shows there’s some cash floating around “the group” particularly given that it came after we know previous owners were paid off. Even if it did find its way back up the chain to Shareholders it’s reasonable to assume that those shareholders therefore have access to that sort of cash if needed.

The auditors have qualified the directors view that there are sufficient funds on the basis that the view is premised on forecasted player trading, which presumably the auditors do not feel able to challenge one way or another but feel sufficiently concerned to make a point of it.

I don't think anyone knows what the £80 something million relates to....! I don't see any serious evidence that a sum of that nature has been invested in the group nor that the owners have that amount of spare capital.

As the accounts show much of the speculation surrounding the finances has been wildly off the mark including the amount of income we would receive, the size of the wage bill, the size of the debts, the level of commercial revenue etc.

I think having exhausted speculation based upon what we can see to then transfer it to what we can't (i.e. group funds hidden in Delaware or wherever) is a bit pointless albeit likely to make everyone feel better.

[ClaretPete001]

Not hollow at all, given the length of the shut out, the only reason it didn't get to £50m of lost revenue is because of all the games in the 2020/21 season being screened domestically, a further TV rebate and additional loss of commercial revenue would have contributed towards that total, which was given before the agreement for the 2020/21 season was made,

I do not think Garlick and Banaszkiewicz were passive bystanders, and have stated such numerous times, even providing additional information as to their complicity that was previously unknown to most.

ALK took £50 million of the clubs money out of the bank account and gave it to the former owners.

At what point does £50 million change from being an existential threat to the clubs existence caused by Covid to being thank you and oh by the way thanks for the other £65 million you borrowed from MSD and we'll see you soon for the other £68 million you are somehow going to make running the club.

How can anyone take those comments about Covid seriously given what happened......?

I genuinely don't get your point Chester.

[NewClaret]

The auditors have qualified the directors view that there are sufficient funds on the basis that the view is premised on forecasted player trading, which presumably the auditors do not feel able to challenge one way or another but feel sufficiently concerned to make a point of it.

I don't think anyone knows what the £80 something million relates to....! I don't see any serious evidence that a sum of that nature has been invested in the group nor that the owners have that amount of spare capital.

As the accounts show much of the speculation surrounding the finances has been wildly off the mark including the amount of income we would receive, the size of the wage bill, the size of the debts, the level of commercial revenue etc.

I think having exhausted speculation based upon what we can see to then transfer it to what we can't (i.e. group funds hidden in Delaware or wherever) is a bit pointless albeit likely to make everyone feel better.

You won’t see anything about the £88m/£80m in these accounts because they were invested after the accounting period. And you might never see any evidence of it in BFC accounts unless some of it is used to repay the debts the group owes BFC at some point in future. We’ll probably only know more about that if we ever see accounts for the holding companies.

What is certain is that it was invested, so there is (or was) £88m floating around the group back in September. Which I think is decent enough amount give some confidence there’s liquidity within the group… enough to justify the statement that was made about the groups ability to generate funds if necessary.

[quoonbeatz]

Hard to get too concerned about info that's, what, 9 months out of date? Probably quite a lot changed since July.

[Chester Perry]

Our cash balance has increased to over £20m.
Not sure we have cash flow issues.

....

Not yet at least, but the accounts do mention Accruals and deferred income of £52.5m

If we consider that cash position and that the accounts run to the end of July 2023

The club had been holding the receipts of record season ticket sales since the end of March (certainly 4 months of direct debits) and there will have also been hospitality sales too

In July 2023 there was a first instalment of Premier League TV Money - circa £40m (previous year parachute payment instalment circa £17m)

the club had also advanced monies (courtesy of Macquarie) from the 2nd and 3rd instalments this season and monies from Premier League TV monies (based on Parachute Payment values) for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 season

the club had also refinanced a £39.7m loan at interest of 7.5% to a £70m loan at interest of SONIA + 8% (a combined 11.23% is declared at the account date) - that loan required a £4.4m repayment in the current season (the rest to be repaid in the following four seasons) and early repayments should we be relegated.

There is no mention of that loan being refinanced with MGG in January this year

add to this is the need to find £33.8 this season to football creditors (there will be additional costs for signings/loans made since August, against £17.9m incoming from the from football debtors - remember we factored all those transfer fees

Cash flow has become a fine balancing act that carries a growing cost burden, given the tools that the club are utilising

[Chester Perry]

You won’t see anything about the £88m/£80m in these accounts because they were invested after the accounting period. And you might never see any evidence of it in BFC accounts unless some of it is used to repay the debts the group owes BFC at some point in future. We’ll probably only know more about that if we ever see accounts for the holding companies.

What is certain is that it was invested, so there is (or was) £88m floating around the group back in September. Which I think is decent enough amount give some confidence there’s liquidity within the group… enough to justify the statement that was made about the groups ability to generate funds if necessary.

It remains extremely unlikely that any of those monies will reach the club - the dividend option statement was re-iterated about the now £124.1m loan to Calder Vale Holdings - an entity which now holds £0.01 of declared assets