Burnley FC Accounts 2022/23

[NewClaret]

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.

This has been done to death but I’ll chip in.

Any theory that we were being well managed by accumulating cash and not investing in the team was thoroughly disproven when a) the takeover occurred and structure made it clear said funds had been used in part to fund the previous owners exit, b) we got relegated.

It was awful management motivated by greed as far as I can see.

We mightn’t be delighted with the exact position we find ourselves in now but shouldn’t forget that the position we were previously in wasn’t that great either and the one we find ourselves in now a direct result of that.

[Chester Perry]

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.

It is ok to have different viewpoints, I see the issues in the context of the time statements were made and add hindsight to the mix, you chose to see them in primarily in hindsight - that is all

btw it was an extra £88m not £68m, it has never been declared by the relevant parties anywhere in public, and likely never will be. but the premium paid for the controlling interest (referred to in the offer letter to the small shareholders) was £20m, promotion in Kompany's first season ensured it was paid in full. Giving a value for the takeover transaction in full of £190m.

[NewClaret]

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

I’ve not said it will.

I’d like to know a) what it’s there for, and b) how it came to be there, though. Any theories?

Until we know that, the existence of £88m minimum cash in a group company and/or now in the possession of our ultimate shareholders, provides some comfort there is access to funds at group level.

[Chester Perry]

I’ve not said it will.

I’d like to know a) what it’s there for, and b) how it came to be there, though. Any theories?

Until we know that, the existence of £88m minimum cash in a group company and/or now in the possession of our ultimate shareholders, provides some comfort there is access to funds at group level.

Not really, accepting that the money will never come into the club, it is difficult to understand why it was brough into the county rather than just left invisible Jersey, it would be as easy to buy more clubs from there as from Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd - that said it does appear that somewhere along the line a little over £8m has been spent on something, possibly another sports tech investment we haven't found out about yet.

[Quickenthetempo]

This has been done to death but I’ll chip in.

Any theory that we were being well managed by accumulating cash and not investing in the team was thoroughly disproven when a) the takeover occurred and structure made it clear said funds had been used in part to fund the previous owners exit, b) we got relegated.

It was awful management motivated by greed as far as I can see.

We mightn’t be delighted with the exact position we find ourselves in now but shouldn’t forget that the position we were previously in wasn’t that great either and the one we find ourselves in now a direct result of that.

Didn't the new owners have 3 transfer windows before we got relegated?

The club was in decent shape, how the club is now (good or bad) is down to the new owners.

[NewClaret]

Not really, accepting that the money will never come into the club, it is difficult to understand why it was brough into the county rather than just left invisible Jersey, it would be as easy to buy more clubs from there as from Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd - that said it does appear that somewhere along the line a little over £8m has been spent on something, possibly another sports tech investment we haven't found out about yet.

How do you know (or what are your main hypothesis as to why) it’ll never reach the club?

I assume your £8m statement is the difference between the amounts invested in the two companies. Have we concluded that is definitely the same cash? (I can’t remember) Or does that remain the main working hypothesis?

As you say, the existence of any cash there does seem very strange…

[FCBurnley]

Wow Anybody would think the roof was falling in at Turf ……..oh wait a minute

[Chester Perry]

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

With regard to the MGG refinance in early January - it is notable that these accounts were signed off on December 19 2023 (normally it is around April 28th) this means that important events like the MGG refinance does not have to be mentioned in post date events or even that the address for Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd - the major shareholder in the club had its address forcibly changed to that of Companies House in Cardiff again in January this year.

[jedi_master]

When you’re taking loans out to deal with loans you already have and their repayment is predicated on us being in the Premier League (never a guarantee), you will (eventually) fall on your sword if you miscalculate even slightly. Nobody ever says what the outcome is should we not be promoted within 24 months of relegation. I’m a layman and even I can tell you that THAT is when the scenarios portrayed would maybe come to fruition.

I don’t harbour huge concerns in the immediate because I’m almost certain we will be promoted next season with Kompany. I think it’s a poor division (great fun though) with an unbelievable gap between it and the PL, as we’ve found out. Whilst we’re either in this league or about to re-enter it, we’re fine. It’s when that spell runs out that nobody can answer with any authority - and that is surely what the ‘going concern’ statement is talking about. We should all be concerned for when that day does eventually come, and I personally don’t see how it doesn’t at some point. This is why I’d always be very keen to see the club putting its own sustainability at the front and centre of financial decisions. I appreciate that isn’t sexy but it’s what sits right with me. Would I rather we spend £60m on Amdouni, Tresor, Trafford and Ramsey or pay off a massive portion of our debt and likely have done no worse in the league?

[BurnleyBob]

This may already have been posted but this is a brief overview of Burnley's finances for the 2021-22 year by Swiss Ramble. You have to subscribe
for their full assessment.

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/burn ... um=reader2

I would be very interested to know when the majority shareholders will engage with the remaining small shareholders. Have we any
legal rights in company law?

[dsr]

I’ve not said it will.

I’d like to know a) what it’s there for, and b) how it came to be there, though. Any theories?

Until we know that, the existence of £88m minimum cash in a group company and/or now in the possession of our ultimate shareholders, provides some comfort there is access to funds at group level.

I strongly suspect that the company structure is ring fenced so that they will not have to repay any monies taken out. Remember they are in it for profit, pure and simple, and I very much doubt whether they will give up profits they have already taken in order to do the club a favour.

I think the reason the materiality clause is in there is because the owners have not confirmed to the auditor, and have refused to confirm to the auditor, that they will support the club financially if it all goes wrong. Brighton, for example, would not have that clause because Bloom would confirm that he will support the club if necessary.

[claptrappers_union]

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.

But the reality is that the bills still need to be paid.

[Tall Paul]

With regard to the MGG refinance in early January - it is notable that these accounts were signed off on December 19 2023 (normally it is around April 28th) this means that important events like the MGG refinance does not have to be mentioned in post date events or even that the address for Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd - the major shareholder in the club had its address forcibly changed to that of Companies House in Cardiff again in January this year.

Isn't the December sign off more likely to be because the PL require accounts to be submitted to them by 31 December?

[Chester Perry]

Isn't the December sign off more likely to be because the PL require accounts to be submitted to them by 31 December?

As I have said before (on both the takeover and MMT threads) that only applies if you are carrying losses over the previous two years - which we were not

For those who believe that all clubs have deposited their 2022/23 accounts with the Premier League by December 31 2023 I suggest you read rules E.47 and E.48 in the latest edition of the Premier League Handbook (https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... final-.pdf). The early (December) submissions only apply to those clubs whose T-1 and T-2 accounts result in an aggregate loss. Given the large profit in 2021/22 I suspect that we will be in aggregate profit over that year and last season. Consequently we will not pass accounts to the Premier League until March 31.

there is also no specific requirement for December 31 submissions to have had final sign off, but they must have been audited

[Clovius Boofus]

But the reality is that the bills still need to be paid.

Have they not been paid, or are you talking about something that hasn't happened?

[Paul Waine]

This may already have been posted but this is a brief overview of Burnley's finances for the 2021-22 year by Swiss Ramble. You have to subscribe
for their full assessment.

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/burn ... um=reader2

I would be very interested to know when the majority shareholders will engage with the remaining small shareholders. Have we any
legal rights in company law?

Hi BurnleyBob, we are now looking at the 2022/23 accounts covering the season in the Championship and gaining promotion back to the Premier League.

What sort of engagement with small shareholders are you looking for? There were posts on one of the threads yesterday about AssetMatch which lists Burnley FC Holding shares for auction. I understand the first auction will close sometime in the next few weeks, assuming there is interest in small shareholders offering their shares to trade.

[Paul Waine]

As I have said before (on both the takeover and MMT threads) that only applies if you are carrying losses over the previous two years - which we were not

Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:24 pm
For those who believe that all clubs have deposited their 2022/23 accounts with the Premier League by December 31 2023 I suggest you read rules E.47 and E.48 in the latest edition of the Premier League Handbook (https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... final-.pdf). The early (December) submissions only apply to those clubs whose T-1 and T-2 accounts result in an aggregate loss. Given the large profit in 2021/22 I suspect that we will be in aggregate profit over that year and last season. Consequently we will not pass accounts to the Premier League until March 31.

there is also no specific requirement for December 31 submissions to have had final sign off, but they must have been audited

Hi CP, don't forget that no auditor will sign an audit report unless the board of directors have approved the accounts and a director has signed them.

Thus, it's "redundant" to say that accounts submissions have "to have had final sign off.."

I'd expect I pointed this out also on "Wed Jan 10, 20024" - or thereabouts.

[Tall Paul]

As I have said before (on both the takeover and MMT threads) that only applies if you are carrying losses over the previous two years - which we were not

Fair enough. Probably good practice to get the accounts signed off before the end of December in the event of having to submit them to the PL by that date.

[Paul Waine]

As I have said before (on both the takeover and MMT threads) that only applies if you are carrying losses over the previous two years - which we were not

I've just been back and looked at the 2021/22 accounts - on the SwissRamble link. I've also looked at the 2022/23 accounts and re-called it mentioned a re-statement of the 2021/22 accounts.

Quoting from the Directors' Report: "The loss for the year, after taxation, amounted to £27,943,000 (2022 – profit of £26,069,000)."

So, aggregate loss for the two years, after tax, of £1,874,000.

The club was required to submit accounts to Premier League by 31st December 2023.

[claptrappers_union]

Have they not been paid, or are you talking about something that hasn't happened?

What I was referring to was the fact you mentioned that loads of other clubs will be going through the same thing if 'the market collapses'

I'm saying that Burnley could still go bust, even if it means going bust with 10 other clubs. I'm not saying it will happen - but whatever the future of English football looks like, the debts will still need to be paid.

I much prefer the 'don't bet the ranch' approach

[NewClaret]

I strongly suspect that the company structure is ring fenced so that they will not have to repay any monies taken out. Remember they are in it for profit, pure and simple, and I very much doubt whether they will give up profits they have already taken in order to do the club a favour.

I think the reason the materiality clause is in there is because the owners have not confirmed to the auditor, and have refused to confirm to the auditor, that they will support the club financially if it all goes wrong. Brighton, for example, would not have that clause because Bloom would confirm that he will support the club if necessary.

When you say ring fenced, how do you mean? Although I agree I’m not expecting them to repay the debt, my point was just more that I think we know cash does exist within the group should the worst occur.

Re: Brighton - well they wouldn’t have it because they made an outrageous profit last year Although did make large losses previously.

But I read the statement that the “the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary” as very much being what you’re describing - that they could access funds if needed, even if they’re not their own personal funds as would be the case with Bloom presumably.

[Clovius Boofus]

What I was referring to was the fact you mentioned that loads of other clubs will be going through the same thing if 'the market collapses'

I'm saying that Burnley could still go bust, even if it means going bust with 10 other clubs. I'm not saying it will happen - but whatever the future of English football looks like, the debts will still need to be paid.

But it hasn't happened, and you are posting and worrying about stuff that hasn't happened. Don't forget, my initial post was in regard to catastrophising about issues that haven't taken place.

Now I don't like the leveraged buyout either, however I don't worry about it any more, because it is not within my control. And if indeed it all goes tits-up, then Burnley Football Club will still exist in some form or another.

Anyhow, at the moment, I'm enjoying our upturn in form. Aye, maybe it is too late in the day, but it's great to see the team putting in some decent performances and playing some good stuff. This makes me a very happy fan - the last thing I'm going to do is worry whether the club's bills are going to be paid at some future date in time and space.

[Chester Perry]

I've just been back and looked at the 2021/22 accounts - on the SwissRamble link. I've also looked at the 2022/23 accounts and re-called it mentioned a re-statement of the 2021/22 accounts.

Quoting from the Directors' Report: "The loss for the year, after taxation, amounted to £27,943,000 (2022 – profit of £26,069,000)."

So, aggregate loss for the two years, after tax, of £1,874,000.

The club was required to submit accounts to Premier League by 31st December 2023.

I think you have misunderstood the rule

there is a 3 year period assessment 2022/23, 2021/22 and 2020/21 the latter two seasons giving you T1 and T2 respectively - due to covid rue relaxations the figures for 2020/21 are actually an average of 2019/20 and 2020/21

[Chester Perry]

I think you have misunderstood the rule

there is a 3 year period assessment 2022/23, 2021/22 and 2020/21 the latter two seasons giving you T1 and T2 respectively - due to covid rue relaxations the figures for 2020/21 are actually an average of 2019/20 and 2020/21

Perhaps more interesting - and this is subject to a couple of big if's

What this rule does mean is that if losses are posted this season, then spending for next season will be severely compromised if we are relegated as the three year assessment the following season will (under current guidelines only allow for £61m of total losses for the combined period - and that of that allowable loss £50m must be covered by a capital injection from the owners

[claptrappers_union]

Anyhow, at the moment, I'm enjoying our upturn in form. Aye, maybe it is too late in the day, but it's great to see the team putting in some decent performances and playing some good stuff. This makes me a very happy fan - the last thing I'm going to do is worry whether the club's bills are going to be paid at some future date in time and space.

That is where we differ, and that's fine. I'll always support Burnley, too, in whatever form. However, we could easily be the next Portsmouth or Bradford

Do you feel you have been somewhat gaslit regarding this comment, though? "Maybe it is too late in the day, but it's great to see the team putting in some decent performances and playing some good stuff."

[Clovius Boofus]

Do you feel you have been somewhat gaslit regarding this comment, though? "Maybe it is too late in the day, but it's great to see the team putting in some decent performances and playing some good stuff."

Nope. Then again, I don't look for negatives all over the place. HTH.

[dsr]

When you say ring fenced, how do you mean? Although I agree I’m not expecting them to repay the debt, my point was just more that I think we know cash does exist within the group should the worst occur.

Re: Brighton - well they wouldn’t have it because they made an outrageous profit last year Although did make large losses previously.

But I read the statement that the “the directors are satisfied that sufficient funds can be generated or otherwise obtained by the Group, if this was absolutely necessary” as very much being what you’re describing - that they could access funds if needed, even if they’re not their own personal funds as would be the case with Bloom presumably.

By "ring fenced", I mean that if for some reason (eg. administration) someone other than the directors has the right to call in the club's debts, then that £125m will not be recoverable. It will have been taken to a member of the group, or outside the group, where BFC can't get it back. (Most of it, as we know, was used to pay Garlick and other shareholders. The company that owes BFC the debt will not have the cash or the assets to repay it if the club itself if skint and worthless.)

If they are talking about funds generated or obtained by the group, they mean money that's not in the group now. Either a new income source (though I can't see, if such a source exists, that they wouldn't be using it now) or else further borrowings or outside investment.

[Paul Waine]

I think you have misunderstood the rule

there is a 3 year period assessment 2022/23, 2021/22 and 2020/21 the latter two seasons giving you T1 and T2 respectively - due to covid rue relaxations the figures for 2020/21 are actually an average of 2019/20 and 2020/21

I've read the relevant sections of Premier League Rules a few times this afternoon. I think the Rules are imprecise with their meaning of accounting period T and, therefore, also accounting period T-1 and T-2. The PSR Calculation is defined as profit/loss before tax of accounting periods T, T-1 and T-2. But, elsewhere it refers to delivering accounts for T-1 and T-2 by 31st March - and, then in addendum, adjusts to 31st December. At the same time it speaks of preparing forecast for accounting period T, which suggests accounting period T is for the current season, in Burnley FC's case accounting period ending 31st July 2024. There would be no need to forecast accounting period T, if it meant the accounting period ending on 31st July 2023. If the latter applied, then T-1 does become y/end 31st July 2022 and T-2 becomes 31st July 2021 (and with the averaging for covid lockdown/disruption).

I was incorrect re profit/loss after tax, PSR Calculation is based on profit/loss before tax.

[Paul Waine]

Didn't the new owners have 3 transfer windows before we got relegated?

The club was in decent shape, how the club is now (good or bad) is down to the new owners.

Bought club 30th December 2020. Transfer window, January 2021, starts 2 days later. Did we sign anyone in that window, I can't remember. (Wasn't Dale Stephens the only incoming in summer 2020)?

Summer 2021: Nathan Collins, Connor Roberts, Maxwel Cornet - all relying on my memory - have I got that right?

Plus, James Tarkowski retained and running down the last year of his contract.

January 2022: Wout Weghorst and nearly someone else... - following Newcastle triggering Chris Wood release clause.

The 4 transfer windows, summer 2022, Jan 23, summer 2023 and Jan 24 have all been a lot more active.

[Goliath]

Bought club 30th December 2020. Transfer window, January 2021, starts 2 days later. Did we sign anyone in that window, I can't remember. (Wasn't Dale Stephens the only incoming in summer 2020)?

Summer 2021: Nathan Collins, Connor Roberts, Maxwel Cornet - all relying on my memory - have I got that right?

Plus, James Tarkowski retained and running down the last year of his contract.

January 2022: Wout Weghorst and nearly someone else... - following Newcastle triggering Chris Wood release clause.

The 4 transfer windows, summer 2022, Jan 23, summer 2023 and Jan 24 have all been a lot more active.

I think it was the famous Orcic window. What a shitshow that was.

[Quickenthetempo]

Bought club 30th December 2020. Transfer window, January 2021, starts 2 days later. Did we sign anyone in that window, I can't remember. (Wasn't Dale Stephens the only incoming in summer 2020)?

Summer 2021: Nathan Collins, Connor Roberts, Maxwel Cornet - all relying on my memory - have I got that right?

Plus, James Tarkowski retained and running down the last year of his contract.

January 2022: Wout Weghorst and nearly someone else... - following Newcastle triggering Chris Wood release clause.

The 4 transfer windows, summer 2022, Jan 23, summer 2023 and Jan 24 have all been a lot more active.

So they had enough time to change the team how they would like.
It's ridiculous to blame Garlick for the relegation.

About as ridiculous as giving Dyche and Garlick the credit for our record points total last season.

[Spike]

it's a massive potential list isn't it ...

I think a lot of our championship winning players will be profitable if they don't get a chance next season aka

Zaroury
Benson
Churnilov
Roberts
-----
I assume Amdouni may be sold ?

Just to name a few, not that I want to see them go

UTC

The number of players we have devalued from the Championship winning team is incredible.

[gandhisflipflop]

So they had enough time to change the team how they would like.
It's ridiculous to blame Garlick for the relegation.

About as ridiculous as giving Dyche and Garlick the credit for our record points total last season.

It isn’t ridiculous at all. Garlick set us down the path with shitshow after shitshow of windows for the best part of 3 seasons. We were heading for the iceberg and unfortunately ALK couldn’t turn the ship around in time so stave off relegation.

[Quickenthetempo]

It isn’t ridiculous at all. Garlick set us down the path with shitshow after shitshow of windows for the best part of 3 seasons. We were heading for the iceberg and unfortunately ALK couldn’t turn the ship around in time so stave off relegation.

Managers get far less than 18 months to turn things around.
Why can't they just blame the last manager?

[IanMcL]

If you look closely at the last accounts and read those published yesterday then you will see a lot of money still going out the door and not to buy players or develop the clubs facilities/revenues

So are you saying directors/shareholders are sucking out funds, or 'improvements'/operating costs of the admin side?

[Down_Rover]

Anyone still wondering what happened to that £88m they had in September last year? or why there is mention of shares being transferred from Calder Vale Holdings in October but nothing about the debt Calder Valle Holdings owes to the club (which grew by £9.3m last year, presumably to contribute to that final stage payment, which would not have had to be paid if promotion had not been achieved) - of course Calder Vale Holdings still hasn't presented accounts (two sets are long overdue) - same with Kettering Capital.

I think the above words will soon feature in the auditors handbook of football clubs. It’s the nature of the beast that no football club can guarantee solvency for twelve months. Things like refereeing decisions and poor reults have an impact here

[Down_Rover]

Who is the new director per the director’s report

V Torgovnik

Does not sound American

[theduke]

Everton are literally on their financial knees.

Everton are self funding a near £1b new stadium.

[ClaretPete001]

You would have to be pretty naive not to correlate the fact that previous owners didn't spend anything for a couple of seasons just prior to a leveraged buyout.

Or the fact that new owners who could only afford to buy the club on a leveraged buyout didn't have the initial funds to seriously invest in the squad.

Both are culpable. The money spent more recently is in the form debt and advanced payments and the consequences of that will likely be felt if we are relegated.

[taio]

You would have to be pretty naive not to correlate the fact that previous owners didn't spend anything for a couple of seasons just prior to a leveraged buyout.

Or the fact that new owners who could only afford to buy the club on a leveraged buyout didn't have the initial funds to seriously invest in the squad.

Both are culpable. The money spent more recently is in the form debt and advanced payments and the consequences of that will likely be felt if we are relegated.

Spot on. I can't understand how some people don't seem to be able to understand that the cash the club had accumulated under the previous ownership, and not used toward the end of their tenure for player purchases and strengthening the squad, was a prerequisite for the leveraged takeover.

[Big Vinny K]

Completely agree that this was a deliberate strategy to facilitate the purchase.
It’s a very simplistic argument to say that Garlick ran the club “properly” and never took any remuneration or dividends.
If he would have taken £7m or £8m dividend every season there would be outrage amongst many fans. Well he effectively did that…only difference is he waited till the end !!
I know the £80m cash is often quoted but I think from memory this was inflated by £20m or £30m due to timing of our accounts and just receiving one of the big interim tv revenue payments. After this payment we would have had our normal operating costs and wages to pay for the next period which would have reduced our cash.

Not saying the current owners are any better than the previous owners. The club definitely appears to be in a much more precarious position with our debt commitments. But if we had been relegated under Garlick (and all the history of the EPL suggests we would have been) then with a wage bill of more than £90m how would of Garlick dealt with the prospect of championship football. There is no way in a million years that he could have subsidised big losses himself.

So his choices were basically burden the club with debt or sell the club. He chose the latter (tbf most people would) but what was particularly disappointing was that he built up those cash balances and starved the team of transfer monies with the sole purpose of maximising his profit. It was completely irrelevant to Garlick whether we went down or not after he left.

Does not sound like the lifelong local burnley supporter turned owners some make them out to be (Kilby excepted of course)

[CoolClaret]

Not saying the current owners are any better than the previous owners. The club definitely appears to be in a much more precarious position with our debt commitments. But if we had been relegated under Garlick (and all the history of the EPL suggests we would have been) then with a wage bill of more than £90m how would of Garlick dealt with the prospect of championship football. There is no way in a million years that he could have subsidised big losses himself.

We wouldn't have because the players (for the 10,00000th time) have significant wage reductions in their contracts in the event of relegation.

[Rileybobs]

Completely agree that this was a deliberate strategy to facilitate the purchase.
It’s a very simplistic argument to say that Garlick ran the club “properly” and never took any remuneration or dividends.
If he would have taken £7m or £8m dividend every season there would be outrage amongst many fans. Well he effectively did that…only difference is he waited till the end !!
I know the £80m cash is often quoted but I think from memory this was inflated by £20m or £30m due to timing of our accounts and just receiving one of the big interim tv revenue payments. After this payment we would have had our normal operating costs and wages to pay for the next period which would have reduced our cash.

Not saying the current owners are any better than the previous owners. The club definitely appears to be in a much more precarious position with our debt commitments. But if we had been relegated under Garlick (and all the history of the EPL suggests we would have been) then with a wage bill of more than £90m how would of Garlick dealt with the prospect of championship football. There is no way in a million years that he could have subsidised big losses himself.

So his choices were basically burden the club with debt or sell the club. He chose the latter (tbf most people would) but what was particularly disappointing was that he built up those cash balances and starved the team of transfer monies with the sole purpose of maximising his profit. It was completely irrelevant to Garlick whether we went down or not after he left.

Does not sound like the lifelong local burnley supporter turned owners some make them out to be (Kilby excepted of course)

On the flip side, he oversaw one of the most successful period's in our history, ran the club sustainably at his own financial risk, without regular remuneration, built up a healthy rainy day fund which would have subsidised a relegation and attempted return to the PL, and then sold his stake for market value. Personally, I don't care whether he was a Burnley fan or not, I'm not sure why so much gets made of this. And I wonder how many true Burnley fans would have handed the club over to a new buyer for free.

What is often overlooked with Garlick's lack of transfer spending towards the end of his tenure, which obviously was in order to facilitate the buy-out, is that he allowed Dyche to retain his best players. These same players were cashed in by the new owners when we were eventually relegated.

Both parties are culpable in the deal as you point out, but I don't really get why Garlick is portrayed as the bad guy in all this. I haven't seen many people criticise the new owners for taking salaries.

[123EasyasBFC]

On the flip side, he oversaw one of the most successful period's in our history, ran the club sustainably at his own financial risk, without regular remuneration, built up a healthy rainy day fund which would have subsidised a relegation and attempted return to the PL, and then sold his stake for market value. Personally, I don't care whether he was a Burnley fan or not, I'm not sure why so much gets made of this. And I wonder how many true Burnley fans would have handed the club over to a new buyer for free.

What is often overlooked with Garlick's lack of transfer spending towards the end of his tenure, which obviously was in order to facilitate the buy-out, is that he allowed Dyche to retain his best players. These same players were cashed in by the new owners when we were eventually relegated.

Both parties are culpable in the deal as you point out, but I don't really get why Garlick is portrayed as the bad guy in all this. I haven't seen many people criticise the new owners for taking salaries.

Nor should garlick of handed it over for free, the success and stability he gave us, I think he is well in his right to benefit financially from a sale

[Big Vinny K]

We wouldn't have because the players (for the 10,00000th time) have significant wage reductions in their contracts in the event of relegation.

Yep some probably would (I haven’t got access to the players contracts though and doubt you do either).

Irrespective we would have been looking at a wage bill which would likely result in the same kind of financial losses experienced by the vast majority of clubs relegated to the championship

[aggi]

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.

The presence of the statement is, in many ways, more interesting than the wording. It's a reasonably high bar for it to be deemed necessary and there will have been plenty of discussions about it and ways to avoid including it.

[Big Vinny K]

On the flip side, he oversaw one of the most successful period's in our history, ran the club sustainably at his own financial risk, without regular remuneration, built up a healthy rainy day fund which would have subsidised a relegation and attempted return to the PL, and then sold his stake for market value. Personally, I don't care whether he was a Burnley fan or not, I'm not sure why so much gets made of this. And I wonder how many true Burnley fans would have handed the club over to a new buyer for free.

What is often overlooked with Garlick's lack of transfer spending towards the end of his tenure, which obviously was in order to facilitate the buy-out, is that he allowed Dyche to retain his best players. These same players were cashed in by the new owners when we were eventually relegated.

Both parties are culpable in the deal as you point out, but I don't really get why Garlick is portrayed as the bad guy in all this. I haven't seen many people criticise the new owners for taking salaries.

I’m saying they are both “bad guys” !!
I also agree that the ownership now puts us in a worse and far more precarious position than previously.

I think a few people have mentioned and been critical of the current owners and taking money out of the club. It was pretty inevitable they would do that. But my point is so did Garlick - the cash reserves we built up were as you say as a result of the way Garlick ran the club and the profits we made. And Garlick needs a lot of credit for appointing Dyche.

But he effectively took those profits for himself through the deal to sell the club. He’s entitled to do this of course but deliberately denying the club of transfer funds we needed (Dyche on record saying he needed them) to bolster the price he received for the club in my eyes at least makes Garlick the same as many owners of football clubs….and not too dissimilar as the current owners (as in their main motivation in owning the club is to make money)

[FeedTheArf]

The number of players we have devalued from the Championship winning team is incredible.

Real lessons to be learned there, because Kompany must have known in the summer that the players he was bringing in were likely to take the places of last seasons players. So for a team who have stated they would be looking to develop and sell-on talent, why were we not selling these players last summer when they were at the peak of their powers? Absolutely senseless to have players like Benson and Zaroury not even in the matchday squads for the most part.

[forzagranata]

Who is the new director per the director’s report

V Torgovnik

Does not sound American

He is American. New York/New Jersey area.

Noticeable that JJ Watt is not listed as a director. He is routinely described as 'co-owner' or 'minority owner' or 'minority investor'. It will be interesting to see which of the various companies he has invested in - and for how much.

[aggi]

He is American. New York/New Jersey area.

Noticeable that JJ Watt is not listed as a director. He is routinely described as 'co-owner' or 'minority owner' or 'minority investor'. It will be interesting to see which of the various companies he has invested in - and for how much.

It's assumed that most of the other investors have come in to one of the overseas companies (either Jersey or Delaware) which makes Vlad Torgovnik owning shares in the UK company interesting.