How close was it Tony?
Investor
-
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:01 am
- Been Liked: 546 times
- Has Liked: 51 times
Re: Investor
-
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 771 times
- Has Liked: 10071 times
Re: Investor
Didn't Jay Rodriguez' fee double at the end of his first season back with us?
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
From what I can remember wasn’t it £10m with £5m to pay immediately and a further £5m this summer?Juan Tanamera wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:40 pmDidn't Jay Rodriguez' fee double at the end of his first season back with us?
Re: Investor
If someone had of said say 12 years ago that new board members would propel the club to the Premier league and eventually become established a lot would say where are they from America ? Russia?Arabian peninsula? Are they mega Billionaires or just bog standard billionaires, we'll have some of that.
Re: Investor
We certainly couldn’t.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:12 pmWe couldn’t have known he’d need surgery twice and once fit not be able to get in because of the form of the other two.
The question though was “in what way has the signing affected us”?
I’d argue that it limited the funds available for other signings - whether or not they might have come to fruition or indeed improved us, is of course debatable.
On the pitch, it’s not been detrimental, perhaps maybe with the exception of the Brighton game when we didn’t look on our game defensively.
Re: Investor
Well if it was that close and no a gimmick offer, I'm gonna have a word with my ex Leeds mate...who probably doesnt know Eddie Gray
Re: Investor
Shame we couldn’t get him. He’d have been great for us.
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
I don’t think it’s affected us at all. Had we not signed him we’d have signed another defender who might not have played.DCWat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:48 pmWe certainly couldn’t.
The question though was “in what way has the signing affected us”?
I’d argue that it limited the funds available for other signings - whether or not they might have come to fruition or indeed improved us, is of course debatable.
On the pitch, it’s not been detrimental, perhaps maybe with the exception of the Brighton game when we didn’t look on our game defensively.
Re: Investor
That could well be the case but I do think having a player throwing his toys out of the pram and effectively being suspended on full pay, is an affect. Be that financially or otherwise - on the pitch I’d agree though
-
- Posts: 19393
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3157 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Investor
I have the same memory on thatClaretTony wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:44 pmFrom what I can remember wasn’t it £10m with £5m to pay immediately and a further £5m this summer?
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
I’ve had a look and didn’t use it when he signed but I think that was it.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Investor
To think, the summer before some on here were throwing a hissy fit because we didn't cough up the £20 million that WBA wanted back then.
-
- Posts: 2602
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 858 times
- Has Liked: 265 times
Re: Investor
As I recall the purpose of the restructuring a few Years ago was to create a new class of voting shares with a minimum holding size, way out of the reach of most of us. We were given another new class with no voting rights. Potential buyers won’t be overly interested in those.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:32 pmIs it really one vote per share or is it one vote per voting share?
That’s not to say doing that was wrong - it is the board who have put their money at risk, whilst you could argue that the rest of us only bought a couple of shares for sentimental reasons, but it was a decision taken to put their own interest ahead of the fans.
The point I’ve always been trying to make is not that the Board are doing anything illegal, just that they are motivated a lot more as hard-nosed businessmen and maybe a bit less as caring Burnley fans than people think.
-
- Posts: 2602
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 858 times
- Has Liked: 265 times
Re: Investor
Maybe Sheff Wed is not a good example - I don’t know. My point is, if you’re going to buy and improve an already top-half Premier League club and have any hope of making a return on your investment, you need a supporter base - or potential supporter base - that can generate a cash flow big enough to give you that return. That means a regular attendance of over 50,000. I picked on SW as that are a club currently underachieving who, if they were a top half Prem club, could potentially generate that sort of interest.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:32 pmSheff Wed need a new ground, or massive redevelopment of theirs.
Massive investment in squad, a top manager and probably money for their training facilities and youth set up.
You could apply most of those requirements to any number of championship clubs.
The money it would cost to buy Burnley would be a fraction of the cost.
I don’t think you can say that about Burnley.
Re: Investor
According to Companies House there is only one class of shares, 122,478 shares in 1,732 individual holdings, and all shares are "one vote per share full rights to participate in any distribution declared on the shares full rights to participate in any capital distribution on the shares no specific redemption rights".ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:32 pmIs it really one vote per share or is it one vote per voting share?
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Investor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... y_capacityscouseclaret wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:41 pmMaybe Sheff Wed is not a good example - I don’t know. My point is, if you’re going to buy and improve an already top-half Premier League club and have any hope of making a return on your investment, you need a supporter base - or potential supporter base - that can generate a cash flow big enough to give you that return. That means a regular attendance of over 50,000. I picked on SW as that are a club currently underachieving who, if they were a top half Prem club, could potentially generate that sort of interest.
I don’t think you can say that about Burnley.
Newcastle and Sunderland are/were losing money in the top flight and they've both got Stadia with circa 50k capacity.
Rich people aren't buying football clubs to get a return on their investments and they certainly aren't going to find one in the championship that won't require massive investment and drag them into the top 6 of the PL.
Re: Investor
The board has made a public, legal declaration, repeated every year, at Companies House, that all the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Lttd. are voting shares with equal rights to each other. There is only one class of share according to the annual Compliance Statement filed at Companies House.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:30 pmAs I recall the purpose of the restructuring a few Years ago was to create a new class of voting shares with a minimum holding size, way out of the reach of most of us. We were given another new class with no voting rights. Potential buyers won’t be overly interested in those.
That’s not to say doing that was wrong - it is the board who have put their money at risk, whilst you could argue that the rest of us only bought a couple of shares for sentimental reasons, but it was a decision taken to put their own interest ahead of the fans.
The point I’ve always been trying to make is not that the Board are doing anything illegal, just that they are motivated a lot more as hard-nosed businessmen and maybe a bit less as caring Burnley fans than people think.
If you are right that there are two classes of share, then the Board is doing something illegal by definition. I think your memory is inaccurate.
And incidentally if they had done what you accuse them of, it would be wrong. It would be a fraud on the minority shareholders, who do have certain legal protections. The owners of 99% of a company can not use force majeure to deprive the 1% of their rights, and minority can take the majority to court if necessary.
-
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 771 times
- Has Liked: 10071 times
Re: Investor
Yes, that's how I seem to remember the deal.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:44 pmFrom what I can remember wasn’t it £10m with £5m to pay immediately and a further £5m this summer?
-
- Posts: 7213
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:11 pm
- Been Liked: 2379 times
- Has Liked: 3806 times
- Location: Padiham
Re: Investor
Phillips bought into Bielsa and his ethos for his boyhood club but I reckon it was a financially enhanced package or promise that swung it for him. Sure he may have made an impact but our midfield wasn't too shabby without him.
-
- Posts: 19393
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3157 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Investor
Leeds certainly upped his deal (I believe he it went to something like our top earners) - though he would have been off if they had not been promoted this summer - as would have Bielsa
Re: Investor
Shame on both counts!!Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:26 pmLeeds certainly upped his deal (I believe he it went to something like our top earners) - though he would have been off if they had not been promoted this summer - as would have Bielsa
-
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
- Been Liked: 1127 times
- Has Liked: 1238 times
-
- Posts: 2602
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 858 times
- Has Liked: 265 times
Re: Investor
Well can somebody with a better memory tell me what did happen then? Because I very definitely did get notice, sometime in the early 2010s, of a Special Resolution and EGM, the crux of which was to change the voting terms. I very definitely did get issued with a new share certificate and I very definitely haven’t been sent an invite to any AGM or been sent any proxy voting forms since.dsr wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:15 pmThe board has made a public, legal declaration, repeated every year, at Companies House, that all the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Lttd. are voting shares with equal rights to each other. There is only one class of share according to the annual Compliance Statement filed at Companies House.
If you are right that there are two classes of share, then the Board is doing something illegal by definition. I think your memory is inaccurate.
And incidentally if they had done what you accuse them of, it would be wrong. It would be a fraud on the minority shareholders, who do have certain legal protections. The owners of 99% of a company can not use force majeure to deprive the 1% of their rights, and minority can take the majority to court if necessary.
-
- Posts: 4471
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Re: Investor
Could one of the more learned gentlemen briefly surmise what an investor group would require earnings wise from us and how they’d go about that ? I’m presuming adding perhaps around 6-9k capacity ? and of course increasing our worldwide appeal /tv /advertising revenues . Though this still seems “ pretty thin” for a biggish investor and many yrs before we could increase capacity etc
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
Re: Investor
I'm guessing that the new share certificate followed the restructuring so was reflecting that it was in BURNLEY FC HOLDINGS LIMITED which wholly owns the company that operates the football club.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:33 amWell can somebody with a better memory tell me what did happen then? Because I very definitely did get notice, sometime in the early 2010s, of a Special Resolution and EGM, the crux of which was to change the voting terms. I very definitely did get issued with a new share certificate and I very definitely haven’t been sent an invite to any AGM or been sent any proxy voting forms since.
Everyone who owns shares technically has the same voting rights. However, because the board own so many shares they are able to effectively opt not to have an AGM and as such there isn't any voting.
Re: Investor
In terms of the ground, I imagine the main attraction would be exploitation of corporate seats. Any increase in capacity would very much be on the basis of more high-priced seats and related facilities.AlargeClaret wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:31 amCould one of the more learned gentlemen briefly surmise what an investor group would require earnings wise from us and how they’d go about that ? I’m presuming adding perhaps around 6-9k capacity ? and of course increasing our worldwide appeal /tv /advertising revenues . Though this still seems “ pretty thin” for a biggish investor and many yrs before we could increase capacity etc
Thanks in advance
More profitable would be increasing commercial revenues, particularly from overseas.
There's a fair scope for increase on the above two as they are pretty minimal at the moment. There is something of a limitation in Burnley's catchment area and local competition though.
Another avenue would be more profitable player trading. Look at clubs like Brentford with a very firm view of how they are going to monetise players. Being able to scale that up with the Premier League as the shop window would be potentially high returns. It is a risky area to focus on with values going down and the leaving on a free.
The other benefit is "sportswashing". Erasing unsavoury reputations through sport. Man City are a pretty obvious example of this.
This user liked this post: AlargeClaret
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:52 pm
- Been Liked: 8 times
- Has Liked: 13 times
Re: Investor
I think that decision was to allow them NOT to have a yearly meeting where everyone was allowed to turn up and complain about the pies and NOT have to send a paper copy of the accounts to everyone as it cost a fortuneaggi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:59 pmI'm guessing that the new share certificate followed the restructuring so was reflecting that it was in BURNLEY FC HOLDINGS LIMITED which wholly owns the company that operates the football club.
Everyone who owns shares technically has the same voting rights. However, because the board own so many shares they are able to effectively opt not to have an AGM and as such there isn't any voting.
TBDG
Re: Investor
The rules had also changed pretty recently to allow the opt out. If it hadn't been for that we could still have gone along and complained about the pies.theboydonegood wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 3:08 pmI think that decision was to allow them NOT to have a yearly meeting where everyone was allowed to turn up and complain about the pies and NOT have to send a paper copy of the accounts to everyone as it cost a fortune
TBDG
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
The last AGM was in 2012 just after the arrival of Sean Dyche as manager. A shareholders meeting was held a year later but it wasn’t an AGM and I recall shareholders were not permitted to send a proxy.
Re: Investor
Yes, when I said recently I meant recent to BFC making the change, not recent to now. I wasn't very clear.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:34 pmThe last AGM was in 2012 just after the arrival of Sean Dyche as manager. A shareholders meeting was held a year later but it wasn’t an AGM and I recall shareholders were not permitted to send a proxy.
Re: Investor
To call a shareholders' meeting, it needs a request by 5% of the shareholders by voting power. (Alternatively, a court could order it at the request of a single shareholder, but unless they were given a good reason to, they wouldn't.)
The only instance I can think of that would be likely to cause a court to get involved would be if the club created and sold new shares still at £200, This would be unfairly enriching the new shareholders at the expense of the old, because if the club is worth say £200m then the shares are worth about £1,600 each. Add another 100,000 shares at £200, say, that would add £20m to the value of the club but the shares would now be worth only £1,000 each. (round numbers.) If that were to happen, then the minority shareholders could go to court with a very real chance of success.
The only instance I can think of that would be likely to cause a court to get involved would be if the club created and sold new shares still at £200, This would be unfairly enriching the new shareholders at the expense of the old, because if the club is worth say £200m then the shares are worth about £1,600 each. Add another 100,000 shares at £200, say, that would add £20m to the value of the club but the shares would now be worth only £1,000 each. (round numbers.) If that were to happen, then the minority shareholders could go to court with a very real chance of success.
Re: Investor
To give an idea of what you'd need here, after discounting the directors you'd need something like the next 450 largest shareholders to get together to represent 5% of the shares.dsr wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:20 pmTo call a shareholders' meeting, it needs a request by 5% of the shareholders by voting power. (Alternatively, a court could order it at the request of a single shareholder, but unless they were given a good reason to, they wouldn't.)
The only instance I can think of that would be likely to cause a court to get involved would be if the club created and sold new shares still at £200, This would be unfairly enriching the new shareholders at the expense of the old, because if the club is worth say £200m then the shares are worth about £1,600 each. Add another 100,000 shares at £200, say, that would add £20m to the value of the club but the shares would now be worth only £1,000 each. (round numbers.) If that were to happen, then the minority shareholders could go to court with a very real chance of success.
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
The board hold 93.8% - take away the shares of dead people and I suspect you would be more than hard pushed to get to 5%.
-
- Posts: 5536
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2334 times
- Has Liked: 1404 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: Investor
This thread has gone off on a tangent, is there currently a deal being discussed and if so, are we likely to hear anything before the start of the season? Or this season at anytime?
-
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 148 times
- Has Liked: 23 times
- Location: Leyland
Re: Investor
Summary of position so far according to this thread / other posts on the message board:
Number of different posters have reported that a takeover deal is being progressed. On this thread look out for posts from the following:
Danieljwaterhouse, BenWickes and MRG.
Summary of key points so far:
An investor/sale that is buying it to ‘compete’ with the other large state/family run enterprises in the Middle East.
Link to HS2 and preferential investment opportunities in the wider community
agreements understood to be in place, price agreed and that an approach for fit and proper persons test is being structured.
Egyptian living in America. Still no names leaked.
ClaretTony hasn’t passed any comment other than it not understood to be imminent.
Fit and proper person test will likely happen via an NDA (non disclosure agreement) so we’ll potentially never know if it’s happening / already happened until such time anything is announced by the club.
Have I missed anything?
Number of different posters have reported that a takeover deal is being progressed. On this thread look out for posts from the following:
Danieljwaterhouse, BenWickes and MRG.
Summary of key points so far:
An investor/sale that is buying it to ‘compete’ with the other large state/family run enterprises in the Middle East.
Link to HS2 and preferential investment opportunities in the wider community
agreements understood to be in place, price agreed and that an approach for fit and proper persons test is being structured.
Egyptian living in America. Still no names leaked.
ClaretTony hasn’t passed any comment other than it not understood to be imminent.
Fit and proper person test will likely happen via an NDA (non disclosure agreement) so we’ll potentially never know if it’s happening / already happened until such time anything is announced by the club.
Have I missed anything?
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 148 times
- Has Liked: 23 times
- Location: Leyland
Re: Investor
Also to put this here given the topic at hand:
What is the owners’ and directors’ test and how does it work?
It is what was previously known as the “fit and proper person’s test”. Those who want to become owners of EFL and Premier League clubs have to satisfy certain requirements, such as not having an unspent criminal conviction for fraud, not being bankrupt, and not being banned from serving as a company director. Anyone who wants to be a director or owner is asked to provide information — there is no investigatory element by the authorities. In the Premier League there is a greater requirement in terms of a prospective owner providing proof they can maintain the club as a going concern.
Why is there so much criticism of the test?
Representatives of some EFL clubs believe that the current test is feeble. The offences that would disqualify someone as a director do not apply if they took place a few years ago, as they are “spent”. The Bolton Wanderers owner Ken Anderson had previously been disqualified from serving as a company director for eight years; the former Watford owner Laurence Bassini had been banned for two years by the FA for financial misconduct; Bury’s owner Steve Dale had involvement in companies that were dissolved. All passed the test.
What are the restrictions on spending by EFL clubs? Why do these appear not to be working?
League One clubs are restricted to spending 60 per cent of their turnover on wages, and League Two clubs are only permitted to spend 55 per cent of their turnover. Owners are permitted to inject their own funds to spend on wages, which is how Bury ended up as a financial basketcase. In the Championship, losses are limited to £13 million a season (or £5 million if the owner does not inject equity to cover losses).
How much of the blame for this crisis lies at the door of the EFL?
It must take some of the responsibility for the feebleness of the owners and directors’ test, and the loopholes in the spending restrictions, but it is following the wishes of the 72 clubs — many of whom don’t like their activities being restricted.
Will the government bring in legislation?
Unlikely. There is an acceptance that football is a special and unique industry but successive governments have always shied away from imposing laws that would not apply to companies in other industries. If an independent regulator is to be created to oversee the ownership of clubs, it will have to be a decision that English football takes itself.
What is the owners’ and directors’ test and how does it work?
It is what was previously known as the “fit and proper person’s test”. Those who want to become owners of EFL and Premier League clubs have to satisfy certain requirements, such as not having an unspent criminal conviction for fraud, not being bankrupt, and not being banned from serving as a company director. Anyone who wants to be a director or owner is asked to provide information — there is no investigatory element by the authorities. In the Premier League there is a greater requirement in terms of a prospective owner providing proof they can maintain the club as a going concern.
Why is there so much criticism of the test?
Representatives of some EFL clubs believe that the current test is feeble. The offences that would disqualify someone as a director do not apply if they took place a few years ago, as they are “spent”. The Bolton Wanderers owner Ken Anderson had previously been disqualified from serving as a company director for eight years; the former Watford owner Laurence Bassini had been banned for two years by the FA for financial misconduct; Bury’s owner Steve Dale had involvement in companies that were dissolved. All passed the test.
What are the restrictions on spending by EFL clubs? Why do these appear not to be working?
League One clubs are restricted to spending 60 per cent of their turnover on wages, and League Two clubs are only permitted to spend 55 per cent of their turnover. Owners are permitted to inject their own funds to spend on wages, which is how Bury ended up as a financial basketcase. In the Championship, losses are limited to £13 million a season (or £5 million if the owner does not inject equity to cover losses).
How much of the blame for this crisis lies at the door of the EFL?
It must take some of the responsibility for the feebleness of the owners and directors’ test, and the loopholes in the spending restrictions, but it is following the wishes of the 72 clubs — many of whom don’t like their activities being restricted.
Will the government bring in legislation?
Unlikely. There is an acceptance that football is a special and unique industry but successive governments have always shied away from imposing laws that would not apply to companies in other industries. If an independent regulator is to be created to oversee the ownership of clubs, it will have to be a decision that English football takes itself.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
- Posts: 5536
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2334 times
- Has Liked: 1404 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: Investor
Fair enough. Just all seems strange how there's plenty of talk on here and just the odd murmor in the press. Mind you it would be the most Burnley thing ever for them not to tell anyone and have fans work out for themselves when they are a random name taking over in the pre match program notes
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
Father Jack wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:48 pmClaretTony hasn’t passed any comment other than it not understood to be imminent.
Delighted to have been singled out but my comment shouldn't be taken as if I think there is something going to happen but just not imminently. I am sure something has been going on. Whether that has led to where some on this discussion believe I don't know but, while the club, I am sure, are actively seeking investment, I'm not sure there is a takeover in the plans.
Re: Investor
Interesting to see if there are any developments on this as we near the new season from those 3 posters who are party to some information as alluded to on this thread.
Will Garlick and the board be willing to relinquish control of the club completely or will they still want to be involved ?
Ideally i still think they want involvement, if that is the case it becomes a more difficult sell of course.
Will Garlick and the board be willing to relinquish control of the club completely or will they still want to be involved ?
Ideally i still think they want involvement, if that is the case it becomes a more difficult sell of course.
-
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 148 times
- Has Liked: 23 times
- Location: Leyland
Re: Investor
Another week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?
Re: Investor
Doubt those in the know post on hereFather Jack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 amAnother week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?
-
- Posts: 984
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:44 am
- Been Liked: 170 times
- Has Liked: 45 times
Re: Investor
Father Jack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 amAnother week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?
Probably a load of hot air
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Investor
They can't tell you when it will happen, but it willFather Jack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 amAnother week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?
It might be this year, 5 yrs or 20, but when it does they'll make sure we are aware they were right.
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
I might be long gone when it happens given the main players (Garlick & John B) are both a lot younger than me.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:06 amThey can't tell you when it will happen, but it will
It might be this year, 5 yrs or 20, but when it does they'll make sure we are aware they were right.
Re: Investor
This thread should probably be titled ' Please bail us out of the No Transfers Thread'.
Doubt either are happening.
Doubt either are happening.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Investor
Why do we need a takeover, when we have the best board of directors we've ever had?Father Jack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:54 amAnother week has past with no update (public or private) on the takeover or investor.
Time is running out for this to have any impact on the current transfer window / first half of the season.
Any views from those in the know?
Be careful what you wish for.
This user liked this post: dsr
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Investor
Something about ambition or other vague reasons like that.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:33 amWhy do we need a takeover, when we have the best board of directors we've ever had?
Be careful what you wish for.
-
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1770 times
- Has Liked: 359 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: Investor
Why do people get so worked up - needing time know what’s happening
You don’t know what’s happening, if anything is
You have no control over it
It’s none of your business
You don’t know what’s happening, if anything is
You have no control over it
It’s none of your business
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Investor
Yeh, take risks with the club and end up like Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackburn etc. How people expect 'Little old Burnley' to compete with the likes of the top six is beyond me. No matter how much money comes into Burnley, they will always have more, so us finishing 7th and 10th is a minor miracle in itself.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:39 amSomething about ambition or other vague reasons like that.
Not for me thanks. I prefer the 'Tortoise and the Hare' approach. Have some patience. BFC has got better and better every year under the current board and manager. I repeat, be careful what you wish for. The last man who tried that approach at Burnley, John Jackson, nearly bankrupted the club by bringing in John Bond. Maybe you're too young to remember that?
-
- Posts: 67868
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32527 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Investor
Are they the best or have they just got luck with one managerial appointment?Gordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:33 amWhy do we need a takeover, when we have the best board of directors we've ever had?
Be careful what you wish for.