Good news—bad news??
-
- Posts: 6842
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
- Been Liked: 2012 times
- Has Liked: 2287 times
- Location: lismore co. waterford
Good news—bad news??
This should get a few necks throbbing.
-
- Posts: 2758
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
- Been Liked: 711 times
- Has Liked: 667 times
- Location: Château d'If
Re: Good news—bad news??
source?
-
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 7:16 pm
- Been Liked: 562 times
- Has Liked: 1412 times
-
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2340 times
- Has Liked: 1405 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: Good news—bad news??
It’s in the daily mail and it wouldn’t be good news
-
- Posts: 2758
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
- Been Liked: 711 times
- Has Liked: 667 times
- Location: Château d'If
Re: Good news—bad news??
that seems like a very odd clause and i imagine one that would be difficult to realise.
-
- Posts: 2713
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:22 pm
- Been Liked: 482 times
- Has Liked: 2292 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
La source HP
Re: Good news—bad news??
What it means is that if ALK don't pay the balance of their instalments on their purchase of Garlick's shares, then the shares go back to Garlick. This would possibly happen with relegation if ALK decide they have wasted their £15m and the club is worth less than nothing, financially.
Re: Good news—bad news??
Belting news.
It’s a shame Gaddafi is no longer alive.
It’s a shame Gaddafi is no longer alive.
-
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:03 pm
- Been Liked: 728 times
- Has Liked: 515 times
- Location: Padiham
Re: Good news—bad news??
We can prepare for any playing assets to be sold and disappear into Garlicks dry powder store if Pace does a runner. Anybody still think we'd walk the Championship?
-
- Posts: 67895
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32545 times
- Has Liked: 5279 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Good news—bad news??
Not sure this is true.
I think it was common knowledge that the club would return to the previous ownership should ALK not meet the payments. I had been told they’ve had to renegotiate the deal which has given them an extension way beyond this season or even next.
I think it was common knowledge that the club would return to the previous ownership should ALK not meet the payments. I had been told they’ve had to renegotiate the deal which has given them an extension way beyond this season or even next.
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret
Re: Good news—bad news??
Our beloved Burnley Football Club traded like a bit of tat on Ebay. How the F did this happen ? How the F was this allowed to happen ?
-
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:20 am
- Been Liked: 237 times
- Has Liked: 58 times
- Location: on the gravy train in strasbourg
Re: Good news—bad news??
Erm the club was bought some American Boys because it is a commercial entity. The thing at turf moor is not a football club it a vessel to part you from your hard-earned by leveraging fake nostalgia.
Look on the bright side rovers will be in Premiership next year and we won't be:
-
- Posts: 8528
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2889 times
- Has Liked: 1763 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
sometimes I feel like a dopey Lancastrian in a rain soaked flat cap, and a woodbine dangling from my lips, as all around me corporate and smiling people, with NO grasp of what my world is about, do their poxy accounts in league with faceless money lenders. I love Burnley, and football, but this is ****.
These 5 users liked this post: RammyClaret61 AotearoaClaret cockneyclaret longsidepies MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:56 am
- Been Liked: 216 times
- Has Liked: 263 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Logged in just to like this. I’m getting to the point where I only love Burnley though. Football at the top table isn’t all it’s cracked up to be for me.Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:25 amsometimes I feel like a dopey Lancastrian in a rain soaked flat cap, and a woodbine dangling from my lips, as all around me corporate and smiling people, with NO grasp of what my world is about, do their poxy accounts in league with faceless money lenders. I love Burnley, and football, but this is ****.
These 3 users liked this post: SussexDon1inIreland MT03ALG ClaretTony
-
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
- Been Liked: 349 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Mike Garlick: King of the Clause!minnieclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:01 pmThis should get a few necks throbbing.
9611671A-7A9A-44B4-8569-9EE505C17BDE.jpeg
-
- Posts: 6842
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
- Been Liked: 2012 times
- Has Liked: 2287 times
- Location: lismore co. waterford
Re: Good news—bad news??
Marx brothers called it the sanity clause but in this instance it’s the insanity clause.
-
- Posts: 5096
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:19 am
- Been Liked: 1357 times
- Has Liked: 2939 times
- Location: 'Turf
Re: Good news—bad news??
Bad news if Pace etc walk with their debts transferred to the club.
Bad news if we're relegated and don't bounce straight back.
Bad news if it's true Garlick and Dyche can't work together.
Bad news we won't / don't have a pot to pi$$ in.
Good news, there ain't any.
Bad news if we're relegated and don't bounce straight back.
Bad news if it's true Garlick and Dyche can't work together.
Bad news we won't / don't have a pot to pi$$ in.
Good news, there ain't any.
-
- Posts: 11120
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1573 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Tony, given how close you are to the club does this concern you?ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:53 pmNot sure this is true.
I think it was common knowledge that the club would return to the previous ownership should ALK not meet the payments. I had been told they’ve had to renegotiate the deal which has given them an extension way beyond this season or even next.
Everything about this takeover just looks awful for everyone apart from Pace and Garlick.
Re: Good news—bad news??
When Pace and Co realise how hard it will be to get out of The Champ it will give them a get out clause. The extension may help as the parachute payments are about to stop.
-
- Posts: 18097
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3875 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
I'm far from a financial expert but the debt the club has is for Pace and Co to have the club from Garlick.
If they give the club back because they haven't paid up then Garlick won't be owed anything in cash. He just gets the club (asset).
Unless they have loans out or debts to outsiders then we should have a clean slate.
Or am I completely wrong?
If they give the club back because they haven't paid up then Garlick won't be owed anything in cash. He just gets the club (asset).
Unless they have loans out or debts to outsiders then we should have a clean slate.
Or am I completely wrong?
-
- Posts: 3233
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:36 am
- Been Liked: 1768 times
- Has Liked: 41 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
And seeing as Mike is an such an upstanding bloke, local lad and Uber fan of the club he will use the supposed £50m he took from cash reserves and the other money received from the Dell money to pay Dell back and still be up on his original investment.
Why is anybody worried?
Why is anybody worried?
Re: Good news—bad news??
I'm afraid you're wrong. Burnley have borrowed or guaranteed umpty millions and lent that money to Pace/ALK. If ALK can't repay Burnley, then Burnley still have to repay the loan to the bank.Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:09 amI'm far from a financial expert but the debt the club has is for Pace and Co to have the club from Garlick.
If they give the club back because they haven't paid up then Garlick won't be owed anything in cash. He just gets the club (asset).
Unless they have loans out or debts to outsiders then we should have a clean slate.
Or am I completely wrong?
Re: Good news—bad news??
We’ll be alright as long as magic Mike and John B are waiting in the wings.
-
- Posts: 6729
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1820 times
- Has Liked: 1800 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Good news—bad news??
So do these Americans who 'bought' the club actually have any money of their own?
-
- Posts: 3322
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Good news ( for A Pace ) he's still laughing at getting £25 million for Wood.
Bad news - Pace has said to Dyche, now Wood has gone you will have to use plan B.
Bad news - Pace has said to Dyche, now Wood has gone you will have to use plan B.
-
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:43 am
- Been Liked: 229 times
- Has Liked: 137 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Yet again part of a story, it also says the Yanks have had no problem with the payments.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Let's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.
The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.
My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).
So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.
We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.
Exciting times.
UTC
The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.
My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).
So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.
We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.
Exciting times.
UTC
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
We can assume that MSD have all the facts about the club and the structure of the deal between ALK and MG. Yes, the MSD loan of £60 million is secured by club assets. That's all in the public domain - Companies House filings.
But, you don't lend someone £60 million and take the chance that a few footballers can be sold for £25m and more to repay it. Tarks running down his contract is one very good reason why not.
-
- Posts: 11120
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1573 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
The article does pose some new questions though, it suggests there are two clauses in the contract. 1 - that if the club are relegated Garlick can purchase the club back at a set price. 2 - if the instalments are not paid it defaults back to Garlick.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 amLet's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.
The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.
My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).
So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.
We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.
Exciting times.
UTC
Item 1 is new in my opinion, I have never seen that reported any where else.
This user liked this post: HandforthClaret
-
- Posts: 3979
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1857 times
- Has Liked: 652 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
The more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.
These 3 users liked this post: Steve1956 Rumpelstiltskin MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 17277
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6490 times
- Has Liked: 2919 times
- Location: Fife
Re: Good news—bad news??
A wise man is your uncle.Billy Balfour wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:01 pmThe more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.
This user liked this post: Billy Balfour
-
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1259 times
- Has Liked: 1368 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Whatever the situation let’s hope relegation , if it happens, doesn’t affect the club’s ability to provide the necessary funds to make the big changes on the field that will be necessary if we are to do well in the Championship
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Maybe if he waits a bit longer, he could do that supporting our lot !Billy Balfour wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:01 pmThe more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.
This user liked this post: Billy Balfour
Re: Good news—bad news??
Billy, by any chance is that Uncle Mike? What club does he now support?Billy Balfour wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:01 pmThe more I read about the takeover, the more I understand why an uncle of ours has become a supporter of a club in the North West Counties.
This user liked this post: Billy Balfour
-
- Posts: 15260
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3164 times
- Has Liked: 6759 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
I never really understand the world of football finance, but how this deal was ever allowed to go through has amazed me from the start.
-
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:12 pm
- Been Liked: 473 times
- Has Liked: 52 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
I’ve always said it was relatively low risk for ALK. They get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage. The whole think stank from the start and all the warm words from Pace are simply window dressing.
Re: Good news—bad news??
What proof would ALK have needed to show they could make this work, in comparison to any old football supporter who wanted to make money the same way?Culmclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pmI’ve always said it was relatively low risk for ALK. They get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage. The whole think stank from the start and all the warm words from Pace are simply window dressing.
-
- Posts: 9474
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1185 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
Just think how much more you could possibly make by selling all the high value players & reinvesting lowly & then staying put whilst taking the parachute payments & then defaulting when nothing of value is left, I’m not suggesting or saying that will happen.Culmclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pmI’ve always said it was relatively low risk for ALK. They get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage. The whole think stank from the start and all the warm words from Pace are simply window dressing.
-
- Posts: 4195
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2326 times
- Has Liked: 2696 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: Good news—bad news??
Culmclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pmThey get the cheapest PL club possible and have a shot at making a bit of cash but with their liability limited to a manageable amount. BFC takes all the collateral damage.
That looks about the strength of it on current evidence.
Re: Good news—bad news??
The relationship between Dyche and Garlic was strained at best, if he got control again Dyche would quit I reckon.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
I can't work out why any agreement between a seller and a buyer would include a clause that gives the seller the option to buy back the asset the seller has sold if a pre-defined event occurs. I can understand an agreement that gives the seller the obligation to buy back the asset, but only to the extent that the seller can influence and control relevant actions by the buyer that would led up to the seller having the obligation to buy back the asset.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:31 amThe article does pose some new questions though, it suggests there are two clauses in the contract. 1 - that if the club are relegated Garlick can purchase the club back at a set price. 2 - if the instalments are not paid it defaults back to Garlick.
Item 1 is new in my opinion, I have never seen that reported any where else.
The second clause you describe, MG gets the club back (without any payments to ALK) if the instalments aren't paid makes sense.
I can't see any sense if the first clause.
My conclusion is that the first clause does not exist and is only the result of the DM journalist misunderstanding the nature (and logic) of the 2nd clause.
PS: I'll be happy and I'll learn something if anyone can explain the logic that would result in any seller and any buyer agreeing to the first clause, whether this relates to BFC or any other asset whatever the nature of the asset.
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 337 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
The irony of this is that the lack of investment in the squad, which presumably facilitated the vendor financing makes the possibility of relegation even more likely. So, ALK has to invest heavily to rectify the lack of spending prior to their takeover and if they are successful will have to pay another 68 million to the former owners.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 amLet's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.
The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.
My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).
So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.
We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.
Exciting times.
UTC
I understand a Premiership club could fit into the portfolio of a sports-tech investment vehicle but the risk is huge and it's hard to see the club ever being worth more than the premium price ALK will have to pay should they succeed in keeping the club in the Premiership.
This is the net expenditure over the last 3 years of all Premier league clubs.
Expenditure Arrivals Income Departures Balance
1 Manchester City £413.39m 76 £217.31m 65 £-196.08m
2 Manchester United £412.74m 38 £118.24m 34 £-294.50m
3 Chelsea FC £370.98m 75 £302.95m 76 £-68.03m
4 Arsenal FC £370.80m 51 £93.78m 50 £-277.02m
5 Aston Villa £351.60m 54 £119.49m 55 £-232.11m
6 Tottenham Hotspur £293.31m 38 £99.45m 40 £-193.86m
7 West Ham United £224.10m 35 £93.28m 42 £-130.82m
8 Everton FC £211.83m 55 £124.40m 56 £-87.43m
9 Wolverhampton Wanderers £210.96m 68 £121.32m 61 £-89.64m
10 Leicester City £207.36m 37 £131.65m 37 £-75.71m
11 Newcastle United £167.67m 33 £32.32m 34 £-135.35m
12 Leeds United £149.13m 53 £27.36m 56 £-121.77m
13 Brighton & Hove Albion £144.13m 83 £83.34m 77 £-60.79m
14 Southampton FC £127.71m 47 £102.57m 49 £-25.14m
15 Sheffield United £119.88m 52 £25.52m 54 £-94.37m
16 Liverpool FC £119.75m 42 £80.28m 38 £-39.47m
17 Crystal Palace £93.09m 35 £67.84m 36 £-25.25m
18 Fulham FC £86.63m 53 £29.97m 48 £-56.66m
19 Norwich City £79.43m 83 £76.14m 82 £-3.29m
20 Watford FC £75.60m 81 £79.97m 73 £4.37m
21 Brentford FC £70.79m 50 £93.53m 45 £22.74m
22 West Bromwich Albion £65.05m 50 £59.80m 53 £-5.25m
23 AFC Bournemouth £54.64m 43 £139.57m 48 £84.93m
24 Burnley FC £51.17m 24 £49.64m 25 £-1.53m
-
- Posts: 3322
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
By far the most interesting stat within the above table is Brentfords 50 players in / 45 players out with a net profit of £22m.
We can never compete to win trophies or the league but we try to emulate the selling club / make a profit whilst maintaining PL status.
We can never compete to win trophies or the league but we try to emulate the selling club / make a profit whilst maintaining PL status.
-
- Posts: 8996
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 2013 times
- Has Liked: 2913 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
While I agree, let’s not forget Brentford have had the first season bounce, similar to Sheffield United the proof of how Premier League ready they are in the second half of the season, and especially next season. Owen Coyle got it that first season… we looked a good bet for at least Europe until Christmas…Nonayforever wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:44 amBy far the most interesting stat within the above table is Brentfords 50 players in / 45 players out with a net profit of £22m.
We can never compete to win trophies or the league but we try to emulate the selling club / make a profit whilst maintaining PL status.
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 337 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: Good news—bad news??
[/quote]
While I agree, let’s not forget Brentford have had the first season bounce, similar to Sheffield United the proof of how Premier League ready they are in the second half of the season, and especially next season. Owen Coyle got it that first season… we looked a good bet for at least Europe until Christmas…
[/quote]
Indeed. Of the clubs that have not significantly invested in the squad Burnley, Norwich and Watford are bottom 4 Bournemouth and WBA are already down and Brentford have no track record in the Premiership
Only Fulham have really got it wrong. All the others arguably have reaped what they have sown.
While I agree, let’s not forget Brentford have had the first season bounce, similar to Sheffield United the proof of how Premier League ready they are in the second half of the season, and especially next season. Owen Coyle got it that first season… we looked a good bet for at least Europe until Christmas…
[/quote]
Indeed. Of the clubs that have not significantly invested in the squad Burnley, Norwich and Watford are bottom 4 Bournemouth and WBA are already down and Brentford have no track record in the Premiership
Only Fulham have really got it wrong. All the others arguably have reaped what they have sown.
Re: Good news—bad news??
Pace may even take the 15m out of the sale of wood and let the shares default back to Garlick, how much did Pace and Co invest in the club, not including the share purchases from Garlick and others during the acquisition of the club
Re: Good news—bad news??
Apart from the "exciting times" nonsense at the end, that makes sense. If your understanding of the deal is correct, then ALK could only get £100m out of Burnley FC at purchase date (£50m cash and £50m guarantee of loan, say) and would need to wait for later years' TV money to come in before they can take that from the club. Doing it this way perhaps meant they didn't have to put in any of their own money at all?Paul Waine wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 amLet's not get too worked up about what the DM is reporting - they don't have all their "facts" right.
The deal, as reported at the time, was £170 million for 84% of the club: £102 million paid at the time, and 3 instalments to be paid later totally £68 million. It was also reported that MG (and possibly JB) would take back control of the club if ALK didn't pay the 3 instalments. I don't know if we've seen any of the media, including the football finance specialists, go any further than this. I don't think the media has tried to explain why £170m and £102m - or when the 3 instalments would be due.
My guess, as I posted on the Takeover thread Jan last year, is that MG wanted £170m for a club in the Premier League, but ALK wouldn't agree that price because Burnley could be relegated before they'd been able to "put their own stamp" on the club. ALK valued Burnley at £102m taking into account the risk of relegation. So, the real deal is £102m payable immediately by ALK, plus £68m vendor financing, payable by ALK later. (Vendor financing, i.e. the seller lends the buyer the money to buy the asset is very common). It's my guess - I have no "inside information - that the 3 instalments are due at the end of 3 seasons and are only due if BFC retains Premier League status at the end of each of those seasons. I don't know whether the first of those seasons was 2020/21, or if this season 2021/22 is the first of those seasons. (What would happen to an instalment if BFC was relegated and bounced back the following season we can only guess. My guess is that season's instalment would be cancelled, and help mitigate reduced funding in the Championship).
So, nothing new in the DM report - and a few inaccuracies. MG (and JB) still holds 4,000 shares and is still a director of the club.
We cannot separate the club's finances from the club's success as a football team. Alan Pace and ALK struck deal with MG that gives them the chance to continue the club's success - but we can see that this isn't without its challenges.
Exciting times.
UTC
Re: Good news—bad news??
Yes, of course MSD have all the facts. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious!Paul Waine wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:20 amWe can assume that MSD have all the facts about the club and the structure of the deal between ALK and MG. Yes, the MSD loan of £60 million is secured by club assets. That's all in the public domain - Companies House filings.
But, you don't lend someone £60 million and take the chance that a few footballers can be sold for £25m and more to repay it. Tarks running down his contract is one very good reason why not.
Organisations do lend money on speculation that the assets are going to be worthwhile. Remember this lot make their living out of lending money to football clubs at high rates of interest. (9% I believe has been suggested.) With 9% interest, first call on all the club assets including Gawthorpe and Turf Moor as well as all the player values, the risk of losing out is presumably a risk they are willing to take compared with the risk of winning big.
Remember that to receive 9% on lending money, you have to take a risk. Try lending some of yours at 9% return. Not easy. So they lend it to football clubs safe in the knowledge that they can order the sale of all Burnley players if need be, to get their money back, and if there still isn't enough after the players have all gone and the TV money spent and the ground built over, then that's the business risk. This is how speculative lenders like that, do business.
Re: Good news—bad news??
It’s about as exciting as having piles and only sand paper to wipe your arse with.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill