Burnley Football Club - first accounts under ALK

[RVclaret]

I was getting info from a couple of people prior to the sale and both were positive about it. Neither of them knew it was going to be a leveraged buyout at the time. Neither are positive now.

The Premier League should have stopped such sales after Man U & Liverpool.

I think there are many positives about what ALK are trying to do. Move the club forward on several fronts. Grow its value (this is of benefit to them for a sale). Transfers have been more forward thinking than under Garlick. All my opinion of course. Leveraged buy outs happen, it’s a standard business transaction, however, I was perhaps expecting some lenience on the loan if relegated. As it turns out, it’s almost the opposite, with a chunk demanded immediately.

[Chester Perry]

Of course the problem we have is that Burnley’s accounts are just one business in a web of other businesses like smaller webs in Shalob Dells great web. I’m guessing but it would not surprise me if accounts start to make less and less sense as things like shirt sponsorships are picked up within the system. I suspect the doors the club opens (e.g. Saudi Royal family etc. etc.) to exploit for all sorts of other interests has a $ value way in excess of any Burnley debt. For that reason, I can see why Burnley’s debt would be causing few sleepless nights in the boardroom.

commercial revenue took a real hammering last year down by about a third

[arise_sir_charge]

It’s been said multiple times, an investor cooling after Norwich wouldn’t have been on the back of one game. Thats a ridiculous point of view. It’s more likely that Norwich was the 30th game in a series of equally poor results and that lead to the interest cooling. Well that’s the common sense way for viewing it anyway.

I’m still not concerned in any ever, it’s big business and big business carries debt. People talk as though every penny has to be repaid immediately.

If I was concerned there is nothing I can do about it anyway so no point worrying.

What will be will be.

[elwaclaret]

commercial revenue took a real hammering last year down by about a third

Forgive me, is that not duing the initial lockdown? And if so I think its actually a decent showing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Can't see much humble pie being consumed. It appears people's concerns were valid and in some instances remarkably accurate.

I seem to remember a lot of people running around making false allegations about our former owner, which clearly weren't true.

Plenty of humble pie needed for those clowns.

[mybloodisclaret]

I seem to remember a lot of people running around making false allegations about our former owner, which clearly weren't true.

Plenty of humble pie needed for those clowns.

As it stands - I admit I don't know it all, but would you say the sale of Bfc benefitted the club or the previous owners more? Not being argumentative just wondering.

[Chester Perry]

Forgive me, is that not duing the initial lockdown? And if so I think its actually a decent showing.

many of our rivals in the PL kept a greater share of theirs particularly sponsorships - retail did very well - catering was demolished (it is so important to us) and sponsorships and pitch-side down around 30% we saw all the advertisers removed after the takeover

[GodIsADeeJay81]

As it stands - I admit I don't know it all, but would you say the sale of Bfc benefitted the club or the previous owners more? Not being argumentative just wondering.

I can't give you an answer because I don't know as it stands.
At present Garlick is owed a shed load of money, so he benefits the most, but it's also been mentioned that he would takeover the club again under certain circumstances so in that instance he wouldn't be any better off if he didn't get his money.

If the new owners are able to move the club forwards, which means better cup runs, more top 10 finishes then you could say the club has benefited more.
It's still too early to say, in my opinion, which side has benefited the most.

We all know what the squad needed in regards to overhaul and average lowering etc and they've started that.
It also needed an overhaul in the day to day running which they've also been doing.

It needs another few years before I could definitely say if Garlick or the club benefited the most from the sale.

[elwaclaret]

As it stands - I admit I don't know it all, but would you say the sale of Bfc benefitted the club or the previous owners more? Not being argumentative just wondering.

Possibly both parties. Garlic got to walk away from a club that had outgrown him and a manager he no longer talked to and passed it on to big business men that, like it of not, are operating on a long term financial plan that offers them access to the movers and shakers in this country.

The one bright part is while Burnley are at the top table we are reasonably safe, unless the football money bubble never reaches American levels for sport rights (and there is little sign its going to shrink); and is possibly one of the better insurances against any economic crashes in uncertain times for investors as a result.

[mybloodisclaret]

I can't give you an answer because I don't know as it stands.
At present Garlick is owed a shed load of money, so he benefits the most, but it's also been mentioned that he would takeover the club again under certain circumstances so in that instance he wouldn't be any better off if he didn't get his money.

If the new owners are able to move the club forwards, which means better cup runs, more top 10 finishes then you could say the club has benefited more.
It's still too early to say, in my opinion, which side has benefited the most.

We all know what the squad needed in regards to overhaul and average lowering etc and they've started that.
It also needed an overhaul in the day to day running which they've also been doing.

It needs another few years before I could definitely say if Garlick or the club benefited the most from the sale.

Thanks for the reply. it seems to me, that all the reserves we have built up over years of under spending now see's that money being transferred out of the club when the first team is going to need a large investment over the summer. It seems like a position we shouldn't have got ourselves into, but I don't fully understand the situation.

We are left in a position of a load of debt and as you say a massive overhaul is necessary of the first team squad with a number of players needed in the summer to come straight into the first team no matter which league we are in. Seems like a big ask, a position we shouldn't have got ourselves into.

Survival seems more important than ever.

[Blakesboots]

It’s quite sickening knowing near enough £40m of the clubs money was used just for the takeover. Imagine if this was put towards transfers. For me, the worst new discovery is that a significant portion of the £67m loan is payable immediately upon relegation. I’d imagine that will basically mean the likes of Cornet, Pope and McNeil sold purely to pay off the loan, rather than any sort of reinvestment.

Which was likely anyway due to the players desire to play in the Premier League.

[Blakesboots]

It’s been said multiple times, an investor cooling after Norwich wouldn’t have been on the back of one game. Thats a ridiculous point of view. It’s more likely that Norwich was the 30th game in a series of equally poor results and that lead to the interest cooling. Well that’s the common sense way for viewing it anyway.

I’m still not concerned in any ever, it’s big business and big business carries debt. People talk as though every penny has to be repaid immediately.

If I was concerned there is nothing I can do about it anyway so no point worrying.

What will be will be.

And now the management and subsequent fortunes of the club have changed.

[Jakubclaret]

Which was likely anyway due to the players desire to play in the Premier League.

The first 1 listed hasn’t even paid for yet nevermind sold he hasn’t even been bought fully & relegation release clauses would make that a necessity anyway, release clauses we wouldn’t have a say over.

[DCWat]

Which was likely anyway due to the players desire to play in the Premier League.

That maybe so but had they been sold with no debt, the proceeds from the sale could be put to use. Instead it’s likely to be paid to a debt that we’ve been saddled with.

[Lancasterclaret]

That maybe so but had they been sold with no debt, the proceeds from the sale could be put to use. Instead it’s likely to be paid to a debt that we’ve been saddled with.

Quick reminder

Garlick had had enough

The only two parties interested where ALK and an Egyptian salad merchant backed by a bloke who has ruined Charlton

We weren't exactly (and never would be) overrun with buyers wanting to take us over

[Blakesboots]

The first 1 listed hasn’t even paid for yet nevermind sold he hasn’t even been bought fully & relegation release clauses would make that a necessity anyway, release clauses we wouldn’t have a say over.

We don’t have a say over release clauses you say Jakubclaret? Interesting point you make….

[NewClaret]

commercial revenue took a real hammering last year down by about a third

Good effort in a pandemic, I’d have thought?

[Blakesboots]

Quick reminder

Garlick had had enough

The only two parties interested where ALK and an Egyptian salad merchant backed by a bloke who has ruined Charlton

We weren't exactly (and never would be) overrun with buyers wanting to take us over

We won’t be, but I think BFC could be sold quite successfully if it was on the market tomorrow.

[DCWat]

Quick reminder

Garlick had had enough

The only two parties interested where ALK and an Egyptian salad merchant backed by a bloke who has ruined Charlton

We weren't exactly (and never would be) overrun with buyers wanting to take us over

Had enough or saw an opportunity? Not that we need to go back to that one on this thread.

The point stands, relegation prior to the takeover was likely far less of an issue than it appears to be following.

[Jakubclaret]

We don’t have a say over release clauses you say Jakubclaret? Interesting point you make….

If it’s contractually factored in upon relegation we wouldn’t have a choice, it’s quite a significant event & you’ll probably see some from Watford & Norwich leaving.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Still waiting on Alan to outline how unbelievable this deal is for the football club.

Perhaps he mistook football club for himself.

This is a little bit off topic, but I feel sure we would be relegated by now if the sale hadn’t been made. Wood would have gone anyway, the Weghorst signing unlikely, Cornet wouldn’t be here, Dyche still would be probably.

We’ve said before that the club is in essence buying ALK’s talent. The unbelievable deal is if that talent keeps us up for a while longer. I appreciate that hasn’t occurred yet, but we have a chance.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thanks for the reply. it seems to me, that all the reserves we have built up over years of under spending now see's that money being transferred out of the club when the first team is going to need a large investment over the summer. It seems like a position we shouldn't have got ourselves into, but I don't fully understand the situation.

We are left in a position of a load of debt and as you say a massive overhaul is necessary of the first team squad with a number of players needed in the summer to come straight into the first team no matter which league we are in. Seems like a big ask, a position we shouldn't have got ourselves into.

Survival seems more important than ever.

Survival has always been important because its enabled the club to grow and modernise it's infrastructure.
Training facilities are now world class
We have a top level youth academy
We have top class disabled stands
The rest of the ground meets all PL requirements, even if some of it still needs work to improve the matchday experience.

All of that was only possible because we've been in the PL for so long.

The overhaul of the first team squad has already begun, we had a reasonable start added to a very experienced group of PL players, so another 4-6 players this summer would see us in a very good position if the right players are signed.
That overhaul began despite the money leaving the club and the debt being built up.
Assuming we stay up this season, that would suggest they'll do the same again to ensure we can carry on being in the PL for the foreseeable.
The only way these people can make money out of the club is by selling it on for more than they've "paid" for it and for that to happen we need to be in the PL but more towards the middle regularly with decent cup runs because that's the next step for the club.

Dyche and Garlick started off well and exceeded everyone's wildest dreams, but petered out towards the end.
Now we start a new chapter and hopefully it's better than the last one.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If it’s contractually factored in upon relegation we wouldn’t have a choice, it’s quite a significant event & you’ll probably see some from Watford & Norwich leaving.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/f ... ce-3178914

Sheff Utd admitted to some of their players having them.

[Chester Perry]

hmmm I have added my two penneth to some of your points

Survival has always been important because its enabled the club to grow and modernise it's infrastructure.
Training facilities are now world class - They are good and much improved, world class definitely not (and we don;t need then to be)
We have a top level youth academy - we have a Cat 1 academy that is improving and yet to provide a regular first team player since it got there (which is no surprise
We have top class disabled stands - we have stands that are well liked by it's customers but which do not actually meet the requirement, it is not beyond reason that additional investment will be forced on the club in the future
The rest of the ground meets all PL requirements, even if some of it still needs work to improve the matchday experience. Those PL requirements tend to change and require more every cycle - there is a new cycle starting next season

All of that was only possible because we've been in the PL for so long.

The overhaul of the first team squad has already begun, we had a reasonable start added to a very experienced group of PL players, so another 4-6 players this summer would see us in a very good position if the right players are signed. without new investment that looks a big ask unless a few players are sold - the club appears to be financing the stage payments and that is a lot of money going out the door
That overhaul began despite the money leaving the club and the debt being built up. see previous comment
Assuming we stay up this season, that would suggest they'll do the same again to ensure we can carry on being in the PL for the foreseeable.
The only way these people can make money out of the club is by selling it on for more than they've "paid" for it and for that to happen we need to be in the PL but more towards the middle regularly with decent cup runs because that's the next step for the club.

Dyche and Garlick started off well and exceeded everyone's wildest dreams, but petered out towards the end.
Now we start a new chapter and hopefully it's better than the last one.

[dsr]

At present Garlick is owed a shed load of money, so he benefits the most, but it's also been mentioned that he would takeover the club again under certain circumstances so in that instance he wouldn't be any better off if he didn't get his money.

The point about Garlick is that he keeps the money no matter what. If he and John B have jointly sold their shares for £150m and have only received £100m so far, and if the new owners default and the shares revert back to Garlick and B, then that does not mean they have to give back the £100m they have received so far.

Garlick and John B would still have their £100m and would also be owners of a bankrupt football club that they would have to either try and revive, or try and sell, or just let it die.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The point about Garlick is that he keeps the money no matter what. If he and John B have jointly sold their shares for £150m and have only received £100m so far, and if the new owners default and the shares revert back to Garlick and B, then that does not mean they have to give back the £100m they have received so far.

Garlick and John B would still have their £100m and would also be owners of a bankrupt football club that they would have to either try and revive, or try and sell, or just let it die.

So potentially that £100 million could end up back in the club to get it back on an even keel, meaning they'd be no better off

[dsr]

So potentially that £100 million could end up back in the club to get it back on an even keel, meaning they'd be no better off

Yes, but that's only potential in the same way as if you win the euromillions £100m, you could put it all into the club. Why would you? And why would they?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yes, but that's only potential in the same way as if you win the euromillions £100m, you could put it all into the club. Why would you? And why would they?

They might feel an obligation, they were owners of the club for a fair while and they've been fans for even longer so they won't want to watch the club disappear down the league's if they were able to help.

[Elizabeth]

They might feel an obligation, they were owners of the club for a fair while and they've been fans for even longer so they won't want to watch the club disappear down the league's if they were able to help.

Now that would be a romantic ending or the comical ending I would see it as if I thought it would happen

[Jacko]

The club is in essence buying ALK’s talent. The unbelievable deal is if that talent keeps us up for a while longer. I appreciate that hasn’t occurred yet, but we have a chance.

I think I would have preferred a midfielder. Or perhaps half a dozen of them. Oh, and no debt.

Still we have eye dazzling eyesore advertising hoardings which we didn't need.

[Iloveyoubrady]

The club isn’t buying ALKs talent, ALK have bought the club. The complex parts of the deal are completely unknown to us but I can tell you now that it is not the club which owes the debt, it is ALK. You can’t buy a business with the business’ own cash reserves.

Nobody on the internet has a clue what the deal between ALK and the old board entails but there sure is a lot of rubbish spouted about it. Only time will tell.

Also, the last accounts with roughly £80 million in was due to the sale and boosting of cash to increase clubs value with some clever accounting. I remember at the time people saying the true cash in the bank at the time was around £50m.

[RVclaret]

Which was likely anyway due to the players desire to play in the Premier League.

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

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

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

[Nori1958]

I will speculate differently Paul

- my view is that was primarily used for staged payments to the Sellers possibly the small shareholders
- I will also suggest that the £37m related company loan is made up of the original sum borrowed for the initial payment and a subsequent borrowing for a staged payment

note that VSL have now confirmed they have borrowed £47m from the club and placed the £65m MSD loan on the club with its interest payments being met by the club

elsewhere I note:
- we have only paid around £3m of the £12m for Collins
- cost of football (wages + amortisation/revenue) is over 93%

I am a little surprised at just how much I have been in the ball park in terms of the financial performance, and the takeover costs including size of MSD loan and the associated interest rate

The Collins fee will be being paid over the length of his contract, which is the norm with football transfers

[dandeclaret]

Would have thought paid is subject to FA rules, which require payment faster than that. The cost will be amortised over the length of his contract in the accounts.

[Blakesboots]

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

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

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

No, not at all. There is money in both wage and transfer budgets to spend this summer.

[aggi]

Would have thought paid is subject to FA rules, which require payment faster than that. The cost will be amortised over the length of his contract in the accounts.

The only rule is that payment must be completed before the initial contract between player and club is up so you can make payment over the full length of contract (if both clubs agree). It's not standard though, particularly for someone like Collins on a 4 year contract.

[NewClaret]

There was a belief at the time that VSL would flip shares quickly and repay the related company loan - remember they tried in Feb 2021 at a time when Wall st was handing money out for sports/sports tech/sports media investments by the tanker load - VSL could not persuade anyone to bite and that is where we are, still with no one in their right mind investing in VSL/BFC (at least with a significant sum)

Irrespective of the belief, they could’ve listed a SPAC -£9bn raised by these mechanisms in the year we were purchased, I read (without naming BFC as the transfer target) - and bought us without any debt. Now that avenue is shut presumably, given the acquisition has been made.

But in any event, MG allowed a deal built on debt and involving taking money from the club “dry powder” to finance it when he could and should have been investing that money (£37m) in the first team. Money many on here said we couldn’t afford to spend on players at the time. We’d be no worse off in terms of cash reserves (£50m is still very healthy), would be less the debt and have a stronger first team squad capable of avoiding the situation we’re in now (assuming spent well, of course, which I know is not a given), creating a more sustainable future for the club. For me, that’s monumental, unforgivable miss-management on behalf of the previous ownership.

Having said that, I’ve been impressed by Pace since his arrival. I just hope to goodness we stay up and whatever this “long-term plan” is can be actioned. These next few games really are important for the club so I’m not going to dampen the current more hopeful mood with more talk about P&L’s and Balance Sheets, but I do hope the whole town really get behind the lads over the next four games.

[ClaretPete001]

Just to address some points above. The £200million is not my figure it is the figure cited in many of the media (as far back as the original Guardian piece) articles and by a number on here.

These accounts are pretty much what you'd expect after 7 months of trading and after a pandemic; accurately reflected by a number on here including myself. I think Chester even managed to nail the turnover figure.

Costs have been squeezed, which has protected the bottom line but how that affects the quality of the product on offer remains to be seen.

There seems to be an increase in sales and ancillary staff and a reduction of football related staff.

There seems to be little evidence of significant new revenue lines. The MSD loan is in there but as predicted little else other than inter-company transactions, which presumably equate to the £37 million cash to buy the club and some kind of provision in the holding companies accounts for the former owners deferred payments.

I don't know if Aggi, Paul or Chester can say more about the £102 million debtors figure - apologies if it's been mentioned above and I've missed it.

There is still no evidence of a business proposition and as predicted no inter-company charges in this set of accounts.

For the record, the information on this site, by those who know (and I don't include myself), is second to none; it's a shame that some continue to seek to suggest that is not so.

[ClaretPete001]

Irrespective of the belief, they could’ve listed a SPAC -£9bn raised by these mechanisms in the year we were purchased, I read (without naming BFC as the transfer target) - and bought us without any debt. Now that avenue is shut presumably, given the acquisition has been made.

But in any event, MG allowed a deal built on debt and involving taking money from the club “dry powder” to finance it when he could and should have been investing that money (£37m) in the first team. Money many on here said we couldn’t afford to spend on players at the time. We’d be no worse off in terms of cash reserves (£50m is still very healthy), would be less the debt and have a stronger first team squad capable of avoiding the situation we’re in now (assuming spent well, of course, which I know is not a given), creating a more sustainable future for the club. For me, that’s monumental, unforgivable miss-management on behalf of the previous ownership.

Having said that, I’ve been impressed by Pace since his arrival. I just hope to goodness we stay up and whatever this “long-term plan” is can be actioned. These next few games really are important for the club so I’m not going to dampen the current more hopeful mood with more talk about P&L’s and Balance Sheets, but I do hope the whole town really get behind the lads over the next four games.

Two points: I agree it's hard not to see this as part of a planned strategy by the former owners. It may not have been but it looks as though it was.

Secondly, I'm not sure about the cash. I think Paul mentioned above, and I'm sure Chester has mentioned elsewhere, that the cash depends upon when broadcasting revenue is paid. I've noticed that a number of football clubs report a lot of cash in their balance sheet while seemingly not making any profits.

[Sleeping Cat]

Not from any company in the BFC group.

I've always puzzled whether directors acting in an executive role are required to be paid minimum wage.

It wouldn't surprise me if Alan Pace isn't receiving remuneration at the ALK/Velocity Sports level. It may also be that, depending on how things develop, AP may receive remuneration in future years.

I had heard that BFC had paid ALK "consultancy fees" though I am not sure when or if they are in these accounts.

[Chester Perry]

BBC the first in the media to report on the strategic report - no guess as to what they are focussing on

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61317194

Burnley face 'significant' loan repayment if relegated, accounts show
By Simon Stone - BBC Sport
Last updated 8 minutes ago

Burnley would need to pay back "a significant proportion" of a £65m loan at the end of the season if relegated from the Premier League.

The loan was taken out as part of the club's takeover by ALK Capital in December 2020.

The information is contained in the release of the club's latest financial accounts to 31 July 2021.

The club does say in the event of relegation it is "satisfied" it would retain the support of its lenders.

However, the information is bound to spark concern among fans given the delicate position of Burnley in the Premier League table.

The Clarets were anchored in the relegation zone until the shock sacking of long-serving manager Sean Dyche on 16 April.

Widely condemned as a panic move by chairman Alan Pace, who led the ALK takeover, the decision has so far been vindicated by a run of four matches unbeaten under temporary boss Mike Jackson, including three successive wins.

That has taken Burnley, who have four games remaining, up to 16th in the table, two points clear of Everton, who are third from bottom but have a game in hand.

The financial state of Burnley has been debated since ALK's takeover.

In the latest accounts, it is confirmed that £102m-worth of debt has been taken on through two of its holding companies, £65m to Burnley FC Holdings Ltd and £37m to the Burnley Football and Athletic Company.

On the £65m loan specifically, it is outlined in the accounts that it attracts 8% annual interest. Only interest payments are made until December 2025, when the entire sum due is due to be repaid.

However, relegation brings that repayment date forward significantly, with a further "significant reduction of the loan balance" due in what is described as "a continuing relegation scenario" - if the club failed to return to the top flight.

"The balance can potentially be settled by various means, and the group's reserves are sufficient to enable a significant proportion of the balance to be settled by way of dividends if required," the accounts say.

The club has £50m in reserves - down from £80m in last year's financial results.

Over the year to July 2021, the club's turnover fell from £134m to £115m, which the club said was driven by "the lack of fan attendance" due to Covid restrictions "and the lower placed league finish at 17th".

It mean the club recorded a £3m pre-tax loss.

The accounts also state that following the end of the reporting period, Burnley advanced £10m to a "fellow group company".

[IanMcL]

Note 25, Events after the reporting date, mentions £10 million "advanced to a fellow group company."

My speculation is this may be the funding for the purchase of the small shareholders shares.

Nothing in the accounts with regard to the instalments due to the previous directors/major shareholders.

So the club business buys back shares, rather than the directors using their own funds.

Does that mean those shares contract the net share allocation, thus making the remaining shares more valuable?

[Dark Cloud]

I think whether we are financial experts or not, the proverbial blind man on his galloping horse can see and has always known, that EVERYTHING depends on PL survival and the income streams it generates. Not really news and always would be the bottom line in any accounting.

[ClaretTony]

So the club business buys back shares, rather than the directors using their own funds.

Does that mean those shares contract the net share allocation, thus making the remaining shares more valuable?

If you are referring to those purchased from small shareholders, an action they were obliged to take, at least 50% of it had to come from the club given it was credit to be used at the club.

[Sleeping Cat]

I had heard that BFC had paid ALK "consultancy fees" though I am not sure when or if they are in these accounts.

from BBC article: The accounts also state that following the end of the reporting period, Burnley advanced £10m to a "fellow group company"

could this be the consultancy fees paid to ALK?

[Sleeping Cat]

Accounts confirms to me what we have always suspected, relegation will be a disaster. A double hit of revenue loss (Tv rights & "significant chunk" of the loan) and a desperate attempt to sell anything of value to pay the wolf to stay away from our door.

[Chester Perry]

Interesting interest rate is Libor + 8%. I might have to read up on how Libor is being replaced...

Almost certainly means that we are paying more in interest now - no escaping inflation in this deal (that is the clever Covid induced measure from MSD that also neatly covers the impact of Putin's acts). It is understood that Southampton have a fixed rate deal - though that is a higher initial rate than the one we have (9.104%,) it could end up being lower overall given that MSD have interest paid quarterly our payments are rising each time at the moment

any infor on the Libor replacement Paul?

[spt_claret]

Almost certainly means that we are paying more in interest now - no escaping inflation in this deal (that is the clever Covid induced measure from MSD that also neatly covers the impact of Putin's acts). It is understood that Southampton have a fixed rate deal - though that is a higher initial rate than the one we have (9.104%,) it could end up being lower overall given that MSD have interest paid quarterly our payments are rising each time at the moment

any infor on the Libor replacement Paul?

Not Paul but from what I can see current one year Libor is at slightly over 2%, so yes I'd expect our current rate to be in the region of 10%.

Of course the problem we have is that Burnley’s accounts are just one business in a web of other businesses like smaller webs in Shalob Dells great web. I’m guessing but it would not surprise me if accounts start to make less and less sense as things like shirt sponsorships are picked up within the system. I suspect the doors the club opens (e.g. Saudi Royal family etc. etc.) to exploit for all sorts of other interests has a $ value way in excess of any Burnley debt. For that reason, I can see why Burnley’s debt would be causing few sleepless nights in the boardroom.

Blakesboots likes to give the impression he's connected to the board, and has directly said on here before that the deal is about far more than football and these opening doors are very important. I can't pretend the thought doesn't make me uneasy.

No, not at all. There is money in both wage and transfer budgets to spend this summer.

Is this budget going to be derived from additional outside stable investment, from taking on more debts, or from player sales to fund acquisitions? Because for various reasons I'm looking at these figures and not sure how we currently could afford a net spend above at best 14 million without eating into the cash reserves needed to pay off the 65m loan in 2025 (which are already 15m short of this).

[aggi]

I had heard that BFC had paid ALK "consultancy fees" though I am not sure when or if they are in these accounts.

These would have been disclosed as related party transactions, and they weren't, so very unlikely that this happened in the period where we have accounts.

Nothing to say that there won't be some starting as of August 2021. However, if the strategy is to build the value and sell it at a hefty profit then they won't want to be taking too much out of the club (on top of interest, etc).

[ClaretTony]

Accounts confirms to me what we have always suspected, relegation will be a disaster. A double hit of revenue loss (Tv rights & "significant chunk" of the loan) and a desperate attempt to sell anything of value to pay the wolf to stay away from our door.

It's frightening, our whole future might now be resting on the next four games.