ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

and continuing from the KV Kortrijk thread

Indeed it would - just as it would be to identify some of these - one on the far middle right was seen in what appeared to be a board meeting in 'MtB' - I also do not know who is sat in front of him or the entire top row and the Burnley Scarf wearer - contributions gratefully received

Directors Box last game of 2022-23 v Cardiff.JPG (174.21 KiB) Viewed 4780 times

Directors Box last game of 2022-23 v Cardiff.JPG

Damien O'Donohoe https://twitter.com/daimo1

Ok - this is the guy who has been bringing the minor investors to the Ownership group, particularly the Watt family and Dude Perfect



https://uk.linkedin.com/in/damien-o-donohoe-3bb1a8139

Inside Track: Ikon boss draws American sports couple to Burnley
https://archive.is/LiV6m

Damien O’Donohoe is the starboy of deals
https://archive.is/P7iDZ

[123EasyasBFC]

Russell ball mentioned on the interview he had with turfcast that Stuart Hunt has recently moved his family to the UK from Utah to have a more hands on role at the club, thought that would be worth adding to this thread. Don’t know what that means for his presidential role he has at Papa Johns

[scouseclaret]

Just come across this interview on LinkedIN (whilst looking for something else)

BFC Head of Commercial - Marcus Mellor - in a Meet the Member Interview for isportconnect
https://www.isportconnect.com/meet-the- ... partments/

Barely understood a word of that. Massive dump of corporate bullshit.

[Chester Perry]

Seems like the club have another Crypto partner - Uphold - though nothing has been announced by the club

Uphold sponsor.JPG (59.55 KiB) Viewed 4647 times

The Uphold website
https://uphold.com/en-gb

[Chester Perry]

Seems like the club have another Crypto partner - Uphold - though nothing has been announced by the club

Uphold sponsor.JPG (59.55 KiB) Viewed 4439 times

The Uphold website
https://uphold.com/en-gb

still no announcement (or indeed inclusion in the various official Partner listings on the club website) but as we have seen today Uphold is Burnley FC's new sleeve sponsor

Uphold sleeve sponsor.JPG (39.42 KiB) Viewed 4444 times

We have gone full blown Gambling and Crypto it would seem - though few will be bothered by it

[Chester Perry]

again from the KV Kortrijk thread

If Kompany does have shares in VSL they are perhaps more likely to be Incentive Shares via either via his role as an employee or via the service partner relationship of MUD Analytics

I have an article in the next issue of the London Clarets Magazine 'Something to write home about' (out next week - look for a copy in pubs before the game or in the new Burnley FC archive room at Burnley Central Library )that looks at what I found in Jersey about VSL and Velocity Sports Feeder Ltd together with other updates on the known ALK/VSL structure. It contains this about Incentive shares

"Notably, Incentive shares can be awarded to employees and service providers, and are retained
while service continues, though they must be returned, without cost, once that service has been
completed/terminated. It sounds like they are there to provide a bonus if dividends or other
profits are collected. Appleby Global Services, in some guise, may have held/hold such shares. As
may other entities. ‘Mission to Burnley’ appeared to show a number of such entities, providing
advisory services to the owners at a deeply engaged level. Though not identified as such, that
appeared to include MUD Analytics Limited, of whom our manager is a co-owner alongside Lee
Mooney, who featured a number of times in boardroom scenes wearing full Burnley FC staff kit
across the series."

I'd be intrigued to know more about these (ironically being in London means that I won't see the London Clarets magazine).

The general point of share schemes is that they are a tax efficient way to reward employees. I guess dividends being taxed at a slightly lower rate than income (and they may be able to do some clever tax shifting with VSL being in Jersey but it would probably also require the recipient to be in a tax haven too) may make it worth it but seems unlikely if you're removing the capital element.

If you select all here for the Standard online and go through the checkout system they will send them via email to you free of charge

https://www.jerseyfsc.org/registry/regi ... ity/316684

same here for Velocity Sports Feeder Ltd

https://www.jerseyfsc.org/registry/regi ... ity/316685

[aggi]

still no announcement (or indeed inclusion in the various official Partner listings on the club website) but as we have seen today Uphold is Burnley FC's new sleeve sponsor

We have gone full blown Gambling and Crypto it would seem - though few will be bothered by it

Uphold is probably better than the average crypto sponsor. It's a reasonably established exchange rather than some dodgy new coin or NFT trying to get people to "invest" or revolutionise fan experiences (if you buy some tokens).

[aggi]

again from the KV Kortrijk thread

Cheers. I see where you are coming from there.

I'm not sure where this bit comes from:

they must be returned, without cost, once that service has been completed/terminated

compared to:

Upon the occurrence of any termination event with respect to a Service Provider, any Incentive Shares held by such Service Provider (and Incentive Shares transferred by such Service Provider to any Permitted Transferee in accordance with article 9.2) shall be automatically forfeited and the Company shall have, subject to completion of the necessary provisions of the Law, the option (the "Redemption Option") to redeem such Incentive Shares retained by such Service Provider following the termination event for an amount equal to the fair market value of such Shares, as determined by the Directors acting in good faith (the "Purchase Price")

which makes a bit more sense in adding a capital element.

Obviously as at 24 December 2020 there weren't any Incentive Shares out there and I guess it's just down to guesswork whether any have been issued since.

[bfc8]

Trying to picture bfc finances at around 2 and a half years after the Dec 2020 takeover.
Takeover was I think 84% for £170m valuing the club at c£202m. Financed as I recall £65m bank loan, £90m bfc cash, £15m ALK raised cash. Since then some small shareholders bought out so majority ownership now above the 84%.
Has anyone got a ball-park idea of how things stand now, several changes since Dec 2020, too many for me to follow.

[Paul Waine]

Trying to picture bfc finances at around 2 and a half years after the Dec 2020 takeover.
Takeover was I think 84% for £170m valuing the club at c£202m. Financed as I recall £65m bank loan, £90m bfc cash, £15m ALK raised cash. Since then some small shareholders bought out so majority ownership now above the 84%.
Has anyone got a ball-park idea of how things stand now, several changes since Dec 2020, too many for me to follow.

Lots of discussion and debate on this thread from early May following the publication of the club's accounts for year end 31st July 2022. The accounts are available to read on BFC website. Of course, you then need to be able to make projections forward up to 31st July 2023. These accounts aren't due for publication until 30th April 2024 (9 months after year end date). The accounts 31st July 2022 also include some "events after the balance sheet date." This discloses that the remaining balance of MSD loan of £65 million was settled in November 2022. A new loan was taken out for (just under) £40 million at more favourable (lower) interest rates. The accounts don't say who has lent this money. The Mission to Burnley film includes a passing mention that somewhere around £7 million of this new loan has since been repaid. The 31st July 2022 doesn't say anything about Sean Dyche's departure - no mention of any payoff. Mission to Burnley mentions that Sean Dyche and his team continued as a cost into Championship season. This will have ended when Sean Dyche was appointed at Everton. June, filing at Companies House showed that the club had taken out a loan facility from Macquarie - secured against Premier League tv money. No indication of the amount. It may be more of a revolving credit facility than a fixed amount, depending on the club's transfer market needs for cash. What else do we know? JJ Watt and Kealia Watt introduced as new investors. Similarly, Dude Perfect. More recently, new director announced - which suggests another new investor - and possibly, more significant amount that Watts and Dude Perfect. Again, looking at Mission to Burnley other new faces appear. Some (all?) apparently mormons. Maybe they are also new investors. But, all of this latter stuff is in the area of "we don't really know." For me, it fits with ALK/VSL intention to add investors. What the financial numbers from this we may learn more with 31st July 2023 accounts - or we may need to wait until we see 31st July 2024 accounts. It's also possible that we will never see firm evidence of how much new investor money. Transfer market activity suggests there is more backing than the club had in previous seasons. But, then the model is a model that also aims to bring money in by selling players at higher values than the club paid for them. We can all enjoy the ride.

Exciting times.

UTC

[bfc8]

Lots of discussion and debate on this thread from early May following the publication of the club's accounts for year end 31st July 2022. The accounts are available to read on BFC website. Of course, you then need to be able to make projections forward up to 31st July 2023. These accounts aren't due for publication until 30th April 2024 (9 months after year end date). The accounts 31st July 2022 also include some "events after the balance sheet date." This discloses that the remaining balance of MSD loan of £65 million was settled in November 2022. A new loan was taken out for (just under) £40 million at more favourable (lower) interest rates. The accounts don't say who has lent this money. The Mission to Burnley film includes a passing mention that somewhere around £7 million of this new loan has since been repaid. The 31st July 2022 doesn't say anything about Sean Dyche's departure - no mention of any payoff. Mission to Burnley mentions that Sean Dyche and his team continued as a cost into Championship season. This will have ended when Sean Dyche was appointed at Everton. June, filing at Companies House showed that the club had taken out a loan facility from Macquarie - secured against Premier League tv money. No indication of the amount. It may be more of a revolving credit facility than a fixed amount, depending on the club's transfer market needs for cash. What else do we know? JJ Watt and Kealia Watt introduced as new investors. Similarly, Dude Perfect. More recently, new director announced - which suggests another new investor - and possibly, more significant amount that Watts and Dude Perfect. Again, looking at Mission to Burnley other new faces appear. Some (all?) apparently mormons. Maybe they are also new investors. But, all of this latter stuff is in the area of "we don't really know." For me, it fits with ALK/VSL intention to add investors. What the financial numbers from this we may learn more with 31st July 2023 accounts - or we may need to wait until we see 31st July 2024 accounts. It's also possible that we will never see firm evidence of how much new investor money. Transfer market activity suggests there is more backing than the club had in previous seasons. But, then the model is a model that also aims to bring money in by selling players at higher values than the club paid for them. We can all enjoy the ride.

Exciting times.

UTC

Sounds as if the bank loan £65m now a new loan currently maybe £33m and bfc cash £90m also reduced somewhat.

[Vegas Claret]

thank **** we didn't get Elkashashy

[gawthorpe_view]

thank **** we didn't get Elkashashy

Or Shackleton, White, Ingleby...

[Foshiznik]

still no announcement (or indeed inclusion in the various official Partner listings on the club website) but as we have seen today Uphold is Burnley FC's new sleeve sponsor


Uphold sleeve sponsor.JPG


We have gone full blown Gambling and Crypto it would seem - though few will be bothered by it

I’ve just noticed the article with regards to Uphold CP.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/con ... ve-partner

[Chester Perry]

It is the first of the month - so here is my regular reminder (and I know there is a lot going on today)

Calder Vale Holdings Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially 11 months late (though would be 14 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

Kettering Capital Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially over 10 months late (though would be 13 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

given Companies House ended a Gazette Notice at Kettering following discussion between the relevant parties - so something is happening, but what and when will this be resolved and more interestingly why has the media studiously avoided looking into this situation given the role these entities play in the ownership structure.

[arise_sir_charge]

It is the first of the month - so here is my regular reminder (and I know there is a lot going on today)

Calder Vale Holdings Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially 11 months late (though would be 14 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

Kettering Capital Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially over 10 months late (though would be 13 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

given Companies House ended a Gazette Notice at Kettering following discussion between the relevant parties - so something is happening, but what and when will this be resolved and more interestingly why has the media studiously avoided looking into this situation given the role these entities play in the ownership structure.

In answer to your last question, it’s because nobody actually cares. It will only be news if some form of strike off ever actually occurs.

[claretonthecoast1882]

It is the first of the month - so here is my regular reminder (and I know there is a lot going on today)

Calder Vale Holdings Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially 11 months late (though would be 14 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

Kettering Capital Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially over 10 months late (though would be 13 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

given Companies House ended a Gazette Notice at Kettering following discussion between the relevant parties - so something is happening, but what and when will this be resolved and more interestingly why has the media studiously avoided looking into this situation given the role these entities play in the ownership structure.

My train was 25 minutes late last week, had they not changed the timetable it would have been 55 minutes late. They did change the timetable so it was 25 minutes not 55. Why you count the covid extension in your agenda is very strange.

On the plus side you might get 2 sets of accounts at the same time to feast on

[dsr]

My train was 25 minutes late last week, had they not changed the timetable it would have been 55 minutes late. They did change the timetable so it was 25 minutes not 55. Why you count the covid extension in your agenda is very strange.

On the plus side you might get 2 sets of accounts at the same time to feast on

The reason the covid extension is mentioned is because it emphasises that the company has now had 22 months since year end to prepare what (on the face of it) should be a fairly simple set of accounts. And for whatever reason, they have chosen not to.

The full information is there, and obviously you can be sympathetic about the covid and believe they have in reality only had 19 months, or you can be cynical about it and believe they have had 22. It's your choice. The information is there in full.

Whatever the reason for the delay is, it isn't because they can't work out the figures. Is it because they can't find an auditor to sign them off? Is it because they don't want something to appear on the public record? Anybody's guess. We don't know.

[aggi]

It is the first of the month - so here is my regular reminder (and I know there is a lot going on today)

...

and more interestingly why has the media studiously avoided looking into this situation given the role these entities play in the ownership structure.

Nobody cares may be a bit strong but it's a not very exciting, hard to explain story.

If the compulsory strike-off action was still underway it would be a bit more interesting but there isn't really much of a pay-off to the story as it stands.

[claretonthecoast1882]

The reason the covid extension is mentioned is because it emphasises that the company has now had 22 months since year end to prepare what (on the face of it) should be a fairly simple set of accounts. And for whatever reason, they have chosen not to.

The full information is there, and obviously you can be sympathetic about the covid and believe they have in reality only had 19 months, or you can be cynical about it and believe they have had 22. It's your choice. The information is there in full.

Whatever the reason for the delay is, it isn't because they can't work out the figures. Is it because they can't find an auditor to sign them off? Is it because they don't want something to appear on the public record? Anybody's guess. We don't know.

Well clearly someone is desperate for some kind of wrong doing to be occurring, while 99.99% of the fan base are obviously not quite the same

[dsr]

Well clearly someone is desperate for some kind of wrong doing to be occurring, while 99.99% of the fan base are obviously not quite the same

It can be difficult to read between the lines, especially if there's only one line in the post. Unless of course I'm not one of the two people you have in mind.

[aggi]

Looks like Mike Garlick and John B's involvement is coming to an end. Both resigned as directors.

Oversaw our most successful period in probably the last 50 years. Don't think anyone expected just how successful we'd be when they came in.

[Darnhill Claret]

It was always just a matter of time.

[Swizzlestick]

Officially resigned on 30th June.

[NewClaret]

Some money has come from somewhere, that’s for sure.

[Paul Waine]

Best wishes Mike Garlick, Best wishes John B. Thanks for all you've done for Burnley Football Club.

Welcome Vlad T as new director.

All details now filed at Companies House.

UTC

[Casper2]

Best wishes Mike Garlick, Best wishes John B. Thanks for all you've done for Burnley Football Club.

Welcome Vlad T as new director.

All details now filed at Companies House.

UTC

Thanks to Burnley Football Club for all it’s done for Garlick and John B

[FeedTheArf]

Don't think anyone expected just how successful we'd be when they came in.

Including them, I suspect!

[Devils_Advocate]

Thanks to Burnley Football Club for all it’s done for Garlick and John B

And thanks to the Beatles for all its done for John Lennon and Paul McCartney

[Chester Perry]

Interesting move

ALK Capital Limited whose second set of accounts (for the period end of September 30 2022) were technically overdue has now changed that period end to December 31 2022 - which now makes them due at the end of this month

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

My take is that it looks like we may be in for a large set of overdue account submissions from the ALK/VSL group of UK registered companies

we will wait and see if the other ALK/VSL companies move to the same period end date, which may be a stepping stone to aligning with the clubs period end date - which should make reporting easier all round going forward, as previously discussed.

[Chester Perry]

Officially resigned on 30th June.

which makes the statutory filing with Companies House over 7 weeks late - the requirement is for it to be posted within 14 days I understand

I suspect that the resignation was part of the takeover deal, MG and JB were there until the payments were made - interestingly the final payment due on the June 30 2023 was made until July 7th 2023 (late like every other payment) so this date appears to be arbitrary.

[IanMcL]

Best wishes Mike Garlick, Best wishes John B. Thanks for all you've done for Burnley Football Club.

Welcome Vlad T as new director.

All details now filed at Companies House.

UTC

Can we have the club's money back please?

[Chester Perry]

Can we have the club's money back please?

Technically, just short of £50m of the club's money has been used to buy shares according to the club's own accounts (some of which went to the small shareholders) - a £65m loan (from MSD UK Holdings Limited) was also used together with funds from ALK/VSL partners funding the rest (mainly used in the latter stage payments as new partners came on board) if we assume that is how the final stage payment was made.

Of course the club had to carry the burden of the MSD loan together with its replacement from a lender that currently remains unknown - even to shareholders in Burnley FC Holdings Limited, despite requests as to the identity of the lender being made in the appropriate manner. The servicing of interest borne by the club is in excess of £11m and penalties for early repayments may total in excess of £9m though almost £7m of that was covered by the 2nd loan of circa £40m, which according to 'MtB' stood at around £33m earlier this year - what we do not know is if that loan reduction came directly from club funds or from ALK/VSL in the form of loan repayments from Calder Vale Holdings, which is the hoped for scenario (and possibly the more plausible).

What should be remembered about the previous owners is that they put their own monies directly into the club in return for new shares - £15m - £16m worth - with little expectation at the time of getting anything significant in return. They also made significant financial loans to the club (in excess of £10m) only seeking repayment when the club turned profits in the Premier League, though both MG and JB converted some loans into shares. It is a very different scenario for the founders of ALK/VSL even as their newer partners put money into that organisation, not the club, we are left hoping that debts to the club will be repaid.

[Paul Waine]

Interesting move

ALK Capital Limited whose second set of accounts (for the period end of September 30 2022) were technically overdue has now changed that period end to December 31 2022 - which now makes them due at the end of this month

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

My take is that it looks like we may be in for a large set of overdue account submissions from the ALK/VSL group of UK registered companies

we will wait and see if the other ALK/VSL companies move to the same period end date, which may be a stepping stone to aligning with the clubs period end date - which should make reporting easier all round going forward, as previously discussed.

Hi CP, given that the Premier League has voted to change the financial reporting submission date to 31st December, I wonder if the club will move its accounting period end to 30th June. This will re-align the accounting period with the football season - and shift any summer transfer window activity in July from one year into the next one. I don't know if this can be done retrospectively and I'm not sure exactly what Companies House rules are on declaring changes to period end dates. Maybe this will be a 2023/24 year end change, rather than 2022/23.

[aggi]

Technically, just short of £50m of the club's money has been used to buy shares according to the club's own accounts (some of which went to the small shareholders) - a £65m loan (from MSD UK Holdings Limited) was also used together with funds from ALK/VSL partners funding the rest (mainly used in the latter stage payments as new partners came on board) if we assume that is how the final stage payment was made.

Of course the club had to carry the burden of the MSD loan together with its replacement from a lender that currently remains unknown - even to shareholders in Burnley FC Holdings Limited, despite requests as to the identity of the lender being made in the appropriate manner. The servicing of interest borne by the club is in excess of £11m and penalties for early repayments may total in excess of £9m though almost £7m of that was covered by the 2nd loan of circa £40m, which according to 'MtB' stood at around £33m earlier this year - what we do not know is if that loan reduction came directly from club funds or from ALK/VSL in the form of loan repayments from Calder Vale Holdings, which is the hoped for scenario (and possibly the more plausible).

What should be remembered about the previous owners is that they put their own monies directly into the club in return for new shares - £15m - £16m worth - with little expectation at the time of getting anything significant in return. They also made significant financial loans to the club (in excess of £10m) only seeking repayment when the club turned profits in the Premier League, though both MG and JB converted some loans into shares. It is a very different scenario for the founders of ALK/VSL even as their newer partners put money into that organisation, not the club, we are left hoping that debts to the club will be repaid.

I think this is actually pretty generous. Given the club took the loan out you can easily say that the club used £115m of its money to buy shares (plus or minus whatever on fees, interest, etc. I can't remember the exact amounts).

Maybe there has been some repayment from Calder Vale to decrease that figure (although I doubt it) but as it stands there is nothing to suggest that.

[IanMcL]

So....Once upon a time, there was a locally owned football club.

The chairman brought in other 'local' directors, to assist the club.

The chairman got ill and had to step back, from his duties.

Two new chairman took over and became majority owners.

Then there was one and he wasn't a Highlander.

That one, got an agreement from other directors about disposal of their shares, 'for the good of the club'.

The club stored money for a rainy day or a new stand, depending on when the question was asked of the chairman. It is possible that a powder store was used for this purpose.

One day, the chairman announced that he and his fellows are only mildly rich millionaires and that although the club is full of money, possibly languishing in the powder store, 'extra' money is needed to ensure future success and even richer people are needed.

One day we all woke up and the chairman had taken all the shares from his fellows (as they had agreed previously) and sold them to other non local directors for vast sums, even though the new directors had less money that the other directors. They just had friendlier banks.

The chairman and his former co-chairman stayed for a bit, as the club (not the new directors or the banks) still owed lots of money to them.

Eventually, the club full of money in a powder store or similar, had no money at all. In fact it had just a huge debt.

The chairman and his former Co eventually, quietly, fade away, as they had introduced the new people to all the other chairmen at other clubs and had been paid.

All the money that was protecting the club was now in the personal strongbox of the chairman, his Co and the others who had to sell, because he had got them to agree...for the good of the club.

Now the club has only debt, which it pays itself, because it is the club and gets money from tv and stuff.

The new folk pay their debt with the clubs money too. Eventually, they will have no debt and the club will still have it all.

One day, the tv and stuff money might not be very much. Then the club with no ponder store might not be able to pay to keep itself going.

The new folk will have a cunning plan...or they better had.

The former chairman and his co can carry on basking in Claret and Blue currency.

Sometimes the big bad wolf gets away with it.

[Nori1958]

Yawn..

[roperclaret]

So....Once upon a time, there was a locally owned football club.

The chairman brought in other 'local' directors, to assist the club.

The chairman got ill and had to step back, from his duties.

Two new chairman took over and became majority owners.

Then there was one and he wasn't a Highlander.

That one, got an agreement from other directors about disposal of their shares, 'for the good of the club'.

The club stored money for a rainy day or a new stand, depending on when the question was asked of the chairman. It is possible that a powder store was used for this purpose.

One day, the chairman announced that he and his fellows are only mildly rich millionaires and that although the club is full of money, possibly languishing in the powder store, 'extra' money is needed to ensure future success and even richer people are needed.

One day we all woke up and the chairman had taken all the shares from his fellows (as they had agreed previously) and sold them to other non local directors for vast sums, even though the new directors had less money that the other directors. They just had friendlier banks.

The chairman and his former co-chairman stayed for a bit, as the club (not the new directors or the banks) still owed lots of money to them.

Eventually, the club full of money in a powder store or similar, had no money at all. In fact it had just a huge debt.

The chairman and his former Co eventually, quietly, fade away, as they had introduced the new people to all the other chairmen at other clubs and had been paid.

All the money that was protecting the club was now in the personal strongbox of the chairman, his Co and the others who had to sell, because he had got them to agree...for the good of the club.

Now the club has only debt, which it pays itself, because it is the club and gets money from tv and stuff.

The new folk pay their debt with the clubs money too. Eventually, they will have no debt and the club will still have it all.

One day, the tv and stuff money might not be very much. Then the club with no ponder store might not be able to pay to keep itself going.

The new folk will have a cunning plan...or they better had.

The former chairman and his co can carry on basking in Claret and Blue currency.

Sometimes the big bad wolf gets away with it.

If you owned a business that had £50 mill in the bank. And then you sold that business, wouldn’t you want to keep the £50 mill? BFC isn’t a community asset you know right?

[IanMcL]

If you owned a business that had £50 mill in the bank. And then you sold that business, wouldn’t you want to keep the £50 mill? BFC isn’t a community asset you know right?

The £50m was not really his. It was accumulated, for the good of the club, by the previous Chairman. He didn't do anything with it and cited rainy day and new stand as its purpose.

Then he took it.

Believe as you wish.

[ClaretPete001]

It will be interesting to see how sentiment changes if VK continues to try and play a CB at RB and a RB at LB with two fairly lightweight Centre mids...

My guess is we are now leveraged to the hilt but VK and ALK have performed miracles so hope springs eternal.

[Big Vinny K]

The £50m was not really his. It was accumulated, for the good of the club, by the previous Chairman. He didn't do anything with it and cited rainy day and new stand as its purpose.

Then he took it.

Believe as you wish.

You are demonstrating a startling lack of understanding of finance and how the ownership of companies and organisations works.

You reference the “club” and it’s monies like it’s some kind of separate entity.
It was never that under Garlick and co and it’s not now under Pace and co.

To think that Garlick built up the cash surplus for a rainy day is fanciful to say the least. He denied Dyche transfer spend for at least 2 years because he knew he was selling the club and this was going to be part of the sale. It was never the clubs money.

Of course we are now in debt. But the structure of the purchase had just as much to do with Garlick as it had with Pace. Garlick made a lot of money out of the sale - he probably deserved it. It was his (and others ) and they chose to do what they wanted with it.

One big bad Wolf sold it to another big bad Wolf. There’s lots of wolves in football.

[bfc8]

Saw a piece today about Everton and 777, govt a bit concerned with them apparently !

[bfc8]

Looks like the football regulator plan is progressing.
A useful thing he could do would be to instigate a form of plain finances for football clubs. I accept that their accounts, like other businesses, are complicated but a layman's version should be published with a simple income, expenditure, profit or loss statement and also a balance sheet setting out as simply as possible assets and liabilities.
Could even suggest published in the club programme or on the club web-site.

[ClaretTony]

The £50m was not really his. It was accumulated, for the good of the club, by the previous Chairman. He didn't do anything with it and cited rainy day and new stand as its purpose.

Then he took it.

Believe as you wish.

That's simply not true at all and potentially libellous. The former chairman sold his shareholding in the company for an agreed price. Whether he knew where the money was coming from or not, he legitimately received what he was entitled to.

[dsr]

That's simply not true at all and potentially libellous. The former chairman sold his shareholding in the company for an agreed price. Whether he knew where the money was coming from or not, he legitimately received what he was entitled to.

I think you're safe on that one, CT. There is no doubt at all that Garlick (and the others) took the money that had been previously held in the club, and there's no doubt that he knew where the money was coming from. (Firstly because you don't even sell a house without knowing where the money is coming from, and partly because as a director both before and after the takeover he was privy to details of where the club money was going). No-one has expressed doubt that he was legally entitled to do it, just whether it was morally right or in the best interest of the club. Garlick as director obviously felt it was in the best interest of the club; others may disagree.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I think you're safe on that one, CT. There is no doubt at all that Garlick (and the others) took the money that had been previously held in the club, and there's no doubt that he knew where the money was coming from. (Firstly because you don't even sell a house without knowing where the money is coming from, and partly because as a director both before and after the takeover he was privy to details of where the club money was going). No-one has expressed doubt that he was legally entitled to do it, just whether it was morally right or in the best interest of the club. Garlick as director obviously felt it was in the best interest of the club; others may disagree.

When you sell a house, do you ask the buyer where their money is coming from?
My sister is just about to finish the sale of hers and she’s never asked the buyers how they’re paying for it because it doesn’t really matter so long as the money is there

[aggi]

When you sell a house, do you ask the buyer where their money is coming from?
My sister is just about to finish the sale of hers and she’s never asked the buyers how they’re paying for it because it doesn’t really matter so long as the money is there

It is very standard to do so. Being in a chain, being a first buyer or a cash buyer or all going to impact the process and what offer you're going to accept.

[aggi]

Looks like the football regulator plan is progressing.
A useful thing he could do would be to instigate a form of plain finances for football clubs. I accept that their accounts, like other businesses, are complicated but a layman's version should be published with a simple income, expenditure, profit or loss statement and also a balance sheet setting out as simply as possible assets and liabilities.
Could even suggest published in the club programme or on the club web-site.

The trouble with this is that you can lose a lot of important stuff through trying to simplify it.

For instance, ALK boasted of something like Burnley's best ever Net Assets position (I can't remember if that was the exact claim but something very similar).

However, when you looked into the detail of the accounts it became clear that this was due to ALK owing the club £100m+. An amount that will very possibly never be repaid in cash terms.

[dsr]

When you sell a house, do you ask the buyer where their money is coming from?
My sister is just about to finish the sale of hers and she’s never asked the buyers how they’re paying for it because it doesn’t really matter so long as the money is there

Yes, you always ask where the money is coming from. In almost all cases, it will be the solicitor's client account - the keys won't be handed over until the money is actually in your solicitor's account.

In this case, obviously, the money wouldn't be in any solicitor's account, but Garlick would have known exactly where it was. You don't sell £170m of shares to a man who hasn't got £170m unless you know where he's going to find the cash.

[bfc8]

The trouble with this is that you can lose a lot of important stuff through trying to simplify it.

For instance, ALK boasted of something like Burnley's best ever Net Assets position (I can't remember if that was the exact claim but something very similar).

However, when you looked into the detail of the accounts it became clear that this was due to ALK owing the club £100m+. An amount that will very possibly never be repaid in cash terms.

Take your point.
One of my jobs at work was to explain complicated finance to laymen. Made simple, but not losing key important features.
I see the office of the football regulator having a person or people who can dissect published accounts, ask questions, and then present the material in a way people can understand.
There may be issues of confidentiality, but that's for the regulator and his/her team to work on.
Good luck to them, wish them well.