Alan Pace

[dsr]

You can't have sacking Sean Dyche as a positive but leave out giving him a 4 year contract as a negative.

I agree about the corporates, but not the flashing screens, and the new TVs are significantly worse than the old.

[Swizzlestick]

I don't say there was anyone specific he could have sold the club to, just that if he had been willing to take a significantly lower bid there would have been more bids on the table.

Whether he should have taken less to try and safeguard the club, or whether he should have maximised his own profit with less regard for the future of the club, is arguable. (It's also arguable how far he chose one option ahead of the other.) But he had the option of taking less and looking for a "better" buyer.

How significantly should he have devalued the club? Not convinced we’d have that much of a better buyer to be honest with you - indeed, one wonders the chancers who would’ve appeared on the scene if there was such a significant asset available at a bargain bucket cost.

[KateR]

Businesses are different. In business the primary reason for existence is profit. Leveraged buyouts is a system designed to extract profit. The former owner takes the profit, the new owner takes the existing business with its profits stripped out. Fine where businesses are concerned.

Football clubs are (or ought to be) different. The continued future of the club is (or should be) more important than profit. This leveraged buyout has taken a lorryload of profit out of the club and has severely restricted the future spending power of the club. Deals which are all about profit are not good for football.

that's you opinion and probably the majority of people, but not everyone, it's fine for me, obviously I would change my mind if it was failing but to me we look fine for now and I'll wait until the end of the season to see how it's panned out.

[Swizzlestick]

Also, it wasn’t like Garlick had all the time in the world to be reviewing numerous bids for the club. His relationship with Dyche was rock bottom and he probably wasn’t far from walking (unthinkable at the time).

[Quickenthetempo]

I don't believe in discussing this subject on a matchday.

Come on you Clarets.

[Chester Perry]

If the summer of 2018 taught us anything, it is that a transfer window can only really be judged at a much later date, when we have seen the outcome of the contribution the incomings have made both on the field and in resale, this idea of trying to turn a profit on players is not a Pace invention at our club, it was first used (and successfully for a period by Bob Lord) eventually you can get caught out, by selling to many or not enough. The Garlick reign was similar and nobody should negate the Covid impact on cashflow that truly smashed what could have happened in the summer of 2020 as so much room appeared in the wage budget (in normal circumstances)

Personally I thought there were two issues last summer (both at the time and still upon reflection) - first the majority of signings were not made/influenced by Dyche. Second and probably more important especially in a time of relatively low churn was that Dyche could have really freshened up the atmosphere by bringing in a new first team coach that was not familiar to him or the players = the promotion of Steve Stone felt a bad move then and appears to have been awful in hindsight. Dyche liked to model himself on Ferguson, and that was the trick that got United successfully through the early Glazer years when funds and options were tight

The past summer has been a whirlwind, fans are certainly re-energised and voting with their feet, it looks like for the first time a relegation will have little or no impact on matchday revenues, retail and the catering income - all positives for VSL

Pace owes the club £112m+. He has to take some of the responsibility for borrowing all that money, for which the club has to take out loans at massive interest rates and has had to sell most of the saleable assets and replace them with cheaper ones.

As a chairman who is managing the situation where we had to sell assets and replace them with cheaper ones, he is doing a fine job so far. If only he will repay the £112m+, I'll be happy!

I find it surprising that many seem to think that the cash extraction has now ended, there are still outstanding stage payments for shares, the various payments to MSD (interest and enforced capital reduction with penalties) not forgetting the intention to spend a further to acquire the remaining shares of the original sellers.

without adding in the £10m advance we were told about in the last accounts this calendar year will likely see an additional £75m + taken out of the club to fund takeover commitments which will be spread over to reporting periods
- £35m+ to MSD in capital reduction and penalties (that last payment of £12,237,986.25 being the clearest indicator yet that a penalty was paid - would MSD really demand 49.596901923% as a specified capital reduction
- Circa £4.5m in Interest payments to add to the circa £3m from last year not in the last accounts
- Circa £37m in stage payments

The next calendar year sees the final £21m in stage payments due (anyone thinking relegation brought a price reduction should see aggi's comments in the latest MSD thread, I believe that one has been put to bed.

If we don't go up there will be a further MSD capital balance reduction (with penalties) my guess is another £20m including penalties taking us close to £15m outstanding

Promotion may or may not see us increase the loan again, even finally see VSL bring in a new investor,

one thing for promotion or otherwise, next summer is likely to see a significant churn in the playing squad again, probably not on this summers scale but still significant numbers

Am I enjoying the football currently - yes
Am I reserving judgement on what is happening at the moment and has happened over the summer - absolutely
Do I wish Pace and co good fortune - yes, though only for the sake of the club, fans and town

[CrosspoolClarets]

The sum total of my life following Burnley is the on the pitch entertainment and off the pitch “experience”. I have no other financial stake.

The latter remains dodgy, a battle to even get to the loos at half time and queueing up for things of poor quality whether it be food or beer is largely pointless.

However the on the pitch has potential to one of the all time great periods if pace and flair are matched with 2 points per game. If that style continued successfully in the Premier League it would be incredible.

So, even though I have always known that there is much more needing to be paid to old owners or creditors, as Chester outlines above, and that the future may yet be grim due to that sale decision, I prefer to just sit back and enjoy it whilst giving Alan my tentative support. Contrasting to owners like the Oystons when Blackpool went down, and even Bournemouth and Leicester now who have seemingly decided to shut up shop financially so are looking at a grim season, and we may have a good relative experience as fans.

[LowtonClaret]

You can say it as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. It was Pace who put forward the chancer like offer and Garlick accepted it. Both are responsible for the financial shambles, blaming solely one party is just bizarre and stupid.

So it's both of them then! So who do you blame then? Or is just business! If neither is directly to blame directly, are you arguing with shadows! Pace had the vision, greedy arse wanted money so c'mon, who's at fault? I would say nobody! Yes we have debt but who doesn't. It's certainly manageable just like your mortgage. If we end up on the bones of our arse, I'll agree with your opinion but it won't happen.

[Vegas Claret]

You can say it as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. It was Pace who put forward the chancer like offer and Garlick accepted it. Both are responsible for the financial shambles, blaming solely one party is just bizarre and stupid.

that's pure 100% nonsense. It's bog standard practice in America to do sports deals like this. All he did was make an offer, you're ire should be directed at Garlick and the Premier League for allowing it.

[Quickenthetempo]

that's pure 100% nonsense. It's bog standard practice in America to do sports deals like this. All he did was make an offer, you're ire should be directed at Garlick and the Premier League for allowing it.

Garlick put the club up for sale at what it was valued at.

ALAN PACE has taken money out the club, not Garlick.

[taio]

that's pure 100% nonsense. It's bog standard practice in America to do sports deals like this. All he did was make an offer, you're ire should be directed at Garlick and the Premier League for allowing it.

Not 100% nonsense; 100 true.

[Vegas Claret]

Garlick put the club up for sale at what it was valued at.

ALAN PACE has taken money out the club, not Garlick.

who agreed to the terms of the sale ? It's that basic

[KRBFC]

that's pure 100% nonsense. It's bog standard practice in America to do sports deals like this. All he did was make an offer, you're ire should be directed at Garlick and the Premier League for allowing it.

Both are equally as responsible in my eyes, blaming just one party doesn't make any logical sense.

[daveisaclaret]

You can't blame Alan Pace for doing something bad because it's bog standard in America. **** me.

[Vegas Claret]

Both are equally as responsible in my eyes, blaming just one party doesn't make any logical sense.

Baffles me how anyone can criticize someone for putting an offer in for something. Garlick and the PL new the terms of the sale so they shouldn't have allowed it. Like I said, bog standard practice in the US. I have no issue at all with people disliking the terms of the sale (i'd be surprised if any of us are happy with it) but to blame someone for putting an offer in is mental. Haven't the PL have stopped it from happening again ? (which says it all)

[taio]

who agreed to the terms of the sale ? It's that basic

What's really simple and basic is that it takes two parties - the seller and the buyer - to agree the business transaction.

[Vegas Claret]

What's really simple and basic is that it takes two parties - the seller and the buyer - to agree the business transaction.

so had the seller had the best interest of the club at heart he would have said no - it's that simple. He only had to say no (as did the PL)

[daveisaclaret]

Baffles me how anyone can criticize someone for putting an offer in for something. Garlick and the PL new the terms of the sale so they shouldn't have allowed it. Like I said, bog standard practice in the US. I have no issue at all with people disliking the terms of the sale (i'd be surprised if any of us are happy with it) but to blame someone for putting an offer in is mental. Haven't the PL have stopped it from happening again ? (which says it all)

Could you give an example of a leveraged buyout in major US sports? I only follow one but it seems to me that in any major league sport the other owners would immediately vote against a takeover by anyone who didn't have the money to run a team and it wouldn't happen. Happy to be proven wrong.

[taio]

so had the seller had the best interest of the club at heart he would have said no - it's that simple. He only had to say no (as did the PL)

You could say the same about the buyer.

And to be honest I couldn't give a **** if it's standard practice in the US.

That's hardly a good argument.

[LowtonClaret]

To be honest, Pace bought an aging squad, give it a chance. Sold quality players who wanted to leave. Bought sellable skilled players. Brought in a manger who can bring quality in. Changed our style of football. Yes in a little debt but fxxking enjoy the ride. Pace will be in it for profit but I'm on board the joy ride! After 30 years as a claret, I'm with Pace xx

[Vegas Claret]

Could you give an example of a leveraged buyout in major US sports? I only follow one but it seems to me that in any major league sport the other owners would immediately vote against a takeover by anyone who didn't have the money to run a team and it wouldn't happen. Happy to be proven wrong.

I meant leveraged buy outs, not specifically sports, my bad for putting sports (but it's coming)

[Vegas Claret]

You could say the same about the buyer.

And to be honest I couldn't give a **** if it's standard practice in the US.

That's hardly a good argument.

it wasn't intended to be an argument

[daveisaclaret]

I meant leveraged buy outs, not specifically sports, my bad for putting sports (but it's coming)

It's not coming, major league sport will never ever allow a takeover like ours.

[Chester Perry]

Haven't the PL have stopped it from happening again ? (which says it all)

No they haven't

The FA have made noises about it in the wake of the fan led review, to try and get onside with the government who are threatening to take away a lot of their regulatory power with IREF, but it is unlikely a conservative government (or any other tbf) is going to prevent a leveraged takeover.

If anything leveraged takeovers are more likely to be indirectly blocked by the new football sustainability regulations from UEFA which are going to flow down into League Football.

[Vegas Claret]

No they haven't

The FA have made noises about it in the wake of the fan led review, to try and get onside with the government who are threatening to take away a lot of their regulatory power with IREF, but it is unlikely a conservative government (or any other tbf) is going to prevent a leveraged takeover.

If anything leveraged takeovers are more likely to be indirectly blocked by the new football sustainability regulations from UEFA which are going to flow down into League Football.

I knew I'd heard/read something about someone wanting to put a stop to it

[NewClaret]

No they haven't

The FA have made noises about it in the wake of the fan led review, to try and get onside with the government who are threatening to take away a lot of their regulatory power with IREF, but it is unlikely a conservative government (or any other tbf) is going to prevent a leveraged takeover.

If anything leveraged takeovers are more likely to be indirectly blocked by the new football sustainability regulations from UEFA which are going to flow down into League Football.

Good stuff, hopefully UEFA, who are a chocolate teapot as far as I’m concerned, do something our successive government didn’t/can’t.

Nothing would please me more.

[dsr]

that's pure 100% nonsense. It's bog standard practice in America to do sports deals like this. All he did was make an offer, you're ire should be directed at Garlick and the Premier League for allowing it.

There are all sorts of things Pace can do to this club, starting with removing £112m+ from the bank account, and moving on if need be to building houses on Turf Moor and closing the club down. He's the owner, he can do that.

But just because he can do those things, needn't stop some of us objecting to the former and probably more of us (perhaps even including yourself?) objecting if he tried to do the latter.

[dsr]

So it's both of them then! So who do you blame then? Or is just business! If neither is directly to blame directly, are you arguing with shadows! Pace had the vision, greedy arse wanted money so c'mon, who's at fault? I would say nobody! Yes we have debt but who doesn't. It's certainly manageable just like your mortgage. If we end up on the bones of our arse, I'll agree with your opinion but it won't happen.

Of course it's manageable, just like a mortgage. But I'll bet it's not like your mortgage. I'm guessing, of course, but I bet when you got a mortgage, you used the money to buy a house, and you live in that house, thus getting the benefit of the mortgage.

If I'm wrong, and you used the money to give an interest-free loan to a stranger while getting no benefit at all, then I apologise and then I would accept that what BFC did is just like your mortgage. But I'd think you were a fool if you did that.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Good stuff, hopefully UEFA, who are a chocolate teapot as far as I’m concerned, do something our successive government didn’t/can’t.

Nothing would please me more.

Leveraged buyouts are common place in business, no government would stop them, red or blue.
It's just football that causes people to get more emotional about them.

[dsr]

Leveraged buyouts are common place in business, no government would stop them, red or blue.
It's just football that causes people to get more emotional about them.

Like a lot of things in football. Our emotional attachment to our football club is a lot greater than for other businesses we patronise, and many of us see BFC as more than just a profit-making entity.

Woolworth's had loads more customers than Burnley FC, but I bet more people would be seriously upset if Burnley's takeover saw the club fold, then were seriously upset when Woolworth's folded for the same reason.

[forzagranata]

that's pure 100% nonsense. It's bog standard practice in America to do sports deals like this. All he did was make an offer, you're ire should be directed at Garlick and the Premier League for allowing it.

Can you give an example of an NFL or NBA team which was bought through a leveraged takeover that placed massive debt on the club?

[NewClaret]

Leveraged buyouts are common place in business, no government would stop them, red or blue.
It's just football that causes people to get more emotional about them.

Agree.

I think football clubs are a community asset, not a business, and should undoubtedly be subject to different t/o rules (as much as I also think Pace has done a brilliant job, I don’t think the structure should be allowed).

[Vegas Claret]

There are all sorts of things Pace can do to this club, starting with removing £112m+ from the bank account, and moving on if need be to building houses on Turf Moor and closing the club down. He's the owner, he can do that.

But just because he can do those things, needn't stop some of us objecting to the former and probably more of us (perhaps even including yourself?) objecting if he tried to do the latter.

I agree with everything you've put but that isn't the point I'm making

Are we blaming Pace and Swansea for us not signing Obafemi ?

[dsr]

I agree with everything you've put but that isn't the point I'm making

Are we blaming Pace and Swansea for us not signing Obafemi ?

No, not at all. Pace as an active Chairman working for the club, that's fine. It's Pace as a shareholder who has taken over £100m out of the club and forced the club to pay north of £10m interest on the money we had to borrow so he could take it - that's the Pace I blame for our likely future ills.

Though if we hadn't had to pay MSD all that interest, perhaps we could have bought Obafemi.

[ClaretPete001]

Leveraged buyouts are a perfectly legitimate way was of purchasing an asset if the purchaser brings something to the table like capital, expertise, a portfolio of products etc.

It may well be that a business is cash rich, as a course of normal trading, and the cash is not working hard enough and a new owner can leverage new opportunities by spending the cash. I think that Man Utd was ripe for such a takeover because traditional forms of football ownership are simply not suited to a billion dollar corporations.

In this case the purchasers brought nothing of consequence to the table and simply transferred the risk of their investment to the asset while taking the rewards.

[ClaretPete001]

No, not at all. Pace as an active Chairman working for the club, that's fine. It's Pace as a shareholder who has taken over £100m out of the club and forced the club to pay north of £10m interest on the money we had to borrow so he could take it - that's the Pace I blame for our likely future ills.

Though if we hadn't had to pay MSD all that interest, perhaps we could have bought Obafemi.

Prior to joining this board, I would never have imagined that any group of people would think it better to spend £80 million on shares while substantively diminishing the productive assets of the business.

You live and learn..

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Can you give an example of an NFL or NBA team which was bought through a leveraged takeover that placed massive debt on the club?

NFL have rules in place that prevent it, they prefer individual ownership over a business group owning a franchise and their rules reflect that.

The NBA is even more complicated but again they prefer individual owners with their rules reflecting that

NHL -- Arizona Coyotes were purchased under a leveraged buyout, Montreal Canadians are another, also Dallas Stars are another I think but that LBO is connected to Tom Hicks (one of the men who did the LBO of Liverpool FC a few years ago which people have forgotten about)
There was even the possibility of the actual NHL itself being purchased using an LBO, but it never happened in the end

MLB - I can't find one that's happened.

MLS - hasn't happened yet

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Agree.

I think football clubs are a community asset, not a business, and should undoubtedly be subject to different t/o rules (as much as I also think Pace has done a brilliant job, I don’t think the structure should be allowed).

Football clubs are both a business and a community asset

The rules would need to be overhauled by the FA, or Uefa if they so wish

[DCWat]

NFL have rules in place that prevent it, they prefer individual ownership over a business group owning a franchise and their rules reflect that.

The NBA is even more complicated but again they prefer individual owners with their rules reflecting that

NHL -- Arizona Coyotes were purchased under a leveraged buyout, Montreal Canadians are another, also Dallas Stars are another I think but that LBO is connected to Tom Hicks (one of the men who did the LBO of Liverpool FC a few years ago which people have forgotten about)
There was even the possibility of the actual NHL itself being purchased using an LBO, but it never happened in the end

MLB - I can't find one that's happened.

MLS - hasn't happened yet

One or two Liverpool fans probably haven’t forgotten about Hicks and Gillett.

[ClaretPete001]

NFL have rules in place that prevent it, they prefer individual ownership over a business group owning a franchise and their rules reflect that.

The NBA is even more complicated but again they prefer individual owners with their rules reflecting that

NHL -- Arizona Coyotes were purchased under a leveraged buyout, Montreal Canadians are another, also Dallas Stars are another I think but that LBO is connected to Tom Hicks (one of the men who did the LBO of Liverpool FC a few years ago which people have forgotten about)
There was even the possibility of the actual NHL itself being purchased using an LBO, but it never happened in the end

MLB - I can't find one that's happened.

MLS - hasn't happened yet

And how many of those owners are billionaires.....?

[Swizzlestick]

How many are billionaires indeed, Pete.

[forzagranata]

NFL have rules in place that prevent it, they prefer individual ownership over a business group owning a franchise and their rules reflect that.

The NBA is even more complicated but again they prefer individual owners with their rules reflecting that

NHL -- Arizona Coyotes were purchased under a leveraged buyout, Montreal Canadians are another, also Dallas Stars are another I think but that LBO is connected to Tom Hicks (one of the men who did the LBO of Liverpool FC a few years ago which people have forgotten about)
There was even the possibility of the actual NHL itself being purchased using an LBO, but it never happened in the end

MLB - I can't find one that's happened.

MLS - hasn't happened yet

Indeed - there is no way the NFL would allow anything like this. Neither would Major League Soccer. And in the next year or two they will very likely be banned from happening in English football too.