ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

I'm going to be brave or foolish but here goes (please go easy on me!).

Now that our lads have secured promotion what do you, Chester and the other financially-aware posters, think will happen with the PL money?

By that, how much will go towards paying off some of our debt?

I do appreciate this is a very basic question but it's clearly essential.

I also realise before we even consider debt repayment the club will have to fork out a lot of money on promotion-related bonuses.

Many thanks to those of you who reply.

UTC

First things first - no one outside the club knows what the current levels of debt are

We do not even know what the levels of debt were when it all transferred to MGG in January 2024 - since then an awful lot has happened including a relegation and the sell off of a lot of talent -
- Did we face an early repayment obligation with that relegation?
- Have we made further repayments?
- Has the main loan with MGG closed leaving just the one linked to the previous factoring of TV monies?
or
- Have we now just the one primary lender in Fasanara Capital Ltd?

If it is the latter then the debt is no more than £40m to Fasanara and probably around £5m - £8m to MGG from the previous factoring deal.

If the MGG loan is now essentially secured against the £124.1m debt that Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd owes the club, then the debt could easily be around £100m or more across the two lenders.

A little more (though probably not a great deal) will be understood when the 2023/24 accounts are released in the next week or so

I am inclined to believe it is the former of the two, as this fits in with what happened in 2022 (MSD paid off and a new lender putting the club in a financial holding pattern until promotion was confirmed) meaning that currently the debt has been significantly reduced

Obligations this summer combined with a desire to strengthen will (in my view) almost certainly see us expand the debt rather than contract it - maybe with a new set of factoring deals on TV and possibly even outgoing transfers.

There are two jokers that could be played by Velocity (as ALK/VSL now like to call themselves) one is a potential settlement with Everton, the other is making use of the cash holding Velocity have to inject funds into the club either by a commercial loan of their own (Premier League rules will insist that from a PSR perspective will carry commercial levels of interest, which can be applied as a paper exercise) or via a repayment of part/all the monies owed to the club

the other thing to remember is that we will have a large level of transfer debt which will still likely be greater than what is due in - all that could change if Trafford and Esteve are sold

Pace and Co are far from stupid with finances, bullish and confident yes, certainly more than most of us, but not crazy. Debt is something they (like many in business and certainly in finance) see as a tool to help them achieve their ambitions. For me, it only really works if we are more stable (by retaining Premier League status and) and not having to constantly refinance (the associated costs of doing so are sizable) every 6 - 12 months. What I do not see under this ownership is the debt being fully removed.

[Vegas Claret]

maybe utterly naively, but I'm hoping that because we've bounced back yet again at the first time of asking that any potential investors would be more bullish about the club and the risk of relegation.

[ecc]

First things first - no one outside the club knows what the current levels of debt are

We do not even know what the levels of debt were when it all transferred to MGG in January 2024 - since then an awful lot has happened including a relegation and the sell off of a lot of talent -
- Did we face an early repayment obligation with that relegation?
- Have we made further repayments?
- Has the main loan with MGG closed leaving just the one linked to the previous factoring of TV monies?
or
- Have we now just the one primary lender in Fasanara Capital Ltd?

If it is the latter then the debt is no more than £40m to Fasanara and probably around £5m - £8m to MGG from the previous factoring deal.

If the MGG loan is now essentially secured against the £124.1m debt that Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd owes the club, then the debt could easily be around £100m or more across the two lenders.

A little more (though probably not a great deal) will be understood when the 2023/24 accounts are released in the next week or so

I am inclined to believe it is the former of the two, as this fits in with what happened in 2022 (MSD paid off and a new lender putting the club in a financial holding pattern until promotion was confirmed) meaning that currently the debt has been significantly reduced

Obligations this summer combined with a desire to strengthen will (in my view) almost certainly see us expand the debt rather than contract it - maybe with a new set of factoring deals on TV and possibly even outgoing transfers.

There are two jokers that could be played by Velocity (as ALK/VSL now like to call themselves) one is a potential settlement with Everton, the other is making use of the cash holding Velocity have to inject funds into the club either by a commercial loan of their own (Premier League rules will insist that from a PSR perspective will carry commercial levels of interest, which can be applied as a paper exercise) or via a repayment of part/all the monies owed to the club

the other thing to remember is that we will have a large level of transfer debt which will still likely be greater than what is due in - all that could change if Trafford and Esteve are sold

Pace and Co are far from stupid with finances, bullish and confident yes, certainly more than most of us, but not crazy. Debt is something they (like many in business and certainly in finance) see as a tool to help them achieve their ambitions. For me, it only really works if we are more stable (by retaining Premier League status and) and not having to constantly refinance (the associated costs of doing so are sizable) every 6 - 12 months. What I do not see under this ownership is the debt being fully removed.

Many thanks, Chester.

It's all very complicated but I suspect the financial truth of most clubs these days is also complicated. The game is no longer what it was.

We just have to hope SP does stay - I'm confident about that but football is football - and CJER signs a new deal. I'd like Josh Brownhill to stay but from both a playing and financial point of view CJER staying is of greater import as I see it.

Presuming SP does remain, we should hopefully see a much more organised summer of incoming/outgoing transfers.

[billyhamilton82]

First things first - no one outside the club knows what the current levels of debt are

We do not even know what the levels of debt were when it all transferred to MGG in January 2024 - since then an awful lot has happened including a relegation and the sell off of a lot of talent -
- Did we face an early repayment obligation with that relegation?
- Have we made further repayments?
- Has the main loan with MGG closed leaving just the one linked to the previous factoring of TV monies?
or
- Have we now just the one primary lender in Fasanara Capital Ltd?

If it is the latter then the debt is no more than £40m to Fasanara and probably around £5m - £8m to MGG from the previous factoring deal.

If the MGG loan is now essentially secured against the £124.1m debt that Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd owes the club, then the debt could easily be around £100m or more across the two lenders.

A little more (though probably not a great deal) will be understood when the 2023/24 accounts are released in the next week or so

I am inclined to believe it is the former of the two, as this fits in with what happened in 2022 (MSD paid off and a new lender putting the club in a financial holding pattern until promotion was confirmed) meaning that currently the debt has been significantly reduced

Obligations this summer combined with a desire to strengthen will (in my view) almost certainly see us expand the debt rather than contract it - maybe with a new set of factoring deals on TV and possibly even outgoing transfers.

There are two jokers that could be played by Velocity (as ALK/VSL now like to call themselves) one is a potential settlement with Everton, the other is making use of the cash holding Velocity have to inject funds into the club either by a commercial loan of their own (Premier League rules will insist that from a PSR perspective will carry commercial levels of interest, which can be applied as a paper exercise) or via a repayment of part/all the monies owed to the club

the other thing to remember is that we will have a large level of transfer debt which will still likely be greater than what is due in - all that could change if Trafford and Esteve are sold

Pace and Co are far from stupid with finances, bullish and confident yes, certainly more than most of us, but not crazy. Debt is something they (like many in business and certainly in finance) see as a tool to help them achieve their ambitions. For me, it only really works if we are more stable (by retaining Premier League status and) and not having to constantly refinance (the associated costs of doing so are sizable) every 6 - 12 months. What I do not see under this ownership is the debt being fully removed.

The board / owners / Pace have done an exceptional job and deserve huge credit.

They have proved the system DOES work although obviously no-one wants to get relegated and it is always going to make it more difficult but he has proved not once but twice that it is a sustainable model.

Debt / leverage is how modern business works, there are no concerns and only plaudits for a job very well done in extremely trying circumstances.

If Garlick had invested money in the team rather than storing it to make the club more saleable we would have still been in the Premier League.

Strangely to have money in the bank appeals to some fans and makes them feel more secure.

If money isn't invested in business, it dies.

We have much more savvy and business orientated set up and now matched with a similar minded manager we are a Premier League club once more and I for one am confident we can stay there.

This was Garlick's pre season budget for the 20-21 season which we only just managed to survive and obviously meant we were behind the curve in terms of quality recruitment and relegated the following season.

I would personally be very interested to know how much was in the bank whilst there was absolutely zero investment on the pitch as only one player played 3 games out of the list below and only one loan embarrassing for a Premier League club.

It would also help add some balance to the discussion.

Transfers in :

Will Norris - Undisclosed
Dane McCullough - Undisclosed
Jack Leckie- Undisclosed
Dan Sassi - Free transfer
Keelan Williams - Free transfer
Connor Barrett - Free transfer
Marcel Elva - Free transfer
Marc Richter - Free transfer
Ismaila Diallo - Free transfer
Dale Stephens - £1.1m
Owen Dodgson - Undisclosed
Calen Gallagher-Allis - Undisclosed
Arman Taranis - Free transfer

Loans in:

Anthony Gomez Mancini - Loan to end of season

[dsr]

The board / owners / Pace have done an exceptional job and deserve huge credit.

...

Strangely to have money in the bank appeals to some fans and makes them feel more secure.

If money isn't invested in business, it dies.

...

The board and owners have got huge credit. They owe the club £125m which they have borrowed interest free. Is that huge enough? (Of course, that was in 2023. We should find out the July 2024 figure in a few days' time, assuming of course that the club files its accounts on time - which is by no means a given.)

Having money in the bank may be a bad sign for the business, but that doesn't mean taking it out of the bank and pouring it down the drain is any better. Pace may be doing a good job as chairman, but then he ought to be - the club is paying over £10m per year to have him. You need a good chairman for that sort of money.

[billyhamilton82]

WOW !!!!

What is your take on the above transfer dealings the summer before Garlick sold the club?

I assume you believe that was great business because we had millions in the bank?

It certainly was for Mr Garlick.

[dsr]

WOW !!!!

What is your take on the above transfer dealings the summer before Garlick sold the club?

I assume you believe that was great business because we had millions in the bank?

It certainly was for Mr Garlick.

Why on earth would you assume that?

What's your take on the issue of spending that money in the bank? When Garlick was here, we had money in the bank. After Garlick and Pace did their deal, we had no money in the bank and we had heavy loan liabilities. It was poured down the drain. Not a penny of that money was spent on players, or on ground improvements, or on anything to the benefit of Burnley FC. Pace has got it, and I would be very surprised if he gives it back.

[Row x]

Why on earth would you assume that?

What's your take on the issue of spending that money in the bank? When Garlick was here, we had money in the bank. After Garlick and Pace did their deal, we had no money in the bank and we had heavy loan liabilities. It was poured down the drain. Not a penny of that money was spent on players, or on ground improvements, or on anything to the benefit of Burnley FC. Pace has got it, and I would be very surprised if he gives it back.

You've been asked before, and failed
How do you know Pace has it?

[Chester Perry]

You've been asked before, and failed
How do you know Pace has it?

Technically a company in the control of Pace received these monies from a company in the control of Pace. The cash was used to pay for shares in that second company and thus saw the monies transferred to those selling shares.

The key is that the liability for the return of those monies lies with a company in the control of Pace. Also given what we know from documents lodged in Jersey (that are available for public scrutiny) is that every time new investment comes into Velocity (as the ownership group now likes to refer to itself) the level of control Pace has over the company that owes those monies and the club itself increases

So in your pedantic nit-picking way - you are right that Pace has not pocketed the money.
It is also a fact that he is the one who has had the controlling influence over how it has been used and where it went.

Of course that extends to the cost against the club for those choices - DSR is right about that. It is worth considering in real terms - it would not be a surprise if the cost of borrowing and regularly refinancing is roughly on a par with matchday and retail income (not that will ever be disclosed in the accounts).

That is without adding in the so far £2.5m a season management fee for Velocity.

It is all well and good to say that Pace/Velocity are doing a good job (personally I think it is too early to tell, so far it is neither terrible or great) but you actually need to back up the claim with hard facts - I don't see enough from a business perspective as yet ,

[Chester Perry]

GetIntoEm that terminology has no place in the 21st Century

[Row x]

Technically a company in the control of Pace received these monies from a company in the control of Pace. The cash was used to pay for shares in that second company and thus saw the monies transferred to those selling shares.

The key is that the liability for the return of those monies lies with a company in the control of Pace. Also given what we know from documents lodged in Jersey (that are available for public scrutiny) is that every time new investment comes into Velocity (as the ownership group now likes to refer to itself) the level of control Pace has over the company that owes those monies and the club itself increases

So in your pedantic nit-picking way - you are right that Pace has not pocketed the money.
It is also a fact that he is the one who has had the controlling influence over how it has been used and where it went.

Of course that extends to the cost against the club for those choices - DSR is right about that. It is worth considering in real terms - it would not be a surprise if the cost of borrowing and regularly refinancing is roughly on a par with matchday and retail income (not that will ever be disclosed in the accounts).

That is without adding in the so far £2.5m a season management fee for Velocity.

It is all well and good to say that Pace/Velocity are doing a good job (personally I think it is too early to tell, so far it is neither terrible or great) but you actually need to back up the claim with hard facts - I don't see enough from a business perspective as yet ,

Hang on....my pedantic nitpicking that Pace hasn't pocketed the money, was in reply to somebody who stated,as a fact,that that was what he had done!!!! And not for the first time, which unless true could land this site in big trouble.a bit like when you called Pace a criminal, when in fact he's never been convicted of a criminal offence.

[dsr]

Hang on....my pedantic nitpicking that Pace hasn't pocketed the money, was in reply to somebody who stated,as a fact,that that was what he had done!!!! And not for the first time, which unless true could land this site in big trouble.a bit like when you called Pace a criminal, when in fact he's never been convicted of a criminal offence.

It isn't a criminal offence to take money out of a limited company. If it was, how would they ever pay dividends?

Pace's secretive group of companies (registered in foreign parts where disclosure details are not so rigorous as ours) owed Burnley FC £125m as at July 2023. The Burnley FC accounts say that, so if it's a lie, it's Pace's own lie and you should take it up with him. We will find out the July 2024 figure shortly.

[billyhamilton82]

It is all well and good to say that Pace/Velocity are doing a good job (personally I think it is too early to tell, so far it is neither terrible or great) but you actually need to back up the claim with hard facts - I don't see enough from a business perspective as yet ,

Again the first part of the post is as usual absolutely nothing in fact and just twaddle as 95% of this mammoth thread of nothingness.

The last sentence is funny on so many levels, genuine Burnley fan or just on the wind up?

As Burnley FC is a company that trades as a football club their performance is directly related to their performance on the pitch.

Therefore the hard facts are as follows :

Promotion to the Premier League x 2

Probably 2 x 100 point seasons, never been done before.

The best young squad in my lifetime with massive potential for growth in performance and transfer fees received.

2 x record breaking seasons for many reasons.

What do you consider a good job?

Maybe when Garlick left the club with loads of money in the bank but no player investment leading to relegation so he could sell the club, is that good business?

[Row x]

It isn't a criminal offence to take money out of a limited company. If it was, how would they ever pay dividends?

Pace's secretive group of companies (registered in foreign parts where disclosure details are not so rigorous as ours) owed Burnley FC £125m as at July 2023. The Burnley FC accounts say that, so if it's a lie, it's Pace's own lie and you should take it up with him. We will find out the July 2024 figure shortly.

Read the post....it's not me calling anyone a criminal

You still can't back up your accusations with facts, that Pace ( not a company) has pocketed 125m and is not going to give it back

[dsr]

Read the post....it's not me calling anyone a criminal

You still can't back up your accusations with facts, that Pace ( not a company) has pocketed 125m and is not going to give it back

No, you've made your clever point, Pace has not personally pocketed £125m, it's a company of which Pace is the beneficial owner. There is a technical legal difference but for practical purposes it's the same point.

There is no evidence that he will give it back. He has stated in the accounts that the loan might not be repaid. What makes you think he might repay it?

[Tall Paul]

No, you've made your clever point, Pace has not personally pocketed £125m, it's a company of which Pace is the beneficial owner. There is a technical legal difference but for practical purposes it's the same point.

Isn't he also the beneficial owner of Burnley FC? In which case he owes the money to himself.

[Paul Waine]

No, you've made your clever point, Pace has not personally pocketed £125m, it's a company of which Pace is the beneficial owner. There is a technical legal difference but for practical purposes it's the same point.

There is no evidence that he will give it back. He has stated in the accounts that the loan might not be repaid. What makes you think he might repay it?

Hi dsr, there are many people who are shareholders in the company that bought BFCHL. Of course, Alan Pace is one of them, but he's far from the only one.

Similarly, no one has "personally pocketed £125m." The company that acquired BFCHL has paid the money to the previous shareholders of BFCHL. Mike Garlick received the biggest share of the proceeds of BFCHL being sold by the previous shareholders to the new shareholders. John B received the second largest share. Barry Kilby also sold his shares when BFCHL was sold to the new owners. There were also many small shareholders who received money when they agreed to sell their shares.

BFCHL accounts reported £125m as receivable, 31-July-2023. That means that the money is treated in the accounts as though it will be paid back - very much the opposite from "the loan might not be repaid." Yes, one way the money will be repaid is as offset to the club declaring a dividend, where the dividend is declared and offset against the £125m receivable from ALK/Velocity.

As others have suggested, let's wait and see what is disclosed in the 31-July-2024 financial accounts.

A great game at QPR today. 0-5 win. Another exciting season. Let's see what happens on Monday evening and then early next Saturday afternoon.

UTC

[Cooclaret]

The hate against the Chairman is as funny as it is unbelievable.

He’s a brilliant chairman, and I’d have him over Garlick everyday of the week and twice in Sunday!

[Paul Waine]

The hate against the Chairman is as funny as it is unbelievable.

He’s a brilliant chairman, and I’d have him over Garlick everyday of the week and twice in Sunday!

How many club's would release a video of the players pouring an ice bucket, a very big ice bucket over the Chairman's head? How many clubs would we see one of the older players picking up the chairman in a celebratory hug?

[gandhisflipflop]

The hate against the Chairman is as funny as it is unbelievable.

He’s a brilliant chairman, and I’d have him over Garlick everyday of the week and twice in Sunday!

People who knock him are the very people who want a local club for local people. It’s a mentality that was debilitating to the club before paces arrival

[Quickenthetempo]

People who knock him are the very people who want a local club for local people. It’s a mentality that was debilitating to the club before paces arrival

Or are people who want the very best for Burnley football club but see being 100s of millions in debt as not helpful?

[blatherwickstattoos]

Or are people who want the very best for Burnley football club but see being 100s of millions in debt as not helpful?

I bet there are a handful of clubs not in massive debt. It’s just how it works these days

[Row x]

No, you've made your clever point, Pace has not personally pocketed £125m, it's a company of which Pace is the beneficial owner. There is a technical legal difference but for practical purposes it's the same point.

There is no evidence that he will give it back. He has stated in the accounts that the loan might not be repaid. What makes you think he might repay it?

Your quote from yesterday

"After Garlick and Pace did their deal, we had no money in the bank and we had heavy loan liabilities. It was poured down the drain. Not a penny of that money was spent on players, or on ground improvements, or on anything to the benefit of Burnley FC. Pace has got it, and I would be very surprised if he gives it back."

All I asked was how did you know that, and it appears that you didn't.

[steve1264b]

Our debt does worry me in the sense that if we step off the yo-yo promotion relegation and become Watford we will have big trouble.

Would i rather have prem football with people with local ties ensuring debt free accounts, obviously we all would.

However, we've got debt and it's probably well over 100 million. The next question is are the owners fly by night cowboys only interested in taking money out of the club?

Taking the whole picture into account, and the way they have reacted following relegation i would say not. They are here to make money, to do that they have to sell the club to another party.

To do that they have to make probably the least attractive club from a financial perspective desirable.

[dsr]

Your quote from yesterday

"After Garlick and Pace did their deal, we had no money in the bank and we had heavy loan liabilities. It was poured down the drain. Not a penny of that money was spent on players, or on ground improvements, or on anything to the benefit of Burnley FC. Pace has got it, and I would be very surprised if he gives it back."

All I asked was how did you know that, and it appears that you didn't.

It's in the accounts. Which Alan Pace has signed.

[fatboy47]

As far as I can work out, Garlick took a whole lot more money out of this club than Pace could ever do.

[dsr]

As far as I can work out, Garlick took a whole lot more money out of this club than Pace could ever do.

It was a deal agreed between the pair of them. Garlick (and John B) got the cash, Pace got the ownership of the club, and the money came out of the club's past profit and future budget.

[Big Vinny K]

It was a deal agreed between the pair of them. Garlick (and John B) got the cash, Pace got the ownership of the club, and the money came out of the club's past profit and future budget.

Come on let’s not completely re-write history here.

Garlick deliberately denied the team funds they desperately needed to spend on players so that he could use the retained profit and cash in the bank as part of the sale. That is pretty much indisputable. Simply look at the transfer window spend and the the accounts which show the highest cash we have held in the bank in our history by a distance,

Of course it takes two to tango but when you make this part of the deal as Garlick clearly did then it’s far easier to find a prospective buyer. Whilst i am no fan of leveraged buy outs that does not mean the new owners did anything wrong.

For years I was happy with the way Garlick ran the club. Debt free, no dividends and making some fantastic decisions in picking the manager of course. The way we managed our budgets and still managed to sustain premier league football was fantastic and something that has rarely been achieved by any club in the top league. It has been transformational for the club in terms of the training ground and the success we have seen in the last decade.

But whilst Garlick did not take a dividend during this period he effectively did in the way he built up those cash balances from retained profits by denying transfer monies to Dyche in the last couple of years and making this part of the sale structure. There is a strong argument that he was perfectly entitled to do this. It’s ok Burnley fans moaning about this but it was Garlick who at significant risk put his own money into the club - not any of us.

At the end of the day there is no such thing as a perfect owner of a football club. Gibson at Boro was pretty much as near to perfection as you could wish for but as it always does at every single football club even that turned sour at the end.

Simplistic to say so but when things are going well on the pitch then generally speaking the owners are great. When things are not going well it’s often the very same owners faults and that can be irrespective of how many billions they have spent on players (Chelsea, United, Spurs etc)

[aggi]

... What I do not see under this ownership is the debt being fully removed.

I'd agree with this. The issue is what the debt is being used for, if we're using it for day to day running costs then that isn't a good sign. If it's being used to invest (players, the ground, technology, etc) then you would hope to see a return on it greater than the cost of it.

[aggi]

It's difficult to assess Pace which is why you see such polarised views.

Overall I'd say he's done a good job. He's very involved with the club, he's personable, he's learnt from his mistakes (how much we'll see in the upcoming build up to next season but the noises are that we won't be repeating the last mistakes), we've been relegated but we've been sensible with it and gone back up first time without much stress, we've brought in and developed a lot of young players, etc. A lot of the things that people complain about with respect to his ownership are wider football problems, not Burnley specific things.

But obviously there's the albatross of the leveraged buyout, the debt that generated, the constant refinancing, the player sales (although personally I think people blew that out of proportion), the opaqueness of the structure, etc.

[Big Vinny K]

I'd agree with this. The issue is what the debt is being used for, if we're using it for day to day running costs then that isn't a good sign. If it's being used to invest (players, the ground, technology, etc) then you would hope to see a return on it greater than the cost of it.

Not sure you can ever really differentiate.
The bulk of the running costs for the club are of course wages.

I don’t really see much investment in the ground by the new owners other than the hospitality which we know has been done to try and generate additional income from this source. We haven’t seen much investment in technology either - look at the shambles that remains the ticket office and our websites etc. Again where we have seen investment is in the advertising board and again there is a direct link to trying to increase revenue from this area.

So essentially it comes down to how much the owners are prepared to invest in the team and manager / coaches. We know that the origin of the debt we have today was the purchase of the club. The paradox is that for those supporters who would now prefer the club to be debt free that unless we had an injection of new investment from people who did not want their money repaying in the traditional way you need to service normal loans then it’s very likely that if the club were to repay all of its loans that this would be at the expense of spending money on the team.

If it comes down to a choice of being debt free or carrying affordable debt and continuing to invest in the team my guess a lot of supporters would choose the latter.

[FeedTheArf]

It's difficult to assess Pace which is why you see such polarised views.

Overall I'd say he's done a good job. He's very involved with the club, he's personable, he's learnt from his mistakes (how much we'll see in the upcoming build up to next season but the noises are that we won't be repeating the last mistakes), we've been relegated but we've been sensible with it and gone back up first time without much stress, we've brought in and developed a lot of young players, etc. A lot of the things that people complain about with respect to his ownership are wider football problems, not Burnley specific things.

But obviously there's the albatross of the leveraged buyout, the debt that generated, the constant refinancing, the player sales (although personally I think people blew that out of proportion), the opaqueness of the structure, etc.

Think that’s a very fair assessment.

[TsarBomba]

https://x.com/kieranmaguire/status/1917 ... 83524?s=46

[Chester Perry]

Accounts for Burnley Football and Athletic Club

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

[aggi]

A fairly hefty loss of ~ £30m relative to our other premier league seasons. Not helped by ~ £20m of interest payments (which obviously relates to the above chat about whether the debt is good for the club) and obviously a £93m wage bill.

Also driven by the amortisation figure of ~ £43m. The flipside of that is it will have increased our profit on disposals in the current year where we've raised £88m in player sales.

There is an argument to be made that this is the start of the player trading journey where we'll be bearing the cost of signing "investment" players but without the big transfer fees yet coming in. Others like Brighton and Brentford went through this but they (particularly Brighton) had owners with very deep pockets.

Also something going on with the intercompany debt from Velocity in that it seems to have dropped by ~ £30m but haven't looked at that closely enough to see if it is mirrored somewhere else.

[Murger]

A fairly hefty loss of ~ £30m relative to our other premier league seasons. Not helped by ~ £20m of interest payments (which obviously relates to the above chat about whether the debt is good for the club) and obviously a £93m wage bill.

Also driven by the amortisation figure of ~ £43m. The flipside of that is it will have increased our profit on disposals in the current year where we've raised £88m in player sales.

There is an argument to be made that this is the start of the player trading journey where we'll be bearing the cost of signing "investment" players but without the big transfer fees yet coming in. Others like Brighton and Brentford went through this but they (particularly Brighton) had owners with very deep pockets.

Also something going on with the intercompany debt from Velocity in that it seems to have dropped by ~ £30m but haven't looked at that closely enough to see if it is mirrored somewhere else.

That might as well have been written in Chinese

[Chester Perry]

A fairly hefty loss of ~ £30m relative to our other premier league seasons. Not helped by ~ £20m of interest payments (which obviously relates to the above chat about whether the debt is good for the club) and obviously a £93m wage bill.

Also driven by the amortisation figure of ~ £43m. The flipside of that is it will have increased our profit on disposals in the current year where we've raised £88m in player sales.

There is an argument to be made that this is the start of the player trading journey where we'll be bearing the cost of signing "investment" players but without the big transfer fees yet coming in. Others like Brighton and Brentford went through this but they (particularly Brighton) had owners with very deep pockets.

Also something going on with the intercompany debt from Velocity in that it seems to have dropped by ~ £30m but haven't looked at that closely enough to see if it is mirrored somewhere else.

That intercompany debt position of £148m in 2023 mentioned here was not in the 2023 accounts - there it was stated as £124.07m

[RVclaret]

A fairly hefty loss of ~ £30m relative to our other premier league seasons. Not helped by ~ £20m of interest payments (which obviously relates to the above chat about whether the debt is good for the club) and obviously a £93m wage bill.

Also driven by the amortisation figure of ~ £43m. The flipside of that is it will have increased our profit on disposals in the current year where we've raised £88m in player sales.

There is an argument to be made that this is the start of the player trading journey where we'll be bearing the cost of signing "investment" players but without the big transfer fees yet coming in. Others like Brighton and Brentford went through this but they (particularly Brighton) had owners with very deep pockets.

Also something going on with the intercompany debt from Velocity in that it seems to have dropped by ~ £30m but haven't looked at that closely enough to see if it is mirrored somewhere else.

Surprisingly high wage bill in some sense. Albeit the squad size last year was fairly ridiculous. Not sure if that player disposals of £88m includes the £60m post July 2024 account cut off date, I’m assuming it does?

[Chester Perry]

I will also add that after two yeas of losses there will have to be a clever play to avoid breaching the £61m 3 year FFP this financial year - even if that is achieved we should note that requires a circa £40m cash injection from the owners to meet the rules

[Chester Perry]

Accounts for Burnley FC Holdings Ltd no available

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

[RVclaret]

I will also add that after two yeas of losses there will have to be a clever play to avoid breaching the £61m 3 year FFP this financial year - even if that is achieved we should note that requires a circa £40m cash injection from the owners to meet the rules

Won’t the profit banked on player sales in August (post account cut off date) help with that? We had over £60m in sales.

[aggi]

That intercompany debt position of £148m in 2023 mentioned here was not in the 2023 accounts - there it was stated as £124.07m

This is what I'm referring to:

Screenshot 2025-04-30 140436.png (6.64 KiB) Viewed 1323 times

Screenshot 2025-04-30 140512.png (12.93 KiB) Viewed 1323 times

I'm not sure what the other half of this transactions is.

[aggi]

Surprisingly high wage bill in some sense. Albeit the squad size last year was fairly ridiculous. Not sure if that player disposals of £88m includes the £60m post July 2024 account cut off date, I’m assuming it does?

The £88m is all after 31 July 2024 through to 31 December 2024. It isn't included in these accounts other than as a footnote.

On the other hand it looks like a lot of our purchases for 24/25 did go through these accounts (albeit a lot were also loans with an obligation) as only £1m was spent after 31 July 2024 through to the end of December.

[Tall Paul]

This is what I'm referring to:

Screenshot 2025-04-30 140436.png

Screenshot 2025-04-30 140512.png

I'm not sure what the other half of this transactions is.

It's shown in the holding company cash flow statement as a loan repayment. Of course, we can't see Velocity Capital's accounts to see where it came from.

[aggi]

This is what I'm referring to:

Screenshot 2025-04-30 140436.png

Screenshot 2025-04-30 140512.png

I'm not sure what the other half of this transactions is.

Actually I've now seen the accounts for Holdings which include a cashflow and it looks like there was a repayment of part of the intercompany debt which I'm a little surprised by. I wonder if it was required at some point for cashflow purposes or always planned.

[Vegas Claret]

lads, once you've all had a good look and figured stuff out over the next however long can one of you let the rest of us know what shape we are in. Is it improving and how does what you are seeing likely affect this summers spend ? cheers

[dsr]

lads, once you've all had a good look and figured stuff out over the next however long can one of you let the rest of us know what shape we are in. Is it improving and how does what you are seeing likely affect this summers spend ? cheers

Not really. Too much is unstated. We sold players for £88m after 31st July, but bought players for an initial £1m - presumably this means that all the fees for Flemming, Humphries, and Antony won't be included.

One of the effects of modern accounting rules is to make accounts less clear, which is ironic because they were designed to make them easier for a layman to follow.

[Tall Paul]

Not really. Too much is unstated. We sold players for £88m after 31st July, but bought players for an initial £1m - presumably this means that all the fees for Flemming, Humphries, and Antony won't be included.

One of the effects of modern accounting rules is to make accounts less clear, which is ironic because they were designed to make them easier for a layman to follow.

One thing that does seem fairly is that a chunk of the money that you keep telling us would never be paid back, has been paid back.

[Big Vinny K]

lads, once you've all had a good look and figured stuff out over the next however long can one of you let the rest of us know what shape we are in. Is it improving and how does what you are seeing likely affect this summers spend ? cheers

Just going through them now.
Initial impressions are that I’m surprised at the size of our wage bill and also to a degree the level of interest. Pretty sure they are both record levels in the clubs history - and they aren’t the good kind of records our defence has been setting !!

In the context of FFP and Chester’s points then I’m assuming they have a plan to avoid breach. We’ve got one quarter left of the 3 year assessment period which I guess may mean restricting transfer spend up until the end of July. Though it may not hinder us either as we should have significant player sales in this current financial year and as said you would think the club is planning all this through.

The accounts are always news to us supporters but to the club and our accountants they should be very much old history and they will have a detailed view of where we are on a month to month basis and act accordingly to mitigate things like FFP (or we might just take the breach like other clubs do !!)

[agreenwood]

You’d imagine selling Trafford and/or Esteve this summer, in addition to the £88m of player sales in the current year and PL money, should see us on the right side of the line regrading PSR.