ALK CAPITAL ANNOUNCES STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP WITH DUNDEE FC

[CoolClaret]

It happens a hell of a lot on this forum. People refusing to engage honestly in debate, which immediately makes me more suspicious of every other stance they trot out.

It's sad, boring and very frustrating.

[brexit]

You really think i meant in a business sense?
Its a fans clubs in the sense that we are the one constsnt. When Pace goes we are the ones that remain and possibly pick up the pieces. Without the fans we wouldnt be anywhere near where we are, thats why the community aspect is so important.

I believe that you possess a highly romantic perspective on fans. The people who sit in the stands and watch the match contribute nothing to the club apart from some money from tickets. As has been mentioned before, even the fan supporters groups have very little influence on the club.
It won't happen, but Bury AFC represents your idea of a club for fans. Honestly, I would love to support a fan-run BFC, even if they were in the national league. However, it would likely mean that I would have to sit in the stands and give up my free hospitality.

[aggi]

It was obvious but you used very high numbers as to how it would benefit us with FFP when in reality those sort of numbers wouldn’t happen and wouldn’t really be a help towards FFP

Recent FFP breaches haven't been by huge amounts. A handful of transfers at £3m or £5m or something, maybe spread around a few clubs, could make the difference.

Realistically though we're not at a risk of breaching FFP any time soon.

[Goliath]

I believe that you possess a highly romantic perspective on fans. The people who sit in the stands and watch the match contribute nothing to the club apart from some money from tickets. As has been mentioned before, even the fan supporters groups have very little influence on the club.
It won't happen, but Bury AFC represents your idea of a club for fans. Honestly, I would love to support a fan-run BFC, even if they were in the national league. However, it would likely mean that I would have to sit in the stands and give up my free hospitality.

I really dont, youre missing my point entirely. This club doesnt exist without the fans, Pace doesnt buy the club etc etc. The fans are also the ones that are left to pick up the pieces if it all goes tits up.
IMO they have a right to be comminicated with better than they have been so far, especially in regards to the financial situation.

[brexit]

I really dont, youre missing my point entirely. This club doesnt exist without the fans, Pace doesnt buy the club etc etc. The fans are also the ones that are left to pick up the pieces if it all goes tits up.
IMO they have a right to be comminicated with better than they have been so far, especially in regards to the financial situation.

Totally agree with the communication part

[aggi]

I really dont, youre missing my point entirely. This club doesnt exist without the fans, Pace doesnt buy the club etc etc. The fans are also the ones that are left to pick up the pieces if it all goes tits up.
IMO they have a right to be communicated with better than they have been so far, especially in regards to the financial situation.

I think the issue here is what we would all like to happen against what does happen (not just at Burnley, at most football clubs).

Football clubs, particularly in the upper echelons, with clear ownership structures aren't that common. Football clubs who talk about ownership structures, financial plans, etc also aren't that common (aside from stock exchange disclosures). Andy Holt is the main one I can think of and the amount of stick he gets would make some wonder if it is worth it.

I'd say we're probably better than average. The owner is reasonably visible and present, there's a reasonable number of interviews (just because it isn't in the Burnley Express doesn't mean it doesn't count).

I don't think our previous owners were particularly forthcoming. There have probably been more interviews and articles with Pace than there were with Garlick or Kilby, albeit a fair number of puff pieces in there.

I agree it's an issue, but it's a football issue, not a Burnley issue.

[Nori1958]

I think the issue here is what we would all like to happen against what does happen (not just at Burnley, at most football clubs).

Football clubs, particularly in the upper echelons, with clear ownership structures aren't that common. Football clubs who talk about ownership structures, financial plans, etc also aren't that common (aside from stock exchange disclosures). Andy Holt is the main one I can think of and the amount of stick he gets would make some wonder if it is worth it.

I'd say we're probably better than average. The owner is reasonably visible and present, there's a reasonable number of interviews (just because it isn't in the Burnley Express doesn't mean it doesn't count).

I don't think our previous owners were particularly forthcoming. There have probably been more interviews and articles with Pace than there were with Garlick or Kilby, albeit a fair number of puff pieces in there.

I agree it's an issue, but it's a football issue, not a Burnley issue.

Hopefully I can agree with this without a couple of posters jumping in

[Goliath]

I think the issue here is what we would all like to happen against what does happen (not just at Burnley, at most football clubs).

Football clubs, particularly in the upper echelons, with clear ownership structures aren't that common. Football clubs who talk about ownership structures, financial plans, etc also aren't that common (aside from stock exchange disclosures). Andy Holt is the main one I can think of and the amount of stick he gets would make some wonder if it is worth it.

I'd say we're probably better than average. The owner is reasonably visible and present, there's a reasonable number of interviews (just because it isn't in the Burnley Express doesn't mean it doesn't count).

I don't think our previous owners were particularly forthcoming. There have probably been more interviews and articles with Pace than there were with Garlick or Kilby, albeit a fair number of puff pieces in there.

I agree it's an issue, but it's a football issue, not a Burnley issue.

The interviews all tend to be absolute fluff though, its all for show, like him wandering round talking to fans briefly outside the ground. Sure, thats a nice touch but its blatant PR, we learn nothing from it. It's just a blatant attempt to enhance his image.

For somebody who has bought the football club in such a questionable fashion, has regularly missed financial deadlines and seems to like loading us up with various loans it seems that he hasn't really been pinned down on it or questioned about it at all. He manages to avoid it conveniently well.

[Chester Perry]

The interviews all tend to be absolute fluff though, its all for show, like him wandering round talking to fans briefly outside the ground. Sure, thats a nice touch but its blatant PR, we learn nothing from it. It's just a blatant attempt to enhance his image.

For somebody who has bought the football club in such a questionable fashion, has regularly missed financial deadlines and seems to like loading us up with various loans it seems that he hasn't really been pinned down on it or questioned about it at all. He manages to avoid it conveniently well.

Pace, Smith and Hunt (for these are the named directors of the relevant entities) have missed legally binding financial reporting deadlines, which to date appears to have carried little of actual consequence to them.

If they had missed actual financial deadlines, then creditors, HMRC and the football authorities would be all over them.

One of the most significant issues the game faces is that failure to adhere to the legal obligations of an ownership are apparently matters of least consequence.

[spt_claret]

My previous post seems to have been deleted. I can guess that it was reported but would genuinely like to know from a mod why it was deemed abusive when all I did was point out another poster's obstructive behaviour.
I've had posters say far nastier things to me without posts being deleted, but then I've not reported everything (or indeed anything) said to me.

[Nori1958]

My previous post seems to have been deleted. I can guess that it was reported but would genuinely like to know from a mod why it was deemed abusive when all I did was point out another poster's obstructive behaviour.
I've had posters say far nastier things to me without posts being deleted, but then I've not reported everything (or indeed anything) said to me.

Not reported by me, even if it was over the top from someone I've never engaged with previously, somebody obviously felt the same

[Big Vinny K]

You make valid points here but do people need to be asking questions about the owners conduct and decision making on a thread about a new partnership with a club that is clearly allowing us to send young players on loan for game time

The issue is you do not need to have a partnership with another club to send our young players on loan for game time. We already have lots of players out on loan and the ones who are going to Dundee have been on loan elsewhere.

So it’s a very valid question for all the reasons included on this thread already to ask why we have set up this partnership. Personally as I posted at the start of this thread I do think it’s connected to our finances. I also think it’s a loophole that the authorities need to be much tighter on and if they were I doubt there would be many more of these partnerships.

[spt_claret]

Not reported by me, even if it was over the top from someone I've never engaged with previously, somebody obviously felt the same

We'd not interacted in this thread but have in others and the pattern's been similar pal but whatever you say. Didn't say a single insult.

[123EasyasBFC]

The issue is you do not need to have a partnership with another club to send our young players on loan for game time. We already have lots of players out on loan and the ones who are going to Dundee have been on loan elsewhere.

So it’s a very valid question for all the reasons included on this thread already to ask why we have set up this partnership. Personally as I posted at the start of this thread I do think it’s connected to our finances. I also think it’s a loophole that the authorities need to be much tighter on and if they were I doubt there would be many more of these partnerships.

You don’t but clubs have had affiliate clubs for years in which that club has first option on players available on loan and regardless of people speculating that it’s for financial benefits for some strange reason, on the face of it I don’t see how it can’t be anything but positive, it certainly doesn’t need 5 pages of posters having a cock off with each other about what the owners motives are. All we know right now is 2 young players for Burnley with a potential 3rd are going to be the playing football in the Scottish premiership which can only help their development

[Cooclaret]

It's sad, boring and very frustrating.

Christ on a bike

[Big Vinny K]

You don’t but clubs have had affiliate clubs for years in which that club has first option on players available on loan and regardless of people speculating that it’s for financial benefits for some strange reason, on the face of it I don’t see how it can’t be anything but positive, it certainly doesn’t need 5 pages of posters having a cock off with each other about what the owners motives are. All we know right now is 2 young players for Burnley with a potential 3rd are going to be the playing football in the Scottish premiership which can only help their development

“Cock off” ?…..wow.
Not read most of the thread but seems perfectly reasonable to speculate that it’s about money.
This board is full of threads that involve speculation - that’s what football forums are largely about !

As far as I understand most of the affiliate type partnerships in recent years were to get round FFP and the loan rules too. So it’s a pretty reasonable assumption ours is too.

But it’s fine for us to have different opinions !!

[boyyanno]

The issue is you do not need to have a partnership with another club to send our young players on loan for game time. We already have lots of players out on loan and the ones who are going to Dundee have been on loan elsewhere.

So it’s a very valid question for all the reasons included on this thread already to ask why we have set up this partnership. Personally as I posted at the start of this thread I do think it’s connected to our finances. I also think it’s a loophole that the authorities need to be much tighter on and if they were I doubt there would be many more of these partnerships.

I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I was disappointed that we used our vote as we did the other month.

Even if it ever benefited us I can't help but see it as screwing over the majority of the football pyramid for your own potential gain and it just doesn't sit right with me (even though loads of them do it anyway). Hard to say if that's the right opinion to have though.

[123EasyasBFC]

“Cock off” ?…..wow.
Not read most of the thread but seems perfectly reasonable to speculate that it’s about money.
This board is full of threads that involve speculation - that’s what football forums are largely about !

As far as I understand most of the affiliate type partnerships in recent years were to get round FFP and the loan rules too. So it’s a pretty reasonable assumption ours is too.

But it’s fine for us to have different opinions !!

The cock off comment wasn’t aimed at your reply but in these 5 pages there’s a hell of a lot of posters trying to get one up on each other, sending players on loan to affiliate clubs doesn’t help get around FFP, in fact the smaller affiliate clubs usually don’t even contribute towards wages and that’s because the senior club is able to send players to the affiliate clubs. It’s hardly the Watford owners who have udinese buy senior Watford players for 10-15m and loan them straight back to Watford and vice virsa

Just don’t understand can’t just take it at face value of we have got a partnership which is enabling us to have young players play senior football

[123EasyasBFC]

I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I was disappointed that we used our vote as we did the other month.

Even if it ever benefited us I can't help but see it as screwing over the majority of the football pyramid for your own potential gain and it just doesn't sit right with me (even though loads of them do it anyway). Hard to say if that's the right opinion to have though.

How does it screw the football pyramid when the lower league clubs become affiliates to bigger clubs which allows them players on loan, I personally think every premier league club should have a league one or league two affiliate club and they should loan players each season

[Nori1958]

How does it screw the football pyramid when the lower league clubs become affiliates to bigger clubs which allows them players on loan, I personally think every premier league club should have a league one or league two affiliate club and they should loan players each season

Was it Liverpool or united who did it with crewe years ago

United did it with Antwerp

[123EasyasBFC]

Was it Liverpool or united who did it with crewe years ago

United did it with Antwerp

Arsenal did it with Barnet in the past

[123EasyasBFC]

There’s a hell of a lot more things ‘screwing the football pyramid’ than teams having affiliate clubs.

Affiliation is completely different to multiclub ownership, ALK don’t own Dundee

[Big Vinny K]

The cock off comment wasn’t aimed at your reply but in these 5 pages there’s a hell of a lot of posters trying to get one up on each other, sending players on loan to affiliate clubs doesn’t help get around FFP, in fact the smaller affiliate clubs usually don’t even contribute towards wages and that’s because the senior club is able to send players to the affiliate clubs. It’s hardly the Watford owners who have udinese buy senior Watford players for 10-15m and loan them straight back to Watford and vice virsa

Just don’t understand can’t just take it at face value of we have got a partnership which is enabling us to have young players play senior football

As said you don’t need to have this kind of partnership to send your loan players out to Dundee or whatever club is right for them and Burnley (I also don’t especially like being tied to an individual club which might not be the right one for one of our young players)

It could also be used as a way of freeing up first team squad places by shipping them out to your affiliate club if nobody else wants them or can afford them.

As said I just don’t see what it gives you over and above just sending out our young players to clubs on loan. If we think Dundee is a hotbed for young player development then that’s great - just send our players there without a partnership….or send them to other clubs in the Scottish premiership (like we already have been doing actually with Egan Riley and others)

[boyyanno]

How does it screw the football pyramid when the lower league clubs become affiliates to bigger clubs which allows them players on loan, I personally think every premier league club should have a league one or league two affiliate club and they should loan players each season

I think if clubs bend or breach rules then they are screwing over the football pyramid fullstop. Surely you'd agree with that?

No one has said thats definitely the intention for this partnership, but some have speculated that it's a possibility. It has been pointed out that this has been exploited by others, its been pointed out that we have made it clear we are interested in multi club ownership, and we have taken action on that stand point by voting in favour of it.

Given the above I think it's fair to discuss concerns around that topic. That doesn't mean I'm not happy that some of our lads will get decent game time at an okay level because I am.

I don't know how many times the same post can be phrased differently.

[boyyanno]

How does it screw the football pyramid when the lower league clubs become affiliates to bigger clubs which allows them players on loan, I personally think every premier league club should have a league one or league two affiliate club and they should loan players each season

You're trying to insinuate in this post that I was making out that affiliates screw over the football pyramid. That's not what I was saying as you know full well. I was referring to clubs bending or breaking the rules to their advantage. Which again I have not said we are. So please stop misrepresenting posts on purpose. A load of comments have been deleted as a result of some squabbles about that earlier.

[123EasyasBFC]

You're trying to insinuate in this post that I was making out that affiliates screw over the football pyramid. That's not what I was saying as you know full well. I was referring to clubs bending or breaking the rules to their advantage. Which again I have not said we are. So please stop misrepresenting posts on purpose. A load of comments have been deleted as a result of some squabbles about that earlier.

How you take a comment is up to you but you said in a post about affiliate clubs is screwing the football pyramid, but you are now saying bending and breaking rules which is a completely different matter.

I really don’t see how any club having a little partnership or agreement with another club meaning they can loan players is bending or breaking the rules it’s not at all

[boyyanno]

How you take a comment is up to you but you said in a post about affiliate clubs is screwing the football pyramid, but you are now saying bending and breaking rules which is a completely different matter.

I really don’t see how any club having a little partnership or agreement with another club meaning they can loan players is bending or breaking the rules it’s not at all

I quoted the poster I was responding too. I've explained what I meant, so have others. No one has said having a partnership is bending rules despite how many times you try and make it seem like that.

[123EasyasBFC]

I quoted the poster I was responding too. I've explained what I meant, so have others. No one has said having a partnership is bending rules despite how many times you try and make it seem like that.

You said that multi club ownerships being able to loan players to their other clubs as screwing the pyramid, when it doesn’t affect the pyramid because owners can’t own multiple clubs in the UK, that vote wasn’t about the English football pyramid. It was a vote that allows Man City to loan players to girona. Whether you think it’s right or wrong it’s not bending or breaching the rules

[boyyanno]

You said that multi club ownerships being able to loan players to their other clubs as screwing the pyramid, when it doesn’t affect the pyramid because owners can’t own multiple clubs in the UK, that vote wasn’t about the English football pyramid. It was a vote that allows Man City to loan players to girona. Whether you think it’s right or wrong it’s not bending or breaching the rules

Whatever you say pal.