The most concerning financial journo article yet!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I want the man at the top to show some testicular fortitude & to front Jordan up & stop being dismantled, mainly in the event of relegation - how will the landscape change & how will that impact upon our current obligations regarding the debt repayments, not difficult answers with a plan in place & to allay concerns, some people aren’t asking for chapter & verse & full access for everything, bog standard questions = bog standard answers.

Its none of your business though and certainly not Jordans.

If you're that fearful of relegation that's your issue, not the club's.
The fact is there was no real value in the squad when they took over, it's going to require a lot of work and may even need a relegation to clear the decks as we've seen at other clubs in the past.
We might stay up and have a proper and much needed clear out anyway in the summer, but don't be thinking you deserve to see their business model, no one does apart from the club itself.

[Jakubclaret]

Its none of your business though and certainly not Jordans.

If you're that fearful of relegation that's your issue, not the club's.
The fact is there was no real value in the squad when they took over, it's going to require a lot of work and may even need a relegation to clear the decks as we've seen at other clubs in the past.
We might stay up and have a proper and much needed clear out anyway in the summer, but don't be thinking you deserve to see their business model, no one does apart from the club itself.

You are right it is none of my business it’s also none of my business to put any money in the pot.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You are right it is none of my business it’s also none of my business to put any money in the pot.

Good, don't then, it's no issue if you and a not even a handful don't because they haven't been given access to the club's financial plans etc

[Jakubclaret]

Good, don't then, it's no issue if you and a not even a handful don't because they haven't been given access to the club's financial plans etc

I don’t go anyway but I still pay for my nephews season ticket he enjoys going & I won’t deprive him of the pleasure he’s too young to understand about BLM.

[aggi]

I know but we are back to scepticism again. Nobody knows the specifics of climate change or whether a vaccine may or may not have long term effects on a particular population. We don't know how the global economy will perform after Covid or the impact of Brexit on the stock market. And more to the point no one knows whether Burnley will be relegated or otherwise yet it doesn't stop people arguing about it ad infinitum.

Nobody knows this stuff....! Nobody is every going to know the detail

I am not certain on the actual figures but expect someone to be able to develop a narrative on the direction of travel.

Paul does it very well and you learn a lot from him. I don't agree with his view that ALK will find external funding to the extent that seems necessary or that ALK will bring an expertise but he has a narrative that makes sense. I just don't agree with him and he doesn't agree with me - where is the problem?

Well, professional scepticism is a valuable trait in finances.

I have no issues with people coming up with their fantasy scenarios, just that they acknowledge them as such rather than giving the illusion that they're fact.

It's also a bonus if you can justify your narrative with something beyond "because I think so". For instance, in your £128m debt scenario, who is lending that money? I guess it could be MSD but personally I'd be surprised they'd want to be that exposed. It could be another party but how would it be guaranteed, would MSD permit another party to share the assets for the guarantee?

Personally I don't really see the point in forming these narratives without the relevant assumptions and caveats involved but each to their own.

[ClaretPete001]

Well, professional scepticism is a valuable trait in finances.

I have no issues with people coming up with their fantasy scenarios, just that they acknowledge them as such rather than giving the illusion that they're fact.

It's also a bonus if you can justify your narrative with something beyond "because I think so". For instance, in your £128m debt scenario, who is lending that money? I guess it could be MSD but personally I'd be surprised they'd want to be that exposed. It could be another party but how would it be guaranteed, would MSD permit another party to share the assets for the guarantee?

Personally I don't really see the point in forming these narratives without the relevant assumptions and caveats involved but each to their own.

I tend to think the professional sceptic would be more interested in the impact of a £128 million quid debt on a club the size of Burnley as opposed to who is guaranteeing the loans. As a Burnley fan and stakeholder in the club we DON'T need to know who is guaranteeing the loan or the details of the relationship with MSD to have a view on the £128 million.

In the absence of a billionaire, the only reason a club like Burnley would want to take on the size of debt it has - is to benefit from the expertise and financial clout of an established brand with a portfolio of products and cash to burn. It has to have a good relationship with the media and a plausible story for investors. The problem is the more people look the less they are finding.

Anyway, I think the general consensus is that the debate has run its course. It's good to be able to debate with such knowledgeable people and in my view the club is safer because of them. Let's hope ALK are able to give us good news on their growth as a company sooner rather than later.

[Paul Waine]

I tend to think the professional sceptic would be more interested in the impact of a £128 million quid debt on a club the size of Burnley as opposed to who is guaranteeing the loans. As a Burnley fan and stakeholder in the club we DON'T need to know who is guaranteeing the loan or the details of the relationship with MSD to have a view on the £128 million.

In the absence of a billionaire, the only reason a club like Burnley would want to take on the size of debt it has - is to benefit from the expertise and financial clout of an established brand with a portfolio of products and cash to burn. It has to have a good relationship with the media and a plausible story for investors. The problem is the more people look the less they are finding.

Anyway, I think the general consensus is that the debate has run its course. It's good to be able to debate with such knowledgeable people and in my view the club is safer because of them. Let's hope ALK are able to give us good news on their growth as a company sooner rather than later.

Pete, you know that BFC has not got £128 million debt, don't you? BFC is liable, along with ALK entities, for the debt for monies loaned by MSD to Calder Vale. This debt has always been reported to be around £60 million. MSD's loan is secured by debenture between Calder Vale and MSD, plus the Security Accession Deed executed by BFC Holdings (and subsids) between BFCH and MSD. You've added £68 million, but this is a debt between ALK and the former directors of the club, it is not a BFC debt. It is due to be paid in instalments and has been mentioned in various places, including the statement by Alan Pace, Mike Garlick and John B recently (thought the statement didn't confirm the amount of the instalments).

UTC

[ClaretPete001]

Pete, you know that BFC has not got £128 million debt, don't you? BFC is liable, along with ALK entities, for the debt for monies loaned by MSD to Calder Vale. This debt has always been reported to be around £60 million. MSD's loan is secured by debenture between Calder Vale and MSD, plus the Security Accession Deed executed by BFC Holdings (and subsids) between BFCH and MSD. You've added £68 million, but this is a debt between ALK and the former directors of the club, it is not a BFC debt. It is due to be paid in instalments and has been mentioned in various places, including the statement by Alan Pace, Mike Garlick and John B recently (thought the statement didn't confirm the amount of the instalments).

UTC

Indeed Paul I think this has previously been discussed on this thread.

This is just a variation of Aggi's post. You've said yourself that as far as we know ALK is just a shell company, therefore, any debt taken on by ALK has to be secured against something and paid for by someone, which begs Aggi's questions: (1) who will lend the money? (2) how will it be paid? (3) against what will it be secured and finally? (4) who will guarantee it?

We may never know the answers to these questions but to me where the debt lies seems to be me to be an unnecessary semantic. If ALK can't meet these debts it will affect Burnley whether it is £60 million or £128 million, somewhere in between or more. All these figures are meaningful to a club like Burnley if we are relegated.

So, while it is factually true to say that £60 million quid is Burnley's debt I would argue it also underplays the potential risk to the club considerably.

How you balance all these points to achieve the best representation of the truth is also a matter of conjecture.

[Paul Waine]

Indeed Paul I think this has previously been discussed on this thread.

This is just a variation of Aggi's post. You've said yourself that as far as we know ALK is just a shell company, therefore, any debt taken on by ALK has to be secured against something and paid for by someone, which begs Aggi's questions: (1) who will lend the money? (2) how will it be paid? (3) against what will it be secured and finally? (4) who will guarantee it?

We may never know the answers to these questions but to me where the debt lies seems to be me to be an unnecessary semantic. If ALK can't meet these debts it will affect Burnley whether it is £60 million or £128 million, somewhere in between or more. All these figures are meaningful to a club like Burnley if we are relegated.

So, while it is factually true to say that £60 million quid is Burnley's debt I would argue it also underplays the potential risk to the club considerably.

How you balance all these points to achieve the best representation of the truth is also a matter of conjecture.

Hi Pete, I've never once said ALK is a "shell" company. What we all know is that ALK is an investment company founded by Alan Pace and that Alan Pace and others have invested equity in ALK. We don't know, as yet, how much equity has been invested. It has been reported that £15 million was the amount at the time of the acquisition. We do know that the plan is for ALK to add to the equity in ALK.

We also know that ALK has taken a loan from MSD, which according to reports is around £60 million.

The additional £68 million is the amount to be paid by ALK in instalments to the former directors of BFC. It can be considered to represent vendor financing for the purchase of the shares by ALK. There is no security provided by BFC for that loan to ALK by the former owners of the club. (If there was any such security it would require to be filed with Companies House. It would also rank behind the security provided to MSD). There have been reports that if these instalments aren't paid then there are arrangements that will return shares to the former directors. So far as I'm aware, the full extent of these arrangements isn't in the public domain. I understand there was some reference made in the Letter to (minority) Shareholders.

UTC

[ClaretPete001]

Thanks Paul

I use the term shell company because it was created to buy Burnley Football Club (you have said that before), which means as far we know it's only meaningful asset and means of meeting its obligations is Burnley Football Club. On that basis, you can't discount £68 million just because it is not a debt of Burney Football Club. The club might not be liable for it but it could well contribute to it being liable for the £60 million.

I grant you that is a material distinction; however, the circumstances that ALK cannot meet its obligations to MSD is likely to be catastrophic to the club. ALK would have wrung every asset out of it before we would be in a situation where shares could be returned to former owners.
There may not be enough value in the club for the previous owners to want to take on the MSD debt.

I do not think it is right to completely discount the £68 million even if it is not a debt of BFC for 2 reasons: (1) it makes the club more liable to the £60 million debt to MSD (2) it would affect the behaviour of the Directors of ALK.

[ClaretPete001]

And my point because I completely fluffed it - is...!

Which of these true statements is more true

1) Burnley FC only has £68 million quid's worth of debt
or 2) the assets of Burnley FC could be vulnerable to the debts of ALK, which could be £128 million or higher

1) The shares of Burnley FC could be returned to the former owners of the club
or 2) It is unlikely the shares of the club will ever be returned to the former owners of the club

[Paul Waine]

Thanks Paul

I use the term shell company because it was created to buy Burnley Football Club (you have said that before), which means as far we know it's only meaningful asset and means of meeting its obligations is Burnley Football Club. On that basis, you can't discount £68 million just because it is not a debt of Burney Football Club. The club might not be liable for it but it could well contribute to it being liable for the £60 million.

I grant you that is a material distinction; however, the circumstances that ALK cannot meet its obligations to MSD is likely to be catastrophic to the club. ALK would have wrung every asset out of it before we would be in a situation where shares could be returned to former owners.
There may not be enough value in the club for the previous owners to want to take on the MSD debt.

I do not think it is right to completely discount the £68 million even if it is not a debt of BFC for 2 reasons: (1) it makes the club more liable to the £60 million debt to MSD (2) it would affect the behaviour of the Directors of ALK.

Pete, I love your logic. In an earlier post you said I'd said ALK was a "shell" company. Now you agree I didn't but you have a made up a definition that allows you to use the term "shell company" even though that's not what it is. Then you say we can't discount £68 million "just because it is not a debt of BFC" when, earlier, you were claiming it is a debt of BFC, by saying BFC had debts of £128 million.

I recommend you speak with one of the club's minority shareholders - including any of those who have chosen to sell - and ask if you can see what I understand is stated in the Letter to Shareholders. ALK either pay the full £68 million to the former shareholders or the former shareholders get those shares returned to them.

We all understand that MSD are professionals. There are no professionals that would lend £60 million to an entity without protecting themselves from the risk of not being repaid. Those protections will be broad and will include any possibility of a situation where any of the security for the debt can undergo a change of control while the debt is outstanding unless the new owners are at least as capable of meeting the obligations with regards to the debt as were in place when the debt was first extended. Simply, MSD would not permit any possibility that ALK "would have wrung every asset out of" the club while their debt is outstanding.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

And my point because I completely fluffed it - is...!

Which of these true statements is more true

1) Burnley FC only has £68 million quid's worth of debt
or 2) the assets of Burnley FC could be vulnerable to the debts of ALK, which could be £128 million or higher

1) The shares of Burnley FC could be returned to the former owners of the club
or 2) It is unlikely the shares of the club will ever be returned to the former owners of the club

Sorry, Pete. I'm not sure which of these 4 statements, numbered (1) and (2) and, confusingly, (1) and (2) again, you are claiming is true.

(1) BFC "only has £68m debt" is not correct. BFC does not have any obligation for the £68m that ALK are due to pay in instalments to the former directors;

(2) "the assets of BFC could be vulnerable to the debts of ALK, which could be £128m or higher. Again, this is not correct. BFC assets have been provided as security to MSD for the £60m loan made by MSD to ALK.

(1) "The shares of BFC could be returned to the former owners of the club." This is apparently correct as described in the Letter to Shareholders.

(2) "It is unlikely the shares of the club will ever be returned to the former owners of the club." As previously, the Letter to Shareholders states that the sale and purchase agreement entered into between the former directors and ALK has provisions that include the return of shares to the former directors. So far as I'm aware, the sale and purchase agreement is not in the public domain, so we don't know the details in the agreement. Equally, the Letter to Shareholders makes some reference to ALK's plans for their ownership of BFC. It is not possible, on the facts we know, or knowledge of how things might develop in the future, to make any estimate of how likely or unlikely it is for the shares to be returned to the former owners. My expectation is that, if ALK are successful in all their plans, these plans do not include any shares being returned to the former owners.

I hope that assists, a little.

UTC

[ClaretPete001]

Pete, I love your logic. In an earlier post you said I'd said ALK was a "shell" company. Now you agree I didn't but you have a made up a definition that allows you to use the term "shell company" even though that's not what it is. Then you say we can't discount £68 million "just because it is not a debt of BFC" when, earlier, you were claiming it is a debt of BFC, by saying BFC had debts of £128 million.

I recommend you speak with one of the club's minority shareholders - including any of those who have chosen to sell - and ask if you can see what I understand is stated in the Letter to Shareholders. ALK either pay the full £68 million to the former shareholders or the former shareholders get those shares returned to them.

We all understand that MSD are professionals. There are no professionals that would lend £60 million to an entity without protecting themselves from the risk of not being repaid. Those protections will be broad and will include any possibility of a situation where any of the security for the debt can undergo a change of control while the debt is outstanding unless the new owners are at least as capable of meeting the obligations with regards to the debt as were in place when the debt was first extended. Simply, MSD would not permit any possibility that ALK "would have wrung every asset out of" the club while their debt is outstanding.

UTC

We are all typing fast on a football forum - I clarified what I meant by "shell company" if you feel that misrepresented your position that was not my intention. My intention was to describe the relationship between ALK and BFC.

You have stated Burnley has only £60 million quid's worth of debt, which is true but doesn't really meaningfully describe the relationship between ALK and the club. it is not an accurate reflection of that relationship to allude to the fact that Burnley FC is only affected by the debts in its accounts.

In the same way, MSD cannot put clauses in the terms of a contract about how the club manages it's playing assets. If ALK cannot pay the £68 million to the former shareholders then who knows what state the club would be in at that point. The loan for MSD would still be in place as well as any further liabilities built up by ALK.

Either way it is not the truth of the thing to suggest it would just go straight back to the shareholders - we both know it would be a long painful road before that happens and the obligations of the club to MSD would still be in place.

in my opinion, you are presenting a picture that is highly tailored to your perspective and ,in your opinion, so am I.

[Paul Waine]

We are all typing fast on a football forum - I clarified what I meant by "shell company" if you feel that misrepresented your position that was not my intention. My intention was to describe the relationship between ALK and BFC.

You have stated Burnley has only £60 million quid's worth of debt, which is true but doesn't really meaningfully describe the relationship between ALK and the club. it is not an accurate reflection of that relationship to allude to the fact that Burnley FC is only affected by the debts in its accounts.

In the same way, MSD cannot put clauses in the terms of a contract about how the club manages it's playing assets. If ALK cannot pay the £68 million to the former shareholders then who knows what state the club would be in at that point. The loan for MSD would still be in place as well as any further liabilities built up by ALK.

Either way it is not the truth of the thing to suggest it would just go straight back to the shareholders - we both know it would be a long painful road before that happens and the obligations of the club to MSD would still be in place.

in my opinion, you are presenting a picture that is highly tailored to your perspective and ,in your opinion, so am I.

No, Pete. I'm not "presenting a picture that is highly tailored to my perspective." I'm explaining how loan agreements, such as the one MSD has put into place with ALK for £60 million, are designed to operate. No one lends significant amounts to another entity without a number of clauses that protect their loan from the other party doing something that will put their loan at greater risk than was intended at the time the loan was made. Yes, MSD will have made the loan in the full knowledge that ALK were buying a football club and the full knowledge that a Premier League football club can be relegated. MSD will also know that there are other risks that a football club is exposed to. That's all in the nature of the loan. However, MSD will also require ALK to do, or not to do, certain things that will put MSD's loan at greater and unnecessary risk. MSD can put clauses in the contract that place limits on what ALK can do that impact the club's finances. These clauses can, therefore, impact how the club manages "playing assets." Most definitely, MSD will have clauses in the contract that will respond to any untoward build up of liabilities by ALK.

Let's agree that ALK are the owners of Burnley Football Club and that that is the relationship that matters.

UTC

[ClaretPete001]

Interesting thanks Paul.

All I can say is that if the club is relegated we will lose more than £100 million quid in 3 years.

Burnley's playing assets cost around £94 million in the '20 accounts, which is about 70 per cent of turnover.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/mor ... b-accounts

Rovers have billionaire owners: the Venky's, who have been maintaining the wage to turnover ratio at between 140% to 200 % incurring significant losses. Rovers current wage bill is around £25 million.

If we had the same trajectory as Rovers and had to maintain the current wage to turnover ratio we would have to transition from a player wage bill of £90 million to around 13 million in the space of 3 years.

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-22503988

I'm not sure how that panned out on MSDs spreadsheets but as you say ALK own the club and the fortunes of the two are inextricably linked...!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Relegation clauses will take care of the majority of the wage bill, along with the OOC players.

[RVclaret]

Interesting thanks Paul.

All I can say is that if the club is relegated we will lose more than £100 million quid in 3 years.

Burnley's playing assets cost around £94 million in the '20 accounts, which is about 70 per cent of turnover.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/mor ... b-accounts

Rovers have billionaire owners: the Venky's, who have been maintaining the wage to turnover ratio at between 140% to 200 % incurring significant losses. Rovers current wage bill is around £25 million.

If we had the same trajectory as Rovers and had to maintain the current wage to turnover ratio we would have to transition from a player wage bill of £90 million to around 13 million in the space of 3 years.

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-22503988

I'm not sure how that panned out on MSDs spreadsheets but as you say ALK own the club and the fortunes of the two are inextricably linked...!

You’ve literally got no idea how much we will or won’t lose this season and next, let alone in three seasons. Stop with this nonsense! Rovers are well known to have been ran terribly when relegated, didn’t have sizeable wage cuts on relegation and paid a bunch of has been players huge wages. That is nothing like what position we will be in.

[Jakubclaret]

It won’t be looking good I don’t know how some people can seriously pretend otherwise, it’s showing signs that it can’t cope now & that’s before we’ve even dropped. The idea initially didn’t factor in any sort of league change, I think some people are disillusioned & will be in for a rude awakening when the sh1t seriously hits the fan.

[Row Z]

It won’t be looking good I don’t know how some people can seriously pretend otherwise, it’s showing signs that it can’t cope now & that’s before we’ve even dropped. The idea initially didn’t factor in any sort of league change, I think some people are disillusioned & will be in for a rude awakening when the sh1t seriously hits the fan.

I don't agree. Nobody would buy team with aspirations of avoiding relegation every season and not consider the worst case scenario should relegation happen. Alan Pace has said as much in recent interviews.

The plan may change considerably from trying to sign full internationals, but this would always have been identified as a possibility. They'll just be hoping we can bounce back by keeping our best talent, as all fans will be.

[boatshed bill]

When someone is either worried, or even panicking, the worst thing anyone can do is tell them not to.
It just doesn't work.

[Vegas Claret]

the thought that some have that Pace & Co don't have a plan in place for relegation is laughable.

[daveisaclaret]

the thought that some have that Pace & Co don't have a plan in place for relegation is laughable.

I don't think anyone thinks they don't have a plan in place for relegation. It's just that some don't assume the plan is in the football club's interest.

[aggi]

Indeed Paul I think this has previously been discussed on this thread.

This is just a variation of Aggi's post. You've said yourself that as far as we know ALK is just a shell company, therefore, any debt taken on by ALK has to be secured against something and paid for by someone, which begs Aggi's questions: (1) who will lend the money? (2) how will it be paid? (3) against what will it be secured and finally? (4) who will guarantee it?

We may never know the answers to these questions but to me where the debt lies seems to be me to be an unnecessary semantic. If ALK can't meet these debts it will affect Burnley whether it is £60 million or £128 million, somewhere in between or more. All these figures are meaningful to a club like Burnley if we are relegated.

So, while it is factually true to say that £60 million quid is Burnley's debt I would argue it also underplays the potential risk to the club considerably.

How you balance all these points to achieve the best representation of the truth is also a matter of conjecture.

The reason I question the guarantor is because if ALK have £68m of assets, that they're willing to risk, outside of BFC then it somewhat changes the narrative of them having minimal amounts of cash and everything having to be funded through BFC's revenue.

It also changes the story of the £60m being BFC's debt (it isn't that simple, however much people say it is) and the likelihood of them having to pay it because ALK are willing to sacrifice £15m if things go wrong. It then becomes ALK sacrificing £83m and implications of that.

It's obviously hypothetical (or a "narrative" if you prefer) but it's a logical extension of your £128m of debt scenario.

[KRBFC]

If we're banking on bouncing back, we're gonna need serious spending in the summer transfer window and probably change in the management team. Where does that money come from?

Anyone who thinks this team just drops a division and starts to win every game is delusional, losing is an incredibly difficult habit to shake and we've been used to losing most weeks for 2 years. We played at home against Huddersfield recently, their 2nd string, how did it go? Last time we were in the Championship trying to bounce back, we were absolutely appalling for the first 4 months of the season, dismantled by Hull at Christmas and suddenly clicked and started to grind out wins.

Sheffield United and West Brom have kept their side together, both are struggling. We look more like a Sunderland/Blackburn/Bolton than a Newcastle/Wolves. Dyche and the players have forgot how to win games, we've players in the squad who would struggle at League One level.

[Vegas Claret]

Dyche and the players have forgot how to win games, we've players in the squad who would struggle at League One level.

I mentioned something similar the other day, not winning is a habit. The OOC players might actually do us a favour tbh. Maybe there's also an element of becoming unmotivated by hearing the same voices day after day on the training pitch. With 2 promotions in 2 attempts only a fool would sack Dyche though, got to give him a good few months in the Championship and see where the land lies......plus we don't know if there is a clause in his contract that allows us to pay him off at a much cheaper level than his 4 year current contract etc.

Also, let's say they did get rid - who would they bring in ??

[Jakubclaret]

I don't agree. Nobody would buy team with aspirations of avoiding relegation every season and not consider the worst case scenario should relegation happen. Alan Pace has said as much in recent interviews.

The plan may change considerably from trying to sign full internationals, but this would always have been identified as a possibility. They'll just be hoping we can bounce back by keeping our best talent, as all fans will be.

You are forgetting 1 key component dyche has always delivered or at least he’s always been expected to. I think an element with some people on this forum exists with defending pace at any cost & being far too trusting/believing everything he says. We’ll see what happens in the future & whether the club is slowly run into the ground as i say it will be, it’s just a question of waiting.

[RVclaret]

If we're banking on bouncing back, we're gonna need serious spending in the summer transfer window and probably change in the management team. Where does that money come from?

Anyone who thinks this team just drops a division and starts to win every game is delusional, losing is an incredibly difficult habit to shake and we've been used to losing most weeks for 2 years. We played at home against Huddersfield recently, their 2nd string, how did it go? Last time we were in the Championship trying to bounce back, we were absolutely appalling for the first 4 months of the season, dismantled by Hull at Christmas and suddenly clicked and started to grind out wins.

Sheffield United and West Brom have kept their side together, both are struggling. We look more like a Sunderland/Blackburn/Bolton than a Newcastle/Wolves. Dyche and the players have forgot how to win games, we've players in the squad who would struggle at League One level.

Brom appointed a poor manager yet are still in the play off hunt. Jokanovic didn’t work at Sheff and the owners there seem to be causing problems, yet they are still very much in the play off hunt. Fulham have ripped the Champ with a decent squad yet Mitrovic couldn’t hit a barn door in the PL and he’s breaking scoring records!

I’d hope we give Dyche a go as he’s proven to have great success already and I feel the owners will want someone like that. I agree we need a rebuild, also to freshen up the ‘mentality’ Dyche so often talks about. But a team of

New
Roberts Collins Mee Taylor
New Westwood Brownhill New
Weghorst New

Bench:
Hennessey, Lowton, Thomas, Lennon, Jay Rod, Long, JBG, Cork
+
Youth to promote
Dodgson (LB), Mancini Gomez (CM) Richardson (striker)

Assuming Cornet / McNeil / Pope are sold in the summer for £60m-70m combined. Release Pieters, Barnes, Bardsley, Stephens. Vydra and Tark won’t resign.

The above, with around 4-5 young and hungry signings to fill the places in the 11 would be a very solid team under Dyche in the Championship. Obviously this is all based on assumptions right now.

[KRBFC]

Brom appointed a poor manager yet are still in the play off hunt. Jokanovic didn’t work at Sheff and the owners there seem to be causing problems, yet they are still very much in the play off hunt. Fulham have ripped the Champ with a decent squad yet Mitrovic couldn’t hit a barn door in the PL and he’s breaking scoring records!

I’d hope we give Dyche a go as he’s proven to have great success already and I feel the owners will want someone like that. I agree we need a rebuild, also to freshen up the ‘mentality’ Dyche so often talks about.

Ismael isn't a poor manager, look at Barnsley without him, a poor run of 5 games makes him a poor manager? ye ok

As for Mitrovic not hitting a barn door in the PL, that's uneducated, teenage Mitrovic was scoring goals at Newcastle and the fans loved him up there.

Dyche has won how many matches in the last 2 years? success he had 7 years ago is kinda irrelevant imo, just like player stats from 7 years ago.

[RVclaret]

Ismael isn't a poor manager, look at Barnsley without him, a poor run of 5 games makes him a poor manager? ye ok

As for Mitrovic not hitting a barn door in the PL, that's uneducated, teenage Mitrovic was scoring goals at Newcastle and the fans loved him up there.

Dyche has won how many matches in the last 2 years? success he had 7 years ago is kinda irrelevant imo, just like player stats from 7 years ago.

Brom fans hated him. His football, his attitude and ultimately results.

Funny that you say success from 7 years ago is irrelevant but yet talk about Mitrovic’s success from… 7 years ago.

[KRBFC]

Brom fans hated him. His football, his attitude and ultimately results.

Funny that you say success from 7 years ago is irrelevant but yet talk about Mitrovic’s success from… 7 years ago.

I don't care if West Brom fans hated or loved him, he did incredible at Barnsley, ended poorly at WBA, not sure how you can say for certain he's a poor manager based on the two jobs, jury is very much still out.

Mitrovic's success from 7 years ago is completely irrelevant now, I wasn't using numbers from 7 years ago to predict the future. I used them to shut down your talk of Mitrovic being unable to score in the PL in his career, which isn't true.

[RVclaret]

I don't care if West Brom fans hated or loved him, he did incredible at Barnsley, ended poorly at WBA, not sure how you can say for certain he's a poor manager based on the two jobs, jury is very much still out.

Mitrovic's success from 7 years ago is completely irrelevant now, I wasn't using numbers from 7 years ago to predict the future. I used them to shut down your talk of Mitrovic being unable to score in the PL in his career, which isn't true.

Fair enough but he did fail in his recent job managing a favourite for promotion. Dyche won the league with a favourite for promotion.

I think Mitro had one decent season in the PL. Point was more he flopped last season in the PL, yet is breaking scoring records in the Champ this season. Even 35 year old Billy Sharp has 12 goals. I was trying to suggest the core of our squad is decent and your comments some players would struggle at league one level are daft. I’d probably release Barnes but even Forest (a promotion chasing in form side right now) wanted to sign him in January.

To bring this back to the point of the thread, I’m not that worried about relegation, I have faith that Pace and co have a plan while Dyche has the know how to bounce back. I just hope we freshen up the squad by allowing some of the OOC to leave while targeting young and hungry players to replace them.

[Vegas Claret]

I don't think anyone thinks they don't have a plan in place for relegation. It's just that some don't assume the plan is in the football club's interest.

which in itself is bonkers, if Burnley aren't successful then there is no way ALK will be

[JohnMcGreal]

which in itself is bonkers, if Burnley aren't successful then there is no way ALK will be

Since the takeover and for the next few months at least, ALK's interests match those of the club. It's in both our interests to stay in the Premier League.

If that doesn't happen, it wouldn't be a surprise if we then have different interests.

We might want investment in a new squad that can challenge for promotion, ALK might want to cut their losses and get out, using the club's dwindling resources to settle any debts on the way out.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[daveisaclaret]

which in itself is bonkers, if Burnley aren't successful then there is no way ALK will be

It's bonkers to just blindly assume that their plans are good? Or that the best strategy for ALK in the event of relegation will be to cut their losses?

I hope it's successful as any one does but I would say what's bonkers is the line of thinking that's basically "I like Burnley so the Burnley owners must be good"

[dsr]

which in itself is bonkers, if Burnley aren't successful then there is no way ALK will be

I suspect the point is that ALK have invested in a high-risk, high-reward business and part of that high-risk is that they may lose all their money if the investment goes belly up. ALK will, I am sure, be more willing to risk the failure and closure of BFC than we would be.

When you invest £15m in hopes of doubling your money, as most figures they have done, then you don't much mind if half your investments fail.

[Paul Waine]

I suspect the point is that ALK have invested in a high-risk, high-reward business and part of that high-risk is that they may lose all their money if the investment goes belly up. ALK will, I am sure, be more willing to risk the failure and closure of BFC than we would be.

When you invest £15m in hopes of doubling your money, as most figures they have done, then you don't much mind if half your investments fail.

Thing is, dsr, ALK have only one investment and that's BFC. They won't "throw that away" or close it down. It's not a short term "make some money, quickly" strategy. It's a medium to long term strategy. ALK will make money from Burnley being in the Premier League long term, because the strategy considers that the Premier League will become more valuable and all clubs in the Premier League will become more valuable. If BFC are relegated, they will want to get BFC back in the Premier League.

Almost every day the past couple of weeks a report has popped up on my mobile, Burnley's transfer targets for summer transfer window. One of Maxwel Cornet's ex-colleagues at Lyon is amongst them. I don't recall any time in previous seasons when there's been any reports on transfer targets for Burnley so far ahead of the window. (Please, no one start a summer transfer window thread until this season is over).

UTC

[dsr]

Thing is, dsr, ALK have only one investment and that's BFC. They won't "throw that away" or close it down. It's not a short term "make some money, quickly" strategy. It's a medium to long term strategy. ALK will make money from Burnley being in the Premier League long term, because the strategy considers that the Premier League will become more valuable and all clubs in the Premier League will become more valuable. If BFC are relegated, they will want to get BFC back in the Premier League.

Almost every day the past couple of weeks a report has popped up on my mobile, Burnley's transfer targets for summer transfer window. One of Maxwel Cornet's ex-colleagues at Lyon is amongst them. I don't recall any time in previous seasons when there's been any reports on transfer targets for Burnley so far ahead of the window. (Please, no one start a summer transfer window thread until this season is over).

UTC

I don't doubt that ALK and Pace will do all they can to make BFC successful. Of course they will, if only because success for BFC means profit for ALK.

The point is that ALK, although stand-alone in itself, is an investment vehicle for big investors who have other investments in their portfolios. And their interest is in profit, not in sentimental "Oh Bur-ne-ley is wonderful" songs like the rest of us. And the point at which they say "sod it, we've lost our money, write it off" would be reached much sooner than you or I would reach it. If BFC are relegated, they will indeed want BFC back in the Premier League, but they won't throw good money after bad. If they think their best long term profit is in writing off the investment as a loss, then that's what they will do. They won't be like Venky's, throwing money in the pot year after year just to tick over.

[ClaretTony]

If we're banking on bouncing back, we're gonna need serious spending in the summer transfer window and probably change in the management team. Where does that money come from?

Anyone who thinks this team just drops a division and starts to win every game is delusional, losing is an incredibly difficult habit to shake and we've been used to losing most weeks for 2 years. We played at home against Huddersfield recently, their 2nd string, how did it go? Last time we were in the Championship trying to bounce back, we were absolutely appalling for the first 4 months of the season, dismantled by Hull at Christmas and suddenly clicked and started to grind out wins.

Sheffield United and West Brom have kept their side together, both are struggling. We look more like a Sunderland/Blackburn/Bolton than a Newcastle/Wolves. Dyche and the players have forgot how to win games, we've players in the squad who would struggle at League One level.

I don't really want to take this thread away from what it is but this losing most weeks is not really true is it? We've lost one more game than West Ham who are currently fourth. Of the other teams in the bottom half of the league, only Palace have lost less.

Now onto the last time we were in the Championship and being appalling for the first four months. Having lost at Ipswich in mid-August, we won 9, drew 2 and lost 1 of the next 12 which doesn't sound too appalling to me. We were second in the table. And we drew the next three. We were soundly beaten at Hull, just our fifth defeat of the season and our last defeat of the season. The one defeat in that early run was against Reading after which we dropped to sixth. We were never that low in the table again. Not sure at all how you could consider that appalling.

[fatboy47]

ALK have only one investment and that's BFC. They won't "throw that away" or close it down. It's not a short term "make some money, quickly" strategy.


UTC

Hmmmmm... Maybe you're right Paul...but to me, clearing over £10m in the last window and failing to strengthen our beleaguered midfield suggests either incompetence or "making a fast buck"
Sorry fella...whistle in the dark all you like but its one or the other.

[Paul Waine]

I don't doubt that ALK and Pace will do all they can to make BFC successful. Of course they will, if only because success for BFC means profit for ALK.

The point is that ALK, although stand-alone in itself, is an investment vehicle for big investors who have other investments in their portfolios. And their interest is in profit, not in sentimental "Oh Bur-ne-ley is wonderful" songs like the rest of us. And the point at which they say "sod it, we've lost our money, write it off" would be reached much sooner than you or I would reach it. If BFC are relegated, they will indeed want BFC back in the Premier League, but they won't throw good money after bad. If they think their best long term profit is in writing off the investment as a loss, then that's what they will do. They won't be like Venky's, throwing money in the pot year after year just to tick over.

I doubt that's how it works, dsr. Agree, potentially lots of wealthy people investing in ALK, also with lots of other investments. But, decisions for ALK made by Alan Pace and his team and my expectation is that AP will be fully invested in Burnley's success because "making it work" will be what he's all about. He won't be writing anything off unless it's taken away from him by others.

[Paul Waine]

Hmmmmm... Maybe you're right Paul...but to me, clearing over £10m in the last window and failing to strengthen our beleaguered midfield suggests either incompetence or "making a fast buck"
Sorry fella...whistle in the dark all you like but its one or the other.

Or, the guy AP wanted to sign didn't sign... It's not dark where I'm sitting. I'm looking forward to Brighton at the w/end.

UTC

[Jakubclaret]

That money could have been offered from the start on a take it or leave it basis with a timed retraction, if it’s left you’ve got the best part of a month & the money still intact to pursue other targets.

[dsr]

I doubt that's how it works, dsr. Agree, potentially lots of wealthy people investing in ALK, also with lots of other investments. But, decisions for ALK made by Alan Pace and his team and my expectation is that AP will be fully invested in Burnley's success because "making it work" will be what he's all about. He won't be writing anything off unless it's taken away from him by others.

Of course Pace will be fully invested in BFC, and of course he won't be writing it off. But his investors might, if it comes to BFC being in the Championship and needing investment a la Venky's to try and get back up.

Pace can decide that BFC need £20m new investment, but someone else has the decision as to whether to provide it.

[Quickenthetempo]

Just seen on twitter the new guy who bought Sunderland has actually only bought 41% of the shares. So hasn't really taken over the club.

It's a murky world in finance and football.

[Vegas Claret]

Since the takeover and for the next few months at least, ALK's interests match those of the club. It's in both our interests to stay in the Premier League.

If that doesn't happen, it wouldn't be a surprise if we then have different interests.

We might want investment in a new squad that can challenge for promotion, ALK might want to cut their losses and get out, using the club's dwindling resources to settle any debts on the way out.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

yeah, so if they sell in that scenario then they have by definition failed

[Vegas Claret]

It's bonkers to just blindly assume that their plans are good? Or that the best strategy for ALK in the event of relegation will be to cut their losses?

I hope it's successful as any one does but I would say what's bonkers is the line of thinking that's basically "I like Burnley so the Burnley owners must be good"

It's bonkers to just blindly assume that their plans are bad?

works both ways and it's all based on conjecture - hence bonkers

[Jakubclaret]

It's bonkers to just blindly assume that their plans are bad?

works both ways and it's all based on conjecture - hence bonkers

How can loading a club with debt be good for a relatively small club with a modest turnover modest being very generous, it’s not conjecture we all know roughly what the turnovers are & the debt, we aren’t wildly guessing we might not know the exact figures but we are there or thereabouts, it’s not a million miles away calculation.

[Vegas Claret]

How can loading a club with debt be good for a relatively small club with a modest turnover modest being very generous, it’s not conjecture we all know roughly what the turnovers are & the debt, we aren’t wildly guessing we might not know the exact figures but we are there or thereabouts, it’s not a million miles away calculation.

like I said, you've no clue whatsoever what their plans are just as I don't. I don't do blind faith but I also don't cross bridges that aren't there. It may well turn out to be a complete disaster or it may not, the meltdown based on conjecture is epic though.

[Jakubclaret]

I don’t see how & why the newspapers would print lies without legal problems, we are in the sh1t you only need to open your eyes.