Burnley Football Club - first accounts under ALK

[aggi]

Again this reflects either (1) how accurate the commentary has been on here or (2) the authors read this site.

No one has yet mentioned the £10 million inter-company load that went out after the year end. I wonder if those are the management re-charges.

Management recharges wouldn't be in the form of a loan, they'd be an expense.

[Paul Waine]

Again this reflects either (1) how accurate the commentary has been on here or (2) the authors read this site.

No one has yet mentioned the £10 million inter-company load that went out after the year end. I wonder if those are the management re-charges.

The loan to another group company will not be management charges. There were no management charges in the accounting period to 31-July-2021. If there had been any they would have been described as such. That's not to say that there won't be management charges in future periods - except I'd expect the MSD loan to be significantly reduced or club finances to be otherwise much strengthened before any management charges were made.

Why do I mention the MSD loan? Would you lend someone a lot of money and let them reduce the value of your security for that lending? Any management charges will require MSD's agreement before they could be made.

[Paul Waine]

Does this then suggest that no release clause was met?

No, of course not. It's possible that £12.5 million is 50% of the fee paid, but there's no reason why the transfer fee would be split 50:50. It could be any agreed ratio.

[ClaretTony]

I'd be delighted if we can successfully emulate Brentford

You would need to start that process by finding a wealthy owner prepared to put a substantial amount of his money into it. Then you would have to scrap the academy (which rules you out of ever playing in Europe) and have a B team below the first team playing friendlies. Then, as they are at Brentford right now, you would have to look at the effects of Brexit and how it's preventing you from bringing in the players you want.

[Paul Waine]

Why would a transfer fee be included in the accounts from over a year ago?

Are you asking about Chris Wood's transfer fee? The accounts mention that, amongst post-balance sheet events, Wood was sold.

The charge is not in the accounts. This is "brand new" - entered into on Tuesday 3rd May.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don't wish to be rude, but you're either making things up or else you just aren't reading my posts.

I said "Garlick ran the club within its means with the intention of removing large sums from the club when he left. (For the record, I don't know when he developed that intention, just that that was his intention on 30th December 2020. It may have been his purpose for years, it may have been a decision of his last few months.)"

There is no sensible way to take that to mean "from the day he assumed majority ownership". It's clear, beyond the point where it could be misinterpreted (except deliberately), that what I am saying is that by 30th December 2020 his intention was to take large sums out of the club, and that I don't know how long before that date he developed that intention.

And I didn't say he took money directly from the club's accounts. That is your allegation and yours alone. Not that it makes much difference whether he took the funds directly or indirectly, except that it's just another way in which you are inventing stuff that I haven't said to try and make a point.

I read it perfectly fine.
What you're doing is making allegations that you cannot substantiate to suit your agenda, that's why you added the bit in brackets to try and avoid anything libellous.

You're also the one who said he was planning to remove large sums from the club, it's there in black and white, so I just repeated what you said, that would imply the accounts and now you're backtracking.

Amazing that people are still willing to throw that one around.

[ClaretPete001]

The loan to another group company will not be management charges. There were no management charges in the accounting period to 31-July-2021. If there had been any they would have been described as such. That's not to say that there won't be management charges in future periods - except I'd expect the MSD loan to be significantly reduced or club finances to be otherwise much strengthened before any management charges were made.

Why do I mention the MSD loan? Would you lend someone a lot of money and let them reduce the value of your security for that lending? Any management charges will require MSD's agreement before they could be made.

Yes, typing too quickly.

There has been another £10 million, which has gone between two companies in the group but it doesn't state what it is for other than it has been "advanced".

Because it has gone out after the year end it clearly won't be in the accounts but presumably someone thought it material enough to mention in the notes (25).

[Lancasterclaret]

I wasn't suggesting both spending and saving at the same time, if that's what you're wondering. I was suggesting that we should get an owner who wants to run the club sensibly but doesn't want to take £100m+ out of the club. Many PL clubs have them.

There isn't one

Thats why I mentioned the reality bit, as imagining a scenario that didn't exist is a waste of time

[Quickenthetempo]

Are you asking about Chris Wood's transfer fee? The accounts mention that, amongst post-balance sheet events, Wood was sold.

The charge is not in the accounts. This is "brand new" - entered into on Tuesday 3rd May.

It's all gobbledygook to me. I just rely on the good poster on here putting it into Laymans terms. (Even though every has their own thoughts)

I just thought the accounts would cover the year end date? Who puts charges on? The club or companies we owe money to?

[NewClaret]

For those exceptionally worried about the debt, it’s worth noting that this is probably a contingency against the relegation repayment, and represents ~20% repayment for a player already departed & replaced.

[daveisaclaret]

One question I would like to ask to the people who really get this - it seems clear that things would be bad if we go down and fine if we stay up, but is there any sense of what this means if we stay up this season but go down next season? Or is it too early to say either way?

Apologies if already answered - tried to keep up with the thread but to be honest there's a lot of stuff from others not worth reading.

[RicardoMontalban]

It’s a fair point. I know Garlick doesn’t have the wealth that Bloom at Brighton / Benham at Brentford have (as examples), but both are fans of the clubs they own (as Garlick is meant to be). The latter two, though, have ensured money is going into their clubs from their own fortunes rather than taking £100m out.

Sitting around waiting for Burnley’s very own Tony Bloom to rock up will be a long and fruitless task, I suspect.

Let’s also remember Bloom became chairman of a club in the third tier of English football, not the Premier League. Comparing him and BHA with our situation at the end of Garlick’s tenure isn’t really useful.

[gandhisflipflop]

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned on here is the amount we pay off the 65m loan is subject to agreement between the two parties.

[boyyanno]

No, of course not. It's possible that £12.5 million is 50% of the fee paid, but there's no reason why the transfer fee would be split 50:50. It could be any agreed ratio.

I would have thought that if a player had a release clause it wouldn't have staged payments in it, but I may be wrong.

I find it interesting as when Wood was sold I posted on here to say I'd been told from someone at the club that half of the Wood money would be banked to repay some of the debt.

[dsr]

I read it perfectly fine.
What you're doing is making allegations that you cannot substantiate to suit your agenda, that's why you added the bit in brackets to try and avoid anything libellous.

You're also the one who said he was planning to remove large sums from the club, it's there in black and white, so I just repeated what you said, that would imply the accounts and now you're backtracking.

Amazing that people are still willing to throw that one around.

I said that on 30th December 2020 and for some unspecified time before that (months or years) he had the intention of taking the money from the club. There is no doubt whatsoever that he signed the agreement to sell his shares, knowing that the money was coming from the club. He was on the board of directors that agreed it, he is still on the board of directors, he wouldn't have made the sale agreement without knowing where the money was coming from.

The lie is that you have accused me of saying that he was doing this from day 1. I have not said this. You have made the (IMO very stupid) assumption that just because he had that intention on the last day of his chairmanship and for some time before, that he must have had that intention from day 1. You know perfectly well that I did not say that and by repeating it you are just trying to stir up trouble, whether for me or for the board administrators I do not know.

Fact. Large sums of money (over £100m) have left the club and have arrived at Garlick. Fact: he agreed to that deal. Fact: it was planned and he was among those who planned it.

[dsr]

There isn't one

Thats why I mentioned the reality bit, as imagining a scenario that didn't exist is a waste of time

Quite apart from Delia Smith at Norwich, I was including those directors who put money into their clubs among the subset of directors who don't take money out. They certainly aren't easy to get, but they certainly do exist.

[bfcjg]

Unexciting chimes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_k ... ral%20toll.

[Lancasterclaret]

Quite apart from Delia Smith at Norwich, I was including those directors who put money into their clubs among the subset of directors who don't take money out. They certainly aren't easy to get, but they certainly do exist.

Point is none of them turned up when the club was for sale, and the only two interested parties were a Egyptian backed by the bloke who ruined Charlton and ALK

That is the reality, whether we like it or not

[Rileybobs]

Fact. Large sums of money (over £100m) have left the club and have arrived at Garlick.

Is that a fact, or have you just made that up?

[RVclaret]

Sitting around waiting for Burnley’s very own Tony Bloom to rock up will be a long and fruitless task, I suspect.

Let’s also remember Bloom became chairman of a club in the third tier of English football, not the Premier League. Comparing him and BHA with our situation at the end of Garlick’s tenure isn’t really useful.

Garlick took over a mid table 2nd tier club. Similar size in terms of attendance at the time to Brighton. Burnley does have richer fan(s) (a lot lot richer) than Garlick and co but it doesn’t seem they want the responsibility of running a club they are emotional about.

And anyway that wasn’t my point, more that Garlick‘s chosen method of sale has cost the club, he supports, over £100m. If he was that unhappy he could have waited longer / appointed a ‘proxy’ to run the club (yes I’m aware he’d still have majority control). Something like a technical director / Director of football / head of football operations to work alongside a CEO.

[Foreverly Claret]

The accounts for the Burnley Football and Athletic Company Limited are now available

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

Just had a quick look through these accounts and , given my pre retirement background , what leaps off the page to me is the miserable level of contribution by the club to its staff pension scheme .Assuming that only 134 staff are in the scheme...ie that players ,managerial and coaching staff etc do their own thing....it's not very good ...if there are more than 134 staff in the scheme it makes it even worse. If it's less then £12000 per month still looks mean .We tend to forget about the ordinary folk who are working for our club .

[Chester Perry]

Fact. Large sums of money (over £100m) have left the club and have arrived at Garlick. Fact: he agreed to that deal. Fact: it was planned and he was among those who planned it.

A little bit incendiary DSR (and I know you have been riled in the last 24 hours)

yes over £100m has left the club - but to be specific it has gone to the sellers in proportion to the shares they sold - at no point is Garlick ever likely to get £100m for his shares and that includes the ones that are ringfenced but not yet sold

As for Garlick knowing where it would all come from on December 30 2020 - he would know it was the probable backstop, but was also aware of the intention of VSL to flip some shareholding and relatively quickly - we know they toured Wall Street in Early Feb 2021looking to do exactly that. The model has so far failed and Garlick is culpable in the sense that he allowed it to be put in play - he still remains the one likely to have to pick up the cost if it fails completely

The cash pile (to my way of thinking) was available for multiple options (including the leveraged buy-out), it came from a very determined and disciplined approach at running the club close to breakeven - spending surpluses on players would have broken that model if there was no guarantee of revenue uplift (I am talking commercial and matchday here not merit payments) - squad refresh required playing trading and that did not happen though there has been plenty of hearsay reported noise about the fact Garlick was open to the idea. Even this latest set of accounts clearly demonstrated that the model was in continuous play right to the end. Which is why I retain the belief that without Covid, the summer window of 2020 would have been very different.

Putting the sale of the club down to a single factor (cash extraction) is too binary for me to accept, there were numerous other factors and influences at play some we are probably still unaware of.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I said that on 30th December 2020 and for some unspecified time before that (months or years) he had the intention of taking the money from the club. There is no doubt whatsoever that he signed the agreement to sell his shares, knowing that the money was coming from the club. He was on the board of directors that agreed it, he is still on the board of directors, he wouldn't have made the sale agreement without knowing where the money was coming from.

The lie is that you have accused me of saying that he was doing this from day 1. I have not said this. You have made the (IMO very stupid) assumption that just because he had that intention on the last day of his chairmanship and for some time before, that he must have had that intention from day 1. You know perfectly well that I did not say that and by repeating it you are just trying to stir up trouble, whether for me or for the board administrators I do not know.

Fact. Large sums of money (over £100m) have left the club and have arrived at Garlick. Fact: he agreed to that deal. Fact: it was planned and he was among those who planned it.

I look forwards to seeing the evidence to support your alleged facts.

Do I need to wait long?

[dsr]

I look forwards to seeing the evidence to support your alleged facts.

Do I need to wait long?

You don't have to wait at all. The accounts have already been published.

[Chester Perry]

Just had a quick look through these accounts and , given my pre retirement background , what leaps off the page to me is the miserable level of contribution by the club to its staff pension scheme .Assuming that only 134 staff are in the scheme...ie that players ,managerial and coaching staff etc do their own thing....it's not very good ...if there are more than 134 staff in the scheme it makes it even worse. If it's less then £12000 per month still looks mean .We tend to forget about the ordinary folk who are working for our club .

add in the fact the club still will not sign up to paying the 'Living wage' and it is a sad picture

[RicardoMontalban]

Garlick took over a mid table 2nd tier club. Similar size in terms of attendance at the time to Brighton. Burnley does have richer fan(s) (a lot lot richer) than Garlick and co but it doesn’t seem they want the responsibility of running a club they are emotional about.

And anyway that wasn’t my point, more that Garlick‘s chosen method of sale has cost the club, he supports, over £100m. If he was that unhappy he could have waited longer / appointed a ‘proxy’ to run the club (yes I’m aware he’d still have majority control). Something like a technical director / Director of football / head of football operations to work alongside a CEO.

That there are plenty of richer fans unwilling to invest in the club, is, when you’re making reference to Tony Bloom, almost entirely the point.

As for the idea of Garlick taking a back seat and letting a proxy run the club, I think we’re forgetting the atmosphere that was pervading at the time of the take over. The general consensus seemed to be pretty clear that it was time to move on and unfortunately there were two options on the table, and I think everyone was in agreement that ALK was preferred over the Egyptian chap.

You reference £100m being taken out of the club/costing the club £100m. Where is this? Beyond DSR’s very obvious stance on this which I do think sails much too close to libellous waters, I’ve not picked up on a line that expressly states the new owners have taken £100m out of the club, as of now. It may come to pass, but has it yet?

[RicardoMontalban]

Garlick took over a mid table 2nd tier club. Similar size in terms of attendance at the time to Brighton. Burnley does have richer fan(s) (a lot lot richer) than Garlick and co but it doesn’t seem they want the responsibility of running a club they are emotional about.

And anyway that wasn’t my point, more that Garlick‘s chosen method of sale has cost the club, he supports, over £100m. If he was that unhappy he could have waited longer / appointed a ‘proxy’ to run the club (yes I’m aware he’d still have majority control). Something like a technical director / Director of football / head of football operations to work alongside a CEO.

That there are plenty of richer fans unwilling to invest in the club, is, when you’re making reference to Tony Bloom, almost entirely the point.

As for the idea of Garlick taking a back seat and letting a proxy run the club, I think we’re forgetting the atmosphere that was pervading at the time of the take over. The general consensus seemed to be pretty clear that it was time to move on and unfortunately there were two options on the table, and I think everyone was in agreement that ALK was preferred over the Egyptian chap.

You reference £100m being taken out of the club/costing the club £100m. Where is this? Beyond DSR’s very obvious stance on this which I do think sails much too close to libellous waters, I’ve not picked up on a line that expressly states the new owners have taken £100m out of the club, as of now. It may come to pass, but has it yet?

[dsr]

That there are plenty of richer fans unwilling to invest in the club, is, when you’re making reference to Tony Bloom, almost entirely the point.

As for the idea of Garlick taking a back seat and letting a proxy run the club, I think we’re forgetting the atmosphere that was pervading at the time of the take over. The general consensus seemed to be pretty clear that it was time to move on and unfortunately there were two options on the table, and I think everyone was in agreement that ALK was preferred over the Egyptian chap.

You reference £100m being taken out of the club/costing the club £100m. Where is this? Beyond DSR’s very obvious stance on this which I do think sails much too close to libellous waters, I’ve not picked up on a line that expressly states the new owners have taken £100m out of the club, as of now. It may come to pass, but has it yet?

The club accounts say that the club owes the holding company £102m. They also make it clear that this consists of £37m cash and the new £65m loan which the club has borrowed.

[RicardoMontalban]

Garlick took over a mid table 2nd tier club. Similar size in terms of attendance at the time to Brighton. Burnley does have richer fan(s) (a lot lot richer) than Garlick and co but it doesn’t seem they want the responsibility of running a club they are emotional about.

And anyway that wasn’t my point, more that Garlick‘s chosen method of sale has cost the club, he supports, over £100m. If he was that unhappy he could have waited longer / appointed a ‘proxy’ to run the club (yes I’m aware he’d still have majority control). Something like a technical director / Director of football / head of football operations to work alongside a CEO.

That there are plenty of richer fans unwilling to invest in the club, is, when you’re making reference to Tony Bloom, almost entirely the point.

As for the idea of Garlick taking a back seat and letting a proxy run the club, I think we’re forgetting the atmosphere that was pervading at the time of the take over. The general consensus seemed to be pretty clear that it was time to move on and unfortunately there were two options on the table, and I think everyone was in agreement that ALK was preferred over the Egyptian chap.

You reference £100m being taken out of the club/costing the club £100m. Where is this? Beyond DSR’s very obvious stance on this which I do think sails much too close to libellous waters, I’ve not picked up on a line that expressly states the new owners have taken £100m out of the club, as of now. It may come to pass, but has it yet?

[RicardoMontalban]

Garlick took over a mid table 2nd tier club. Similar size in terms of attendance at the time to Brighton. Burnley does have richer fan(s) (a lot lot richer) than Garlick and co but it doesn’t seem they want the responsibility of running a club they are emotional about.

And anyway that wasn’t my point, more that Garlick‘s chosen method of sale has cost the club, he supports, over £100m. If he was that unhappy he could have waited longer / appointed a ‘proxy’ to run the club (yes I’m aware he’d still have majority control). Something like a technical director / Director of football / head of football operations to work alongside a CEO.

That there are plenty of richer fans unwilling to invest in the club, is, when you’re making reference to Tony Bloom, almost entirely the point.

As for the idea of Garlick taking a back seat and letting a proxy run the club, I think we’re forgetting the atmosphere that was pervading at the time of the take over. The general consensus seemed to be pretty clear that it was time to move on and unfortunately there were two options on the table, and I think everyone was in agreement that ALK was preferred over the Egyptian chap.

You reference £100m being taken out of the club/takeover costing the club £100m. Where is this? Beyond DSR’s very obvious stance on this which I do think sails much too close to libellous waters, I’ve not picked up on a line that expressly states the new owners have taken £100m out of the club, as of now. It may come to pass, but has it yet?

[Chester Perry]

a post repeated 4 times is a new record I think - are you having problems Ricardo?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Come on Crosspool.....! The Wood deal was not wheeler dealing.

Everyone knows it was unexpected and unplanned and came after the arrivals of Hennessey and Roberts etc.

It wasn't a blinding piece of business - it was a one off bit of fortune no one could have predicted.

Business is about moving fast when “events” occur.

We could have been holed beneath the waterline by Newcastle but to ALK’s credit they pivoted and found a quality replacement, which with the earlier business I outlined leave a much better squad for a similar outlay.

They appear to have a trading mentality akin to what we see at various other clubs, and so far they appear to be getting decent players from it. That’s all I am saying. That is the “yin” to the debt “yang”.

[RicardoMontalban]

a post repeated 4 times is a new record I think - are you having problems Ricardo?

Always!

[CrosspoolClarets]

Come on Crosspool.....! The Wood deal was not wheeler dealing.

Everyone knows it was unexpected and unplanned and came after the arrivals of Hennessey and Roberts etc.

It wasn't a blinding piece of business - it was a one off bit of fortune no one could have predicted.

Business is about moving fast when “events” occur.

We could have been holed beneath the waterline by Newcastle but to ALK’s credit they pivoted and found a quality replacement, which with the earlier business I outlined leave a much better squad for a similar outlay.

They appear to have a trading mentality akin to what we see at various other clubs, and so far they appear to be getting decent players from it. That’s all I am saying. That is the “yin” to the debt “yang”.

[CrosspoolClarets]

(Sorry slow internet, duplicate post)

[CrosspoolClarets]

Come on Crosspool.....! The Wood deal was not wheeler dealing.

Everyone knows it was unexpected and unplanned and came after the arrivals of Hennessey and Roberts etc.

It wasn't a blinding piece of business - it was a one off bit of fortune no one could have predicted.

Business is about moving fast when “events” occur.

We could have been holed beneath the waterline by Newcastle but to ALK’s credit they pivoted and found a quality replacement, which with the earlier business I outlined leave a much better squad for a similar outlay.

They appear to have a trading mentality akin to what we see at various other clubs, and so far they appear to be getting decent players from it. That’s all I am saying. That is the “yin” to the debt “yang”.

[RVclaret]

That there are plenty of richer fans unwilling to invest in the club, is, when you’re making reference to Tony Bloom, almost entirely the point.

As for the idea of Garlick taking a back seat and letting a proxy run the club, I think we’re forgetting the atmosphere that was pervading at the time of the take over. The general consensus seemed to be pretty clear that it was time to move on and unfortunately there were two options on the table, and I think everyone was in agreement that ALK was preferred over the Egyptian chap.

You reference £100m being taken out of the club/costing the club £100m. Where is this? Beyond DSR’s very obvious stance on this which I do think sails much too close to libellous waters, I’ve not picked up on a line that expressly states the new owners have taken £100m out of the club, as of now. It may come to pass, but has it yet?

If they were the only two options on the table, again, the argument is he could have continued to ‘wait’ for a better offer by either getting on with it himself or the idea of a proxy. Southampton were also looking to sell but said a firm no to ALK as they didn’t want an LBO.

£53m has left the club in cash flow to fund the takeover so far (according to CP’s figures on a previous page). Then there is the £65m loan which will be taken out of the clubs playing assets if we go down. Then there are the payments to Garlick and co which aren’t even factored into the above two figures, believed to be > £50m. The athletic article this morning states the club is over £100m worse off than before the takeover.

[Chester Perry]

If they were the only two options on the table, again, the argument is he could have continued to ‘wait’ for a better offer by either getting on with it himself or the idea of a proxy. Southampton were also looking to sell but said a firm no to ALK as they didn’t want an LBO.

£53m has left the club in cash flow to fund the takeover so far (according to CP’s figures on a previous page). Then there is the £65m loan which will be taken out of the clubs playing assets if we go down. Then there are the payments to Garlick and co which aren’t even factored into the above two figures, believed to be > £50m. The athletic article this morning states the club is over £100m worse off than before the takeover.

Southampton had a billionaire minority shareholder (formerly major shareholder) who retained a right of veto if the major shareholding was sold on again (used it quite a lot it would seem, given there were a reported 24 attempts to buy the club before it was sold - no idea as to the credibility/suitability of them all). That shareholder was happy enough to let the club borrow £78.8m from MSD to help them trade normally (buy players) through Covid

[RicardoMontalban]

(Sorry slow internet, duplicate post)

I’ve had a bit of that, too!

[ClaretPete001]

A little bit incendiary DSR (and I know you have been riled in the last 24 hours)

yes over £100m has left the club - but to be specific it has gone to the sellers in proportion to the shares they sold - at no point is Garlick ever likely to get £100m for his shares and that includes the ones that are ringfenced but not yet sold

As for Garlick knowing where it would all come from on December 30 2020 - he would know it was the probable backstop, but was also aware of the intention of VSL to flip some shareholding and relatively quickly - we know they toured Wall Street in Early Feb 2021looking to do exactly that. The model has so far failed and Garlick is culpable in the sense that he allowed it to be put in play - he still remains the one likely to have to pick up the cost if it fails completely

The cash pile (to my way of thinking) was available for multiple options (including the leveraged buy-out), it came from a very determined and disciplined approach at running the club close to breakeven - spending surpluses on players would have broken that model if there was no guarantee of revenue uplift (I am talking commercial and matchday here not merit payments) - squad refresh required playing trading and that did not happen though there has been plenty of hearsay reported noise about the fact Garlick was open to the idea. Even this latest set of accounts clearly demonstrated that the model was in continuous play right to the end. Which is why I retain the belief that without Covid, the summer window of 2020 would have been very different.

Putting the sale of the club down to a single factor (cash extraction) is too binary for me to accept, there were numerous other factors and influences at play some we are probably still unaware of.

All fair points Chester, albeit I think it hard to believe that a complex leveraged buyout fell into the laps of the previous owners. I have no doubt serendipity was involved and lots of other factors but the evidence also fits the view that at some point a decision was made as tot he best way to sell the club. It would be disrespectful to MG and co to think otherwise.

I also find it hard to believe that hard nosed prudent businessmen did not know have any foresight as to how the deal would work out.

[spt_claret]

You would need to start that process by finding a wealthy owner prepared to put a substantial amount of his money into it. Then you would have to scrap the academy (which rules you out of ever playing in Europe) and have a B team below the first team playing friendlies. Then, as they are at Brentford right now, you would have to look at the effects of Brexit and how it's preventing you from bringing in the players you want.

Perhaps I should have clarified that I meant specifically in terms of their analytics and data driven approach to scouting and signing players, and trying to find hidden gems with growth or resale potential. I'd mentioned analytics repeatedly - and the difficulty of applying it without a decade of groundwork and proof of concept like Brentford- but hadn't discussed the rest of their setup.
The ownership point is certainly a problem, it's ideally what we'd have but yes, unrealistic.
The academy point isn't something I'd replicate but in Brentford's case was a specific decision driven by the cost vs the payoff given the sheer competition for youngsters in their catchment area- we might have Manchester nearby but it's not as directly on our doorstep as the majority of their London rivals. I would expect them to revisit the decision if they did qualify for Europe.
We will have to deal with Brexit and transfers regardless. Constantly looking domestically will always have diminishing returns and upward pressure on costs.

[ClaretPete001]

Business is about moving fast when “events” occur.

We could have been holed beneath the waterline by Newcastle but to ALK’s credit they pivoted and found a quality replacement, which with the earlier business I outlined leave a much better squad for a similar outlay.

They appear to have a trading mentality akin to what we see at various other clubs, and so far they appear to be getting decent players from it. That’s all I am saying. That is the “yin” to the debt “yang”.

To be fair to the previous regime they had a good record of quality signings up to 2018/19 evidenced by a Championship victory and an extended stay in the Premiership. We had a squad that deservedly came 7th and qualified for Europe.

I get your broad point but trying to suggest that the Wood situation was an example of successful wheeling and dealing is not really representative of the situation

[Newcastleclaret93]

Point is none of them turned up when the club was for sale, and the only two interested parties were a Egyptian backed by the bloke who ruined Charlton and ALK

That is the reality, whether we like it or not

It would be interesting if this website could do a poll to see who fans would prefer now with the power of the hindsight.

I imagine considerably more would be in favour of the Egyptian owner now than back then.

[Murger]

It would be interesting if this website could do a poll to see who fans would prefer now with the power of the hindsight.

I imagine considerably more would be in favour of the Egyptian owner now than back then.

How'd do you work that out? The Egyptian fella along with the dodgy lawyer sounds as funky now as it did back then.

[gandhisflipflop]

It would be interesting if this website could do a poll to see who fans would prefer now with the power of the hindsight.

I imagine considerably more would be in favour of the Egyptian owner now than back then.

I’m happy with Pace so far.

[RVclaret]

I’m happy with Pace so far.

Yeah, me too.

Can't say I'm 'happy' with the financing of the deal and if we go down it would be sad to see us sell key players and be unable to reinvest that cash on replacements due to loan repayments.

But everything else, Pace is almost exactly what I wanted as a replacement chairman. Really happy with the reported shortlist of candidates he's looking at for managerial replacements too. Just hope we can stay up as I feel we will move forward as a club under him in this league.

[jedi_master]

If we stay up then Pace has gambled (in multiple ways) and the dice throw has succeeded to a massive degree. We’d still need to pay off the MSD loan of £60m within three years though (please, if I’m wrong, someone correct me?) so would need to pay off debt consistently whilst remodelling the squad. That’s going to be tough but is going to be interesting and might lead to a creative transfer strategy.

If we go down and sell all of our best players, use the parachute payments and those transfer monies to simply get back on an even keel financially (but then have no money for any real transfer progress, and are reliant on free transfers, youth players and loans) and return to a Cotterill-esque level of ‘survival’ as a priority, anything else a bonus - then Id think he would be regarded very poorly, or certainly should be.

He’s thrown his dice and he’ll (and we’ll) either win or lose. We have an awful lot riding on these four games. In credit to Pace, he made a massive, massive call sacking Dyche (one I personally would never have made, I hold my hands up) but it would be hard for anyone to say he got that wrong at this point in time (if we put the fact he gave the entire back room staff huge four year deals which we are presumably liable for payment of on the backburner).

A poll now would be interesting, a poll ‘after the fact’ in August wil be far more telling though.

[Lancasterclaret]

It would be interesting if this website could do a poll to see who fans would prefer now with the power of the hindsight.

I imagine considerably more would be in favour of the Egyptian owner now than back then.

Based on what?

I mean, the bloke who ruined Charlton is still the same bloke who ruined Charlton

Its very unlikely that someone who has already f**ked one football club is suddenly going to do something remarkable with another one

[Newcastleclaret93]

Based on what?

I mean, the bloke who ruined Charlton is still the same bloke who ruined Charlton

Its very unlikely that someone who has already f**ked one football club is suddenly going to do something remarkable with another one

Haha makes me wonder why people are happy with pace and checketts then. (I await DJ telling me what they did at Salt Lake was amazing).

It’s a rock and a hard place for me. ALK are gambling with the club. At least the Egyptian appeared to have to some money to throw around.

[ClaretTony]

Point is none of them turned up when the club was for sale, and the only two interested parties were a Egyptian backed by the bloke who ruined Charlton and ALK

That is the reality, whether we like it or not

The bloke you refer to as having ruined Charlton is Cheshire based solicitor Chris Farnell. He'd previously been involved at Wigan, Leeds and Swansea prior to working alongside Paul Elliott in the latter's bid to buy Charlton and eventually Farnell became advisor to Tahnoon Neimer. The bloke who ruined Charlton was prior to that. He was Belgian Roland Duchâtelet who now owns Carl Zeiss Jena and Újpest. The CEO was Katrien Meire (that's who the liar arrow was pointing at when we last played there). She went to Sheffield Wednesday but now mercifully seems to be out of football.