No blocking of loans between related parties

[ClaretTony]

Makes me wonder if our club have done a deal with one of the rebels if that is allowed, e.g. “you vote our way and we will loan or sell you these players in January”.

Because it sounds like the club have little to gain from it otherwise in the short term.

ALK have been trying to buy other clubs though since getting control of Burnley.

[JohnMcGreal]

Very grubby and very sad to see our great club on the wrong side of things in this way.

[NewClaret]

Could this be a pointer that the rumoured Middle Eastern investment is true?

I can’t see why we’d vote against this just so we can loan players to the Belgian side? And was the vote to prevent outgoing loans?

Surely we wouldn’t be voting against otherwise?

[aggi]

the report in the Telegraph shows that while Burnley voted to block the related party player loans (multi-club) approach but switched sides on the related party commercial deals - nothing unusual in the fact that they voted in self interest

Revealed: Premier League’s rebel eight who blocked ban on loan deals between associated clubs
Chelsea, Man City, Newcastle and Everton among those who defeated temporary ban as League tries to get to grips with multi-club ownership
https://archive.li/D35Ro

So no more EMA Equity Partners ...

[ClaretTony]

So no more EMA Equity Partners ...

That’s a blow

[Chester Perry]

So no more EMA Equity Partners ...

The commercial aspects , relates to fair value and specifically the aim to demonstrate that there was another no related party bid for the same at equal value.

I would be interested to know if EMA Equity Partners and indeed Dude Perfect were actually significant financial sponsorship deals to the club. The latter seemed far more about brand awareness/development than real cash benefit from the agreement - the shirt sales may be significant, but that is a far more complex issue for the Premier League/EFL to mull over

[boyyanno]

The owners are showing their real hand here.

This decision does not benefit Burnley in any way on the pitch (at least in the short to medium term), in fact its likely to negatively impact us.

However it keeps the option open to go down the multi club route which is obviously part of the business strategy.

Used Burnley to make a vote that suits Alan Pace and the other owners but isn't beneficial to the club.

Absolutely stinks.

[Rileybobs]

I always found the idea that BFC's ownership would buy another club in order to play the system and circumvent rules to be extremely shady. A lot of people on here seemed to be in favour. The whole thing stinks.

[CoolClaret]

I always found the idea that BFC's ownership would buy another club in order to play the system and circumvent rules to be extremely shady. A lot of people on here seemed to be in favour. The whole thing stinks.

Integrity is saying something is wrong even when it has the opportunity to ‘benefit’ our own party/agenda.

No doubt those happy with it would be upset if it we weren’t in favour and the notion went ahead.

[AfloatinClaret]

It would be pointless for us to vote to ban inter club loans while we have been actively trying to buy another club.

But we haven't bought one as yet and this rule applies specifically to loans this coming January, so unless we buy someone before then, we can't benefit from it directly; but indirectly... who knows?

[boyyanno]

But we haven't bought one as yet and this rule applies specifically to loans this coming January, so unless we buy someone before then, we can't benefit from it directly; but indirectly... who knows?

I personally think its all about the business model and ultimately the bottom line which is money.

Who cares if it screws over other clubs or Burnley FC as long as Alan Pace can still sell his multi club dream to the investors.

He's lost me completely with this- Get the F out of our club.

[Nori1958]

Knee jerk reactions again when nobody actually knows what it means for the club

[boyyanno]

Knee jerk reactions again when nobody actually knows what it means for the club

With all due respect I don't give a shite what it means for the club.

I know what it means for the league and the other teams that can't afford to engage in dodgy dealings to further leg themselves up.

The fact that Alan Pace has voted the way he has says it all.

Take your defend all attitude and do one. I can stand people needlessly backing the club (after all we are Burnley fans) but I'm not even entertaining anyone who wants to suggest Alan Pace is doing a good thing here.

[Quickenthetempo]

The Premier league will officially block them by the end of the season anyhow.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless Newcastle relegate us again with a Saudi loan scoring against us.

[Big Vinny K]

Knee jerk reactions again when nobody actually knows what it means for the club

No we don’t know for sure you are correct but I’m struggling to think of reasons why we would do this other than to circumvent the regular rules around loaning, buying or selling players.
Why would any club like ours by a “feeder” club ? The multi club ownership is riddled with dodgy owners and dodgy deals.

Can you think of any good reason why we would vote as we have just done ? If not then it’s pretty reasonable for fans to make assumptions as why they have. It’s hardly like there’s much chance of the club coming out and explaining it is there ? (I hope they do btw)

[aggi]

The commercial aspects , relates to fair value and specifically the aim to demonstrate that there was another no related party bid for the same at equal value.

I would be interested to know if EMA Equity Partners and indeed Dude Perfect were actually significant financial sponsorship deals to the club. The latter seemed far more about brand awareness/development than real cash benefit from the agreement - the shirt sales may be significant, but that is a far more complex issue for the Premier League/EFL to mull over

Who knows, I've got the EMA deal down with who owned Turf Moor as one of those unexplained mysteries.

Dude Perfect isn't related is it? Plus I imagine that deal was for peanuts, if anything. Kid's shirt sponsor isn't a big money-spinner.

[Chester Perry]

Who knows, I've got the EMA deal down with who owned Turf Moor as one of those unexplained mysteries.

Dude Perfect isn't related is it? Plus I imagine that deal was for peanuts, if anything. Kid's shirt sponsor isn't a big money-spinner.

Dude Perfect were declared as minority co-owners in ALK/VSL and therefore the club (though they declared it the other way round) at the end the summer

[Chester Perry]

For those wanting a legal take on the findings in the Everton PSR case - the latest edition of 'The Backpage' from Sheridans Sport - a leading British (if not the leading) legal firm in the sports sphere gives it's take on the findings, presenting them in a future legal advisory context

What can Premier League clubs learn from the Everton decision?
In the wake of Everton's 10-point deduction, we take a closer look at some of the key insights and practical takeaways which Premier League clubs should be alive to.
https://sheridanssport.substack.com/p/w ... lubs-learn

[Nori1958]

With all due respect I don't give a shite what it means for the club.

I know what it means for the league and the other teams that can't afford to engage in dodgy dealings to further leg themselves up.

The fact that Alan Pace has voted the way he has says it all.

Take your defend all attitude and do one. I can stand people needlessly backing the club (after all we are Burnley fans) but I'm not even entertaining anyone who wants to suggest Alan Pace is doing a good thing here.

As if to prove my point

I have not said it's good or bad

I haven't defended it, or needlessly backed the club

I've just suggested that none of us know what the outcome will be, so posters telling the chairman to f off from the club is a little premature, and a knee jerk reaction......in my opinion.

[boyyanno]

As if to prove my point

I have not said it's good or bad

I haven't defended it, or needlessly backed the club

I've just suggested that none of us know what the outcome will be, so posters telling the chairman to f off from the club is a little premature, and a knee jerk reaction......in my opinion.

And I suggested that everyone knows this is bad news in general regardless how it reflects on BFC.

So I don't think it's a knee jerk reaction, it's perfectly validated. So please explain how your point has been proved in any way shape or form?

[Anonymous Claret]

A big thanks to Chester, Aggi, Paul Waine, Claret Pete and Big Vinny K. I find these threads fascinating and the posters who have experience and knowledge working in the financial sector help people like myself understand things a little clearer.
It would be really helpful if any of you can help answer some questions simplistically that are listed below.

1. Do we actually know the names of any individual investors or are they hidden behind shady investment companies?
2. Is there a list of the VSL individual financial investors anywhere in the public domain.
3. If the financial investors aren't happy with Pace's handling of their funds, what can they do?
4. Is it possible/likely that investors will try to interfere with the management of the playing side-sacking Kompany etc,?

I don't think it is a coincidence that more people start paying attention to this kind of stuff when we are not successful on the pitch. When we are doing ding well I think a lot of people myself included either go into denial around our ownership or choose to gloss over the ownership model and only pick any positive aspects from it.

[ClaretPete001]

The offending paragraph from the Telegraph is here:

https://archive.li/D35Ro

In a separate vote, the clubs also rejected new amendments to harden up so-called associated party transactions governing the commercial deals agreed between clubs and external companies. It is understood 13 clubs voted in favour, one short of the required majority. In that vote, Burnley switched sides. Those rules would have put much greater personal liability on directors.

The inference is the personal liability incurred by individual directors as being the issue in the second vote.

Regardless, of the wider ethics of football it's hard to imagine that we will gain much benefit from this given most clubs are owned by billionaires...!

The fundamental logic of business continues to apply albeit it's interesting that Man Utd and Liverpool voted for it given they are both currently owned by Sports Groups who you would think would have an interest in MLS teams.

The problem for teams like Sheff Utd, Notts Forest and ourselves is that the more they open the gates to the manipulation of Fair Play rules the more expensive it will become for them to compete in the English pyramid.

So, although some of the Turkeys voted against Christmas some also voted for it including ourselves.

[Nori1958]

And I suggested that everyone knows this is bad news in general regardless how it reflects on BFC.

So I don't think it's a knee jerk reaction, it's perfectly validated. So please explain how your point has been proved in any way shape or form?

My point was,by jumping in, accusing me of saying things I hadn't, you had one of those knee jerk moments

My original reply was to the person telling the chairman to f off out of the club

[boyyanno]

My point was,by jumping in, accusing me of saying things I hadn't, you had one of those knee jerk moments

My original reply was to the person telling the chairman to f off out of the club

Yeah that was me- I do hope he effs off.

I don't care if we do or don't benefit, it's shameful to support somthing that bends the rules to benefit the ones at the big table.

I have integrity, not a chance do I support Pace in this.

[Conroy92]

I bet when the news broke, we'd be one of the lower end choices out of prem sides that would vote this way. It's not a nice surprise.

Let's not pretend we wouldn't be calling the clubs for doing this, it started on the first page, big six can f*** off ect. Yet here are little old Burnley backing this too.

Its a decisions purely based to gain an advantage by a means that seems mirky at best and certainly is another step in alienating the smaller teams. Usually this would be the exact sort of thing we would be against and as fans and supporters of not only Burnley football club but of Football as a whole, I fail to see how this can't garner anything but a negative reaction.

It's another step in a negative direction for football and it feels like one of the first times, to me, we've been a part in it. It feels a little dirty.

Instead of people considering the benefits of Burnley FC, consider the money that is ruining the game, think of the elite clubs being allowed to bend and manipulate every loop hole of the game to spend more and win more and think of the lower sides struggling to be competitive without these advantages. Do I want my club to be a part in that, no. Do I want us to be competitive at premier league level, yes but doing so with honestly and with pride, the Burnley way.
What I don't want is us to sell our soul for it.

[NewClaret]

The Premier league will officially block them by the end of the season anyhow.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless Newcastle relegate us again with a Saudi loan scoring against us.

Hadn’t thought of that. Then we’d look stupid.

[Chester Perry]

Hadn’t thought of that. Then we’d look stupid.

it will still require 14 votes to get the rule actioned - no guarantee that will happen

[aggi]

Dude Perfect were declared as minority co-owners in ALK/VSL and therefore the club (though they declared it the other way round) at the end the summer

Was that actually confirmed? I remember the initial announcement being a bit vague with it not clear whether it was just some form of partnership or actual investment

[Chester Perry]

Was that actually confirmed? I remember the initial announcement being a bit vague with it not clear whether it was just some form of partnership or actual investment

That is what they say here - though there is are phrasing catches which i will highlight - I took it at face value but who knows, though it feel more real than the Malcolm Jenkins investment

Dude Perfect Talk Investing In Burnley FC! | INTERVIEW

Dude Perfect, the leading sports and entertainment group, have today confirmed their investment in Burnley Football Club, as the Clarets prepare for their Premier League return in 2023/24.

The group, made up of Garrett Hilbert, Tyler Toney, Cody Jones and Coby and Cory Cotton, will formalise their involvement in the Club’s ownership group, having been revealed earlier this month as the official shirt partner for 2023/24 junior retail shirts and academy teams.

Since meeting at Texas A&M University, Dude Perfect have gone on to amass over 59 million YouTube subscribers and almost 16 billion YouTube views since launching their channel 14 years ago.

Speaking about their investment in Burnley, which follows the news earlier this year that ex-NFL star JJ Watt and his wife, former USWNT player Kealia were joining the Clarets family, Garrett Hilbert from Dude Perfect said: “We’ve been fans of the Premier League for some time, so we’re excited to formalise the relationship with Burnley and hopefully help to introduce a bunch of younger fans to the club.

“What Vincent and the guys achieved last year was incredible and it’s a really exciting time to be a Burnley fan. We also spoke to JJ multiple times and his passion and ideas for how we can help grow to the club and create Burnley fans for life really excited us - we’re planning to be in town for the Manchester City game this month and we can’t wait to meet everyone.”

Alan Pace, Chairman of Burnley FC, added: “We’re delighted to formally welcome Dude Perfect into the Clarets family and this is another exciting step on our journey as we prepare for the 2023/24 season. The guys have shown a huge interest and passion in the club, its history and our community. I’m excited by the opportunities that this partnership will bring as we continue to attract new fans and showcase the Burnley brand to a global audience.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rraf_uYziN4

[aggi]

That is what they say here - though there is are phrasing catches which i will highlight - I took it at face value but who knows, though it feel more real than the Malcolm Jenkins investment

...

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of. I remember thinking at the time it was a bit vague and weirdly phrased and re-reading it still makes me think that, although it's probably just clumsy rather than anything specific.