Mike Garlick in The Times

[IanMcL]

Garlick looked after Garlick and took everything out of Burnley FC, after he was brought in to assist by putting in.

What also annoys me is that when we kept stocking up the millions and not buying players, he said we needed to keep the money for a new stand and in case of relegation.

Then he sold to folk with no money and took almost £200,000000 mostly for himself.

He is a scoundrel.

[Spike]

The major problem is how little ALK actually put into the club of their own money.
It is the crazy interest rates that mean that we sell our best players without having adequate replacements or a balanced side

Dyche and the directors did a fantastic job.History will always show that

How anyone could sell the thing they love to someone who in effect promised only to take out an interest only loan out at crazy rates but then have no repayment vehicle or term is totally amazing

[Papabendi]

I certainly don't remember much affection for Hoos. A sentiment shared by QPR fans

[NewClaret]

This link should bypass the paywall...

https://archive.is/qOZKX

Many thanks for that.

Clearly still loves Burnley. Great to hear he rates Parker. Also a fair take on ALK, I think: “they’ve made mistakes but I made mistakes, they’re on a journey”.

Interesting hear him admitting what we all knew about the Europe summer window and it led to his relationship with Dyche and fans becoming ‘tricky’.

[Chester Perry]

The major problem is how little ALK actually put into the club of their own money.
It is the crazy interest rates that mean that we sell our best players without having adequate replacements or a balanced side

Dyche and the directors did a fantastic job.History will always show that

How anyone could sell the thing they love to someone who in effect promised only to take out an interest only loan out at crazy rates but then have no repayment vehicle or term is totally amazing

While we have yet to be informed of the interest rate charged by MGG it may be reasonable to assume that it is likely to be similar to that the club had with MSD and Macquarie which is 8% plus SONIA which for most of this Calendar year has been around 5% giving an overall rate of 13% give or take the odd point or two.

There will be some on here that remember when that was not an unusual rate of interest for a Mortgage, even when it was considered quite competitive - but also many who would find such a rate absolutely catastrophic in these current times. Not to worry we are told it is quite manageable, though to my mind (given that we suspect the borrowing from MGG is for a greater sum than the £70m loaned from Macquarie) that requires quite the jump in player values (and much fewer fails in signings) to make it serviceable

[ClaretPete001]

I just think the article makes no sense whatsoever. He sold out because he is a multi millionaire in a multi billionaire's league and yet he sold the club via a leveraged buyout that took £47 million straight out of the clubs bank accounts and a further £65 million loan secured on the clubs assets to an employee of a bank who admits himself he has no money (in relative terms).

[ClaretPete001]

While we have yet to be informed of the interest rate charged by MGG it may be reasonable to assume that it is likely to be similar to that the club had with MSD and Macquarie which is 8% plus SONIA which for most of this Calendar year has been around 5% giving an overall rate of 13% give or take the odd point or two.

There will be some on here that remember when that was not an unusual rate of interest for a Mortgage, even when it was considered quite competitive - but also many who would find such a rate absolutely catastrophic in these current times. Not to worry we are told it is quite manageable, though to my mind (given that we suspect the borrowing from MGG is for a greater sum than the £70m loaned from Macquarie) that requires quite the jump in player values (and much fewer fails in signings) to make it serviceable

I think what we are seeing is a problematic business model getting ever more challenging precisely for all the reasons you would expect. Commoditising players is difficult and we have gone from the rump of a PL team that VK inherited and the 4 PL quality loanees he signed to 35 or 36 Championship players.

[IanMcL]

Sucking out the lifeblood.

[Chester Perry]

I just think the article makes no sense whatsoever. He sold out because he is a multi millionaire in a multi billionaire's league and yet he sold the club via a leveraged buyout that took £47 million straight out of the clubs bank accounts and a further £65 million loan secured on the clubs assets to an employee of a bank who admits himself he has no money (in relative terms).

It appears fair to say that the combined wealth of the original group that took over the club was probably substantially greater than that of the Garlick era board. As ALK/VSL has grown, so that combined wealth has grown too. It is just a shame that so little of it - over £73m is my estimate - has been used to acquire shares. A likely £10m+ will have been recovered in the flip of shares to Vlad Torgovnik.

How much of that £73m was provided by the original band of 5 (7 if you include Checketts and Parra) beyond the upfront £10m we will probably never know. Though it is reasonable to suggest a significant proportion of the sum came from the new additions to ALK/VSL, though I would not personal suggest much if anything came from Malcolm Jenkins, the Watt family and Dude Perfect .

I would also suggest that the club has paid out substantially more in servicing the four loans to date, than the original 5/7 have on shares in it that is before we add the £59m (not £47m) the club has loaned ALK/VSL.

[Luppy]

It's a nice article

My view on Garlick - had he invested some money in the squad, I'm certain Dyche would have kept us in the division for longer and established us as a mainstay by now. That frustrates me no end.

The reality from what i understand was that had he thrown money at transfers the sale of the Club wouldn't have been as attractive and as such spend on the squad stopped to allow for an eventual sale? Hard to criticise someone who's put a lot of money in wanting that money back out at some point.

We are where we are - we've had one amazing season playing football no Burnley fan under a certain age has ever seen, it's been downhill after that. UTC

[ClaretPete001]

It appears fair to say that the combined wealth of the original group that took over the club was probably substantially greater than that of the Garlick era board. As ALK/VSL has grown, so that combined wealth has grown too. It is just a shame that so little of it - over £73m is my estimate - has been used to acquire shares. A likely £10m+ will have been recovered in the flip of shares to Vlad Torgovnik.

How much of that £73m was provided by the original band of 5 (7 if you include Checketts and Parra) beyond the upfront £10m we will probably never know. Though it is reasonable to suggest a significant proportion of the sum came from the new additions to ALK/VSL, though I would not personal suggest much if anything came from Malcolm Jenkins, the Watt family and Dude Perfect .

I would also suggest that the club has paid out substantially more in servicing the four loans to date, than the original 5/7 have on shares in it that is before we add the £59m (not £47m) the club has loaned ALK/VSL.

It's all relative and relatively speaking the group has no money. If Garlick had £10 million and the group had £100 million then both are between £900 and £990 million short of being billionaires. In the end, what is the difference?

The Venky's have thrown getting up to £200 million at Rovers. You have to be very rich to be able to do that....! And all it has done is create a club that is too big for League 1. In terms of size Rovers are a League 1 club - there are several much bigger clubs in League 1 than Rovers and despite a decent start to the season Rovers have the third worst attendance in the Championship.

In terms of Garlick, he is a savvy operator but sadly he treated the club as an investment and not as a community asset. The fact is re-enforced in that article because the one burning question to be asked is: if he felt that football is a billionaires game then why sell the club as a leveraged buyout to people who are not even close to be being billionaires?

And the answer is because it was the best way he would have of maximising his return with as little risk as possible.

[Hipper]

BF drove us to near administration.

.. and so did BK.

It's the nature of this risky business.

[ŽižkovClaret]

I’d be surprised if there wasn’t at least a thread of it in there.

There’s long been a suspicion among a lot of Burnley fans that anyone born outside a 10-mile radius of Smacks isn’t to be fully trusted with the running of the club and there was absolutely a lot of “Americans don’t get British football” stuff going around that only grew stronger during his time here; I certainly don’t remember any tears when he left.

Given that and how it’s still within a lot of fans’ memories I think there’s a very good chance that maybe if even only subconsciously, our previous experience with an American ‘in charge’ coloured people’s thinking on the new ones.

Maybe among the mouth breathers who proudly wear badges proclaiming "Born in Burnley, Live in Burnley, Die in Burnley"

[Hipper]

Seems a pretty light weight article centred around Garlick's ownership of a couple of Spanish clubs.

[NewClaret]

It's all relative and relatively speaking the group has no money. If Garlick had £10 million and the group had £100 million then both are between £900 and £990 million short of being billionaires. In the end, what is the difference?

The Venky's have thrown getting up to £200 million at Rovers. You have to be very rich to be able to do that....! And all it has done is create a club that is too big for League 1. In terms of size Rovers are a League 1 club - there are several much bigger clubs in League 1 than Rovers and despite a decent start to the season Rovers have the third worst attendance in the Championship.

In terms of Garlick, he is a savvy operator but sadly he treated the club as an investment and not as a community asset. The fact is re-enforced in that article because the one burning question to be asked is: if he felt that football is a billionaires game then why sell the club as a leveraged buyout to people who are not even close to be being billionaires?

And the answer is because it was the best way he would have of maximising his return with as little risk as possible.

Being owned by a group of wealthy individuals with 10x a single owners wealth is probably a better place for BFC to be, to be fair to Garlick.

I think your sentiments can be better summarised as: if Garlick was worth £10m and our new ownership group are worth £100m, it doesn’t matter at all if they’re not willing to invest their own wealth in to BFC operations.

The same would be if we were owned by billionaires. And I have to question how many billionaires really do or can throw their own money at football clubs. You don’t get much richer than the Saudi’s or Ratcliffe and I don’t think they have yet. Venkys and Bloom at Brighton being two good examples of those who have but I’m not even sure PSR allows now?

I agree about the pertinent unanswered question. Why would he say that knowing he didn’t pass them on to billionaires? Especially since he must’ve known that he was being interviewed by a journalist smart enough to research the structure of the takeover.

Was he just saying: “I’d done my turn playing in a billionaires playground… thought I’d let someone else with more enthusiasm but not much more cash have a go at it”? Which can only lead to the obvious criticism that you make: he was in it for himself only and was never a true custodian of a community asset.

Or maybe he is subtly eluding, without saying it, that he did sell us to billionaires. What I would say is, I still hold out some hope that ALK have backers that are bigger than we realise. There are links in our financing and shareholding history to the Dell and Kwok families, for example. Tenuous links before you say it, but my point is we still don’t know exactly who is backing ALK in Delaware. Nevertheless, to my first point, it’s irrelevant unless they are going invest heavily which it’s clear they’re not.

[CoolClaret]

Garlick transformed the club on and off the pitch.

Yeah he should've re-invested a bit more towards the end but he set BFC up for a long, long time. Great chairman.

[warksclaret]

Love the reason for Garlick investing in a new pitch-" the playing pitch is a bit uneven and the manager liked playing it on the floor"

[GodIsADeeJay81]

He left the club in a far better condition than when he took over
His legacy should be respected and remembered fondly, mainly

Compare him to owners of other similar sized clubs and he's better by far than pretty much all of them

[Elizabeth]

Time will tell on where Garlick will stand in the history of BFC

[ClaretPete001]

Being owned by a group of wealthy individuals with 10x a single owners wealth is probably a better place for BFC to be, to be fair to Garlick.

I think your sentiments can be better summarised as: if Garlick was worth £10m and our new ownership group are worth £100m, it doesn’t matter at all if they’re not willing to invest their own wealth in to BFC operations.

The same would be if we were owned by billionaires. And I have to question how many billionaires really do or can throw their own money at football clubs. You don’t get much richer than the Saudi’s or Ratcliffe and I don’t think they have yet. Venkys and Bloom at Brighton being two good examples of those who have but I’m not even sure PSR allows now?

I agree about the pertinent unanswered question. Why would he say that knowing he didn’t pass them on to billionaires? Especially since he must’ve known that he was being interviewed by a journalist smart enough to research the structure of the takeover.

Was he just saying: “I’d done my turn playing in a billionaires playground… thought I’d let someone else with more enthusiasm but not much more cash have a go at it”? Which can only lead to the obvious criticism that you make: he was in it for himself only and was never a true custodian of a community asset.

Or maybe he is subtly eluding, without saying it, that he did sell us to billionaires. What I would say is, I still hold out some hope that ALK have backers that are bigger than we realise. There are links in our financing and shareholding history to the Dell and Kwok families, for example. Tenuous links before you say it, but my point is we still don’t know exactly who is backing ALK in Delaware. Nevertheless, to my first point, it’s irrelevant unless they are going invest heavily which it’s clear they’re not.

You are right my point was - why make the point about Billionaires when he hasn't sold to Billionaires. Pace has said it over and over again that the group does not have wealth so that's it for me. Why conjecture further?

I think Garlick makes the point because what else can he say in mitigation of what he did?

In reality the only value in the club is the money that ALK has taken out of it. In other words, the owners got it for nothing and whatever they sell it for is the profit they will make.

[ClaretPete001]

He left the club in a far better condition than when he took over
His legacy should be respected and remembered fondly, mainly

Compare him to owners of other similar sized clubs and he's better by far than pretty much all of them

Indeed he was without doubt the best small club Chairman in Premier League history. He maintained PL status for the club and accrued over £50 million in the bank doing it.

Of course, that is also the petard upon, which he is hoisted.

[boatshed bill]

Time will tell on where Garlick will stand in the history of BFC

TBH we owe a debt of gratitude to MG for the progress made under his era.

[Goliath]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned but the reason we became a Prem club for so long is because he and Dyche invested in the long term infrastructure rather than the playing squad after the first Dyche promotion.

Without that we'd have been like Huddersfield.

[ClaretPete001]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned but the reason we became a Prem club for so long is because he and Dyche invested in the long term infrastructure rather than the playing squad after the first Dyche promotion.

Without that we'd have been like Huddersfield.

We maintained PL status for so long because we did the exact opposite of what ALK are trying to do. We had a whole club ethos of being hard to beat, defending as a unit with big target men.

We invested in playing assets based upon character and work rate. We also invested in the best in the Championship (Wood, Arfield, Taylor and Barnes etc.) and players of good character from PL squads that no longer required them or had been relegated (Westwood, Lowton and Cork).

We invested in mavericks that good break lines but had the ability to play for top PL sides but didn't because of age, injury or just being too difficult like Defour and Barton).

And we played the same way so everyone knew exactly what they were doing and did it to the best of their ability to such an extent that every team that played us had to work harder than they normally worked, compete more physically than they normally did and break down a side you could draw lines between the two banks of four.

There is no other way for a small club to punch above their weight over an extended period. Garlick knew it and sold out to a team that intended to rip up the plan and try to employ an approach that hasn't worked since the maximum wage ended.

[IanMcL]

Agreed ClaretPete and then Mr Garlick sniffed a personal profit, having engineered control of the club. He had made conditional agreements with other directors and that gave him free range.

Stop investing and keep money in the bank, not on the pitch. Tell the fans it is 'Emergancy', 'Championship durvival', 'New Stand' money. All we are willing to believe and support.

Instead - he was keeping the money for himself, once the club was sold. Otherwise, he would have left it in the bank and put use conditions on the sale.

No time for that man. Not a Claret at all. Just an already rich, businessman who couldn't resist the lottery win of his life.

[NewClaret]

We maintained PL status for so long because we did the exact opposite of what ALK are trying to do. We had a whole club ethos of being hard to beat, defending as a unit with big target men.

We invested in playing assets based upon character and work rate. We also invested in the best in the Championship (Wood, Arfield, Taylor and Barnes etc.) and players of good character from PL squads that no longer required them or had been relegated (Westwood, Lowton and Cork).

We invested in mavericks that good break lines but had the ability to play for top PL sides but didn't because of age, injury or just being too difficult like Defour and Barton).

And we played the same way so everyone knew exactly what they were doing and did it to the best of their ability to such an extent that every team that played us had to work harder than they normally worked, compete more physically than they normally did and break down a side you could draw lines between the two banks of four.

There is no other way for a small club to punch above their weight over an extended period. Garlick knew it and sold out to a team that intended to rip up the plan and try to employ an approach that hasn't worked since the maximum wage ended.

Agree with a lot of what you say here, not that it’s the only way for a small club to operate. Bournemouth is one example of a team bucking that trend, for example.

I also think that that in the second half of our premier league season we were starting to compete playing a more attacking, high risk style - getting creditable results against mid to top level sides. We were 3/4’s of the season too late, but I think we’d have been fine if we’d stayed up and gone again this year. I also think an awful opening fixtures, a few bad selection choices and terrible luck with VAR contributed.

But in principle agree with your point it’ll always be hard staying in there for a long time as a small club trying to go toe to toe.

[NewClaret]

You are right my point was - why make the point about Billionaires when he hasn't sold to Billionaires. Pace has said it over and over again that the group does not have wealth so that's it for me. Why conjecture further?

I think Garlick makes the point because what else can he say in mitigation of what he did?

In reality the only value in the club is the money that ALK has taken out of it. In other words, the owners got it for nothing and whatever they sell it for is the profit they will make.

I don’t think he mitigated anything by making that statement or even mentioning billionaires though?! It was a stupid comment to make in the context of what he did.

He’d have been far better saying: “along came a new owner who was ambitious, full of energy, enthusiasm and ideas about how they could take the club forward and grow it in to new markets like the US, with new money from people like JJ Watt… so I thought it was time I stepped aside and let them take a different approach”.

All would’ve been true and have provided a better spin than open up the obvious questions that arise from his statement about the wealth needed to run a football club when he sold it to someone who had less…

[Plissken]

Bournemouth is one example of a team bucking that trend, for example.

Bournemouth's "fairy tale" rise was funded (IIRC, to the thick end of £150m) by a Russian oligarch and - unlike us - spent almost all of that money on the team and not the infrastructure. They are currently owned by an American billionaire.

In terms of other "small" clubs in the PL...

Brighton owe their owner around £300m. People point out that they have done some spectacular transfer business over the last couple of seasons, and we should be doing that sort of thing. I agree. I wonder if those same people would be happy to find out that £100m of the profits from that transfer business went into paying the owner back.

Brentford are similar, but I think they owe their owner around £200m.

[IanMcL]

Brighton owe their owner around £300m. People point out that they have done some spectacular transfer business over the last couple of seasons, and we should be doing that sort of thing. I agree. I wonder if those same people would be happy to find out that £100m of the profits from that transfer business went into paying the owner back.

They wouldn't be in the Prem without the £300m loan, so paying back a loan and enjoying Prem football should be a big thank you. The debt is the owner, not the club.

Our debt belongs to the institution that is Burnley FC, not the 'owners'. Coincidentally, the debt is a direct result of Garlick filling his boots and emptying everything built by Barry Kilby and sustained by the directors - inc Garlick for a time, until greed struck

[Chester Perry]

The Athletic have been running a series on Premier League Owners this week - I have been linking the articles on the MMT

first up was a look at owner funding - some stuff to make the eyes water here, though be aware it is funding from the most significant shareholder not necessary all significant shareholders

Premier League Owner investment.jpg (103 KiB) Viewed 2400 times

the full article and detail is here

The Premier League Owners: Who has invested the most?
https://archive.ph/MsGDB

[Plissken]

They wouldn't be in the Prem without the £300m loan, so paying back a loan and enjoying Prem football should be a big thank you. The debt is the owner, not the club.

Our debt belongs to the institution that is Burnley FC, not the 'owners'. Coincidentally, the debt is a direct result of Garlick filling his boots and emptying everything built by Barry Kilby and sustained by the directors - inc Garlick for a time, until greed struck

You appear to be under the assumption that football club owners should, nay must, set immense amounts of their own personal money on fire just to keep people like yourself happy. And when offered immense amounts of money for an asset that they have spent a large of of time and money on, often at great personal cost both literally and figuratively, to turn that asset over on the cheap.

Your position is, quite literally, that Garlick should not have sold Burnley for £120m, even though it was worth that amount, but should have sold it for whatever his investment was (lets say £10m).

[Big Vinny K]

They wouldn't be in the Prem without the £300m loan, so paying back a loan and enjoying Prem football should be a big thank you. The debt is the owner, not the club.

Our debt belongs to the institution that is Burnley FC, not the 'owners'. Coincidentally, the debt is a direct result of Garlick filling his boots and emptying everything built by Barry Kilby and sustained by the directors - inc Garlick for a time, until greed struck

Your knowledge of how it all works seems pretty limited….with all due respect.
It seems strange to be so angry about something you do not really understand.

How much did MG put into the club ?
How much did MG take out in remuneration or dividends during his tenure at the club ? (excluding the sale of course)
How much loan interest did we pay during MG’s tenure at the club ? Just FYI we are paying in the region of £10m a year at the moment (give or take a couple of million)

MG generated more in revenue during his ownership of the club than was generated in the rest of the clubs 100 year plus history put together.

If you were selling your house would you leave a big pile of your cash in there for the buyers as a nice welcome present ?

[ClaretPete001]

You appear to be under the assumption that football club owners should, nay must, set immense amounts of their own personal money on fire just to keep people like yourself happy. And when offered immense amounts of money for an asset that they have spent a large of of time and money on, often at great personal cost both literally and figuratively, to turn that asset over on the cheap.

Your position is, quite literally, that Garlick should not have sold Burnley for £120m, even though it was worth that amount, but should have sold it for whatever his investment was (lets say £10m).

As radical as it might sound I think that is what Garlick should have done. I think he should have added a reasonable profit to his original stake and then looked for a buyer that could invest and protect the club's interest for the longer term.

I think leveraged buyouts where the party that is purchasing the club seems to have little of value to offer is just crony capitalism designed solely for the financial benefit of both parties and not for the business itself or the community as a stakeholder in the business. The Glaser's purchase of United was an example where a leveraged buyout made a lot sense because of the potential growth of United and the relative expertise that the Glaser's could bring to the table.

I think it perfectly reasonable that a business owner should make money from an asset but also look after it's well being into the future (as Jack Walker did) but business owners should also should risk their own capital when they purchase assets.

Otherwise, it's not really capitalism - it's just socialism for the rich where the poor fund the losses.

[Big Vinny K]

As radical as it might sound I think that is what Garlick should have done. I think he should have added a reasonable profit to his original stake and then looked for a buyer that could invest and protect the club's interest for the longer term.

I think leveraged buyouts where the party that is purchasing the club seems to have little of value to offer is just crony capitalism designed solely for the financial benefit of both parties and not for the business itself or the community as a stakeholder in the business. The Glaser's purchase of United was an example where a leveraged buyout made a lot sense because of the potential growth of United and the relative expertise that the Glaser's could bring to the table.

I think it perfectly reasonable that a business owner should make money from an asset but also look after it's well being into the future (as Jack Walker did) but business owners should also should risk their own capital when they purchase assets.

Otherwise, it's not really capitalism - it's just socialism for the rich where the poor fund the losses.

But MG did put his own money in….and at a time when there was not exactly a long queue of investors. Given where the club were when he did this then I’m not sure you can describe it as anything other than a supporter of the club putting his money where his mouth is….and taking an extremely big risk that he would come out if it without losing the lot.

As it happens things worked out very well and pretty quickly too. It would have been very easy for him to take out his investment in dividends as soon as we got promoted for the first time under Dyche. After all that’s what happened at Blackpool. The likelihood was that we would be relegated in the first year or two and then likely to not get promoted again. That’s what happened to most clubs of our size and in our position (with owners of our “lack of” wealth)

But MG didn’t do that…he invested it back into the team and into the infrastructure and didn’t take any dividend or remuneration for himself.

Of course he made a significant profit at the end but not sure how many people in his position would have done anything that different - especially when there was a distinct lack of options in relation to the bids on the table. Has there been any other owners in football who have taken less money that was on offer ?

Same as yourself I’m no fan of the buyout / takeover structure. I actually think it’s pretty similar to what the Glazers did both in terms of structure and also the background of the people. Of course it was massively different in scale. The main difference I see is that Burnley just do not have the potential to grow and generate commercial income in anywhere near the level our new owners think they could….and as far as I can see there has been zero evidence of them doing this (other than increasing the match day prices for everyone and for hospitality too).

In terms of capitalism - not sure I agree with you. What has happened at the club in recent years is a perfect example of a free market where you can do pretty much what you want and without risking much of your money either. I’m not aware of any definition of capitalism which says you should look after the well being of an asset you have sold…even after you have sold it. Attaching conditions to how you sell something you own is pretty much the antipathy of capitalism….though I agree in relation to football clubs (and my football club in particular) I wish that would have been something that MG or any future owner would be obligated to do.

[boatshed bill]

I'm guessing that posters on here who are hypercritical of MG almost to the point of libel, would have happily chipped in had he lost all his money.

[Goalposts]

Still see John Banaszkiewicz and his lad at some of the burnley games

[IanMcL]

Your knowledge of how it all works seems pretty limited….with all due respect.
It seems strange to be so angry about something you do not really understand.

How much did MG put into the club ?
How much did MG take out in remuneration or dividends during his tenure at the club ? (excluding the sale of course)
How much loan interest did we pay during MG’s tenure at the club ? Just FYI we are paying in the region of £10m a year at the moment (give or take a couple of million)

MG generated more in revenue during his ownership of the club than was generated in the rest of the clubs 100 year plus history put together.

If you were selling your house would you leave a big pile of your cash in there for the buyers as a nice welcome present ?

I think there are lots of different metaphors at work above.

Bottom line. He was added to the board to help and invest and took the lot mostly for himself.
The interest paid by the institution is because of him. Not only did he remove almost 200m the £10m annual interest is because he took it all.

[IanMcL]

You appear to be under the assumption that football club owners should, nay must, set immense amounts of their own personal money on fire just to keep people like yourself happy. And when offered immense amounts of money for an asset that they have spent a large of of time and money on, often at great personal cost both literally and figuratively, to turn that asset over on the cheap.

Your position is, quite literally, that Garlick should not have sold Burnley for £120m, even though it was worth that amount, but should have sold it for whatever his investment was (lets say £10m).

Like Mr Hayward at Wolves, you mean?
Yes.

[Big Vinny K]

I think there are lots of different metaphors at work above.

Bottom line. He was added to the board to help and invest and took the lot mostly for himself.
The interest paid by the institution is because of him. Not only did he remove almost 200m the £10m annual interest is because he took it all.

You are just factually incorrect in every single point you have just said above - that is the bottom line.

[ClaretPete001]

But MG did put his own money in….and at a time when there was not exactly a long queue of investors. Given where the club were when he did this then I’m not sure you can describe it as anything other than a supporter of the club putting his money where his mouth is….and taking an extremely big risk that he would come out if it without losing the lot.

As it happens things worked out very well and pretty quickly too. It would have been very easy for him to take out his investment in dividends as soon as we got promoted for the first time under Dyche. After all that’s what happened at Blackpool. The likelihood was that we would be relegated in the first year or two and then likely to not get promoted again. That’s what happened to most clubs of our size and in our position (with owners of our “lack of” wealth)

But MG didn’t do that…he invested it back into the team and into the infrastructure and didn’t take any dividend or remuneration for himself.

Of course he made a significant profit at the end but not sure how many people in his position would have done anything that different - especially when there was a distinct lack of options in relation to the bids on the table. Has there been any other owners in football who have taken less money that was on offer ?

Same as yourself I’m no fan of the buyout / takeover structure. I actually think it’s pretty similar to what the Glazers did both in terms of structure and also the background of the people. Of course it was massively different in scale. The main difference I see is that Burnley just do not have the potential to grow and generate commercial income in anywhere near the level our new owners think they could….and as far as I can see there has been zero evidence of them doing this (other than increasing the match day prices for everyone and for hospitality too).

In terms of capitalism - not sure I agree with you. What has happened at the club in recent years is a perfect example of a free market where you can do pretty much what you want and without risking much of your money either. I’m not aware of any definition of capitalism which says you should look after the well being of an asset you have sold…even after you have sold it. Attaching conditions to how you sell something you own is pretty much the antipathy of capitalism….though I agree in relation to football clubs (and my football club in particular) I wish that would have been something that MG or any future owner would be obligated to do.

I wasn't suggesting MG hadn't put any money in rather ALK did not and MG facilitated it! Albeit we are not sure how the £68 million between ALK and the previous owners was funded but certainly £102 million has/will come from the club. And as far as I can tell there is precious little in return.

Jack Walker made provisions in his will to support Blackburn Rovers going forward and I would guess most of the owners of our club got precious little from owning it other than receiving a lot of abuse from fans.

I think there was precious little interest in buying the club because the amount that a leveraged buyout would generate created a situation where buying the club outright and investing in it was not viable.

I don't believe that Mike Garlick should have valued the club at over £200 odd million from the club via a leveraged buyout when over £100 million came from the club itself. If he had generated that much value in the club the so be it but he didn't and the market it agreed with him because there was little interest.

The UK has a rotten economy that barely grow a single percentage point per annum despite massive immigration because of the vested interests of capital, pension companies and the short termism of boards. It has to change otherwise the people will reject liberal democracy in favour of Putin, Farage, Xi Jing Ping and Modi. So, yes I see what MG and ALK did as a threat to the club but also as a part of an existential crisis in liberal democracies.

But I agree MG was wholly entitled to do what he did and many others would have done the same. I am not suggesting he was malign rather I credit him with being an astute businessman. I just don't think that's enough when you are generating 100s of millions from a community asset.

[Row x]

I wasn't suggesting MG hadn't put any money in rather ALK did not and MG facilitated it! Albeit we are not sure how the £68 million between ALK and the previous owners was funded but certainly £102 million has/will come from the club. And as far as I can tell there is precious little in return.

Jack Walker made provisions in his will to support Blackburn Rovers going forward and I would guess most of the owners of our club got precious little from owning it other than receiving a lot of abuse from fans.

I think there was precious little interest in buying the club because the amount that a leveraged buyout would generate created a situation where buying the club outright and investing in it was not viable.

I don't believe that Mike Garlick should have valued the club at over £200 odd million from the club via a leveraged buyout when over £100 million came from the club itself. If he had generated that much value in the club the so be it but he didn't and the market it agreed with him because there was little interest.

The UK has a rotten economy that barely grow a single percentage point per annum despite massive immigration because of the vested interests of capital, pension companies and the short termism of boards. It has to change otherwise the people will reject liberal democracy in favour of Putin, Farage, Xi Jing Ping and Modi. So, yes I see what MG and ALK did as a threat to the club but also as a part of an existential crisis in liberal democracies.

But I agree MG was wholly entitled to do what he did and many others would have done the same. I am not suggesting he was malign rather I credit him with being an astute businessman. I just don't think that's enough when you are generating 100s of millions from a community asset.

What provisions did Jack walker leave in his will that benefited the club?

[ClaretPete001]

What provisions did Jack walker leave in his will that benefited the club?

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... blackburn1

[IanMcL]

You are just factually incorrect in every single point you have just said above - that is the bottom line.

I think not.


Did he buy you a drink once, or something?

[Big Vinny K]

I think not.


Did he buy you a drink once, or something?

Nope never - I’m just not financially illiterate.

[IanMcL]

Nope never - I’m just not financially illiterate.

Man puts in a fiver to help out. Later man helps out again, along with another, when main main gets ill.
Puts in another fiver.
Later, reasons unknown, man with 2 fivers chipped in becomes main man and probably has up to 4 fivers in the mix.

Others have 2 or 3 fivers in the mix between them and happy they are maintaining their original purpose.
However, they have accepted that main man is looking to move the project forward and give him support.

Main man has been storing lots of fivers and has good reason. Everyone pleased.

Suddenly, main man wants out and instead of re-visiting his fellowship, he looks to get 'big investment'.

Turns out no one with lots of fivers wants to take on the project. However, a slick operator has a cunning but extremely risky plan.

Main man just wants out. Analyses cunning plan and decides that the outcome would be that his 4 fivers would become multi gold bars. Great. He can choose because his fellows trusted him. So all the 7 fivers are handed over and the multiple gold bars are handed back in exchange. Main man has made a killing, at the expense of the project and also had all those other fivers he had stored for good reason, turned into yet more gold bars.

So he scarpers and his fellowship are left with gold bars they didn't really want, because they wanted to continue to help the project.

So who had all these gold bars? Must be very, very, rich. No. Turns out they are OK rich but not overly and in any case, why risk their own homes and savings?

No thr gold var fol borrowed the gold bars they handed over and offered the entire project as collateral. So if anything goes pear shaped, it's OK, it's the project that collapses, not the gold bar borrowers.

Things carry on except the project is very up and down, so lots of fivers come in one year but less the next. These gold bar borrowers had done sums and needed to return gold bars to the gold bar owners every year.

No problem because part of the project comprised expensive mobile assets. These were disposed of in exchange for lots of fivers. A good dollop was put into gold bars and returned to the gold bar owners.

Over time, the weight of the gold bars, needing to be sent back, gets bigger. Bit of a strain on the project. Luckily some other mobile assets had been acquired and matured. Sold for fivers and exchanged for gold bar payments.

Unfortunately, next set of acquisitions don't look so bright, so essential for project to be successful, even tjough it will knowingly, suffer again.

A very precarious project, which sits on a knife edge

Not to worry, main man is polishing many gold bars and if the project goes bust, we'll there are always other projects - just not this one.

[Big Vinny K]

Easy to sit here and talk utter rubbish when you still have your fiver tucked away under your mattress.

The fact that you can sit there and post something like that about a subject matter where you have no understanding at all is weird to say the least. Though it is starting to make sense now about your council role !

[BurnleyFC]

Early to mid tenure Mike Garlick was fantastic for this club, and he should be rightly praised in being one of the main influences in our success.

Late tenure Mike Garlick screwed us over.

[Holtyclaret]

From Turf Moor to dreams of creating the Burnley of La Liga

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football ... -jpjcnm9dg

Thanks for sharing

[Wokingclaret]

Thanks for the freebie link

[Wokingclaret]

I've started reading, but gave up, I'm just not interested in him.