ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Theres been a thread purely about football finances running on this board for a long time now

Yes with input from a small number of people.

Despite that thread the level of ignorance on here about football finances is astounding.

[Wile E Coyote]

I would imagine every club in our league has been involved in complex deals to some extent or other.
Its how it works in the modern era. I admit to being unable to understand the business models these people use, but nevertheless its apparent that there are huge risks attached.
We all know how changeable football has become. Its a sign of the times, Sky Tv, betting companies, sponsorship deals, . If we want to stay involved at high levels, its inevitable we will become immersed in all the profiteering/debt shenanigans. whats the alternative? it wasn't looking to prosperous previously. We weren't a club that had a long list of suitable backers with financial clout banging on our door to throw money at us.

[KRBFC]

I'll accept that a start up isn't a great analogy but the rest of the point stands in that businesses are more often than not bought using their own money.

So you think it would be ok for PL TV income and fees from our big players to be used for ALK to buy the club? along with the money that was already in the club..... paying for shares and control using assets already in the club is unethical and a disgrace. I have no issue if they're paying off the debt with money raised from their work in raising income.

[dsr]

ALK borrowed a chunk from the club, the rest is loans.

Our former owners haven't taken any out.

Same answer as to Martin. Garlick and JohnB have brokered a deal whereby £100m leaves BFC's accounts and finds its way into their own personal accounts. I really don't care who else's bank accounts it has gone through.

[arise_sir_charge]

Three parties - BFC, ALK, Garlick.

There are two normal ways this loan would work.

1. BFC borrow money, BFC use the money in their business, BFC pay it back.
2. ALK borrow money, ALK use the money to buy shares, ALK pay it back.

Where this goes wrong is that while we don't know who has borrowed the money, we do know that ALK is using the money to buy shares and BFC is paying it back. Normally with loans, the person who gets the benefit has to repay the loan. In this case, that isn't happening.

Not in business it doesn't.

You use a loan to buy a business and the business you have bought pays the money back out of its ongoing profits. It happens all over the world, multiple thousands of times per day.

[CoolClaret]

In my humble opinion, if Pace/ALK wasn't worried about all this, Pace would be on twitter squishing the concerns

[Darthlaw]

ALK borrowed a chunk from the club, the rest is loans.

Our former owners haven't taken any out.

Garlick and John B haven taken cash and a promise of repayment from ALK, whilst also remaining on the board to ensure their repayments are received, otherwise regaining their asset.

The notion that Garlic and John B have taken cash out, to effectively cripple the asset which may in fact return to them, is laughable.

[aggi]

In a sense you are right. I don't understand whether you are on a wind-up or whether you are serious.

Burnley FC are £100m poorer. The money has gone, ultimately, to Garlick. That makes me unhappy.

That is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point. You can go into all the detail you want about whose bank accounts it went through, but it doesn't make me any happier that BFC are £100m poorer and that money can be clearly traced to the bank account of the BFC directors.

As I'm sure you are aware, BFC aren't £100m poorer.

This is all balance sheet stuff, one asset has been replaced by another. Now there's arguments that the new asset may not be as liquid or that at some point in the future it will be impaired but it's not quite the same issue and it's an important distinction.

[randomclaret2]

Yes with input from a small number of people.

Despite that thread the level of ignorance on here about football finances is astounding.

Indeed.

[dsr]

As I'm sure you are aware, BFC aren't £100m poorer.

This is all balance sheet stuff, one asset has been replaced by another. Now there's arguments that the new asset may not be as liquid or that at some point in the future it will be impaired but it's not quite the same issue and it's an important distinction.

That's a fair point, so I will rephrase it. Garlick and John B have got £100m of fully liquid cash in their bank accounts and the source of that funds is Burnley FC, and in exchange Burnley FC have got a highly dubious loan which is not liquid at all and will probably be worthless if we get relegated.

And this entire deal was sanctioned by Garlick and JohnB.

And I'm not happy.

[arise_sir_charge]

So you think it would be ok for PL TV income and fees from our big players to be used for ALK to buy the club? along with the money that was already in the club..... paying for shares and control using assets already in the club is unethical and a disgrace. I have no issue if they're paying off the debt with money raised from their work in raising income.

I am sure the business plan will centre around raising income levels across multiple areas. That's probably why MSD were happy to lend them the money.

[arise_sir_charge]

So you think it would be ok for PL TV income and fees from our big players to be used for ALK to buy the club? along with the money that was already in the club..... paying for shares and control using assets already in the club is unethical and a disgrace. I have no issue if they're paying off the debt with money raised from their work in raising income.

I am sure the business plan will centre around raising income levels across multiple areas. That's probably why MSD were happy to lend them the money.

[djemba-djemba]

What a complex thread. My understanding of it may be way off, but from what I can gather:

The Club now have no money in the bank
The new board owe Mike £60,000,000
The new board have no money of their own to pay this back
Summer sales of Tarkowski/ McNeil or whoever will have to be spent to pay the outstanding monies owed to Mike

IF that is what’s happened - how do the club make money to buy new players in the summer window? By borrowing more money from somewhere?

I thought I read in the MMT a while back that the tv money we get pretty much covers wages and other costs the club incurs annually (and hence little other money being available for buying new players).

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Same answer as to Martin. Garlick and JohnB have brokered a deal whereby £100m leaves BFC's accounts and finds its way into their own personal accounts. I really don't care who else's bank accounts it has gone through.

The club didn't have £100million in its bank account though.
It's been well documented that it was approx half of that.

[arise_sir_charge]

What a complex thread. My understanding of it may be way off, but from what I can gather:

The Club now have no money in the bank
The new board owe Mike £60,000,000
The new board have no money of their own to pay this back
Summer sales of Tarkowski/ McNeil or whoever will have to be spent to pay the outstanding monies owed to Mike

IF that is what’s happened - how do the club make money to buy new players in the summer window? By borrowing more money from somewhere?

I thought I read in the MMT a while back that the tv money we get pretty much covers wages and other costs the club incurs annually (and hence little other money being available for buying new players).

Yes, you're way off.

[KRBFC]

I am sure the business plan will centre around raising income levels across multiple areas. That's probably why MSD were happy to lend them the money.

but until we are told how or see anything new, questions will remain about the deal.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

but until we are told how or see anything new, questions will remain about the deal.

We the fans won't be told much, simply because no business broadcasts its future business plans, least of all to its customers.

We just have to wait for the changes to become apparent.

[Jakubclaret]

All this talk of selling Pope, Tarkowski, McNeil to service the debt if we go down ...... do you think they were staying anyway if we go down? So you think they’ll still be with us in 3 years even if we have a great run? Pope .... maybe, but no way will Tarks and McNeil be with us then.

Does this give us a better chance of keeping Dyche? I don’t know. But honestly ..... that’s all I care about. As long as he’s here we’ll stay up and when he goes we’re in bother. That was the case six weeks ago and will be the case in six weeks time.

I don’t like the debt. But I don’t understand it so I’m not going to get too bothered about it. We wanted something different, a chance to kick on .... well here it is.

I’m not sure “wanting something different, a chance to kick on” compromising the club’s longevity health wise is what people wanted or were actually thinking of in order to achieve this new direction, most of dyches duration has been harmonious it’s only until the clubs hierarchy started thinking about selling up that fractures started to appear, if anything past history points to a long stable period but will happen now is anybody’s guess!

[Darthlaw]

The Club now have no money in the bank

The balance may now be zero but that doesnt mean there is no money. Important distinction.

The new board owe Mike £60,000,000

They owe them a figure, not necessarily that one but yes. Again, important to understand this is not all due at once.

The new board have no money of their own to pay this back

Not liquid cash, however ongoing income into the club (sponsorships, operational income and TV revenues) will continue to come in.

Summer sales of Tarkowski/ McNeil or whoever will have to be spent to pay the outstanding monies owed to Mike.

CATEGORICALLY NO. Sales will no doubt be made with moneys spent to service the club operational costs, debt repayments and further invest back into the club.

how do the club make money to buy new players in the summer window? By borrowing more money from somewhere?

Could borrow but it's unlikely to be required. They will pay off the debts at the required payment level and use any additional cash for improving the club, including player recruitment.

Hope this helps clear up a little.

[dsr]

The club didn't have £100million in its bank account though.
It's been well documented that it was approx half of that.

The balance is made up of a large bank loan which the club will have to repay.

[northeastclaret]

Isn’t this similar to what happened at Swansea?
Fans some including prominent local businessmen takeover the club, they win promotion to the premier league. Major fan owner sells to an American consortium, makes millions and the club goes down the pan?

[cblantfanclub]

Layman writing.
Having spent a couple of hours going through the posts in simple terms can anybody give me a clue as to which bits I’ve got wrong or misunderstood if any.

If the deal involves a return of shares to JB/MG it presumes that there is a real possibility of ALK not being able to make the repayments.

Inorder to facilitate the purchase the of the club for about 150 million it was sold with £50,000,000 cash in the bank which was then used to make a first instalment on the purchase price.

The remainder was to be paid by borrowing money against the clubs assets.

This leaves ALK with a football club they have no money to invest in though it could be run with a surplus to pay the interest on the loan with their “business model”.

MG and JB don’t come out of this smelling of Roses but potentially with £150,000,000 in the bank.

ALK realise this isn’t going to work out quite how they planned (agents for one thing) and try to sell shares at a profit to free up some capital. It is done in a surprisingly unprofessional and panicky way for Wall St. experts who call it “crazy “that alerts the American media and hence the UK.
No neutral commentator thinks we’ve done a good thing. JB and MG are the bad guys for not investing money that was in the club and using this purchase as a way to get it out for themselves.

ALK talk of developing the club and players which even a layman knows takes time and is a risky business with no money to invest in the years you are waiting for the talent to mature and raise the clubs profile.

[dr-lee]

ALK have as one of their aims improving fan communication. What worries me at this time is why they have not responded yet to the huge amount of negative criticism particularly here but also in the national press about their lack of financial transparency and indeed the current financial position of the club.I hope it isn’t because they don’t as yet have an answer and are indeed gambling with our future. Surely this is at odds with their principles

[northeastclaret]

The obviously only want to communicate about vision, values and brand etc

[djemba-djemba]

The balance may now be zero but that doesnt mean there is no money. Important distinction.

If the bank balance is zero but there is money - where is it?


They owe them a figure, not necessarily that one but yes. Again, important to understand this is not all due at once.

That’s not good.

Not liquid cash, however ongoing income into the club (sponsorships, operational income and TV revenues) will continue to come in.

Which will be the same as what we got under Mike?


CATEGORICALLY NO. Sales will no doubt be made with moneys spent to service the club operational costs, debt repayments and further invest back into the club.

So still ‘sell to spend’?

Could borrow but it's unlikely to be required. They will pay off the debts at the required payment level and use any additional cash for improving the club, including player recruitment.

Don’t want to be borrowing any more when we already owe loads to Mike?

Hope this helps clear up a little.

It does help, thanks.

Thanks for the breakdown - I’ve added a couple of bits (which I think will all display in the above quote rather than in broken down quotes as you set your post out in).

Your responses suggest that there is little to no money (certainly in the bank anyway) and the new guys don’t have any.

How are they going to find the money to acquire new signings then if they already owe loads to Mike, TV money will remain what it was but it’s unlikely we’d need to get loans?

[DomBFC1882]

Layman writing.
Having spent a couple of hours going through the posts in simple terms can anybody give me a clue as to which bits I’ve got wrong or misunderstood if any.

If the deal involves a return of shares to JB/MG it presumes that there is a real possibility of ALK not being able to make the repayments.

Inorder to facilitate the purchase the of the club for about 150 million it was sold with £50,000,000 cash in the bank which was then used to make a first instalment on the purchase price.

The remainder was to be paid by borrowing money against the clubs assets.

This leaves ALK with a football club they have no money to invest in though it could be run with a surplus to pay the interest on the loan with their “business model”.

MG and JB don’t come out of this smelling of Roses but potentially with £150,000,000 in the bank.

ALK realise this isn’t going to work out quite how they planned (agents for one thing) and try to sell shares at a profit to free up some capital. It is done in a surprisingly unprofessional and panicky way for Wall St. experts who call it “crazy “that alerts the American media and hence the UK.
No neutral commentator thinks we’ve done a good thing. JB and MG are the bad guys for not investing money that was in the club and using this purchase as a way to get it out for themselves.

ALK talk of developing the club and players which even a layman knows takes time and is a risky business with no money to invest in the years you are waiting for the talent to mature and raise the clubs profile.

Pretty much my understanding too.

Worrying times

[Darthlaw]

If the deal involves a return of shares to JB/MG it presumes that there is a real possibility of ALK not being able to make the repayments.

No, it's the directors showing an element of prudence, but it doesnt suggest any additional risk to take those steps.

Inorder to facilitate the purchase the of the club for about 150 million it was sold with £50,000,000 cash in the bank which was then used to make a first instalment on the purchase price.

Not all £50 million will have gone as first installment. It may have been demanded as payment to all the other directors (Kilby, Flood et al) though

The remainder was to be paid by borrowing money against the clubs assets.

Like a mortgage, yes.

This leaves ALK with a football club they have no money to invest in though it could be run with a surplus to pay the interest on the loan with their “business model”.

They will use the operational profits of the business to repay interest and capital on the loan.

MG and JB don’t come out of this smelling of Roses but potentially with £150,000,000 in the bank.

Don't forget the other directors, who will have had their payout too. It is important to understand that MG and JB are still round though, and will regain control of the club if this goes Pete Tong for ALK.

ALK realise this isn’t going to work out quite how they planned (agents for one thing) and try to sell shares at a profit to free up some capital. It is done in a surprisingly unprofessional and panicky way for Wall St. experts who call it “crazy “that alerts the American media and hence the UK.
No neutral commentator thinks we’ve done a good thing. JB and MG are the bad guys for not investing money that was in the club and using this purchase as a way to get it out for themselves.

Don't get ahead of yourself just yet. It's been a quiet transfer window and the media are scraping the barrel for clicks. No news like bad news and all that.

ALK talk of developing the club and players which even a layman knows takes time and is a risky business with no money to invest in the years you are waiting for the talent to mature and raise the clubs profile.
[/quote]
There are lots of unrealised revenue opportunities at BFC, which might surprise some how much additional revenue can be generated through additional sponsorships that we havent really chased. Think Man U with their official Toothbrush partner and so on.

[arise_sir_charge]

Just need to check, people do realise that the borrowed money isn't all immediately payable in one lump don't they?

[DomBFC1882]

Just need to check, people do realise that the borrowed money isn't all immediately payable in one lump don't they?

I think everyone is well aware of that

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The balance is made up of a large bank loan which the club will have to repay.

So the club doesn't have it in the accounts and it wasn't just taken by the former owners as claimed on here.

Cheers for clarifying that.

[ChristheViking]

As I try to wrap my head around this (as a fan not an accountant) can I get an answer to perhaps the simplest of question which is how are these debts (in theory and in practice) going to be managed?

These debts are not going to disappear. They have to be paid and it's a serious amount of cheddar.

I don't know what the theoretical plan would be. The TV money isn't going to cover the debt above the normal operating costs - not even close.

The only practical plan would be to sell the family silver (Pope/Tarkowski/McNeil) at which point we'd then need to start worrying about how to finance the remaining debt as a Championship Club.

One thing that seems patently obvious now. Investment on the field with this millstone of debt has got to be pie-in-the-sky. If Garlick wasn't willing to invest any money with no debts, why, or perhaps more pertinently, how, is Pace going to spend while owing $90m.

I want to believe it's going to be ok but my doubts are growing and there's some very credible correspondents asking some uncomfortable questions.

[KateR]

the interesting one is Crystal Palace, they are completely set-up for a refresh in the summer
Hodgson and his management team out of contract
13 players in the 1st team squad out of contract
newly revamped and funded youth system, and massive talent pool on their doorstep

of course they tend to run at a loss so need to sell a player every year or 2 - and financially they need to do it again in the summer, their accounts will be interesting for 2019/20

yes agree, certainly always a possibility, but maybe Frank goes there now.

Like everything being discussed its mostly based on some thoughts/ideas and trying to guess how someone else thinks but definitely no certainties in this guessing game.

I said day one it was announced that I was very skeptical in that I could not see a realistic business plan from people like ALK, however as its unfolded I said the Jan window would give pointers, they have. So I am slowly trying to put the jigsaw together without all the pieces and using a cloudy crystal ball but that is not unusual so there are plenty of twists and turns to come but I've always been a fan of a well thought out plan and watching it unfold and develop is something I will enjoy.

[DomBFC1882]

As I try to wrap my head around this (as a fan not an accountant) can I get an answer to perhaps the simplest of question which is how are these debts (in theory and in practice) going to be managed?

These debts are not going to disappear. They have to be paid and it's a serious amount of cheddar.

I don't know what the theoretical plan would be. The TV money isn't going to cover the debt above the normal operating costs - not even close.

The only practical plan would be to sell the family silver (Pope/Tarkowski/McNeil) at which point we'd then need to start worrying about how to finance the remaining debt as a Championship Club.

One thing that seems patently obvious now. Investment on the field with this millstone of debt has got to be pie-in-the-sky. If Garlick wasn't willing to invest any money with no debts, why, or perhaps more pertinently, how, is Pace going to spend while owing $90m.

I want to believe it's going to be ok but my doubts are growing and there's some very credible correspondents asking some uncomfortable questions.

And to me if we get relegated in the next couple of years we're screwed.

Big change from knowing we would be financially sound if we went down under the previous ownership

[Darthlaw]

Thanks for the breakdown - I’ve added a couple of bits (which I think will all display in the above quote rather than in broken down quotes as you set your post out in).

Your responses suggest that there is little to no money (certainly in the bank anyway) and the new guys don’t have any.

How are they going to find the money to acquire new signings then if they already owe loads to Mike, TV money will remain what it was but it’s unlikely we’d need to get loans?

As an example (IMPORTANT - THESE FIGURES ARE MADE UP AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTATIVE)

Annualised
Club income - £300m
Operational Costs - £270m
Therefore £30m Profit

Debt - £150m
Interest repayable to service debts - £9m, leaves £21m in the bank profit for player recruitment, ground improvement, etc. Thats if you stand still. in terms of debt and don't repay capital.

Now lets imagine they increase revenue by additional sponsorships, etc. by £9m. In essence, you would say ALK have improved profitability enough to cover the cost of the debt. We're no worse off and arguably we might not have had the additional revenue without the expertise and connections of ALK.

All if's, buts and maybe's currently but I'm sure more will come out in the coming weeks and months.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And to me if we get relegated in the next couple of years we're screwed.

Big change from knowing we would be financially sound if we went down under the previous ownership

We still have relegation clauses in our player contracts.
That's the major thing that needs to stay.

If the owners can maximise our revenue streams then relegation wouldn't be a major issue.

[arise_sir_charge]

I think everyone is well aware of that

Well why are folk acting as if this money is due, in full, this summer?

If we can increase revenue, as is clearly the plan based on what we are being told, what is the issue? People have spoken on here about the pedigree of some of the people that have come on board in this regard.

Say the interest is £9m per year, which seems to be the figure most discussed, that represents about 6% of current turnover levels without including potential increases in commercial revenues and any player sales. When you consider we have regularly posted profits way in excess of that under the current regime it all seems much a do about nothing.

[cblantfanclub]

Thanks Darthlaw for taking the time.

[DomBFC1882]

Well why are folk acting as if this money is due, in full, this summer?

If we can increase revenue, as is clearly the plan based on what we are being told, what is the issue? People have spoken on here about the pedigree of some of the people that have come on board in this regard.

Say the interest is £9m per year, which seems to be the figure most discussed, that represents about 6% of current turnover levels without including potential increases in commercial revenues and any player sales. When you consider we have regularly posted profits way in excess of that under the current regime it all seems much a do about nothing.

Ask them.

I'm worried as per the many reasons stated and feel less confident about where we'll be as a club in 5 years time than I did say 6 months ago.

[djemba-djemba]

As an example (IMPORTANT - THESE FIGURES ARE MADE UP AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTATIVE)

Annualised
Club income - £300m
Operational Costs - £270m
Therefore £30m Profit

Debt - £150m
Interest repayable to service debts - £9m, leaves £21m in the bank profit for player recruitment, ground improvement, etc. Thats if you stand still. in terms of debt and don't repay capital.

Now lets imagine they increase revenue by additional sponsorships, etc. by £9m. In essence, you would say ALK have improved profitability enough to cover the cost of the debt. We're no worse off and arguably we might not have had the additional revenue without the expertise and connections of ALK.

All if's, buts and maybe's currently but I'm sure more will come out in the coming weeks and months.

Thanks for that.

The way I see it then, we’re sunk if we get relegated at any point whilst still owing Mike money? No massive tv pay out, an assumable reduction in sponsorship if we drop out the Prem and still owe Mike millions.

[Dixie Normous]

We still have relegation clauses in our player contracts.
That's the major thing that needs to stay.

If the owners can maximise our revenue streams then relegation wouldn't be a major issue.

Maximise our revenue streams means putting up ticket prices , how will that go down if we get relegated ?
What other rib tickling ways shall we maximise revenue ? Sell more what ? Players ?

[Dark Cloud]

I am sure the business plan will centre around raising income levels across multiple areas. That's probably why MSD were happy to lend them the money.

A business plan which will definitely revolve around us being in the PL and receiving in the region of £120+ million each year for starters. If we're not it's a plan with a huge hole in it I'd suggest! It will be impossible to raise our income levels across multiple areas (ANY areas!) if we're out of the PL.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thanks for that.

The way I see it then, we’re sunk if we get relegated at any point whilst still owing Mike money? No massive tv pay out, an assumable reduction in sponsorship if we drop out the Prem and still owe Mike millions.

If the owners can maximise the revenue streams then we will be fine.

Historically the club has been poor with generating revenue outside of TV money and ticket sales.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Maximise our revenue streams means putting up ticket prices , how will that go down if we get relegated ?
What other rib tickling ways shall we maximise revenue ? Sell more what ? Players ?

Are you so limited in your thinking that you only got ticket prices to think of?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

A business plan which will definitely revolve around us being in the PL and receiving in the region of £120+ million each year for starters. If we're not it's a plan with a huge hole in it I'd suggest! It will be impossible to raise our income levels across multiple areas (ANY areas!) if we're out of the PL.

Other clubs generate more money than us in the championship outside of TV revenue.

[arise_sir_charge]

A business plan which will definitely revolve around us being in the PL and receiving in the region of £120+ million each year for starters. If we're not it's a plan with a huge hole in it I'd suggest! It will be impossible to raise our income levels across multiple areas (ANY areas!) if we're out of the PL.

I've no doubt that is right.

[Darthlaw]

Maximise our revenue streams means putting up ticket prices , how will that go down if we get relegated ?
What other rib tickling ways shall we maximise revenue ? Sell more what ? Players ?

Who is the clubs official Tyre manufacturer, insurance partner, toothpaste supplier, dog kennel manufacturer, etc. Lots of markets out there to be exploited as most other PL clubs have leveraged. All wanting to tie their name to an entity in one of the most well watched competitions globally.

It's a big world out there.

[Dixie Normous]

Who is the clubs official Tyre manufacturer, insurance partner, toothpaste supplier, dog kennel manufacturer, etc. Lots of markets out there to be exploited as most other PL clubs have leveraged. All wanting to tie their name to an entity in one of the most well watched competitions globally.

It's a big world out there.

Ah I see, bog roll, tampons, pies, sunglasses for those summer days, aye hundreds of pounds to be made , we will be rolling in something

[Darthlaw]

A business plan which will definitely revolve around us being in the PL and receiving in the region of £120+ million each year for starters. If we're not it's a plan with a huge hole in it I'd suggest! It will be impossible to raise our income levels across multiple areas (ANY areas!) if we're out of the PL.

Important to understand that relegation under the previous ownership, just as much as the current one would have a significant impact on the club.

Relegation under JB + MG = Cash dwindles out then player sales without a quick return to the PL.

Relegation under ALK - Player sales to get rid of debt, without a quick return to the PL.

Either way, we are highly leveraged on PL football, which is unfortunately a by product of most PL clubs (and championship ones too).

[Darthlaw]

Ah I see, bog roll, tampons, pies, sunglasses for those summer days, aye hundreds of pounds to be made , we will be rolling in something

Maybe.

Good to see you're expanding your horizons. Push a little harder and you might even think of some things which people consume outside the BB postcode.

[jrgbfc]

Who is the clubs official Tyre manufacturer, insurance partner, toothpaste supplier, dog kennel manufacturer, etc. Lots of markets out there to be exploited as most other PL clubs have leveraged. All wanting to tie their name to an entity in one of the most well watched competitions globally.

It's a big world out there.

We aren't a Manchester United or Liverpool though with millions of fans across the world. Is there really that much opportunity for a club such as ourselves?