There are a number of people who feel there was much more to that happening than is generally known and I am talking about Charlie out the door rather than the moneyGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:02 pmA club can be "destroyed" by any owner, whether they be fans who became rich, or foreign owners.
The club has been fortunate with a number of decisions over the years, but let's not forget when Dyche took over he had to sell Austin because the club was skint due to a number of poor decisions.
ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Objective number 1 achieved - ALK are getting the global media coverage that they promised.
This user liked this post: Stalbansclaret
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I know what he was doing, I'm in the Newbury area and I've been told all about it.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:27 pmThere are a number of people who feel there was much more to that happening than is generally known and I am talking about Charlie out the door rather than the money
It just get deleted on here when mentioned to avoid libel claims.
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
My point was that we've been inactive for 3 years. That now seems to be because the previous shareholders/owners weren't building a dry powder store, but their own retirement fund.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:54 pmhttps://www.premierleague.com/news/1951248
All of the PL transfers for January, take special note of the number of loans.
Quietest January window for 10yrs I think it is, with a total of £70 million and that includes West Ham making their loan for the lad from Brentford a permanent transfer as planned for about £20 million.
Any reason you can think of for 19 other clubs to have quiet transfer window?
So you're of the opinion our former chairman and 2nd majority share holder have done something dodgy?
Can't wait for the proof of that one...
I am sure it was a tough window for Pace and his team, but you'd think that if we had the £55m cash that we held prior to the takeover, we'd have been better placed to successfully navigate it, since prior we would have been one of the only debt-free, cash rich clubs left to take advantage of the financial turmoil facing other clubs.
I can't prove it. I can't prove that the £30-£40m figure quoted by the Guardian is correct. The problem is that neither the new or previous owners have been forthcoming with how they structured the deal, hence the speculation. If there is nothing to hide, they should be? But if they have taken those sorts of sums from the club, I stand by my view it is very dodgy behaviour.
This user liked this post: DomBFC1882
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They're under zero obligation to share with you, or anyone outside of the deal apart from the FA, how it's structured.NewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:57 pmMy point was that we've been inactive for 3 years. That now seems to be because the previous shareholders/owners weren't building a dry powder store, but their own retirement fund.
I am sure it was a tough window for Pace and his team, but you'd think that if we had the £55m cash that we held prior to the takeover, we'd have been better placed to successfully navigate it, since prior we would have been one of the only debt-free, cash rich clubs left to take advantage of the financial turmoil facing other clubs.
I can't prove it. I can't prove that the £30-£40m figure quoted by the Guardian is correct. The problem is that neither the new or previous owners have been forthcoming with how they structured the deal, hence the speculation. If there is nothing to hide, they should be? But if they have taken those sorts of sums from the club, I stand by my view it is very dodgy behaviour.
You're a customer of a business they've purchased that's it.
Inactive or not active enough?
We've signed a 1st team squad player in each window apart from this one.
There's no guarantee we would've signed anyone with the old owners but that doesn't suit the building narrative against the new owners it seems..
Again, you're making claims they built up the funds to take with them on purpose.
Back them up with facts or stop making them.
These 3 users liked this post: brunlea99 mill hill claret Braindead
-
- Posts: 1279
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 495 times
- Has Liked: 98 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The cynic in me can't help but think the El Kashashy / Farnell links were a smokescreen to let this leveraged deal go ahead without the scrutiny it probably deserved.
Been concerned since Pace's first interview - he was excellent on all points and then was visibly and audibly uncomfortable when asked about the loan, the extent of which wasn't known at that point.
Only thing that makes me less concerned is that Garlick and John B have stayed on. As somebody that wants to believe in their integrity I hope that's a sign that they believe ALK have the right approach and the towns long term interests in mind.
Been concerned since Pace's first interview - he was excellent on all points and then was visibly and audibly uncomfortable when asked about the loan, the extent of which wasn't known at that point.
Only thing that makes me less concerned is that Garlick and John B have stayed on. As somebody that wants to believe in their integrity I hope that's a sign that they believe ALK have the right approach and the towns long term interests in mind.
-
- Posts: 6880
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2742 times
- Has Liked: 4314 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
" a customer "GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:12 pmThey're under zero obligation to share with you, or anyone outside of the deal apart from the FA, how it's structured.
You're a customer of a business they've purchased that's it.
Inactive or not active enough?
We've signed a 1st team squad player in each window apart from this one.
There's no guarantee we would've signed anyone with the old owners but that doesn't suit the building narrative against the new owners it seems..
Again, you're making claims they built up the funds to take with them on purpose.
Back them up with facts or stop making them.
-
- Posts: 5744
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1868 times
- Has Liked: 835 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Our transfer dealings have been appalling in recent windows. I’ve said it before Garlick was quite happy sell his shares as part of this deal and keep a place on the board. No way these great local custodians would sell us out is there?GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:12 pmThey're under zero obligation to share with you, or anyone outside of the deal apart from the FA, how it's structured.
You're a customer of a business they've purchased that's it.
Inactive or not active enough?
We've signed a 1st team squad player in each window apart from this one.
There's no guarantee we would've signed anyone with the old owners but that doesn't suit the building narrative against the new owners it seems..
Again, you're making claims they built up the funds to take with them on purpose.
Back them up with facts or stop making them.
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Where did I say they were obliged to share it with me, or anyone? I said that since they’ve chosen not to, speculation in the media will persist. The reality may not actually be as bad as the media are suggesting, but we don’t know since they’ve chosen not to. And therefore we’re left debating what the media report.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:12 pmThey're under zero obligation to share with you, or anyone outside of the deal apart from the FA, how it's structured.
You're a customer of a business they've purchased that's it.
Inactive or not active enough?
We've signed a 1st team squad player in each window apart from this one.
There's no guarantee we would've signed anyone with the old owners but that doesn't suit the building narrative against the new owners it seems..
Again, you're making claims they built up the funds to take with them on purpose.
Back them up with facts or stop making them.
Again, I didn’t say we would have signed players under previous owners given they weren’t prepared to spend in the two windows prior. Tbh, I very much doubt we’d have signed Brownhill had Wells not been going in the opposite direction. I think we’ve spent a net minus number the last three windows accounting for Wells/Gibson out (assuming Norwich go up) & Brownhill/Stephen’s in. That is very poor considering the cash balances we held during those times, the injuries we’ve had and the obvious weaknesses in areas of the squad. I’ve been clear I don’t blame Pace at all in this regard.
It’s irrelevant whether it was purposeful or coincidental. The outcome is the same. They built up a huge cash pile whilst choosing not to invest in an ageing squad/stadium. Then they’ve withdrawn the cash in return for their shares (if the Guardian information is correct). All the while claiming to have the clubs best interests at heart. You might not think that is dodgy, but I do, and since it’s a message board for discussing BFC, and this is the takeover thread, I’m well within my rights to express that opinion.
This user liked this post: joey13
-
- Posts: 1682
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:21 pm
- Been Liked: 462 times
- Has Liked: 2398 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Another great post NewClaretNewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:12 pmWhere did I say they were obliged to share it with me, or anyone? I said that since they’ve chosen not to, speculation in the media will persist. The reality may not actually be as bad as the media are suggesting, but we don’t know since they’ve chosen not to. And therefore we’re left debating what the media report.
Again, I didn’t say we would have signed players under previous owners given they weren’t prepared to spend in the two windows prior. Tbh, I very much doubt we’d have signed Brownhill had Wells not been going in the opposite direction. I think we’ve spent a net minus number the last three windows accounting for Wells/Gibson out (assuming Norwich go up) & Brownhill/Stephen’s in. That is very poor considering the cash balances we held during those times, the injuries we’ve had and the obvious weaknesses in areas of the squad. I’ve been clear I don’t blame Pace at all in this regard.
It’s irrelevant whether it was purposeful or coincidental. The outcome is the same. They built up a huge cash pile whilst choosing not to invest in an ageing squad/stadium. Then they’ve withdrawn the cash in return for their shares (if the Guardian information is correct). All the while claiming to have the clubs best interests at heart. You might not think that is dodgy, but I do, and since it’s a message board for discussing BFC, and this is the takeover thread, I’m well within my rights to express that opinion.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I can't get my head round whether VSL, KCL or ALK have issued 49,000 shares at £1795 each, 50,000 shares at £200 each, to buy into BFC. ALK own 74% of BFC shares, which I assume they'd paid around £1764 each for. With the remaining shares valued around £200 each.
As one of the shareholders in the remaining 26%, where do our shares rate in terms of monetary value and are/have they been absorbed in among either of the above share issues.
Is it likely that if the 2 remaining directors haven't yet received their full amount, for the sale of their shares, they will be entitled to be an agreed amount of interest on the money their owed, until they are fully paid.
As one of the shareholders in the remaining 26%, where do our shares rate in terms of monetary value and are/have they been absorbed in among either of the above share issues.
Is it likely that if the 2 remaining directors haven't yet received their full amount, for the sale of their shares, they will be entitled to be an agreed amount of interest on the money their owed, until they are fully paid.
-
- Posts: 12343
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5201 times
- Has Liked: 920 times
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
where @KieranMaguire of Price of Football fame reiterates what a few have said on this thread todayGrumps wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:18 pmAnother explanation
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... t-19751018
These 2 users liked this post: KateR Vegas Claret
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Covid has been ongoing for a year now, so the summer window was an issue for a club that relies pretty much on TV monies and its common knowledge there's a rebate required on that from clubs.NewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:12 pmWhere did I say they were obliged to share it with me, or anyone? I said that since they’ve chosen not to, speculation in the media will persist. The reality may not actually be as bad as the media are suggesting, but we don’t know since they’ve chosen not to. And therefore we’re left debating what the media report.
Again, I didn’t say we would have signed players under previous owners given they weren’t prepared to spend in the two windows prior. Tbh, I very much doubt we’d have signed Brownhill had Wells not been going in the opposite direction. I think we’ve spent a net minus number the last three windows accounting for Wells/Gibson out (assuming Norwich go up) & Brownhill/Stephen’s in. That is very poor considering the cash balances we held during those times, the injuries we’ve had and the obvious weaknesses in areas of the squad. I’ve been clear I don’t blame Pace at all in this regard.
It’s irrelevant whether it was purposeful or coincidental. The outcome is the same. They built up a huge cash pile whilst choosing not to invest in an ageing squad/stadium. Then they’ve withdrawn the cash in return for their shares (if the Guardian information is correct). All the while claiming to have the clubs best interests at heart. You might not think that is dodgy, but I do, and since it’s a message board for discussing BFC, and this is the takeover thread, I’m well within my rights to express that opinion.
The former owners prided themselves on running a tight ship financially and ensuring we had money in the bank, which we needed for the Covid crisis it turned out.
You, and others, are now trashing their reputations and everything they did and calling into question their integrity based on a newspaper article that you've admitted yourself you don't know if it's accurate and then you wonder why I'm asking you to support your claims that they've intentionally ran the club in a financially prudent manner to then purposely take the money out of the clubs accounts and it's clear they've had the clubs best interests at heart from the very day they took over.
Having a net spend like that whilst still retaining our PL status should be lauded.
Yes we need new players but it's a sign of just how good our previous transfer windows have been that we aren't nailed to the bottom of the table like other clubs who've spent more in a single window than we have in multiple ones.
No issues with opinions, unless they're absolute garbage which yours was quite simply.
Last edited by GodIsADeeJay81 on Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These 2 users liked this post: Braindead Vegas Claret
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Clubs are a business, fans are customers.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Can they take all my properties D-A?.
This user liked this post: Devils_Advocate
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
it is no different from what a few have being saying on here and just underlines things, which have been stated but of course it's from an "expert".Grumps wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:18 pmAnother explanation
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... t-19751018
Having 50 million sat in a bank account is not good business but it's always viewed as safe and prudent, so groups like the FA and PL like to see that, business analysts don't. If you don't use the money to improve you eventually start to deteriorate, which is what many have said over the last few years and complained about no ambition.
Yes they used the bank account reserves to effect the takeover, smart move in my opinion and smart of the previous owners to see the deal, take the money and pass the baton but stay retained in some capacity, which will ensure the payments for the future.
Risky move but not stupid and not illegal nor is it immoral, the pessimists are out in droves lately, probably the end of the window has been the tipping point, I'm sure there will be more pivots in the future though.
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 mybloodisclaret
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yet we've stayed in the PL on the back of our transfer history thanks to the aforementioned local custodians who're staying on board to ensure a smooth transition which they aren't obliged to do btw.Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:11 pmOur transfer dealings have been appalling in recent windows. I’ve said it before Garlick was quite happy sell his shares as part of this deal and keep a place on the board. No way these great local custodians would sell us out is there?
-
- Posts: 12343
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5201 times
- Has Liked: 920 times
-
- Posts: 5744
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1868 times
- Has Liked: 835 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So we’ve nothing to worry about then with ALK have we especially as he’s agreed to stay on to ensure that smooth transition.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:41 pmYet we've stayed in the PL on the back of our transfer history thanks to the aforementioned local custodians who're staying on board to ensure a smooth transition which they aren't obliged to do btw.
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It's a positive sign that they've retained the services of someone who knows the club, how English football works etc.Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:44 pmSo we’ve nothing to worry about then with ALK have we especially as he’s agreed to stay on to ensure that smooth transition.
Rovers did at first and then it went down hill when they got rid of experienced people.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hi Bfc, I'll try and answer some of your questions.Bfc wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:18 pmI can't get my head round whether VSL, KCL or ALK have issued 49,000 shares at £1795 each, 50,000 shares at £200 each, to buy into BFC. ALK own 74% of BFC shares, which I assume they'd paid around £1764 each for. With the remaining shares valued around £200 each.
As one of the shareholders in the remaining 26%, where do our shares rate in terms of monetary value and are/have they been absorbed in among either of the above share issues.
Is it likely that if the 2 remaining directors haven't yet received their full amount, for the sale of their shares, they will be entitled to be an agreed amount of interest on the money their owed, until they are fully paid.
1) ALK have bought 84% of the club (not 74%). They bought all the shareholdings of all the existing directors, except for 4,000 share each that MG and JB continue to hold.
2) The legal structure is that Calder Vale is the owner of these 84% shares in BFC and Kettering Capital owns Calder Vale.
3) Kettering Capital is the entity that has issued 50,000 shares for £200 each and 49,000 shares for £1795 each. Total capital in KCL is (rounded) £98 million.
4) Kettering Capital is owned by a Jersey registered company, Velocity Sports Ltd. (There is another Velocity Sports company, also part of ALK, but it doesn't appear to be part of the structure.
5) Posted on here yesterday is a report that says a US based Premier League club owners are looking to sell more shares. The report didn't name ALK or Burnley FC, but it's hard to think of any other club that fits their report. The report doesn't say if the "more shares" and in addition to the 99,000 shares issued by Kettering Capital. It could be that they are higher up in the hierarchy. Equally, the report might be referring to the 49,000 shares that have been issued by Kettering Capital at £1795...
6) Mike Garlick and John B are reported to have 3 further instalments due on the sale of their shares. We don't know the dates that these instalments are due, they may be linked to retaining Premier League status or there could be other performance triggers. It's reported that MG and JB will become owners of the club again, if ALK fail to make the 3 instalments. As the 3 instalments are part of the agreed sale price, it's not necessarily the case that interest will be paid on the instalments, except in the case that they are paid later than they dates they are due to be paid.
7) It's difficult to answer your key question, how much are the small shareholders shares worth? I imagine MG and JB have got an agreement with ALK on the valuation of their 4,000 shares. It would be great if the small shareholders could get an offer from ALK to buy their shares and this value to match the £1,795 paid for 49,000 shares, that's always assuming that each of the small shareholders want to sell their shares. I think I've heard, or maybe read on this mb, that someone has contacted the club to ask what happens to the small shareholders. I've not seen anything that mentions whether a response has been received.
Exciting times.
UTC
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Of course they are obliged to stay on ,won’t pick up the rest of their 40 pieces silver otherwise.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:41 pmYet we've stayed in the PL on the back of our transfer history thanks to the aforementioned local custodians who're staying on board to ensure a smooth transition which they aren't obliged to do btw.
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Sorry, but I don’t think we can blame covid on a poor summer transfer window, when there was £55m in the bank this summer (according to reports).GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:33 pmCovid has been ongoing for a year now, so the summer window was an issue for a club that relies pretty much on TV monies and its common knowledge there's a rebate required on that from clubs.
The former owners prided themselves on running a tight ship financially and ensuring we had money in the bank, which we needed for the Covid crisis it turned out.
You, and others, are now trashing their reputations and everything they did and calling into question their integrity based on a newspaper article that you've admitted yourself you don't know if it's accurate and then you wonder why I'm asking you to support your claims that they've intentionally ran the club in a financially prudent manner and they've had the clubs best interests at heart from the very day they took over.
Having a net spend like that whilst still retaining our PL status should be lauded.
Yes we need new players but it's a sign of just how good our previous transfer windows have been that we aren't nailed to the bottom of the table like other clubs who've spent more in a single window than we have in multiple ones.
No issues with opinions, unless they're absolute garbage which yours was quite simply.
I will add that I have historically praised said financial prudence, and my pride in local ownership. However, you can’t ignore the fact that if they have walked away with the Guardian-reported £30-£40m cash reserves, it seems odd that they have suddenly abandoned a value they prided themselves on... unless of course their motivations were not as honourable as we’ve been led to believe all these years?
You may view our current position as a sign of success of previous windows, but I just view it as a miracle being performed by our fantastic manager, who was clearly getting very frustrated about the lack of support. And then wonder where we might be had he been given that backing.
In all of my posts I have qualified that my views are based on the media reports being correct. If there’s a reasonable explanation, or they’re incorrect, I’ll revise my opinion. In the meantime, I’m entitled to discuss how I think those reflect on the figures at the club. I am, after all, only a customer so I’m sure they don’t care about my opinion anyway. You are of course entitled to disagree.
I very much hope I have to revise my opinion.
-
- Posts: 6880
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2742 times
- Has Liked: 4314 times
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So you've ignored the TV rebate.NewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:11 pmSorry, but I don’t think we can blame covid on a poor summer transfer window, when there was £55m in the bank this summer (according to reports).
I will add that I have historically praised said financial prudence, and my pride in local ownership. However, you can’t ignore the fact that if they have walked away with the Guardian-reported £30-£40m cash reserves, it seems odd that they have suddenly abandoned a value they prided themselves on... unless of course their motivations were not as honourable as we’ve been led to believe all these years?
You may view our current position as a sign of success of previous windows, but I just view it as a miracle being performed by our fantastic manager, who was clearly getting very frustrated about the lack of support. And then wonder where we might be had he been given that backing.
In all of my posts I have qualified that my views are based on the media reports being correct. If there’s a reasonable explanation, or they’re incorrect, I’ll revise my opinion. In the meantime, I’m entitled to discuss how I think those reflect on the figures at the club. I am, after all, only a customer so I’m sure they don’t care about my opinion anyway. You are of course entitled to disagree.
I very much hope I have to revise my opinion.
You're ignoring the drop in revenue for the club from match day.
It's all about our former owners being tight fisted gits.
Then you credit it all to the manager, despite him being supported and backed by the owners when finances allow.
You're still sticking with a guardian story and to top it all off you're admitting again it could be wrong.
Discuss away, just know that some people will counter your unproven claims and attempts to discredit the efforts and reputation of our former owners.
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Where did I get that wrong?
Clubs are in the entertainment industry and rely on a customer base like any other business.
To grow the revenue streams they need more paying customers.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If we had £52m in the bank in December then we had a hell of a lot more in late August
not going to go into the rest of your post, that subject has been going in circles for a long time now and is met with the same refusal to accept a different view
-
- Posts: 15107
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3137 times
- Has Liked: 6682 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Well said.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:15 pmSo you've ignored the TV rebate.
You're ignoring the drop in revenue for the club from match day.
It's all about our former owners being tight fisted gits.
Then you credit it all to the manager, despite him being supported and backed by the owners when finances allow.
You're still sticking with a guardian story and to top it all off you're admitting again it could be wrong.
Discuss away, just know that some people will counter your unproven claims and attempts to discredit the efforts and reputation of our former owners.
our ex chairman and vice chairman have done us proud.
how many wanted them gone? And out of those how many wish we still had them?
All they've done is sold their shares, which they had every right to do.
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2560 times
- Has Liked: 300 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
£55m sounds a lot of money doesn't it? Sounds a lot of money.......
Until you realise the wage bill is £87m, and if the club loses premier league income it's revenue drops to around £15m + parachute payments........ it doesn't sound so much then does it, the old £55m....... not too much at all...... does it?
Business analysts wouldn't look at a football club spending the majority of it's significantly at risk income on wages, and tell them to go again.
It's surely not that difficult to grasp is it? Budget for relegation, and invest funds in areas of the club you can move forwards when you can, like a first team squad that finishes 7th and 10th, a training ground that sets you up for 20 years, and academy at Category one to give you the chance of producing valuable commodities in players, development of the ground to provide disabled facilities that meet requirements.
Once you've done all that, some lads are going to come on and accuse you of taking the surplus reserves built up to secure the long term future of the club, because some lads buying the club decided that they'd rather use the cash to pay for the successful business you're selling. They'll probably ignore the fact that you've invested money, time, expertise and taken no wage from the club, and provided the best squad of players and manager they've likely seen play for the club. But that's the world we live in....... i guess.
Until you realise the wage bill is £87m, and if the club loses premier league income it's revenue drops to around £15m + parachute payments........ it doesn't sound so much then does it, the old £55m....... not too much at all...... does it?
Business analysts wouldn't look at a football club spending the majority of it's significantly at risk income on wages, and tell them to go again.
It's surely not that difficult to grasp is it? Budget for relegation, and invest funds in areas of the club you can move forwards when you can, like a first team squad that finishes 7th and 10th, a training ground that sets you up for 20 years, and academy at Category one to give you the chance of producing valuable commodities in players, development of the ground to provide disabled facilities that meet requirements.
Once you've done all that, some lads are going to come on and accuse you of taking the surplus reserves built up to secure the long term future of the club, because some lads buying the club decided that they'd rather use the cash to pay for the successful business you're selling. They'll probably ignore the fact that you've invested money, time, expertise and taken no wage from the club, and provided the best squad of players and manager they've likely seen play for the club. But that's the world we live in....... i guess.
These 5 users liked this post: Anonymous GodIsADeeJay81 Kevwando JohnMac Juan Tanamera
-
- Posts: 5744
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1868 times
- Has Liked: 835 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Wish we still had them?? Still on the board aren’t they? Let’s hope they’ve done us proud with their decision of who they’ve decided to sell their shares to!boatshed bill wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:25 pmWell said.
our ex chairman and vice chairman have done us proud.
how many wanted them gone? And out of those how many wish we still had them?
All they've done is sold their shares, which they had every right to do.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
the line in the sand has been drawn, people on both sides have opinions, nothing new there and nothing new on this thread for a while, just people getting firmer entrenched in to an opinion.
For that reason I'm out of here, unless something a interest or material changes occur, I will be lurker and watching with interest as it unfolds though.
Maybe when the club announces a new sponsor that will provide a little more insight.
UTC
For that reason I'm out of here, unless something a interest or material changes occur, I will be lurker and watching with interest as it unfolds though.
Maybe when the club announces a new sponsor that will provide a little more insight.
UTC
These 3 users liked this post: Chester Perry BleedingClaret mybloodisclaret
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Articles of association changed "So, company can now give ‘financial assistance’ to another for or connected to the purchases of shares in company."
https://twitter.com/TheFootballLaw/stat ... 5005728768
I interpret that as allowing the club money to used to buy shares off the old board by lending to one of Velocity, Kettering or Calder Vale
full articles are here
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
so nothing new just confirmation that what has been reported is allowed by the articles of association - the change so soon after takeover effectively confirms the action
https://twitter.com/TheFootballLaw/stat ... 5005728768
I interpret that as allowing the club money to used to buy shares off the old board by lending to one of Velocity, Kettering or Calder Vale
full articles are here
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
so nothing new just confirmation that what has been reported is allowed by the articles of association - the change so soon after takeover effectively confirms the action
This user liked this post: NewClaret
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Not ignoring it. The £55m was at the takeover point, not sure when any rebate needs to be handed back, or if indeed we get less this year (you didn’t say), but £55m is a lot of money to hold and should have allowed us to strengthen this summer. I’m not saying we should have blown it all, just that it should have allowed us to sign players and manage through Covid impacts. Or do you you disagree? In which case how much money should we have built up before investing comfortably?GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:15 pmSo you've ignored the TV rebate.
You're ignoring the drop in revenue for the club from match day.
It's all about our former owners being tight fisted gits.
Then you credit it all to the manager, despite him being supported and backed by the owners when finances allow.
You're still sticking with a guardian story and to top it all off you're admitting again it could be wrong.
Discuss away, just know that some people will counter your unproven claims and attempts to discredit the efforts and reputation of our former owners.
So, do you think the guardian story is wrong? What if it’s true - would you be fine if the previous owners had walked off with £30-£40m having invested so little in recent years?
I don’t really understand the sensitivity around it all. They’ve done some fantastic things over the years - promotion, not taking salaries, barnfield, etc, etc. It’s possible to recognise those achievements whilst also criticising other decisions, and if these reports are true I can’t see how anyone could be anything other than critical and it would definitely taint their legacy in my opinion.
-
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
- Been Liked: 1177 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
- Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Can I just ask which reports suggest £55 million was in the bank this summer?
We had £42m in the summer 2019 (as per companies house), so I'm intrigued how this increased with our lack of match revenue and potential rebates back to the TV firms over 2020.
Added to this were Garlic's comments before project restart about running out of cash, I'm intrigued who thought we had that amount in the current account in the summer 2020.
We had £42m in the summer 2019 (as per companies house), so I'm intrigued how this increased with our lack of match revenue and potential rebates back to the TV firms over 2020.
Added to this were Garlic's comments before project restart about running out of cash, I'm intrigued who thought we had that amount in the current account in the summer 2020.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The Matt Slater article suggested that we had at least £52m in the bank in December, if that is the case given Premier League central distribution schedules and allowing for monthly outgoings of wages and of operational costs we would have had to have a lot more in the summer, unless there has been an almighty surge in commercial income (no deals of significance have been announced) so we would have had to have a larger amount in the bank late August/SeptemberDarthlaw wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:39 pmCan I just ask which reports suggest £55 million was in the bank this summer?
We had £40m in the summer 2019 (as per companies house), so I'm intrigued how this increased with our lack of match revenue and potential rebates back to the TV firms over 2020.
Added to this were Garlic's comments before project restart about running out of cash, I'm intrigued who thought we had that amount in the current account in the summer 2020.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Well I am not happy, as we appear to have been shafted by our previous 2 major shareholders. The only winners being them and a limited company, who could easily fail their business plan and instead of being cushioned against relegation, we are right in the muckys.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
you keep saying this Ian, we hear you, I for one am not convinced it is so binaryIanMcL wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:21 pmWell I am not happy, as we appear to have been shafted by our previous 2 major shareholders. The only winners being them and a limited company, who could easily fail their business plan and instead of being cushioned against relegation, we are right in the muckys.
Have they profited - yes
Was there a better offer on the table - apparently not
Had Garlick lost the goodwill of the manager and the fans - probably yes
Was the relationship between Dyche and Garlick beyond breaking point meaning one had to go - possibly yes
Is Dyche more important to the club than Garlick - most would say resoundingly yes
in those circumstances we end up with what we now have
am I happy about it - no
can I do anything about it - no
do I want my club to continue and remain at the heart of the community and town for years to come - yes
does that mean I have to wish the new board success - yes
do I like that - not particularly
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These 2 users liked this post: NewClaret Dark Cloud
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
That’s really what I was getting at. I didn’t respond to GIADJ’s rebate statement because I assumed the position in summer would’ve been more healthy than the pre-takeover balance, thus reinforce my belief we should’ve had cash to spend at that point.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:22 pmIf we had £52m in the bank in December then we had a hell of a lot more in late August
not going to go into the rest of your post, that subject has been going in circles for a long time now and is met with the same refusal to accept a different view
Absolutely no refusal to accept you hold a different view than me mate. That’s what these places are about. Just that I’ve not heard anything to make me accept a different position. Just as I’ve not convinced you of mine.
There’s a post above saying £55m isn’t a lot of money given our overheads. I can accept that opinion, although I think it’s subjective based on your risk appetite and willingness to speculate to accumulate.
But then I genuinely do not understand:
a) at what point there would have been consensus that we’d saved enough to restart more meaningful recruitment? £80m? £100m? £200m There must be a point. In summer folk were saying we had a lot less than the £42m from the last accounts, now it looks like there was >£55m at that point. If I’d had said last summer in those debates “actually lads we have >£55m - happy to spend some now?” I’d bet we’d have all agreed. The cash balance keeps going north (or was!) but nobody seems able to say at what point we’d have been comfortable to commence recruitment.
b) if you subscribe that £55m is not a lot for a club in our position to hold as cash, how can you possibly accept the previous owners using £30-£40m of it to buy themselves out, leaving a very worrying £15m - £25m left? It’s nothing other than a disaster if you think you need £55m+ in reserve? Do we now have to recover those funds to get back to a point we can reasonably afford to buy players?
I’m not asking you to answer those questions. It’s becoming a circular discussion, I agree. I’m just explaining what I don’t understand about the relative arguments being presented.
Would be keen to know if you think they’ve taken the Guardian-reported sums though? Article changes appear to support the view they’ve used some of it, but that much? Hopefully not!
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Not wanting to split hairs but I am quoting £55m from this report:Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:53 pmThe Matt Slater article suggested that we had at least £52m in the bank in December, if that is the case given Premier League central distribution schedules and allowing for monthly outgoings of wages and of operational costs we would have had to have a lot more in the summer, unless there has been an almighty surge in commercial income (no deals of significance have been announced) so we would have had to have a larger amount in the bank late August/September
https://theathletic.co.uk/2305713/2021/ ... ll-soccer/
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The previous owners didn't use the money in the clubs accounts to buy themselves out... Why is this so difficult to understand?
The new owners did that.
The new owners did that.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
What we wanted to do was spend £15M on a right winger, £10M on a centre back and £10M on a right back.
What it seems like we've done is spend £80M on a new chairman.
What it seems like we've done is spend £80M on a new chairman.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I think you are asking the wrong question - the budget every year was to break even with a 17th place finish - finishing above that gives you the excess cash income. But if you spend that on a transfer how do you incorporate the added cost of wages of that new player, within the budget. If you sell a player then you not only bring in a fee (cash surplus in the budget) but also free space in the wage budget. Last year the club were on target to raise additional income as part of the new cycle so the budget increased, I believed at least 3 of the departures were planned by the board to create space in the wage budget for a couple of significant signings. The pandemic happened, revenues dropped, the budget adjusted downward to get closer to the operational breakeven and the opportunity for significant signings without a sale of our own all but disappeared.NewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:34 pmThat’s really what I was getting at. I didn’t respond to GIADJ’s rebate statement because I assumed the position in summer would’ve been more healthy than the pre-takeover balance, thus reinforce my belief we should’ve had cash to spend at that point.
Absolutely no refusal to accept you hold a different view than me mate. That’s what these places are about. Just that I’ve not heard anything to make me accept a different position. Just as I’ve not convinced you of mine.
There’s a post above saying £55m isn’t a lot of money given our overheads. I can accept that opinion, although I think it’s subjective based on your risk appetite and willingness to speculate to accumulate.
But then I genuinely do not understand:
a) at what point there would have been consensus that we’d saved enough to restart more meaningful recruitment? £80m? £100m? £200m There must be a point. In summer folk were saying we had a lot less than the £42m from the last accounts, now it looks like there was >£55m at that point. If I’d had said last summer in those debates “actually lads we have >£55m - happy to spend some now?” I’d bet we’d have all agreed. The cash balance keeps going north (or was!) but nobody seems able to say at what point we’d have been comfortable to commence recruitment.
This is in simplistic terms, there will be other factors but it is what I think has happened - when we first were promoted we had the revenue lift to raise the operational costs of additional wages in the last few years the non-merit revenue (or the revenue with the greatest certainty) has been relatively flat and any uplift has been filled with the other growing costs at the club - like the additional 100 people on permanent contracts
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Agree with all that. My question would be to what extent the root cause of said relationship breakdown was due to the failure to support him in the transfer window?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:33 pmyou keep saying this Ian, we hear you, I for one am not convinced it is so binary
Have they profited - yes
Was there a better offer on the table - apparently not
Had Garlick lost the goodwill of the manager and the fans - probably yes
Was the relationship between Dyche and Garlick beyond breaking point meaning one had to go - possibly yes
Is Dyche more important to the club than Garlick - most would say resoundingly yes
in those circumstances we end up with what we now have
am I happy about it - no
can I do anything about it - no
do I want my club to continue and remain at the heart of the community and town for years to come - yes
does that mean I have to wish the new board success - yes
do I like that - not particularly
Given Sean has publicly expressed those frustrations in the past, time and again, it’s fair to draw that conclusion.
Assuming so, to what extent did MG consider fixing the root cause and giving him some money to spend? Had he done, would we now be in a better position? We’d likely still have no debt and probably a similar level of cash reserves.
Maybe because that didn’t fit with the exit strategy?
Anyway, you’re right - none of us really like where we’ve found ourselves comparative to where we were. And there’s nothing we can do about it. That we’re in violent agreement on.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
agree no need to split hairs I think my number is because he refined it in a subsequent podcastNewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:36 pmNot wanting to split hairs but I am quoting £55m from this report:
https://theathletic.co.uk/2305713/2021/ ... ll-soccer/
This user liked this post: NewClaret
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Who sanctioned that transaction structure?GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:39 pmThe previous owners didn't use the money in the clubs accounts to buy themselves out... Why is this so difficult to understand?
The new owners did that.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The owners, or shareholders, have no right to take money out of the bank. They can't do it. Only the directors can authorise payments out of the bank.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:39 pmThe previous owners didn't use the money in the clubs accounts to buy themselves out... Why is this so difficult to understand?
The new owners did that.
Mike Garlick is a director. He agreed the deal whereby the club cash assets went down by £100m, he agreed to bankroll the loan, he agreed to clear the bank account, he agreed that the money should go into his account. There is no stage in this murky series of transaction where Garlick wasn't in it up to his neck. If he didn't support this action in all its aspects, he would have resigned as a director.
This user liked this post: IanMcL