ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[NewClaret]

agree no need to split hairs I think my number is because he refined it in a subsequent podcast

Fair enough, knew there would be a reason we’d got different numbers. Report does say approximately.

[NewClaret]

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.

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

Not ignoring, will reply in the morning. Something to look forward to

Night clarets.

[Chester Perry]

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.

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.

It takes a 75% to enable this special resolution change to the articles to allow the inter-company loan for this purpose, is that 75% of the quorum or 75% of the shares, if it is the latter it could have happened after the sale was agreed and shares transferred - it is difficult to identify the sequence of events in the filings at companies house.

I am sure there are posters out there that can correct my theories here

[NewClaret]

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.

Succinctly put

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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.

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.

So you've got proof of all of those actions?
Didn't think so.

[Long Time Lurker]

Can they take all my properties D-A?.

If this is a genuine question, looking for a genuine reply, the answer is no they can't.

In the event that the club goes bankrupt your shares would be worthless Bfc, but your personal assets would be perfectly safe. Owning shares would not result in you having unlimited liability for any debts run up by the club.

Not everyone understands the complexities of finance. People often find themselves unsure about their position and how changing circumstances could affect them.

Being flippant is a very reckless and potentially damaging thing to do DA.

It might seem like a throw away comment, but if it is taken seriously by somebody reading it and they get the wrong impressions about their liabilities it could result in an unfortunate situation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/young-t ... nhood.html

[dsr]

So you've got proof of all of those actions?
Didn't think so.

I haven't even got proof that he's called Mike Garlick. Does that mean it isn't true?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I haven't even got proof that he's called Mike Garlick. Does that mean it isn't true?

I'd assume you wouldn't have his personal paperwork etc available but hey ho.
Same as I wouldn't assume anyone on here to be privy to how the club was sold step by step, but here we are seeing people making huge assumptions and busying themselves bashing the former owners and doing their level best to tarnish the good work they did.

[Devils_Advocate]

If this is a genuine question, looking for a genuine reply, the answer is no they can't.

In the event that the club goes bankrupt your shares would be worthless Bfc, but your personal assets would be perfectly safe. Owning shares would not result in you having unlimited liability for any debts run up by the club.

Not everyone understands the complexities of finance. People often find themselves unsure about their position and how changing circumstances could affect them.

Being flippant is a very reckless and potentially damaging thing to do DA.

It might seem like a throw away comment, but if it is taken seriously by somebody reading it and they get the wrong impressions about their liabilities it could result in an unfortunate situation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/young-t ... nhood.html

You take care pal

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Alan Pace is on Talksport today, on the Jim White show and they're going to ask him about the clubs new debt.

[aggi]

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.

Those shares are worth whatever someone wants to pay them, as they always have been.

They haven't been absorbed or diluted, the share issues in Kettering Capital and Calder Vale have no impact on Burnley FC Holdings where your shares are.

Those minor shareholdings have never really had a real value associated with them, they are too small to make a difference in any real sense.

[Culmclaret]

I would put myself in the sceptical camp BUT I think we do need to wait and see. The autophagic approach to dealing with the buyer’s debt is not a positive facet of the deal, but we really need to know more about the new owners’ strategic approach to improving the value of their BFC asset before rushing to judgment. So far lots of warm words but no action.

[IanMcL]

I agree with Chester's points to me, on a 'where we are' basis.

I very much agree with DSRs points in that both Mr G and Mr B appear, on tge surface, to have made a large fortune, at the expense of the club. They could have just taken their funds out or even a little more and left the club in the position they have protected to date.

I hope they have and that we have been misled.

Otherwise, they would have been the worst ever people to have had directorship, in BFC. Our £10m turnover in the Championship, won't pay the interest, let alone a club. That is supposedly why we held a surplus.

Hope we are wrong and they are good guys. Looks like a large, expensive, directors loan to me, at present.
Fingers crossed.

[kentonclaret]

The "software and algorithm approach" to be employed by Alan Pace to spot and identify player talent at an early stage, buy them and develop them for sale at a large profit, will need to start working fairly quickly with the manager fully on board.

[Stevie Morgan]

Alan Pace is on Talksport today, on the Jim White show and they're going to ask him about the clubs new debt.

What time?

[BleedingClaret]

What time?

That’s top secret, although the talk sport signal will go down around that time so you’ll know it’s happening

[GodIsADeeJay81]

What time?

Dunno yet, they're currently talking about AVB and Marseille

[Sunny Cornwall]

In a leveraged buyout you would always want the debt in the trading company. It’s the easiest wa to get tax relief on the interest paid. What they’ve done is nothing strange.

[LordBob]

I'm waiting for Alan Pace to come on Talksport I listened to Prince Abdullah the Blades owner earlier and I have a feeling that the Blades fans are gonna feel more upbeat than us after having listened to their owner.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Discussing Burnley now, the debt.
Waiting for Pace to come on

[randomclaret2]

Mentioned that Simon Jordan would give his views, but no mention of Alan Pace

[Top Claret]

Talk Sport is going to be interesting with Simon Jordan, he has some strong views on the takeover.

By the time this is over Garlick and JB will be ripe for the lynching mob

[kentonclaret]

Once more Jim Smith gives a hint that Simon Jordan feels that the Burnley deal deserves much greater "scrutiny" but no indication that they will be speaking direct with Alan Pace.

[LordBob]

Apparently we are worth £90 million less now

[Top Claret]

In a leveraged buyout you would always want the debt in the trading company. It’s the easiest wa to get tax relief on the interest paid. What they’ve done is nothing strange.

Nothing strange but this is football not a normal business. Where will the funds be for future investment in the transfer market for us to complete at our present level?

[kentonclaret]

The funds are supposed to come from the sale of footballing talent identified at an early stage, developed, and sold at profit.

[randomclaret2]

Once more Jim Smith gives a hint that Simon Jordan feels that the Burnley deal deserves much greater "scrutiny" but no indication that they will be speaking direct with Alan Pace.

Its Jim White

[LordBob]

The funds are supposed to come from the sale of footballing talent identified at an early stage, developed, and sold at profit.

No guarantees there then, wishful thinking.

[LordBob]

Its Jim White

It's all sh*te

[Top Claret]

The funds are supposed to come from the sale of footballing talent identified at an early stage, developed, and sold at profit.

That will take years. By that time we won't have the income streams to fund an academy as we will be back in the championship or beyond and broke

[randomclaret2]

It's all sh*te

Dont listen then

[ewanrob]

Have to say , I hope our New Chairman comes on...this could be a very important point in his tenure. Not overly keen on Jordan, but he is already alluding to this not looking very good. I go back to some responses yesterday regarding getting more money from matchdays, commercial activities etc by upping the quality of the product. To do that, we need better contracts for our star players, and better incoming transfers...chicken and egg, we need money now to get that quality. Our matchday income is what...7m per season, what do they really think they can get this upto...20-30 million, how !!

[kentonclaret]

Well, that was the strategy that appeared in the media with Alan Pace employing what he described as "a software and algorithm approach".

I don't expect to hear Alan Pace who will probably be somewhere in a bunker.

Hope I am proved wrong but just expect to hear scepticism and warning signals from Jordan.

[LordBob]

I think they thought they could get Pace on but I don't think he's playing ball; that's why this segment is being held up.

[jedi_master]

One of my biggest concerns is that Alan hasn't made one comment on Twitter about any of the allegations/concerns that have come out in the last 48 hours.

Considering he initially was countering articles shortly after the takeover via that medium, it does stick out somewhat that he doesn't feel he can object to or disagree with the reports that he is "scrabbling around to find £30m to pay off the first installment of his debt to Mike Garlick and John Banaskiewicz" as was recently stated on Twitter by a respected source.

I mean, a Chairman shouldn't have to answer any of these concerns really - we heard next to nothing from Garlick over the last half a decade so if anything it shouldn't be a concern. It's only because Alan has made a rod for his own back by trying to be very communicative and open (I won't use the word transparent as he has not been particularly forthcoming with the true financial details of the takeover, to this day. Something I find odd and concerning considering the accounts will clearly show the reality, what is there to hide?) that his now blanket silence on lots of conjecture and criticism coming his way seems odd.

[Top Claret]

Bill Kenwright turned down numerous offers over the years for Everton fc, he could have took the money and run, but he didn't because he had responsibilitys as a custodian. Unlike our lot.

Good deal for our former and new directors but a bad one for the town, fans and BFC

[randomclaret2]

Talk Sport now

[jojomk1]

Not fully understanding the financials of this thread but a simple question, from a simple man

If we previously had £40-50m cash in the bank where has this money gone already if, as above, Pace is "scrabbling around to find £30m to pay the first installment of his debts to MG and JB"

[KRBFC]

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.

Jesus christ, are you really nitpicking this badly? The old owners would've known exactly the deal on the table before being given an option to accept or decline. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly for ALK on this, probably just to be in the minority to argue with everyone else but 95% of football fans will tell you leveraged buyouts are immoral in football.

[LordBob]

I don't like it, relegation would be the end of us!

[Chester Perry]

Bill Kenwright turned down numerous offers over the years for Everton fc, he could have took the money and run, but he didn't because he had responsibilitys as a custodian. Unlike our lot.

Good deal for our former and new directors but a bad one for the town, fans and BFC

That is because he wanted to stay on as Chairman and be involved in the Daily running of the club - which he still is, in this role most Evertonians believe he is incompetent at best, and there is a real level of discontent building that he is still there.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Jesus christ, are you really nitpicking this badly? The old owners would've known exactly the deal on the table before being given an option to accept or decline. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly for ALK on this, probably just to be in the minority to argue with everyone else but 95% of football fans will tell you leveraged buyouts are immoral in football.

I just object to the wilful trashing of the previous owners.

As for immoral, its only in football, not in the real world and that's probably why many of you on here are getting the arse on about it because you don't want to see the club as a business, purely as a club.

[NickBFC]

Jordan summery: Disagrees that Pace understands the culture of English football. Reality of football is very different to what he might expect. Man Utd can service their similar debt set up - Burnley aren't better off for this transaction and are a different proposition. Only real beneficiaries are Garlick/JB. Classic American leverage purchase, he reckons they've put £30m of their own cash into it. The challenge is servicing the debt, £10m+ a year to fund it. If Burnley get it right (fans back, don't get relegated etc) then everything will be fine, but if Burnley get it wrong one season and suffer relegation then problems lie ahead. Really good deal for the purchaser - already made significant money, paid probably 15% of the £200m valuation. ALK have a wake up call coming, it's a serious challenge. Dyche isn't going to be at the club forever, made him unassailable.


Pretty much what a lot of fans have been saying then. I guess it's wait and see, and hope...

[kentonclaret]

Can be pretty certain player sales in the Summer will have to finance transfer spending unless ALK borrow yet more money against Burnley assets.

[Chester Perry]

Jesus christ, are you really nitpicking this badly? The old owners would've known exactly the deal on the table before being given an option to accept or decline. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly for ALK on this, probably just to be in the minority to argue with everyone else but 95% of football fans will tell you leveraged buyouts are immoral in football.

I am one of that majority, but I will admit that is because I feel the fans are the ones that own the club, they do not in any legal or commercial sense. The fans are and always will be the last resort to preserving a clubs existence though, whether they take a share of ownership or not and that is the distinction between football (or sports clubs in Europe) and and everyday business.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Jesus christ, are you really nitpicking this badly? The old owners would've known exactly the deal on the table before being given an option to accept or decline. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly for ALK on this, probably just to be in the minority to argue with everyone else but 95% of football fans will tell you leveraged buyouts are immoral in football.

Exactly this! I love this notion that the structure of this deal has come as a shock to Garlick and co. They must be extremely confident this takeover is going to work given the amount of time they spent negotiating it and the fact they agreed to sell and hand over to Pace. If it all goes tits up they will equally be as culpable as ALk.

[ClaretAndJew]

He also said the money has gone into the shareholders pockets...

[Top Claret]

That is because he wanted to stay on as Chairman and be involved in the Daily running of the club - which he still is, in this role most Evertonians believe he is incompetent at best, and there is a real level of discontent building that he is still there.

He wasn't incompetent enough to pass the club on to a some Yanks, who have bought the club on borrowed money and are gambling on the clubs Premier league future to finance it

[DCWat]

I am one of that majority, but I will admit that is because I feel the fans are the ones that own the club, they do not in any legal or commercial sense. The fans are and always will be the last resort to preserving a clubs existence though, whether they take a share of ownership or not and that is the distinction between football (or sports clubs in Europe) and and everyday business.

And that in a nutshell is why fans are not simply “customers”.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

He wasn't incompetent enough to pass the club on to a some Yanks, who have bought the club on borrowed money and are gambling on the clubs Premier league future to finance it

He sold it to a bloke who ended up borrowing from his mate via a bizarre sponsorship deal etc.