ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Oshkoshclaret]

If you owned a business that had £50 mill in the bank. And then you sold that business, wouldn’t you want to keep the £50 mill? BFC isn’t a community asset you know right?

This is the crux of the whole debate. Technically and legally, BFC is a business. But it’s also a community asset.

[Big Vinny K]

Yes, you always ask where the money is coming from. In almost all cases, it will be the solicitor's client account - the keys won't be handed over until the money is actually in your solicitor's account.

In this case, obviously, the money wouldn't be in any solicitor's account, but Garlick would have known exactly where it was. You don't sell £170m of shares to a man who hasn't got £170m unless you know where he's going to find the cash.

Not sure we are talking about the same thing here.

The solicitor acting on behalf of his client has to ask for evidence of source of funds - that will include the mortgage being obtained of course but also the source of any funds being used for a deposit. And it’s not enough to say “from my savings account from x or y bank”. You have to tell them where the savings came from. If for example you said some of your deposit is coming from a redundancy payment you’ll need evidence to prove this too.

But in terms of the seller I have never known a case where you ask where the money is coming from. As said it’s coming from the other solicitors client account and they know that it’s the other solicitors duty to prove source of funds - but their is no requirement to disclose the details of this (and no requirement to ask either)

As for the ALK purchase specifically this is further complicated in terms of source of funds details by companies being registered in Delaware - a place where many US companies are registered specifically for reasons around disclosure etc.

If Alan Pace put for example £10m of his own money into the original deal then I’m not sure whether he’s ever had to be explicit in how he accumulated those monies in the same way me or you would have to be under English law if we were buying something and using £10 million of our own cash.

Any questions Garlick would have had about where the money was coming from would I guess be more about trying to understand how serious a bidder Pace and ALK were…..to avoid a Michael Knighton type situation emerging. But that would never get to the detail of how Alan Pace got his personal investment.

[IanMcL]

That's simply not true at all and potentially libellous. The former chairman sold his shareholding in the company for an agreed price. Whether he knew where the money was coming from or not, he legitimately received what he was entitled to.

Entitled depends on one's moral stance, about it all. The shareholders owned the club yes. However, we know they had been assembled to help the club prosper.

It is the telling of takes about new stands and rainy days that is the issue. If that was the case, 'entitled' or not (technically yes) the fund would have retained. There was much money already taken, without the stand/rainy day money.

For me, it is the moral justification or not that is the issue, not the actual share sale.

[Big Vinny K]

Entitled depends on one's moral stance, about it all. The shareholders owned the club yes. However, we know they had been assembled to help the club prosper.

It is the telling of takes about new stands and rainy days that is the issue. If that was the case, 'entitled' or not (technically yes) the fund would have retained. There was much money already taken, without the stand/rainy day money.

For me, it is the moral justification or not that is the issue, not the actual share sale.

What are you talking about ?
They bought shares and invested in the club when the club needed new investment.
They made a very successful managerial appointment in Dyche which earned the club more in revenue during their stewardship than the club had earned in total in its entire 100 year history
They then did what they were perfectly entitled to do - sell their share of the club and make themselves some money. Why they decided to do this and end their time at the club is their own private business.
They took no money out of the club during their tenure despite the half a billion or more of income that they had generated. What they did do is make their money on the sale.

Garlick was a brilliant owner of the club for the vast majority of his time. Arguably one of the most successful in its history. He owed the club absolutely nothing and was more than entitled to sell the club in whatever way he chose. I’m sure he would have himself preferred a billionaire like Tony Bloom to buy the club for cash and with no debt burden for the club but that was not an option and he chose the only offer on the table.

You keep on talking about this rainy day fund and I honestly do not have a clue what you are referring to. Who do you think owned the cash we had ? Of course a football club is of vital importance to the community. But that does not mean a community owns the club. Tell me any football clubs that are owned by the community. Would that same community be happy to fork out their own life savings if the club went bust ? Because when clubs go into receivership the first people they blame is the owners. But when a club does well and makes lots of money like we did under Garlick all of a sudden it’s owned by the community !!

[Les Lawrence]

Good reply Mike.

[Burnley1989]

What are you talking about ?
They bought shares and invested in the club when the club needed new investment.
They made a very successful managerial appointment in Dyche which earned the club more in revenue during their stewardship than the club had earned in total in its entire 100 year history
They then did what they were perfectly entitled to do - sell their share of the club and make themselves some money. Why they decided to do this and end their time at the club is their own private business.
They took no money out of the club during their tenure despite the half a billion or more of income that they had generated. What they did do is make their money on the sale.

Garlick was a brilliant owner of the club for the vast majority of his time. Arguably one of the most successful in its history. He owed the club absolutely nothing and was more than entitled to sell the club in whatever way he chose. I’m sure he would have himself preferred a billionaire like Tony Bloom to buy the club for cash and with no debt burden for the club but that was not an option and he chose the only offer on the table.

You keep on talking about this rainy day fund and I honestly do not have a clue what you are referring to. Who do you think owned the cash we had ? Of course a football club is of vital importance to the community. But that does not mean a community owns the club. Tell me any football clubs that are owned by the community. Would that same community be happy to fork out their own life savings if the club went bust ? Because when clubs go into receivership the first people they blame is the owners. But when a club does well and makes lots of money like we did under Garlick all of a sudden it’s owned by the community !!

More of less exactly my take

[IanMcL]

Just a case of where your moral compass is pointed.

[arise_sir_charge]

Just a case of where your moral compass is pointed.

The £50m in the bank is a bit of a red herring.

Had MG and co bought players or new stands etc with that money, then the asset value of the club would have increased and the net position would likely be the same. It would have given ALK more assets to borrow against so in truth whether the money came from the bank account or via additional borrowing is pretty much irrelevant.

It does give some people something to hang on to though I suppose, in respect of the nasty yanks and MG.

[dsr]

What are you talking about ?
They bought shares and invested in the club when the club needed new investment.
They made a very successful managerial appointment in Dyche which earned the club more in revenue during their stewardship than the club had earned in total in its entire 100 year history
They then did what they were perfectly entitled to do - sell their share of the club and make themselves some money. Why they decided to do this and end their time at the club is their own private business.
They took no money out of the club during their tenure despite the half a billion or more of income that they had generated. What they did do is make their money on the sale.

Garlick was a brilliant owner of the club for the vast majority of his time. Arguably one of the most successful in its history. He owed the club absolutely nothing and was more than entitled to sell the club in whatever way he chose. I’m sure he would have himself preferred a billionaire like Tony Bloom to buy the club for cash and with no debt burden for the club but that was not an option and he chose the only offer on the table.

You keep on talking about this rainy day fund and I honestly do not have a clue what you are referring to. Who do you think owned the cash we had ? Of course a football club is of vital importance to the community. But that does not mean a community owns the club. Tell me any football clubs that are owned by the community. Would that same community be happy to fork out their own life savings if the club went bust ? Because when clubs go into receivership the first people they blame is the owners. But when a club does well and makes lots of money like we did under Garlick all of a sudden it’s owned by the community !!

I don't think any of that is in doubt. We all know that Garlick was the legal owner of the majority of the shares, and he was legally entitled to run the club as he saw fit. He could legally have sold all the players, liquidated the assets, sacked all the staff, turned Turf Moor into housing, and shut the club down. ALK could do the same. I fully accept their legal right to do that.

But would I accept that it was their moral right and the right thing to do? No.

[dsr]

Not sure we are talking about the same thing here.

The solicitor acting on behalf of his client has to ask for evidence of source of funds - that will include the mortgage being obtained of course but also the source of any funds being used for a deposit. And it’s not enough to say “from my savings account from x or y bank”. You have to tell them where the savings came from. If for example you said some of your deposit is coming from a redundancy payment you’ll need evidence to prove this too.

But in terms of the seller I have never known a case where you ask where the money is coming from. As said it’s coming from the other solicitors client account and they know that it’s the other solicitors duty to prove source of funds - but their is no requirement to disclose the details of this (and no requirement to ask either)

As for the ALK purchase specifically this is further complicated in terms of source of funds details by companies being registered in Delaware - a place where many US companies are registered specifically for reasons around disclosure etc.

If Alan Pace put for example £10m of his own money into the original deal then I’m not sure whether he’s ever had to be explicit in how he accumulated those monies in the same way me or you would have to be under English law if we were buying something and using £10 million of our own cash.

Any questions Garlick would have had about where the money was coming from would I guess be more about trying to understand how serious a bidder Pace and ALK were…..to avoid a Michael Knighton type situation emerging. But that would never get to the detail of how Alan Pace got his personal investment.

No, we're not talking about the same thing. The point of selling a valuable asset is that you ask for evidence of the funds - that's what I mean by "where the money is coming from". In the case of a house sale, the immediate "source of funds" will be the solicitor's client account, and that's all the seller needs to know. How the purchaser got the money into the solicitor's client account is not relevant.

In the case of Garlick selling BFC to ALK, the money was not in any solicitor's client account because that's not how this deal worked. Pace couldn't get hold of the funds until after he had bought the club. In this case, Garlick needed to know where Pace was getting the funds from, and "I'll think of something" wouldn't have been a valid answer. Pace had to have told Garlick that the source of funds would be the club's own case plus new borrowings, and the money paid to Garlick was going to come almost entirely from BFC.

In other words, Garlick knew before the sale that the club would be £100m+ poorer as a result.

[ClaretLoup]

Of course a football club is of vital importance to the community. But that does not mean a community owns the club. Tell me any football clubs that are owned by the community. Would that same community be happy to fork out their own life savings if the club went bust ? Because when clubs go into receivership the first people they blame is the owners. But when a club does well and makes lots of money like we did under Garlick all of a sudden it’s owned by the community !!

Vinny, I seem to have read somewhere that apart from the Directors there were 1700 individual share owners at BFC plus those deposited with the Clarets Trust. This would equate to about 10% of the home support. A lot of people bought those shares when the club was less well off than at present with probably zero expectation of any financial gain or they got them via Barry’s Premier League season ticket offer. Whilst not full ownership, quite a sizeable number of Burnley fans had a stake in the club probably more than any other EPL club.

There are also quite a few “fan owned” clubs I can think of Exeter City and Darlington off the top of my head. Aren’t communities also responsible for creating phoenix clubs like Bury, Hereford and Scarborough Athletic?

[Chester Perry]

Vinny, I seem to have read somewhere that apart from the Directors there were 1700 individual share owners at BFC plus those deposited with the Clarets Trust. This would equate to about 10% of the home support. A lot of people bought those shares when the club was less well off than at present with probably zero expectation of any financial gain or they got them via Barry’s Premier League season ticket offer. Whilst not full ownership, quite a sizeable number of Burnley fans had a stake in the club probably more than any other EPL club.

There are also quite a few “fan owned” clubs I can think of Exeter City and Darlington off the top of my head. Aren’t communities also responsible for creating phoenix clubs like Bury, Hereford and Scarborough Athletic?

There are still hundreds of individual shareholders in Burnley FC Holdings Limited, though not enough to prevent a 'squeeze out' forced sale of shares (if desired, and we do not know if it is, though, all indication to date is it not the plan) once the ringfence agreement on the outstanding shareholding of the original sellers is concluded by a share sale

[Big Vinny K]

Interesting to see terms like moral compass used about Garlick and other directors.
None of us know the circumstances around why he wanted or possibly had to sell the club.
But if he was doing it for example to secure the future of his family or his private businesses and all his employees is that not moral ?
It’s pretty easy to judge on morals when it’s not your money.
If we are talking about a moral compass was there any other owner of a football club during the last decade or so who ran their club better than Burnley was ran ?
That’s in terms of the success we had, the budgets we worked to, the relative very small wealth of our owners compared to the rest of the league, the money reinvested into the club, the lack of debt, and the owners choosing to not pay themselves any remuneration despite the profits being generated.
Those that benefited were the fans and the players / manager.

Not sure what more some people expected them to do “morally”. Which other clubs or owners have acted in a way that was morally more acceptable ?

And just to be clear I was no fan of the structure of the takeover whatsoever. I’m still not. But if we are going down the morals in football route then you are looking in the wrong sector.

[Big Vinny K]

There are also quite a few “fan owned” clubs I can think of Exeter City and Darlington off the top of my head. Aren’t communities also responsible for creating phoenix clubs like Bury, Hereford and Scarborough Athletic?

Hi.
Yes I know they are and I think Norwich went down a similar route too at some point.
All the clubs you mentioned did this after effectively going bust. In the cases of Bury and Darlington let’s hope we never have owners of the likes those 2 had !!
Obviously you usually have to go through some horrendous times as a club before it reaches the point that the fans and community have to step in.
It’s great to see clubs resurrected in this way so the club survives in some form or other.
I hope we never have to experience that journey though. I doubt these clubs and communities feel that all the pain has been worth it so they can now own their club.

[The esk]

The guy who comments a lot on the Everton finances, the Esk, seems to think he's decent and he has been scathing about a lot of the other executive staff involved at Everton.

Been awhile since I was on this forum, my apologies. Hope all is good. Sasha was frequently the only adult in the room at Everton. From me at least he is highly recommended

[NewClaret]

Been awhile since I was on this forum, my apologies. Hope all is good. Sasha was frequently the only adult in the room at Everton. From me at least he is highly recommended

Welcome back. Interested on your views on this 777 takeover?

[Chester Perry]

Welcome back. Interested on your views on this 777 takeover?

It is very much a welcome back to Paul - who suffered a couple of serious strokes last month spending a few weeks in hospital

I posted this from him on the MMT yesterday

Meanwhile those aforementioned hurdles are looked at here by The Esk

Significant barriers to conclusion of Moshiri & 777 partners “agreement”
https://theesk.org/2023/09/15/significa ... agreement/

I have posted some other material from Paul before that covered his thoughts on 777 Partners - he is not very happy about them wanting to be involved in his club or of the fact that Moshri is looking to get the most he can for the club whatever the cost it creates for the club.

[NewClaret]

It is very much a welcome back to Paul - who suffered a couple of serious strokes last month spending a few weeks in hospital

I posted this from him on the MMT yesterday



I have posted some other material from Paul before that covered his thoughts on 777 Partners - he is not very happy about them wanting to be involved in his club or of the fact that Moshri is looking to get the most he can for the club whatever the cost it creates for the club.

Thanks CP. Personally hope that the Govt take a very close look at that.

[aggi]

Hi CP, do you really think the UK Government, whichever party is in power enlists the Premier League owner's as part of UK "soft power?" Russian oligarchs, Chinese owners, middle eastern owners, numerous American owners and a few "dodgy Brits" owners?

And, many of these same types are also owners of clubs in many of the other European leagues.

This article in the Athletic today just jogged my memory of this:

https://theathletic.com/4889001/2023/09 ... abu-dhabi/

The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League, but are refusing to disclose the correspondence because it could risk the UK’s relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

[Paul Waine]

This article in the Athletic today just jogged my memory of this:

https://theathletic.com/4889001/2023/09 ... abu-dhabi/

The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League, but are refusing to disclose the correspondence because it could risk the UK’s relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Hi aggi, are you seeing any "UK Government soft power" in what the Athletic FOI has revealed? My reading is that the Athletic article confirms my view that the UK Government gains no "soft power" through the existence of the Premier League. The "diplomatic balance" appears to favour the foreign owners of the Premier League clubs.

[Chester Perry]

Paul you appear to have a limited scope of what constitutes soft power, it is often much more about access and inclusion than it is about exercising forceful control, Abu Dhabi's investment in the UK has found a major foothold in Manchester thanks to the ownership of Manchester City (I would add that for most part I find significant parts of that investment questionable, but on the whole local and central government are very happy with it.

then we have Saudi investment in Newcastle, with the promise of major investment in the region to follow, more interestingly that investment was blocked until the Saudi state ended the pirating of the streams from beINSport by BEoutQ,

I have often referred to the preference to do deals rather than follow rules in these regions and we have seen that the Premier League and access to it is a differentiator, that is a hugely attractive way of opening doors to further conversations and deal making

[Paul Waine]

Paul you appear to have a limited scope of what constitutes soft power, it is often much more about access and inclusion than it is about exercising forceful control, Abu Dhabi's investment in the UK has found a major foothold in Manchester thanks to the ownership of Manchester City (I would add that for most part I find significant parts of that investment questionable, but on the whole local and central government are very happy with it.

then we have Saudi investment in Newcastle, with the promise of major investment in the region to follow, more interestingly that investment was blocked until the Saudi state ended the pirating of the streams from beINSport by BEoutQ,

I have often referred to the preference to do deals rather than follow rules in these regions and we have seen that the Premier League and access to it is a differentiator, that is a hugely attractive way of opening doors to further conversations and deal making

Hi CP, can you help me out with your definition of "soft power?" I'm not seeing the UK government being able to exercise any soft power, i.e. co-opt or persuade rather than coerce - the latter being the exercise of hard power - through the status of the Premier League.

It can be argued that both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are exercising soft power by buying and investing in Premier League football teams. The money those countries can spend is their soft power. But, it's not the UK government exercising soft power in any way I can see.

[Chester Perry]

Just seen this - and don't have much time at the moment, but

I would argue that what the Middle East countries are doing re Football in Europe and the Premier League is a form of hard power (plentiful cash) to grow a soft power notion (including legitimacy) of what that country represents. In many ways it is not dissimilar to what Russia gained from Gazprom sponsorships and Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea. For us the global soft power of the Premier League means others want to use it for their own ends too - in return UK Gov gets significant inward investment, diplomatic access/agreement and it also helps with trade deals. All of this has been repeatedly shown in posts on the MMT down the years - Professor Simon Chadwick being a major source (but not the only one) on this topic

this google search shows the level of importance that is attached to the Soft power benefits of the Premier League to the UK and its government

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=The+U ... s-wiz#ip=1

[aggi]

Hi aggi, are you seeing any "UK Government soft power" in what the Athletic FOI has revealed? My reading is that the Athletic article confirms my view that the UK Government gains no "soft power" through the existence of the Premier League. The "diplomatic balance" appears to favour the foreign owners of the Premier League clubs.

I'm not sure what you base the "diplomatic balance" favouring the foreign owner is based on.

It is the Saudi government who is suffering the problems and (as documented on at least one occasion) asking the UK for assistance.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not sure what you base the "diplomatic balance" favouring the foreign owner is based on.

It is the Saudi government who is suffering the problems and (as documented on at least one occasion) asking the UK for assistance.

If it's the Saudi state that is trying to get something - in this example, buy Newcastle United - then it's the Saudi state "soft power" that achieves this by their discussions with the UK government (assuming the UK government intervened with the PL/FA as is alleged).

UK Government soft power may be, for example, speaking with Saudi government about increasing the latter's oil production to assist in reducing inflation and the cost of living. However, I can't see Saudi ownership of Newcastle United figuring in any such discussions, or Steven Gerard, Jordan Henderson and a few other ex-premier league players playing in the Saudi football league.

I've seen it reported recently that UK govt is speaking with Germany to reach their agreement to supply fighter planes to Saudi Arabia. UK Government being in favour of supplying arms to Saudi Arabia is the exercise of soft power by the UK government.

[Chester Perry]

Also on the MMT but works just as well here in the context of the points that Paul has been raising

So this is an interesting take on recent diplomatic discussions between the Governments of Abu Dhabi and the UK (remembering - ahem - that officially Manchester City is privately owned by the brother of Abu Dhabi's rule not an official vehicle of state).

My first take is that the Independent regulator of Football was to be independent of both Government and Football though technically a government appointee in the same way as other regulators, a firewall of a sort would be in play, so that it the regulator would not be a political tool for the government of the day. Part of that is the legislation by which it is formed and contained.

From the Telegraph

Manchester City legal dispute shows why Government’s role as football regulator will be so difficult
Independent regulator would be managed by a government that is reliant on investment from states it may be asked to investigate
https://archive.ph/YrA60

[Chester Perry]

Interesting move

ALK Capital Limited whose second set of accounts (for the period end of September 30 2022) were technically overdue has now changed that period end to December 31 2022 - which now makes them due at the end of this month

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

My take is that it looks like we may be in for a large set of overdue account submissions from the ALK/VSL group of UK registered companies

we will wait and see if the other ALK/VSL companies move to the same period end date, which may be a stepping stone to aligning with the clubs period end date - which should make reporting easier all round going forward, as previously discussed.

there is still time for month end filings to trickle though, of course, but it would seem strange to change a period end date (for an already late) second set of accounts for ALK Capital Limited and then miss the filling date

It is the first of the month - so here is my regular reminder (and I know there is a lot going on today)

Calder Vale Holdings Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially 11 months late (though would be 14 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

Kettering Capital Limited
- First set of accounts (period ending October 31 2021) now officially over 10 months late (though would be 13 months but for the Covid extension)
- Second set of accounts (for the period ending October 31 2022) now 1 month late

given Companies House ended a Gazette Notice at Kettering following discussion between the relevant parties - so something is happening, but what and when will this be resolved and more interestingly why has the media studiously avoided looking into this situation given the role these entities play in the ownership structure.

as for those ALK owned entities more directly associated with the club there are still no 1st account fillings or 2nd set of accounts filings all of which remain somewhat overdue

[Chester Perry]

Still no accounts but a very interesting filing from Calder Vale Holdings Limited today

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

A statement of Capital following an allotment of shares - the capital being £88m - this price has been paid for one single share

CVHL share sale.JPG (69.5 KiB) Viewed 4538 times

[randomclaret2]

Still no accounts but a very interesting filing from Calder Vale Holdings Limited today

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

A statement of Capital following an allotment of shares - the capital being £88m - this price has been paid for one single share

CVHL share sale.JPG

Hi CP...can you explain what has happened here, for the financially illiterate such as myself, TIA

[Chester Perry]

Hi CP...can you explain what has happened here, for the financially illiterate such as myself, TIA

On the face of it CVHL has received funding of £88m - why and where from we do not know, but it would seem there are significant new investors in the ownership group

As for what they plan to do with the money - lets hope it is a loan repayment to the club

[aggi]

Interesting. There's also a filing (not yet up) to shift that amount from the Share Premium account to a reserve where it can be used.

It looks like what may be the same transaction has also gone through in Kettering Capital (which makes sense).

Screenshot 2023-10-06 123124.jpg (99.02 KiB) Viewed 4486 times

My guess, and it is only a guess, is some money is being invested* in the club.

*invested in as much as they already owe the club more money than that. I would be pleasantly surprised if this was a paydown of part of the intercompany loan.

We may well not know any more for quite a long time.

[Chester Perry]

either way it would suggest the ownership group are likely to be supporting the managers quest for more players in January

[NewClaret]

Vinnie obviously has big spending plans in January.

[Chester Perry]

Vinnie obviously has big spending plans in January.

I suspect it is at least as much about avoiding relegation - think back to MtB and Kompany was insistent in telling the board that they would need to spend Nottingham Forest sums (£140m+) to have a chance of survival

It will be interesting to see the seat and consessions pricing next season

[NewClaret]

I suspect it is at least as much about avoiding relegation - think back to MtB and Kompany was insistent in telling the board that they would need to spend Nottingham Forest sums (£140m+) to have a chance of survival

It will be interesting to see the seat and consessions pricing next season

I don’t recall that. Was that in episode 4?

It’s possibly just a repayment of the inter company loan and then used to repay any short term debt acquired this summer though, vs January spending pot.

Re: pricing. I don’t particularly have an issue paying a *bit* more myself. You can’t expect to watch much better players for the same money, but not in a way that out prices loyal fans. So it’ll need to be managed carefully and hopefully in a way that reduces impact on longer term loyal fans and those with families, etc.

[claretandy]

I don’t recall that. Was that in episode 4?

It’s possibly just a repayment of the inter company loan and then used to repay any short term debt acquired this summer though, vs January spending pot.

Re: pricing. I don’t particularly have an issue paying a *bit* more myself. You can’t expect to watch much better players for the same money, but not in a way that out prices loyal fans. So it’ll need to be managed carefully and hopefully in a way that reduces impact on longer term loyal fans and those with families, etc.

Kompany did say that, in a board meeting, "that's the minimum spend" or something like that.

[jedi_master]

[Vegas Claret]

either way it would suggest the ownership group are likely to be supporting the managers quest for more players in January

this is great news, some of us were hoping ALK had some decent backing and it would seem they do. Mad as it sounds, 88 million is nothing to some

[Chester Perry]

another 5 documents being processed at Calder Vale Holdings Limited
all related to the Capital injection, moving it to a reserve account, a solvency statement , a separate statement by the by the directors and the capital being restated and confirmation of all the new funds being removed from cthe Share Premium account

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

similar happening at Kettering Capital too as you would expect

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history


still no sign of the first and second sets of accounts which are both substantially overdue

[bfcjg]

another 5 documents being processed at Calder Vale Holdings Limited
all related to the Capital injection, moving it to a reserve account, a solvency statement , a separate statement by the by the directors and the capital being restated and confirmation of all the new funds being removed from cthe Share Premium account

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

similar happening at Kettering Capital too as you would expect

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history


still no sign of the first and second sets of accounts which are both substantially overdue

Thank you for all the updates,really interesting. Does the late accounts create a potential issue ?

[claretonthecoast1882]

another 5 documents being processed at Calder Vale Holdings Limited
all related to the Capital injection, moving it to a reserve account, a solvency statement , a separate statement by the by the directors and the capital being restated and confirmation of all the new funds being removed from cthe Share Premium account

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

similar happening at Kettering Capital too as you would expect

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history


still no sign of the first and second sets of accounts which are both substantially overdue

You must be wondering why HMRC and the club aren't as concerned about how overdue they are. Might be worth an FOI

[Chester Perry]

Thank you for all the updates,really interesting. Does the late accounts create a potential issue ?

Apparently not judging by responses I have seen given to a shareholder in the club by Companies House, they have been given sufficient confidence of appropriate activity by directors in these companies

Also it is quite apparent, now, that these companies (for reasons that I cannot quite fathom given their obvious role in the ownership of the club and nothing else) do not fall under the purview of EFL/PL/FA rules re group reporting at football clubs.

[Chester Perry]

You must be wondering why HMRC and the club aren't as concerned about how overdue they are. Might be worth an FOI

As you well know, a shareholder in the club already tried that, you appear to amuse yourself by thinking it was my action. But consider this, as of last week in excess of £200m has passed through Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital Limited in almost 3 years and they have yet to file accounts of any sort.

[claretonthecoast1882]

As you well know, a shareholder in the club already tried that, you appear to amuse yourself by thinking it was my action. But consider this, as of last week in excess of £200m has passed through Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital Limited in almost 3 years and they have yet to file accounts of any sort.

I will leave the amateur investigations to others. Professional people involved with the club and HMRC are comfortable with things, there only seems to be you getting worked up about it all.

[Chester Perry]

I have never been 'worked up' about it, curious and critical yes, but worked up, no

[randomclaret2]

I have never been 'worked up' about it, curious and critical yes, but worked up, no

Keep up the good work CP

[Paul Waine]

You must be wondering why HMRC and the club aren't as concerned about how overdue they are. Might be worth an FOI

HMRC and Companies House filings are completely separate. A number of years ago I filed closure of a little limited company I'd had for a short while. I provided all the necessary information to HMRC and closed out VAT, PAYE and Corporation Tax accounts (they were all "nil due" from memory). Notice of closure of the business was notified to the Gazette. I thought that was all I needed to do. A Companies House annual filing deadline came and went... and then I received notice of a £100 fine for missing the Companies House filing deadline.

[Paul Waine]

As you well know, a shareholder in the club already tried that, you appear to amuse yourself by thinking it was my action. But consider this, as of last week in excess of £200m has passed through Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital Limited in almost 3 years and they have yet to file accounts of any sort.

Hi CP, can you give a bit more detail about "in excess of £200m?" Does this include £88 million share purchase in Kettering Capital Limited and the same £88 million share purchase in Calder Vale Holdings Limited? Thus only "in excess of £200m" because the numbers are counted twice, once in KCL and the second time in CVHL?

[bfcjg]

Apparently not judging by responses I have seen given to a shareholder in the club by Companies House, they have been given sufficient confidence of appropriate activity by directors in these companies

Also it is quite apparent, now, that these companies (for reasons that I cannot quite fathom given their obvious role in the ownership of the club and nothing else) do not fall under the purview of EFL/PL/FA rules re group reporting at football clubs.

Thank you .

[NewClaret]

I’m surprised an £88 MILLION cash injection in the club has not garnered more discussion today!!!