ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Paul Waine]

there is 2,2 in the image I posted earlier which talks of a current intention to wind up - which appears in itself quite definitive, but I remain open to being persuaded either way

then 2.3 says "and if we don't..."

What KCL and CVHL both want to do is to be free to do something with the £88 million they have rec'd by sale of a share. That something includes paying dividends up the chain of shareholding companies. To do that they need to make the solvency statement. But, if there is a risk that the solvency statement could be challenged the directors would become personally liable for the debts of KCL/CVHL respectively.

I can't think of any reason why directors would be required to make a statement that "we intended to wind up the company in 12 months time" other than to be compliant with the law about reduction of capital.

[Chester Perry]

then 2.3 says "and if we don't..."

What KCL and CVHL both want to do is to be free to do something with the £88 million they have rec'd by sale of a share. That something includes paying dividends up the chain of shareholding companies. To do that they need to make the solvency statement. But, if there is a risk that the solvency statement could be challenged the directors would become personally liable for the debts of KCL/CVHL respectively.

I can't think of any reason why directors would be required to make a statement that "we intended to wind up the company in 12 months time" other than to be compliant with the law about reduction of capital.

Which is where I was initially on this and why I did not say anything until I revisited it after someone getting in touch with me to ask the question - I thought it better to get other opinions as this is not my speciality.

[aggi]

So

it is well worth reading the newly published solvency statements for Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings in full. It appears that there is an intention to wind up both these companies within 12 months

CVHL Solvency statement.JPG

which leaves a few questions

is the ownership structure going to change - perhaps the Burnley FC Holdings shares being owned and controlled by the recently formed Velocity Capital (UK) Limited?

is the club in the process of being sold, in stages?

whatever the case if the intention is to dissolve Calder Vale Holdings then it must first settle its outstanding debts with Burnley FC Holdings Limited and Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited - it could be the case that this is what the £88m is for

^^^^ I am more than open to this understanding of a winding up intention being rubbished by those who know these things better than me

Interesting.

Companies Act does make a point of separating out the 12 months and after 12 months thing
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... 43/enacted

so I guess it could be an error in drafting but it would be a strange one (particularly as it appears we've used a decent law firm to deal with this).

It may just be that they are looking to streamline the structure, those holding companies don't do much in the structure and there really doesn't need to be two of them.

The debt could be passed to the Jersey or Delware entities, it wouldn't have to be settled.

[aggi]

PW or CP - is there ever a requirement to reveal who this investment has come from (either an individual or a group of individuals) under PL rules/UK financial rules?

Or does the fact that the money comes in via a US company into a Jersey-based company and then into the UK company mean that the initial investment (however sizeable) is far enough removed for it to be revealed?

Possibly.

If it had come from an individual and they were getting some significant voting rights with it (somewhere up the chain in Delware or Jersey) then, given the level of this investment compared to the initial investment, you would expect this new individual to become a person with significant control.

In that case it would have to be declared to Companies House. Alan Pace is currently declared as the individual with over 50% of the voting rights and, if that doesn't change, I would be inclined to think it wasn't a big new investor coming in. It's all somewhat opaque though (and the ownership team have showed any number of times that filing documents on time isn't their forte).

[Chester Perry]

Possibly.

If it had come from an individual and they were getting some significant voting rights with it (somewhere up the chain in Delware or Jersey) then, given the level of this investment compared to the initial investment, you would expect this new individual to become a person with significant control.

In that case it would have to be declared to Companies House. Alan Pace is currently declared as the individual with over 50% of the voting rights and, if that doesn't change, I would be inclined to think it wasn't a big new investor coming in. It's all somewhat opaque though (and the ownership team have showed any number of times that filing documents on time isn't their forte).

My understanding that this is where the Management shares at Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) and all the associated control that is embedded in the articles for management shares we have both posted about that having looked at the Jersey documents we were able to access

[dsr]

From what I am seeing - and aggi or one of the other accountants on here are probably better placed to say

A single share was bought for £88m - that money is legally required to got to a share premium account - following approval of shareholders (or their representatives) and submission of legal statements about solvency etc - the some has been transferred to a reserve account so it can be used for whatever purpose the directors of the company see fit,

So the Share Premium account has seen its balance effectively go from £88m to nil - this exercise has been repeated at Calder Vale Holdings

it is all above board and just the legal means of allowing the directors of the companies to spend the money in a manner they believe to be in the best interests of those businesses, Remember that that the only apparent activity of these businesses is their ownership of Burnley FC Holdings - all the paperwork is a result of the ownership structure

I think the crucial point about cancelling the share premium account is that that money can now be used to pay a dividend. There are few if any restrictions on what monies received from share sales (whether par value or premium) for the benefit of the company, but there are restrictions on how share premium can be used for the benefit of the shareholders. Transferring the share premium to general reserves removes the restriction on dividends.

Does this make it possible in some way that we will see the £88m swilling through the BFC accounts, on paper but not in cash, to "repay" the loan debtor?

[elwaclaret]

I would not get too concerned about these companies coming and going, things are fairly liquid by the look of it, I suspect they will be closed as their associations are no longer ongoing/necessary. Side companies are picked up and dropped for various reasons, good and bad… it takes a couple of hundred quid and and afternoon of paperwork.

[aggi]

My understanding that this is where the Management shares at Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) and all the associated control that is embedded in the articles for management shares we have both posted about that having looked at the Jersey documents we were able to access

Yes, it's possible that this investment would be reflected by shares which don't have voting rights but personally I'm not sure that Burnley is such a good investment that you would put in a big chunk of money (very rough but maybe the same as the ALK investment or a little higher) and not get a reasonable level of voting in return.

[aggi]

I think the crucial point about cancelling the share premium account is that that money can now be used to pay a dividend. There are few if any restrictions on what monies received from share sales (whether par value or premium) for the benefit of the company, but there are restrictions on how share premium can be used for the benefit of the shareholders. Transferring the share premium to general reserves removes the restriction on dividends.

Does this make it possible in some way that we will see the £88m swilling through the BFC accounts, on paper but not in cash, to "repay" the loan debtor?

I'm not sure why it would be used to pay a dividend in Calder Vale or Kettering. I can't see why you'd invest the money just to pay it back out in dividends (other than as a not very sophisticated money laundering exercise).

The entities that they potentially would want paying dividends from reserves are BFC Holdings and Burnley Football & Athletic Company (in order to pay off the loan debtor) and most of their reserves are in P&L.

[aggi]

I would not get too concerned about these companies coming and going, things are fairly liquid by the look of it, I suspect they will be closed as their associations are no longer ongoing/necessary. Side companies are picked up and dropped for various reasons, good and bad… it takes a couple of hundred quid and and afternoon of paperwork.

Given the significant tax implications I suspect they may take a bit longer.

[dsr]

I'm not sure why it would be used to pay a dividend in Calder Vale or Kettering. I can't see why you'd invest the money just to pay it back out in dividends (other than as a not very sophisticated money laundering exercise).

The entities that they potentially would want paying dividends from reserves are BFC Holdings and Burnley Football & Athletic Company (in order to pay off the loan debtor) and most of their reserves are in P&L.

Yes, I agree. But the whole arrangement makes my head spin a bit and I wouldn't be surprised if this cancellation of share premium could be used in some complicated scheme to avoid paying back the "loan". I don't expect BFC to ever see that money again, and I wonder if this is part of how it could be done.

[aggi]

Yes, I agree. But the whole arrangement makes my head spin a bit and I wouldn't be surprised if this cancellation of share premium could be used in some complicated scheme to avoid paying back the "loan". I don't expect BFC to ever see that money again, and I wonder if this is part of how it could be done.

The obvious way of avoiding paying back the loan (in cash) is to pay dividends up from BFC Holdings to Calder Vale which could easily be done (although there would be a slight cost as there are still a few third party shareholders, more of which we should see in the next month I guess).

[ClaretPete001]

Yes, it's possible that this investment would be reflected by shares which don't have voting rights but personally I'm not sure that Burnley is such a good investment that you would put in a big chunk of money (very rough but maybe the same as the ALK investment or a little higher) and not get a reasonable level of voting in return.

This is more where I'm coming from....

I've said before but I think some of the speculation suffers because it is based upon minutiae and not the big picture.

A large investment of that nature would dilute the return quite dramatically and while £80 million is a large amount in terms of the value of the club - it only equates to a very modest one transfer window budget in PL terms.

In other words would selling 40% (if that is indeed what is happening) of the value of the stock increase the value of the group such that it would increase the return enough to warrant diluting the stock by that much.

And as I've said before, the fundamental business reality is the constraints on growth of a club like Burnley limits the amount of investment that makes sense.

The only way for ALK to make serious money in this club is to flip it in year 2 of the PL as the club starts to accrue PL costs and the risk of failure begins to increase.

They are sitting on a £200 million asset and spent practically nothing on it.

Great research again though and I have no doubt I could be completely wrong....

[IanMcL]

I am not sure that the size of Burnley counts, in the scheme of things. Ticket money becomes incidental. Small fty compared to the other income streams. The task is to promote a Premier League up and coming club with a world wide reach. Signing Euro Africans must have helped. North America by our 'association' with stars of other sports, ad they act as endorsements of the brand.

If they get it right, then the wold market opens.

Mot sure where it leaves the Turf Moor faithful.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It leaves the faithful where they are now, at Turf Moor

Just means they can see their club grow and become more stable in the PL with maybe another foray or two into Europe etc

[FeedTheArf]

For the financial illiterate amongst us:

Has the £88m been used to repay the money taken out of the club as part of the takeover?

Or has it just been added to the coffers to support cash flow/Jan spending?

Or used to buy a stake in the club from ALK?

Or is it too soon to have any idea where it’s come from and what it’s being used for? In which case, when might we know? Next set of accounts??

Grateful for any input because it’s far too complicated for me!

[aggi]

For the financial illiterate amongst us:

Has the £88m been used to repay the money taken out of the club as part of the takeover?

Or has it just been added to the coffers to support cash flow/Jan spending?

Or used to buy a stake in the club from ALK?

Or is it too soon to have any idea where it’s come from and what it’s being used for? In which case, when might we know? Next set of accounts??

Grateful for any input because it’s far too complicated for me!

No idea

No idea

Probably not, it appears to be extra money rather than money paying ALK (so it could be an extra stake in the club and decreasing ALK's stake but at a high level).

It could be a long time before we found out anything (if ever). Next set of accounts due to be filed next year only go through to 31 July 23 (although there may well be some additional note if something has happened after that).

Calder Vale and Kettering accounts may get filed at some point (although people seem to get upset when it is pointed out they are massively overdue) which may include some info but who knows in the case of those entities.

[ClaretPete001]

I am not sure that the size of Burnley counts, in the scheme of things. Ticket money becomes incidental. Small fty compared to the other income streams. The task is to promote a Premier League up and coming club with a world wide reach. Signing Euro Africans must have helped. North America by our 'association' with stars of other sports, ad they act as endorsements of the brand.

If they get it right, then the wold market opens.

Mot sure where it leaves the Turf Moor faithful.

Big clubs like City make more from Ticket money and commercial activities than broadcast revenue because they have huge fanbases and big local business communities. They also sign the best players, win trophies and play in Europe.

Our commercial revenue wouldn't pay De Bruyne's annual salary.

The differentials are so huge simply saying stuff like signing Euro Africans is meaningless. Apart from anything else every team in every league in Europe and further afield sign international players.

[ClaretPete001]

For the financial illiterate amongst us:

Has the £88m been used to repay the money taken out of the club as part of the takeover?

Or has it just been added to the coffers to support cash flow/Jan spending?

Or used to buy a stake in the club from ALK?

Or is it too soon to have any idea where it’s come from and what it’s being used for? In which case, when might we know? Next set of accounts??

Grateful for any input because it’s far too complicated for me!

It's not too complicated it's just that there is little information out there. Usually with an investment of £88 million someone somewhere knows something and it's reported in the media.

[randomclaret2]

Big clubs like City make more from Ticket money and commercial activities than broadcast revenue because they have huge fanbases and big local business communities. They also sign the best players, win trophies and play in Europe.

Our commercial revenue wouldn't pay De Bruyne's annual salary.

The differentials are so huge simply saying stuff like signing Euro Africans is meaningless. Apart from anything else every team in every league in Europe and further afield sign international players.

Have City always had a "huge fanbase " ?

[IanMcL]

Have City always had a "huge fanbase " ?

In Manchester.

[randomclaret2]

In Manchester.

Agreed

[Big Vinny K]

Have City always had a "huge fanbase " ?

That is a good point but growing your fan base to the extent they have is a combination of factors that we will struggle to match.

1) they employ more people in their marketing department than we do in the club.
2) winning so many trophies and leagues (in the most televised league in the world). This is one of the big reasons Liverpool, Man United etc grew their fan base worldwide
3) signing players who are superstars in their countries - especially when these countries are football crazy and have huge populations. Aguero, Marhez, Haaland etc. This can be particularly effective in those countries that have relatively weak leagues themselves. Unfortunately the Saudi league have also worked out how big a pull this is - sign Salah and you have 100 million Egyptians potentially changing allegiance to which league they will watch and even which teams they support.

There’s other practical things like increasing the capacity of your ground so that new generations of families can come and watch you that we would also struggle to compete with as we not only don’t have the money but it’s questionable whether we have the catchment area.

[ClaretPete001]

Have City always had a "huge fanbase " ?

It's a bit of a footy argument to suggest that City aren't a traditionally big club.

They aren't the biggest and they are nowhere near Utd but they exist in an urban conurbation of around 2.8 million as opposed to 190,000 if you include Nelson and Colne.

The answer to your question is yes City have always had a fanbase big enough to arguably be in the top 6 in the country except when they are in the third tier of the pyramid with Sean Goater up front albeit they still seemed to knock 5 past us even in those days.

[ClaretPete001]

Just to illustrate the point. These were the top ten attendances in 77/78, which I presume are accurate but City had the third highest with gates over 40,000. Pretty much throughout the 70s they were in the top 4 - 8 best supported teams in the country.

After this period, attendances declined dramatically and I think in one PL season not one club averaged over 40,000.

All PL clubs have seen a massive rise in their attendances in recent years.

1 Manchester United Manchester United 1.088.460 21 - 51.831
2 Liverpool FC Liverpool FC 958.859 21 - 45.660
3 Manchester City Manchester City 875.419 21 - 41.687
4 Everton FC Everton FC 829.464 21 - 39.498
5 Arsenal FC Arsenal FC 744.526 21 - 35.454
6 Aston Villa Aston Villa 744.073 21 - 35.432
7 Nottingham Forest Nottingham Forest 682.524 21 - 32.501
8 Leeds United Leeds United 610.737 21 - 29.083
9 Chelsea FC Chelsea FC 594.761 21 - 28.322
10 West Ham United West Ham United 538.758 21 - 25.655

[Vegas Claret]

Big clubs like City make more from Ticket money and commercial activities than broadcast revenue because they have huge fanbases and big local business communities. They also sign the best players, win trophies and play in Europe.

Our commercial revenue wouldn't pay De Bruyne's annual salary.

The differentials are so huge simply saying stuff like signing Euro Africans is meaningless. Apart from anything else every team in every league in Europe and further afield sign international players.

Could we not say the same about a Crystal Palace or Brentford regarding ticket money and commercial activities ? Would they be massively different to ours in terms of potential (I don't know, just a question)

[NewClaret]

The only way for ALK to make serious money in this club is to flip it in year 2 of the PL as the club starts to accrue PL costs and the risk of failure begins to increase.

I completely disagree with this ClaretPete.

You’re view is that football club valuation and investment is based on the strength of the balance sheet and P&L as traditional businesses are. In reality though, they’re completely different assets - they’re unique.

People don’t buy them because to make money in the way that they buy traditional businesses. They’re trophy assets that people want because there’s a prestige in owning one and they’re exciting. There’s also a very finite number of them. They can’t be created and built from the ground up like a business. There’s only 96 professional ones in the whole country and only 20 in the Premiership. Most of them have existing, committed owners who aren’t looking to sell. So for all those reasons, like rare art or gems, they appreciate in value.

Different scale, of course, but Glazers bought United for $800m, everyone said they’d overpaid, 18 years later and someone’s willing to 6x their investment when they’ve arguably declined for the whole period.

All Pace needs to do is remain in the Prem and the value of his asset with increase over time. To do that he needs to a) invest in a strong team, b) have a very good strategy for bouncing straight back if relegated (from what I can see, our larger squad/loans system is a way of achieving this).

I don’t think Pace will be giving a second thought to selling and certainly not next year.

[ClaretPete001]

Could we not say the same about a Crystal Palace or Brentford regarding ticket money and commercial activities ? Would they be massively different to ours in terms of potential (I don't know, just a question)

Firstly, the context I put it was that having bought a £200 million asset for next to nothing an investor reducing equity by 30 - 40 per cent would need the asset to grow substantively for it to make sense.

Both are London clubs and arguably have a catchment area and local business community that you could argue would create opportunities.

Do I think they could grow by 60 or 70 per cent to make the loss of equity worth the hassle and the risk? Unlikely, but Palace could grow by 30 per cent or so. For example, look at West Ham.

Brentford - no; but their ownership history is much different to ours. .

[ClaretPete001]

I completely disagree with this ClaretPete.

You’re view is that football club valuation and investment is based on the strength of the balance sheet and P&L as traditional businesses are. In reality though, they’re completely different assets - they’re unique.

People don’t buy them because to make money in the way that they buy traditional businesses. They’re trophy assets that people want because there’s a prestige in owning one and they’re exciting. There’s also a very finite number of them. They can’t be created and built from the ground up like a business. There’s only 96 professional ones in the whole country and only 20 in the Premiership. Most of them have existing, committed owners who aren’t looking to sell. So for all those reasons, like rare art or gems, they appreciate in value.

Different scale, of course, but Glazers bought United for $800m, everyone said they’d overpaid, 18 years later and someone’s willing to 6x their investment when they’ve arguably declined for the whole period.

All Pace needs to do is remain in the Prem and the value of his asset with increase over time. To do that he needs to a) invest in a strong team, b) have a very good strategy for bouncing straight back if relegated (from what I can see, our larger squad/loans system is a way of achieving this).

I don’t think Pace will be giving a second thought to selling and certainly not next year.

I don't disagree with you but to re-iterate. I don't think I said he would sell I said in my view that's the best way to get rich.

Secondly, I don't think he would want to sell £88 million quid's worth of equity either because why would you at this point.... Other than getting lamped by the big clubs everything else is going better than anyone would have dreamed. Sold out stadiums, PL football, big buzz in the community

My point was just to say there is a reality to all this that intrudes onto things being filed at companies house. It was not my intention to get into a debate about the size of Man City etc.

I have no idea of the truth of things just in my view business is business....!

[NewClaret]

A large investment of that nature would dilute the return quite dramatically and while £80 million is a large amount in terms of the value of the club - it only equates to a very modest one transfer window budget in PL terms.

In other words would selling 40% (if that is indeed what is happening) of the value of the stock increase the value of the group such that it would increase the return enough to warrant diluting the stock by that much.

Breaking this post down a bit so as not to produce a monster reply.

I see your point here, but it might not actually be a 40% dilution and there are potentially mechanisms available to buy back some/all of any dilution in certain arrangements. My friends have businesses that have bought back VC investment.

£88m probably equates to being able to spend £350m or something given most fees are spread over 4/5 years. Not suggesting they’ll do that, but it’s a very big chunk of money that could make a tangible difference to the quality of our team if it were all invested in it.

Maybe the plan is to do that, sell at decent profits, buy out the investment with the proceeds?

FWIW - I actually think the most likely source is Millennium but that a good chunk of it will go to paying down debt/committed transfer fees next summer.

[Vegas Claret]

Firstly, the context I put it was that having bought a £200 million asset for next to nothing an investor reducing equity by 30 - 40 per cent would need the asset to grow substantively for it to make sense.

Both are London clubs and arguably have a catchment area and local business community that you could argue would create opportunities.

Do I think they could grow by 60 or 70 per cent to make the loss of equity worth the hassle and the risk? Unlikely, but Palace could grow by 30 per cent or so. For example, look at West Ham.

Brentford - no; but their ownership history is much different to ours. .

ok, cheers. I'd maybe argue the toss with you on Palace and Brentford given the restrictive size of their grounds is similar to ours. WHU have a big stadium and a huge fan base, they are genuinely a big club imho

[dsr]

Breaking this post down a bit so as not to produce a monster reply.

I see your point here, but it might not actually be a 40% dilution and there are potentially mechanisms available to buy back some/all of any dilution in certain arrangements. My friends have businesses that have bought back VC investment.

£88m probably equates to being able to spend £350m or something given most fees are spread over 4/5 years. Not suggesting they’ll do that, but it’s a very big chunk of money that could make a tangible difference to the quality of our team if it were all invested in it.

Maybe the plan is to do that, sell at decent profits, buy out the investment with the proceeds?

FWIW - I actually think the most likely source is Millennium but that a good chunk of it will go to paying down debt/committed transfer fees next summer.

I don't think there is much suggestion that the money is going to come to the club. It's Calder Vale Holdings who have received the £88m, isn't it, and they have changed the status of the share premium so they can move the cash upwards to the ultimate owners, not downwards to the club.

If they have sold part of the club for £88m, having paid less than that to buy it, then they are already in profit. And they are investment people, not football people - their raison d'etre is to make profit, not to grow the club. (Though obviously growing the club is the best way to make profits.)

The worry is that if they are now playing with "house money", so to speak, they might push the boat out further on a "win or bust" strategy. Which is only good if it comes up "win".

[aggi]

I don't think there is much suggestion that the money is going to come to the club. It's Calder Vale Holdings who have received the £88m, isn't it, and they have changed the status of the share premium so they can move the cash upwards to the ultimate owners, not downwards to the club.

If they have sold part of the club for £88m, having paid less than that to buy it, then they are already in profit. And they are investment people, not football people - their raison d'etre is to make profit, not to grow the club. (Though obviously growing the club is the best way to make profits.)

The worry is that if they are now playing with "house money", so to speak, they might push the boat out further on a "win or bust" strategy. Which is only good if it comes up "win".

I really can't see the point of this. The £88m came from the company further up the chain, why would they be paying dividends straight back up again?

[dsr]

I really can't see the point of this. The £88m came from the company further up the chain, why would they be paying dividends straight back up again?

The possibility is that someone paid them £88m for a share of the holding company of Burnley FC and that the original owners, Pace and friends, are going to take it out in cash dividends.

Basically, Pace and co may have sold part of the company to some more profit-seekers but the club itself doesn't get any profit, in the same was as the club itself didn't profit financially (quite the reverse!) when Garlick sold his shares to Pace.

I'm only guessing, but I think it fits the facts as known.

[Chester Perry]

Another document has appeared for Calder Vale Holdings Limited at Companies House - a Resolution document related to the issue of the new share - dated as with all the other recent ones as September 21 2023

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

seems like an awful lot of paper work for the issuing of the one share of a nominal value of £0.01 - but then again £88m has been paid for it

[Chester Perry]

The possibility is that someone paid them £88m for a share of the holding company of Burnley FC and that the original owners, Pace and friends, are going to take it out in cash dividends.

Basically, Pace and co may have sold part of the company to some more profit-seekers but the club itself doesn't get any profit, in the same was as the club itself didn't profit financially (quite the reverse!) when Garlick sold his shares to Pace.

I'm only guessing, but I think it fits the facts as known.

the flaw I see in that is that:

- Calder Vale Holdings is 100% owned by Kettering Capital

- Kettering Capital is 100% owned by Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey)

- Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) is owned by Partners in ALK Capital LLC, Partners in Velocity Partners LLC, Shareholders in Velocity Sports Feeder Ltd (Jersey) which appears just to be Partners in ALK Capital LLC and possibly some employees/service providers

It is almost certain that the Partners in both ALK Capital LLC and Velocity Sports Partners LLC hold a number of shares in Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) via the four share types Class A, Class B, Management Shares and Incentive shares

paying a dividend totalling £88m at Kettering Capital or Calder Vale Level would essentially be returning a substantial portion of the invested sum to the new investor(s)

[IanMcL]

Blimey! I've got one share! Had no idea I was sitting on £88m! Let me know when the nextt share is wanted by a very wealthy buyer!

[Chester Perry]

Blimey! I've got one share! Had no idea I was sitting on £88m! Let me know when the nextt share is wanted by a very wealthy buyer!

your not - Calder Vale Holdings Limited is the controlling shareholder in Burnley FC Holdings holding 106,107 of such shares

[Bordeauxclaret]

I’m sure he was being serious…

[NewClaret]

the flaw I see in that is that:

- Calder Vale Holdings is 100% owned by Kettering Capital

- Kettering Capital is 100% owned by Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey)

- Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) is owned by Partners in ALK Capital LLC, Partners in Velocity Partners LLC, Shareholders in Velocity Sports Feeder Ltd (Jersey) which appears just to be Partners in ALK Capital LLC and possibly some employees/service providers

It is almost certain that the Partners in both ALK Capital LLC and Velocity Sports Partners LLC hold a number of shares in Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) via the four share types Class A, Class B, Management Shares and Incentive shares

paying a dividend totalling £88m at Kettering Capital or Calder Vale Level would essentially be returning a substantial portion of the invested sum to the new investor(s)

Thanks for this CP. I thought the same, but in a more simplistic way.

I can only see the funds have come from “above” and are intended for “below” (BFC) in the form of a debt repayment.

[Chester Perry]

Thanks for this CP. I thought the same, but in a more simplistic way.

I can only see the funds have come from “above” and are intended for “below” (BFC) in the form of a debt repayment.

As I have said - there are other possible uses for the money that would make more sense to the owners of ALK/VSL - that doesn't make your belief/my hope invalid, just uncertain.

[NewClaret]

As I have said - there are other possible uses for the money that would make more sense to the owners of ALK/VSL - that doesn't make your belief/my hope invalid, just uncertain.

Everything around this whole structure is unclear and uncertain, probably deliberately so, unfortunately.

[Chester Perry]

Everything around this whole structure is unclear and uncertain, probably deliberately so, unfortunately.

It is only unclear because it has not been explained by the owners - to them it will be very clear, they had a few stumbles initially (largely around getting more investors into their group and therefor not having the resources to do what they wanted earlier) but it cannot be denied that there has been an overarching plan that has been increasingly fine tuned with variable success on the delivery so far- the part in which VK/Mud Analytics has played on the football side has changed the delivery approach significantly (but also appeared to have brought on board more investors)

[aggi]

The possibility is that someone paid them £88m for a share of the holding company of Burnley FC and that the original owners, Pace and friends, are going to take it out in cash dividends.

Basically, Pace and co may have sold part of the company to some more profit-seekers but the club itself doesn't get any profit, in the same was as the club itself didn't profit financially (quite the reverse!) when Garlick sold his shares to Pace.

I'm only guessing, but I think it fits the facts as known.

But, as Chester says, the money for that share has come from further up in the group. Why send it down the chain only to send it back up again?

Also, if someone is buying a portion of the club from ALK and there is no intention to put money into the club then why not buy ALK's shareholding directly?

It's obviously all speculation but I just can't make your theory fit the available facts.

[aggi]

It is only unclear because it has not been explained by the owners - to them it will be very clear, they had a few stumbles initially (largely around getting more investors into their group and therefor not having the resources to do what they wanted earlier) but it cannot be denied that there has been an overarching plan that has been increasingly fine tuned with variable success on the delivery so far- the part in which VK/Mud Analytics has played on the football side has changed the delivery approach significantly (but also appeared to have brought on board more investors)

Well I'd say it is intentionally unclear with entities in Jersey and Delaware. I think we can agree that part of the reason it has been set up in this way is to obfuscate certain elements of the business.

[Chester Perry]

I’m sure he was being serious…

The real irony is that he was a shareholder in a company that once held this kind of net cash balance yet it was perceived as being worth considerably lees then than it is now with a greater balance that is actually debt

[dsr]

the flaw I see in that is that:

- Calder Vale Holdings is 100% owned by Kettering Capital

- Kettering Capital is 100% owned by Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey)

- Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) is owned by Partners in ALK Capital LLC, Partners in Velocity Partners LLC, Shareholders in Velocity Sports Feeder Ltd (Jersey) which appears just to be Partners in ALK Capital LLC and possibly some employees/service providers

It is almost certain that the Partners in both ALK Capital LLC and Velocity Sports Partners LLC hold a number of shares in Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) via the four share types Class A, Class B, Management Shares and Incentive shares

paying a dividend totalling £88m at Kettering Capital or Calder Vale Level would essentially be returning a substantial portion of the invested sum to the new investor(s)

On the other hand, dividends can be paid to one or more class of shareholders and exclude other classes, or shareholders can waive their dividends. If the owners don't make anything clear, then we can only guess. When £88m is sloshing about, who knows what complexities might help save tax or get round other legal difficulties.

[Nori1958]

Is it fair to say again, nobody on here has a clue what's going on??

[aggi]

On the other hand, dividends can be paid to one or more class of shareholders and exclude other classes, or shareholders can waive their dividends. If the owners don't make anything clear, then we can only guess. When £88m is sloshing about, who knows what complexities might help save tax or get round other legal difficulties.

There's only one class of share and they are all owned by the same entity so couldn't be waived.

I'm fully prepared to believe that the money may not be going down to the club, I just can't see it being brought into the country to go straight back out again.

[aggi]

Is it fair to say again, nobody on here has a clue what's going on??

We've got a lot of clues. Just no answers.