ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[fatboy47]

Pigeons and chess springing to mind here.

[BurnleyFC]

The point was more that a lot of people really wanted him to sell, he's taken the club as far as he can, it's him or Dyche, etc.

For those to say in hindsight that he shouldn't have sold would be a bit rich.

Would agree with this to some extent but it was also up to him to have done his due diligence before selling, seeing as he is a Burnley fan who repeatedly told us he had the club’s best interests at heart and would only sell to the right person.

It may well be that ALK come good and all is well, but I’m far from convinced by what I’ve seen so far.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yes that's the spirit, write them off after less than a year.

Given some of the reports, articles etc coming out recently I suspect he's sold the club to the right people.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Pigeons and chess springing to mind here.

It's not like there isn't plenty of data for you to read up on, especially on here.

[BurnleyFC]

Yes that's the spirit, write them off after less than a year.

Given some of the reports, articles etc coming out recently I suspect he's sold the club to the right people.

Some of the off the field stuff they’ve implemented has been really good, others less so.

The thing I’m most interested in is our first team squad, though, which frightens the life out of me with one day to go until the new season begins.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It bothers me too, but not to the extent I'll be knocking on Garlicks door in a few years to have a rant

[dsr]

Of course it works, problem is you've decided to start grinding an axe because you're not happy with how you think the club should be ran etc.

Of course Garlick did well out of it, he put the time and effort into running the club for free, he didn't get paid for it and as a result the business he helped grow was worth more than what he paid for his share of it.
Just normal business stuff which some of you seem to think doesn't apply.

The business has been sold, if in a couple of years it's gone wrong you'd have to be a complete idiot to lay the blame at the door of the previous owner.

Are you also going to blame Kilby for selling up his shares to Garlick etc?
That's the mindset you're showing right now.

The point that a lot of us don't like is that we were always told the directors did not take a penny out of the club, and what a good thing that was. Yet at the end, they took something like £60m out of the club and are hoping to take more. If they had taken a £6m salary per annum from the club, it would have had the same effect.

It's possible that the reason we kept not signing players was that Garlick didn't think there was value and our cash pot would be better saved for another day. It is also possible that the reason we kept not signing players was that Garlick had his eye on the cash pot for himself and believed that the club could get by without signing players and he could pocket the money.

It's impossible to say what his ambitions were. But we know what the effect was - Garlick did not sign players, and he did pocket the money.

Kilby, so far as I know, did not take any money out of the club. Do not equate him with Garlick who has taken a fortune out of the club.

[mybloodisclaret]

There's a reason why he was a millionaire before buying into the club.
He did what he needed to do, but he left the club in a better place than it was before he took over and you seem to be forgetting that.

It cannot be easy to run a professional football club and ensure it makes money, has no major debts, manageable wage bill, modern training and youth set up and be in the PL.

Sure you can sit there and whine about what he's done, but I challenge any of you on here to do better for the club than he did.

Caveat - I like your posts and think you are clearly like me a massive Burnley fan. He sold the club on a leveraged purchase likely knowing that he, personally would be paid in such a way that it would be clubs money that would go to him, and not ALK's. That is the point that many are frustrated by. It does seem odd that we spent next to nowt on players around the time the prospectus was sent out. Could be coincidence who knows. Garlick did a fantastic job as Chair, no doubt about it, but the lack of spending prior to sale clearly seems irregular, when the squad was desperate for reinforcements. I am not binning him off at all. He was great for us. In my view, from the first steps of Pace and Co. being at the club I like what I see. I think they are confident to pay the debts and make profit from developing youth. For me so far so good. ( I know we need rather urgently a couple of class players in) But I trust Pace so far.

Fwiw - as it stands I am pro ALK, and the purchase of the club shows (whilst many may not like it) excellent acumen, something that hopefully helps us over the next
x years, as repeatedly Alan has said this is a long term project.

[aggi]

The point that a lot of us don't like is that we were always told the directors did not take a penny out of the club, and what a good thing that was. Yet at the end, they took something like £60m out of the club and are hoping to take more. If they had taken a £6m salary per annum from the club, it would have had the same effect.

It's possible that the reason we kept not signing players was that Garlick didn't think there was value and our cash pot would be better saved for another day. It is also possible that the reason we kept not signing players was that Garlick had his eye on the cash pot for himself and believed that the club could get by without signing players and he could pocket the money.

It's impossible to say what his ambitions were. But we know what the effect was - Garlick did not sign players, and he did pocket the money.

Kilby, so far as I know, did not take any money out of the club. Do not equate him with Garlick who has taken a fortune out of the club.

It's old ground but Garlick didn't take the money out of the club, the money to pay him came from ALK. Obviously where that money came from isn't clear but you know enough about accounting to know the difference.

Kilby did receive fairly premium interest on loans to the club (although I'm sure it was lower than a commercial rate would have been).

[Claret_tinted]

The point that a lot of us don't like is that we were always told the directors did not take a penny out of the club, and what a good thing that was. Yet at the end, they took something like £60m out of the club and are hoping to take more. If they had taken a £6m salary per annum from the club, it would have had the same effect.

It's possible that the reason we kept not signing players was that Garlick didn't think there was value and our cash pot would be better saved for another day. It is also possible that the reason we kept not signing players was that Garlick had his eye on the cash pot for himself and believed that the club could get by without signing players and he could pocket the money.

It's impossible to say what his ambitions were. But we know what the effect was - Garlick did not sign players, and he did pocket the money.

Kilby, so far as I know, did not take any money out of the club. Do not equate him with Garlick who has taken a fortune out of the club.

He also invested his PERSONAL FORTUNE, his family’s security. He has every right to take the rewards.

I don’t know why fans feel he should begged himself and his family for their benefit.

Have you not been blessed with Premier League football these last years?

Have BFC not been lauded as the way to run a football club?

[Claret_tinted]

Not really.

Garlick, for the most part, was excellent for us, but I think it’s fair to say he was ‘fattening the goose’ for some time prior to his exit. Not for the benefit of the club, but for the benefit of himself.

Our manager has alluded to this himself, or are you choosing to ignore that?

Christ on a bike!

Businesses that want to sell themselves need to fatten the Goose. We tried for external investment, for years and on the whole failed.

You can run your business as tight as you want when you’ve no intention of selling, you’d want to. Who wants to fatten something for the tax man to come and take your money when you’re better served writing it off within the business? But when you go to market you need a huge fat, 3 year old goose. People want fat gooses!

Burnley weren’t going to attract a billionaire, it’s Burnley. We were going to attract an investment business that can see how they could add value and depth to the existing goose!

We got that and Pace and Co are busy feeding the business and fattening it further. They’re busy linking in other Mormon based businesses in the North West to their golden goose (I hope this analogy is working for you?).

ALK are building something that the oil boys will want in 5-10 years!

[fatboy47]

Christ on a bike!

Businesses that want to sell themselves need to fatten the Goose. We tried for external investment, for years and on the whole failed.

You can run your business as tight as you want when you’ve no intention of selling, you’d want to. Who wants to fatten something for the tax man to come and take your money when you’re better served writing it off within the business? But when you go to market you need a huge fat, 3 year old goose. People want fat gooses!

Burnley weren’t going to attract a billionaire, it’s Burnley. We were going to attract an investment business that can see how they could add value and depth to the existing goose!

We got that and Pace and Co are busy feeding the business and fattening it further. They’re busy linking in other Mormon based businesses in the North West to their golden goose (I hope this analogy is working for you?).

ALK are building something that the oil boys will want in 5-10 years!

Great..... Only were no longer a fat goose....we're a very skinny hungry little goose now....a goose that owes an awful lot of money to some very clever farmers.

[BurnleyFC]

Christ on a bike!

Businesses that want to sell themselves need to fatten the Goose. We tried for external investment, for years and on the whole failed.

You can run your business as tight as you want when you’ve no intention of selling, you’d want to. Who wants to fatten something for the tax man to come and take your money when you’re better served writing it off within the business? But when you go to market you need a huge fat, 3 year old goose. People want fat gooses!

Burnley weren’t going to attract a billionaire, it’s Burnley. We were going to attract an investment business that can see how they could add value and depth to the existing goose!

We got that and Pace and Co are busy feeding the business and fattening it further. They’re busy linking in other Mormon based businesses in the North West to their golden goose (I hope this analogy is working for you?).

ALK are building something that the oil boys will want in 5-10 years!

Rightly or wrongly, football clubs aren’t run like conventional businesses. Never have been and never probably will be.

I still maintain that Mr Garlick had his own interests and those alone at heart when he flogged us to ALK.

[BurnleyFC]

And as much as I like (to some extent) what ALK are doing off the field, it’ll all be in vain in we continue to neglect the first team playing squad.

[BurnleyFC]

Some of us will look a tad silly if we make a few quality additions to the playing squad in the next few weeks, and I really hope that is the case.

[Devils_Advocate]

Rightly or wrongly, football clubs aren’t run like conventional businesses. Never have been and never probably will be.

I still maintain that Mr Garlick had his own interests and those alone at heart when he flogged us to ALK.

Earlier on in this thread when people were saying be careful what you wish for around new owners you stated

Anyone but Garlick at the moment.

Well Garlick did what you wanted and sold the club and the result of that was always going to be Garlick getting a lot of money because thats what his stake in the club was worth.

What did you expect him to do that satisfied your desire for him to get out the club and not leave you upset at him for the deal he made in selling the club?

[BurnleyFC]

Earlier on in this thread when people were saying be careful what you wish for around new owners you stated



Well Garlick did what you wanted and sold the club and the result of that was always going to be Garlick getting a lot of money because thats what his stake in the club was worth.

What did you expect him to do that satisfied your desire for him to get out the club and not leave you upset at him for the deal he made in selling the club?

I’ve maintained that I wanted Garlick to sell up. It was either him or the manager who had to go and for me Sean Dyche is the reason we are where we are so is the club’s biggest asset.

He did a great job up until the last 12-18 months but it became increasingly clear towards the end of his tenure that the club was in turmoil behind the scenes. Our own manager has alluded to this many times before, hence the ‘anyone but Garlick’ comment which I still stand by.

We most certainly wouldn’t have Dyche at the helm if Mike Garlick was still chairman.

[Devils_Advocate]

I’ve maintained that I wanted Garlick to sell up. It was either him or the manager who had to go and for me Sean Dyche is the reason we are where we are so is the club’s biggest asset.

He did a great job up until the last 12-18 months but it became increasingly clear towards the end of his tenure that the club was in turmoil behind the scenes. Our own manager has alluded to this many times before, hence the ‘anyone but Garlick’ comment which I still stand by.

We most certainly wouldn’t have Dyche at the helm if Mike Garlick was still chairman.

I completely understand yours and others viewpoint that for the club not go backwards and try and sustain its position in the Premier League that Garlick needed to sell up as he couldnt take us any further (plus the Dyche factor)

Whilst I didnt agree with the above position it is perfectly logical and rational. The bit that seems contradictory to me is now Garlick has done what you wanted and allowed new owners to take control you are still not happy with him.

Therefore my question is what could have Garlick done that satisfied your desire for him to get out the club and not leave you upset at him for the deal he made in selling the club?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It's obvious DA, write off all monies owed from the sale and give it to the club

[BurnleyFC]

I completely understand yours and others viewpoint that for the club not go backwards and try and sustain its position in the Premier League that Garlick needed to sell up as he couldnt take us any further (plus the Dyche factor)

Whilst I didnt agree with the above position it is perfectly logical and rational. The bit that seems contradictory to me is now Garlick has done what you wanted and allowed new owners to take control you are still not happy with him.

Therefore my question is what could have Garlick done that satisfied your desire for him to get out the club and not leave you upset at him for the deal he made in selling the club?

Contrary to what Sidney says, nobody expected Mike Garlick to not make a few quid out of Burnley FC - he certainly deserved to - just not at the levels he did and to the detriment of the first team squad.

ALK are probably stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. I think another poster mentioned that they perhaps didn’t quite realise at first just how big a job the hand on their hands revamping the first team squad.

I think that is probably true.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Contrary to what Sidney says, nobody expected Mike Garlick to not make a few quid out of Burnley FC - he certainly deserved to - just not at the levels he did and to the detriment of the first team squad.

ALK are probably stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. I think another poster mentioned that they perhaps didn’t quite realise at first just how big a job the hand on their hands revamping the first team squad.

I think that is probably true.

How much do you think was an acceptable amount for Garlick to make then?

[BurnleyFC]

How much do you think was an acceptable amount for Garlick to make then?

I have no idea and neither do you.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I have no idea and neither do you.

So you're not happy with what he got.
You don't know what was an acceptable amount for him to get in your opinion.

He's in a rock and hard place with you that's for sure.

[BurnleyFC]

So you're not happy with what he got.
You don't know what was an acceptable amount for him to get in your opinion.

He's in a rock and hard place with you that's for sure.

Again, not really.

How do you differentiate between how much you invest as a fan and how much you invest as a businessman? That’s for him to decide.

As it stands, it seems like he invested every penny as a businessman.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Again, not really.

How do you differentiate between how much you invest as a fan and how much you invest as a businessman? That’s for him to decide.

As it stands, it seems like he invested every penny as a businessman.

He purchased shares in a business and got fair value in return after putting his time and effort in to ensure the business was in a better place overall than before he took over.

It's really that simple, what he got for those shares isn't really anything for us to argue over because if we'd ended up dropping down the league's he would've got a whole lot less.

[BurnleyFC]

He purchased shares in a business and got fair value in return after putting his time and effort in to ensure the business was in a better place overall than before he took over.

It's really that simple, what he got for those shares isn't really anything for us to argue over because if we'd ended up dropping down the league's he would've got a whole lot less.

And he’s Mr Dyche to thank for that. The very person he was trying to pull the rug from at the end.

[Devils_Advocate]

Contrary to what Sidney says, nobody expected Mike Garlick to not make a few quid out of Burnley FC - he certainly deserved to - just not at the levels he did and to the detriment of the first team squad.

ALK are probably stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. I think another poster mentioned that they perhaps didn’t quite realise at first just how big a job the hand on their hands revamping the first team squad.

I think that is probably true.

The club will be professionally valued based on lots of things and Garlick would have looked to get paid its market value. ALK obviously felt the price was right or they wouldn't have bought it.

You are essentially saying Garlick should have sold it for less than it was worth and allowed AKL or some other buyer to get the club on the cheap. If thats your position and the reason you are now unhappy with Garlick then fair enough but I really see no justified reason to expect Garlick to let some random buyer(s) have it cheap at his expense.

Also lets be clear that Garlick selling it for less money does not necessarily follow that the buyers will be willing to invest more of their money into the club.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And he’s Mr Dyche to thank for that. The very person he was trying to pull the rug from at the end.

Yes Dyche, but like I've said, he ran the business within its means and if we'd dropped down the league's under Dyche, instead of climbing, he would've got a lot less.
He still had to employ Dyche and ensure he had funds for transfers etc.

He worked hard to do all that and got rewarded for it.

[joey13]

The club will be professionally valued based on lots of things and Garlick would have looked to get paid its market value. ALK obviously felt the price was right or they wouldn't have bought it.

You are essentially saying Garlick should have sold it for less than it was worth and allowed AKL or some other buyer to get the club on the cheap. If thats your position and the reason you are now unhappy with Garlick then fair enough but I really see no justified reason to expect Garlick to let some random buyer(s) have it cheap at his expense.

Also lets be clear that Garlick selling it for less money does not necessarily follow that the buyers will be willing to invest more of their money into the club.

AKL didn’t buy the club with their own funds .

[BurnleyFC]

The club will be professionally valued based on lots of things and Garlick would have looked to get paid its market value. ALK obviously felt the price was right or they wouldn't have bought it.

You are essentially saying Garlick should have sold it for less than it was worth and allowed AKL or some other buyer to get the club on the cheap. If thats your position and the reason you are now unhappy with Garlick then fair enough but I really see no justified reason to expect Garlick to let some random buyer(s) have it cheap at his expense.

Also lets be clear that Garlick selling it for less money does not necessarily follow that the buyers will be willing to invest more of their money into the club.

I didn’t expect Garlick to sell the club for less than it was worth and I expected him to be fairly remunerated for what he’s done as a businessman.

What I expected him to do as a fan was to not pocket the club’s built up cash reserves when that sale went through.

Whichever way you dress it up, that looks like what has happened. That is the difference between Burnley fan Barry Kilby and Burnley fan Mike Garlick.

[Devils_Advocate]

AKL didn’t buy the club with their own funds .

I know and Im not happy with the debt our club now has but that was the deal on offer so the choice was for either Garlick to not sell and stay on or sell for that deal. I may be wrong but you seem to be against both those outcomes so as ive asked twice im not sure what you wanted to happen.

[joey13]

I didn’t expect Garlick to sell the club for less than it was worth and I expected him to be fairly remunerated for what he’s done as a businessman.

What I expected him to do as a fan was to not pocket the club’s built up cash reserves when that sale went through.

Whichever way you dress it up, that looks like what has happened. That is the difference between Burnley fan Barry Kilby and Burnley fan Mike Garlick.

100%

[milkcrate_mosh]

If your issue is with the leveraged buy-out structure then your issue is with ALK. This obsession with the proportion that came from the cash reserve is silly, ALK have used that the reduce the amount they had to borrow.

You should be much more upset with the rest of the purchase the club is funding with interest surely?

[joey13]

I know and Im not happy with the debt our club now has but that was the deal on offer so the choice was for either Garlick to not sell and stay on or sell for that deal. I may be wrong but you seem to be against both those outcomes so as ive asked twice im not sure what you wanted to happen.

Why is there only 2 options , I expect you believe all the transfer speculation too , can’t you see when you’ve been conned ?

[joey13]

If your issue is with the leveraged buy-out structure then your issue is with ALK. This obsession with the proportion that came from the cash reserve is silly, ALK have used that the reduce the amount they had to borrow.

You should be much more upset with the rest of the purchase the club is funding with interest surely?

Who facilitated all this ?

[Devils_Advocate]

I didn’t expect Garlick to sell the club for less than it was worth and I expected him to be fairly remunerated for what he’s done as a businessman.

What I expected him to do as a fan was to not pocket the club’s built up cash reserves when that sale went through.

Whichever way you dress it up, that looks like what has happened. That is the difference between Burnley fan Barry Kilby and Burnley fan Mike Garlick.

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. It doesn't matter if there is £50m in the bank or £50m in player assets as the value of the club is still the same and Garlick would still have gotten the same price for the club.

The question around the cash in the bank is around it being needed as it was the only way ALK could structure the deal. This brings us back to your comment of wanting Garlick gone at all costs.

Also the club under Garlicks tenure has always carried cash in the bank to ensure if we went down and lost the TV money we had a platform to try and come back up and be able to transition into a secure Championship club if we didnt suceed. Takeover or no takeover in the midst of Covid Garlick was never spending anywhere near the amount of cash in our bank

[Devils_Advocate]

Why is there only 2 options , I expect you believe all the transfer speculation too , can’t you see when you’ve been conned ?

What was the other option, Ive asked you enough times? Im no fan or critic of either Garlick or ALK I just dont see the loginc in your position and everytime I drill down to this final question on what should have happened you avoid answering

[milkcrate_mosh]

ALK are responsible for how their takeover was funded. I don't see the point in Garlick insisting they borrow more money due to a sense of unease some of the clubs money (which ALK are now responsible for) went from the club to him.

The net result of leaving the cash in the club would have been the club being loaded with more debt while Mike Garlick gets exactly the same amount of money.

[BurnleyFC]

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. It doesn't matter if there is £50m in the bank or £50m in player assets as the value of the club is still the same and Garlick would still have gotten the same price for the club.

The question around the cash in the bank is around it being needed as it was the only way ALK could structure the deal. This brings us back to your comment of wanting Garlick gone at all costs.

Also the club under Garlicks tenure has always carried cash in the bank to ensure if we went down and lost the TV money we had a platform to try and come back up and be able to transition into a secure Championship club if we didnt suceed. Takeover or no takeover in the midst of Covid Garlick was never spending anywhere near the amount of cash in our bank

I’m not sure it’s as straightforward as that to be honest, but I might be wrong.

£50m in the bank is £50m in the bank, it cannot be argued.

£50m in player assets can be open to interpretation I would imagine. Player values can go up as well as down. Is Ben White worth £50m in straight black and white terms and as good as having £50m in the bank, for example?

[fatboy47]

What was the other option, Ive asked you enough times? Im no fan or critic of either Garlick or ALK I just dont see the loginc in your position and everytime I drill down to this final question on what should have happened you avoid answering

The other option was clearly to support Dyche by actually using a decent proportion of the vast amount of cash his efforts generated to support him adequately.

Maybe they'd then have got on a bit better too.

[aggi]

I didn’t expect Garlick to sell the club for less than it was worth and I expected him to be fairly remunerated for what he’s done as a businessman.

What I expected him to do as a fan was to not pocket the club’s built up cash reserves when that sale went through.

Whichever way you dress it up, that looks like what has happened. That is the difference between Burnley fan Barry Kilby and Burnley fan Mike Garlick.

Didn't Barry Kilby also sell his shares to ALK for the same price?

[Devils_Advocate]

I’m not sure it’s as straightforward as that to be honest, but I might be wrong.

£50m in the bank is £50m in the bank, it cannot be argued.

£50m in player assets can be open to interpretation I would imagine. Player values can go up as well as down. Is Ben White worth £50m in straight black and white terms and as good as having £50m in the bank, for example?

If we spent £50m that summer it would be the balance sheet ad a £50m asset. I mean the clubs value would only go down by spending £50m if we spent it badly but Im sure your reason for spending that money is to improve us by spending it well isnt it?

[Paul Waine]

Again, not really.

How do you differentiate between how much you invest as a fan and how much you invest as a businessman? That’s for him to decide.

As it stands, it seems like he invested every penny as a businessman.

Hi BFC, how do you differentiate? That's easy, as fans we don't "invest" in the club, we buy season tickets, we cheer the team from the stands, we buy match programmes and replica shirts and scarves in the club shop. We may also buy a twix, once in a while.

Some fans also buy shares, but the ones who become major shareholders and directors buy enough shares to have a right to run the club.

Those that run the club have to run it as a business, because the money involved is huge. The directors have to hire a team manager, coaches, players, training facilities and employ back office and match day staff. The directors also have to prepare accounts, get them audited, agree the club's tax obligations with the tax man and publish the accounts for all to see.

Get things right and the value of the shares increases. Get things wrong and their shares will fall in value and maybe are worth nothing. If the directors loan money to the club they risk not getting paid back.

Mike Garlick, John B, Barry Kilby and the other directors have run the club very successfully. They have all shared in the sale of the club to ALK, in proportion to the shares they owned. Mike Garlick owned roughly 49%, John B 24%, Barry Kilby and the others had smaller shareholdings. (Did BK sell some of his shares to MG some years back)?

It's arguable that if you put money in as a fan, and run the club as a fan you will spend more money than you would if you put money in as a business person. Whether as a fan or a business person you need to have limits on how much you spend or invest, otherwise it will definitely end in tears.

Mike Garlick, with John B alongside as co-chairman, took charge of the club in the Championship and had the ambition to get promoted to the Premier League. They hired Sean Dyche and that has enabled the club to achieve that ambition. They stuck with Sean Dyche when the club went up and straight back down again - very rare for directors to do that.

[milkcrate_mosh]

We've only made £5 million pound profit in the last 2 years, with COVID we barely broke even. If you wanted Garlick out you surely weren't in a position to argue he should have been running the club at a loss, how would that appeal to potential buyers?

[Devils_Advocate]

The other option was clearly to support Dyche by actually using a decent proportion of the vast amount of cash his efforts generated to support him adequately.

Maybe they'd then have got on a bit better too.

This is a different discussion but a fair one. Garlicks strategy was always to have a manageable wage bill and cash in the bank to make sure we could survive relegation without putting our club at risk.

As little as two years ago the majority was proud of this approach but suddenly people want us to stretch ourselves financially and create a risk around relegation. Garlick was not willing to do this to some fans and to Dyches frustration. As a result people want Garlick out and I can understand that but its down to the buyer on what takeover bid they offer

So you can be upset that Garlick was being to prudent but thats how it was so that being the case did you want Garlick to carry on prudently or did you want him to sell up because that is your choice?

[Chester Perry]

I have taken some right stick on this board in the last 8 months or so for saying it was Garlick or Dyche and Garlick had to take the best offer on the table at the time, for the club to have a chance of keeping Dyche. Just the presence of Farnell in the other bid was enough for me to not want him (and anyone who has seen the Al Jezeera ILunit investigation "The Men who sell Football" this week - all on the MMT - will be aware there are a lot of dodgy people around looking to make a wedge and evade the rules.

In our sale instance, based on the little we know, ALK were the best option on the table even with the transaction approach - they have real talent within their ranks and used reputable businesses in the process. I am clear in my dislike of the type of debt laden approach in football, but we (and Garlick) were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Did Garlick fatten the goose? - he probably had to, though even then, when you look under the covers it wasn't by much, there was still a lot of work going on to bring the whole club into the modern world/game. The roadmap to do that was in place and it has been gradual improvement , before this summer that has been on little that generated revenue but was desperately needed to meet both legal and the managers demands (at an average of almost £6.5m a season). The work this summer was all on that roadmap as CT has repeatedly confirmed, much of it delayed from last summer when restart meant it could not take place. You have to ask yourself who really was going to pour money into a provincial small town club that had been outperforming the odds for years. I have seen articles by Private Equity professionals from the States who said having looked at the club there was nothing much they could add to get the returns they would be wanting.

Before people mention John Textor at Crystal Palace they should do some research on him and in particular how he was talking about his failed bid for Benfica (again on the MMT) - Palace is a London (edge of, but close enough) based club with one of the richest pools of young hungry talent in Europe on it's doorstep we have none of that. Textor has some grand ideas including thinking that football clubs in Europe can achieve the values of franchise or tech companies in the US 10 to 15 times revenues (which would value Manchester United at £9 billion +. It is also telling that The other major shareholders at Palace have remained in place - they have used his money to fund development on and off the field rather than take on even more debt.

Did Garlick extract top price for the club? certainly not if you consider that the Athletic are now saying that ALK agreed a price of circa £150m for the 84% of shares they are buying and remind yourself that Liverpool University (led by Kieran Maguire) valued the club at £398m and £350m in last two years of it's Premier League club valuation report - funnily enough that Premier League Valuation Report has not appeared this year.

Some will argue that Garlick should have just kept "raising the bar" in the way Dyche wanted, I struggle to see how that was possible with the finances and spending commitments that were in place. The final nail in the coffin for Garlick was the Pandemic, it is clear there would have been money in place for a new round of strengthening (and revenue creation) last summer before that hit, strong profits were returning, liabilities were and amortisation were falling as a significant number of contracts were ending, thus creating space in the wage bill. Could the relationship with Dyche have been repaired at that time - possibly not, particularly with the Garlick apparently trusting Rigg's judgement on players - though that is what he was hired for and you are expected to put your faith in senior employees.

So we are where we are - new owners, fans and media (who know better) thinking that much of recent infrastructure developments are solely down to them, a much happier looking and sounding manager (he has more influence than ever now), a club now leveraged and with less available cash. a creative and positive group of owners and fans concerned about pricing and lack of transfer activity though there are assurances that bids have gone in (I said at the beginning of the summer I expected £40m+ of transfers depending on length of contract and see nothing to change that expectation as yet). The old owners remain in the background waiting to see if they are going to be left picking up the pieces if the whole shebang fails.

[BurnleyFC]

Some good posts and insights from Paul Waine and Chester Perry to be fair.

We all have our different opinions but I can certainly appreciate your points of view.

[KRBFC]

Any word on the attendance today? I expected near full with it being so long and the opening day, looked pretty empty. Not sure the ticket price raise is justified given the minimal income from tickets.

[jojomk1]

Have I missed something ?

Original thread (that ran to 00's of pages) seems to have vanished despite recent comments on the subject

Or am I wrong ?

[Claret Till I Die]

This one ?

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... r#p1618320