ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Duffer_]

I understand your ‘thinking’, I’m still laughing. As you are in the face of capitalism.

The board spent the money, they took the risk, they invested their expertise they rightly deserve to profit from that.

As a person in every other aspect of your life, you invest your money, in return for a service. If you don’t like that service, you can take your money and invest it elsewhere in hope of a better return.

There seems to be a tribalistic juxtaposition in football where fans seem to think they are entitled to direct the position of clubs development without taking an risk to your own personal wealth just because you’ve chosen to align yourself with that particular brand.

Garlick and co have bettered the club during their ownership. They’ve delivered something beyond most of our possible dreams and now they rightly can choose to rest on their laurels and sell to whoever they damn well like without being beholden to anyone.

Of course the Board can do whatever they like.

I am suggesting their investment was not motivated by rational financial decisions. They invested primarily as fans with a desire to act as custodians of the club. It has understandably grown beyond their financial capabilities or risk appetite.

So, how would a custodian act faced with these circumstances? Would they pocket £200m and walk away? Or, would they look for creative solutions to safeguard the future of the club? If not a supporters Trust with a place on the Board, what other solutions might work?

I don't think it is particularly revolutionary to promote supporters interests and representation on a football forum. Nor would I reject the idea because we've got a few bell3nds on the same forum.

[aggi]

I think the difference here is Dyche isn't an employee (salaried). He's essentially a contractor so giving equality in the business to a contractor would be an odd thing to do.

I've also heard of employees being given equity which matures after a certain milestone (years of service, retirement, etc). Again, I can;t see how that would work for a football manager or a "contractor".

He's definitely a salaried employee.

[BenWickes]

Of course the Board can do whatever they like.

I am suggesting their investment was not motivated by rational financial decisions. They invested primarily as fans with a desire to act as custodians of the club. It has understandably grown beyond their financial capabilities or risk appetite.

So, how would a custodian act faced with these circumstances? Would they pocket £200m and walk away? Or, would they look for creative solutions to safeguard the future of the club? If not a supporters Trust with a place on the Board, what other solutions might work?

I don't think it is particularly revolutionary to promote supporters interests and representation on a football forum. Nor would I reject the idea because we've got a few bell3nds on the same forum.

Supporter input in every day running of the club is healthy. Can't disagree there. It certainly could be better. We don't know what stipulations are included in the deal though. There may well be a legal agreement that certain criteria are met in order for the deal to be completed. Such as an amount set aside for Barnfield and development. Your concerns may well have been addressed and announced in due course.

[Lowbankclaret]

Just 30m?

That would be great if he put the other 50m+ he gets from the sale into the club/town.
That would be some legacy.

However, I think it's more likely he will enjoy finally completing his 5 year plan, whilst more than doubling his current personal worth overnight.
Businessmen are just that, cash is king... unless you have too much of course.

Remember, one club for all!

I don’t know any details of the sale so having a guess at the profit he might make.

[Duffer_]

Supporter input in every day running of the club is healthy. Can't disagree there. It certainly could be better. We don't know what stipulations are included in the deal though. There may well be a legal agreement that certain criteria are met in order for the deal to be completed. Such as an amount set aside for Barnfield and development. Your concerns may well have been addressed and announced in due course.

That is fair comment. None of us knows the detail and there has been a lot of speculation about what it might mean for us as fans and our relationship with the club that we all suppport. It seems reasonable to consider a scenario where the current directors are caught in a moral minefield and want to simultaneously exit whilst acting in the interests of the long term future of the club. I think that is probably amongst the most generous interpretations of the current owners predicament and attitude that I have read on this forum.

[Duffer_]

Indeed the difference appears that you believe all overseas based fans are teenagers in China - many have the same the same multi-generational and emotional involvement, and your statement appears to resent anyone choosing to become a supporter of our club or at least believe them to be an inferior kind of supporter - what about those who can trace their lineage back to the town and generations of support are they another class of supporter - my wife has family in the USA that would take umbridge at that, same for those who moved to other parts other parts of this country or the world like Hiroshima claret and cannot make it to games what level do you put them at or people that have chosen to support us like DaveManu is he a different class of supporter?

That is a very unfair characterisation of my post. I welcome supporters of BFC from any geography. My point was there is no equivalence between somebody who has, and continues, to pay £1,000+ per year to support the club without any real choice, and somebody who pays a modest overseas TV subscription to "support" Burnley on a whim with little long term commitment. Of course there are plenty of examples of genuine BFC fanatics all over the globe. It is disingenuous of you to pretend that I don't recognise their rights to support our team as passionately as I do.

Whilst overseas revenue may be a significant proportion of total PL revenue it is less relevant for us. Ignore your local fan base at your peril. The "flimsy" overseas interest that I refer to, not to be deliberately confused with the fanatic, will not be around to support us in the Championship and beyond. I support BFC, not EPL Commercial Enterprises.

I find it perverse to not want to watch my team so that future revenue streams, that we may or may not be eligible to participate in, are maintained. I see no reason to believe that allowing UK based fans to legally watch games on TV during covid is mutually exclusive with allowing overseas spectators to watch. I am proposing that all parties can watch the games, not seeking to restrict the viewing opportunities of others as you are.

[NewClaret]

El Kashashy's bid is not based solely on his family wealth though. It's explained further up.

To be fair, the possibility El Kashashy’s bid is state funded/aided is exactly that - a possibility. Nobody on here knows where the money is coming from for either takeover, which is part of the problem.

While Derby County get a genuine billionaire courting them, we get two groups who, on the face of it, are front men so we don’t know how they’re being funded.

[Hipper]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but currently the Board who run the club do not get paid for doing so - is that correct?

Would the new ownership likely pay themselves to run the club,, or at the very least, expect some dividend from their investment.

[NewClaret]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but currently the Board who run the club do not get paid for doing so - is that correct?

Would the new ownership likely pay themselves to run the club,, or at the very least, expect some dividend from their investment.

You would expect so because it’s rare for a Board not to be paid for their services.

They may also take dividends too.

And the funding may be borrowed, so they’d put the club in debt.

For all these reasons I’d prefer we don’t sell out, or if we do to someone very wealthy/responsible!

[Paul Waine]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but currently the Board who run the club do not get paid for doing so - is that correct?

Would the new ownership likely pay themselves to run the club,, or at the very least, expect some dividend from their investment.

All things are possible, Hipper. Anyone who decides to pay £200m (or £180m or any other figure) to become the owner of the club has every right to decide how they run the club.

UTC

[NRC]

I just logged on to make the claim that I must be the very last member of UTC to learn of an imminent takeover. I’ve literally spent my afternoon reading this thread and my sole contribution is to rank it as my 5th all time favorite (including the old site) after
1 Princess Hales
2 Soapy t**w**k
3 4K watch
4 I can beat (so-n-so) in a sprint

As for its actual content I have nothing to contribute...... so as a refreshing example, I won’t

[Longsider]

I just logged on to make the claim that I must be the very last member of UTC to learn of an imminent takeover. I’ve literally spent my afternoon reading this thread and my sole contribution is to rank it as my 5th all time favorite (including the old site) after
1 Princess Hales
2 Soapy t**w**k
3 4K watch
4 I can beat (so-n-so) in a sprint

As for its actual content I have nothing to contribute...... so as a refreshing example, I won’t

You forgot "white dog sh#t"

[boatshed bill]

In the scheme of (PL) things £200m is absolute peanuts. What is it going to achieve without a massive input of money afterwards?
For me, I'd sooner MG stayed on.

[dsr]

You would expect so because it’s rare for a Board not to be paid for their services.

They may also take dividends too.

And the funding may be borrowed, so they’d put the club in debt.

For all these reasons I’d prefer we don’t sell out, or if we do to someone very wealthy/responsible!

That's the big downer about an investment company taking over. Investment companies aren't in it for the excitement, they in it for the money. What we need is an Abaromovitch-type billionaire who treats the club as a hobby and has enough money not to care about losing it.

This Egyptian bloke doesn't sound like an Abramovitch type.

Garlick in!

[RVclaret]

How is it Derby can attract an Abu Dhabi Sheikh/Billionaire and we are scrounging for some Egyptian nobody?

[Duffer_]

If the current owners are motivated by a sense of custodianship then one option would be to cede part ownership to a supporters trust as part of their exit strategy. It would result in smaller personal gains, which would still be considerable, and it could be a means of safeguarding their legacy through implementing checks and balances, as well as being an important gesture from new owners to renew a commitment to a One Club mentality.

I don't profess to have any experience or knowledge in this area but there are over 110 football supporters' trusts that hold equity stakes in their clubs. Club 1872 is one such organisation and it is currently the fifth largest shareholder of Glasgow Rangers with a 6% equity stake.

Why bother? Club 1872 has an ambition to own one share over 25% to exercise significant influence but there are steps along the way:

"The benefits of achieving each of the following levels include:

5% – provides the right to call General Meetings of RIFC and circulate a written statement.

10% – Shares cannot be compulsorily acquired following an offer for RIFC.

25% plus one – Special Resolutions cannot be passed without agreement from Club 1872."

I have read a lot of complaints on here about a lack of communucation, the erosion of a One Club mentality, and an increasing sense of powerlessness from fans. There is an opportunity, if the current owners want to, to create something different here, something that recognises the importance of the club to its community and sets us up in a way that we can pull together and embrace the impending change.

Sure, that requires a philanthropic approach from Mike Garlick but that seems consistent with what is said about him by those who claim to know him, and it would not mark the collapse of capitalism. Not one for the faint hearted but a potential solution for owners who genuinely consider themselves to be custodians.

[claretandy]

That's the big downer about an investment company taking over. Investment companies aren't in it for the excitement, they in it for the money. What we need is an Abaromovitch-type billionaire who treats the club as a hobby and has enough money not to care about losing it.

This Egyptian bloke doesn't sound like an Abramovitch type.

Garlick in!

According to reports, Garlick would be staying on with this takeover.

[joey13]

According to reports, Garlick would be staying on with this takeover.

Garlick would be ideal ,someone who won’t spend , with owners who have nothing to spend ,still at least Garlick will have increased his personal wealth,that’s the main thing

[Firthy]

At the end of the day,a takeover might not change anything regardless of who stays in charge unless they are prepared to invest money in the club itself for transfers and a better squad. £200m going into the pockets of directors and shareholders will change nothing without further investment.

[ClaretAL]

At the end of the day,a takeover might not change anything regardless of who stays in charge unless they are prepared to invest money in the club itself for transfers and a better squad. £200m going into the pockets of directors and shareholders will change nothing without further investment.

Totally agree, and to add to it, considering we are always described as one of the best run clubs in the league, and taking in to account we can't really expand on fan base taking in to account 25% of the town already attend, and we are surrounded by goliaths, so where would the extra supposed money injection come from if their can't be any growth, and who ever buys us will not want or support a negative return. The only way I can see us improving on what we have, is if there is a potential big financial growth that our current owners have not seen but the back to my opening statement we are seen as a well run club by people a lot more financially astute than us., so I just can't see it.

[Burnley Ace]

"The benefits of achieving each of the following levels include:


I have read a lot of complaints on here about a lack of communucation, the erosion of a One Club mentality, and an increasing sense of powerlessness from fans. There is an opportunity, if the current owners want to, to create something different here, something that recognises the importance of the club to its community and sets us up in a way that we can pull together and embrace the impending change.

Sure, that requires a philanthropic approach from Mike Garlick but that seems consistent with what is said about him by those who claim to know him, and it would not mark the collapse of capitalism. Not one for the faint hearted but a potential solution for owners who genuinely consider themselves to be custodians.

More significantly it requires the agreement of the new owners who may not want to invest £200m+ in a business they don’t have complete control over.

[Rileybobs]

In the scheme of (PL) things £200m is absolute peanuts. What is it going to achieve without a massive input of money afterwards?
For me, I'd sooner MG stayed on.

£200m is the supposed price to buy the club. That has no bearing on future investment into the playing squad.

[AfloatinClaret]

Because they are only interested in what’s best for themselves

Garlick would be ideal ,someone who won’t spend , with owners who have nothing to spend ,still at least Garlick will have increased his personal wealth,that’s the main thing

If those were true, then why have the board not been taking any money out of the club in the past, particularly during our time in the EPL when some serious money has been coming in?

Given the dog's abuse that Mike Garlick in particular seems to get on this board and elsewhere, I wouldn't criticise him at all for selling out, I'm only surprised by the suggestion that he wants to stay involved with the club after any sale. History tells us that clubs sold to outside investors predominantly go downhill, with said investors having recovered their investment plus a very healthy return and been long gone before the clubs actually hits rock bottom. If MG were to stay in place as the Chairman/front-man but without his current degree of control, whilst the investors recovered their money plus profits, then he'll be the prime candidate for even more abuse both for 'selling us out' to begin with and then overseeing the subsequent decline. I've also no doubt that the overwhelming majority of that future abuse will be coming from those same people who in recent months/years have been demanding outside investment, whilst not actually having the first idea of what 'outside investment' means.

If I were in MG's shoes I'd simply take the money, invest it elsewhere and support BFC from a seat in the stands for the next few years. If I was still interested after watching the realities of Outside Investors being demonstrated to the rose-tinted spectacle wearing clowns who so vociferously called for them, then I might perhaps buy what was left from the Receivers and take on the challenge of overseeing the club's long haul back up to Division 1 or perhaps even making it into the Championship; getting from where we'll be, back to where we are right now would be beyond even my wildest dreams.

[mdd2]

If those were true, then why have the board not been taking any money out of the club in the past, particularly during our time in the EPL when some serious money has been coming in?

Given the dog's abuse that Mike Garlick in particular seems to get on this board and elsewhere, I wouldn't criticise him at all for selling out, I'm only surprised by the suggestion that he wants to stay involved with the club after any sale. History tells us that clubs sold to outside investors predominantly go downhill, with said investors having recovered their investment plus a very healthy return and been long gone before the clubs actually hits rock bottom. If MG were to stay in place as the Chairman/front-man but without his current degree of control, whilst the investors recovered their money plus profits, then he'll be the prime candidate for even more abuse both for 'selling us out' to begin with and then overseeing the subsequent decline. I've also no doubt that the overwhelming majority of that future abuse will be coming from those same people who in recent months/years have been demanding outside investment, whilst not actually having the first idea of what 'outside investment' means.

If I were in MG's shoes I'd simply take the money, invest it elsewhere and support BFC from a seat in the stands for the next few years. If I was still interested after watching the realities of Outside Investors being demonstrated to the rose-tinted spectacle wearing clowns who so vociferously called for them, then I might perhaps buy what was left from the Receivers and take on the challenge of overseeing the club's long haul back up to Division 1 or perhaps even making it into the Championship; getting from where we'll be, back to where we are right now would be beyond even my wildest dreams.

Of course that is the danger of all this and well put AFC

[randomclaret2]

I must have missed the "dog's abuse " the Chairman supposedly gets.There's been no one in the ground since March.

[MRG]

History tells us that clubs sold to outside investors predominantly go downhill, with said investors having recovered their investment

And finally we hear the usually rubbish. Using ‘history’ we should be the best club in the country then seen as majority of our competitors have had this disastrous outside investment that you mention.

For every Portsmouth I’ll give you a Sheff Utd and a Wolves.

[OffTheBar]

So much emotion running on this thread (perhaps understandably), but without any real facts.

Nobody can possibly know how this even could pan out, let alone will, without more details.

There are some downright bizarre grasps on finance on show on this thread too.

Nobody on here will be able to do anything to stop whatever is going to happen. Try to imagine that it’s a good outcome. Those who seem to be somewhat in the know have portrayed a picture which seems to be very positive in terms of the possibility of us competing in the future. Please all stop catastrophising for your own benefit!

[Boss Hogg]

According to reports, Garlick would be staying on with this takeover.

I hope this isn’t the deal breaker. Notwithstanding his good work historically this season he has left the team woefully short and ill prepared for the season imo and the buck stops with him. The only people who will benefit from this our himself and the other directors. I am not sure he is the man to take is forward and if it’s him it Dyche I think I’d prefer Dyche.

[jtv]

I must have missed the "dog's abuse " the Chairman supposedly gets.There's been no one in the ground since March.

You must have missed the two quotes AfloatingClaret started off with then.

[Rileybobs]

I hope this isn’t the deal breaker. Notwithstanding his good work historically this season he has left the team woefully short and ill prepared for the season imo and the buck stops with him. The only people who will benefit from this our himself and the other directors. I am not sure he is the man to take is forward and if it’s him it Dyche I think I’d prefer Dyche.

If it’s true that Garlick wants to stay on as Chairman, in what way do you think this would be for his benefit?

[jtv]

he has left the team woefully short and ill prepared for the season imo and the buck stops with him.

Don't you think that this could be because of the covid effect on the Club's finances? You seem to infer that he did it on purpose.

[Firthy]

If it’s true that Garlick wants to stay on as Chairman, in what way do you think this would be for his benefit?

He's still be in charge as he is now with a few milliom £ in his bank account.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I must have missed the "dog's abuse " the Chairman supposedly gets.There's been no one in the ground since March.

You obviously don’t spend much time on social media.

His son and family get threatened on social media after almost every single match. Some of the threats in my opinion are close to Being arrested level. I wouldn’t blame him if sold us to the highest bidder

[randomclaret2]

You obviously don’t spend much time on social media.

His son and family get threatened on social media after almost every single match. Some of the threats in my opinion are close to Being arrested level. I wouldn’t blame him if sold us to the highest bidder

I dont, and consequently wasnt aware of what you describe. No joke for anyone to endure and certainly not acceptable.

[Top Claret]

I know little about the Egyptian guy, only of what I read on line from an article back in 2014. The antics of the lawyer who was only doing his job have little concern to me.

What does concern me though is ALK Capital who I believe or an investment company. ALK sound dodgy with the main players being able to protect themselves from a financial loss by passing on the burden to other investors who have jumped on board.
Once investors realise that they aren't going to get a good return, they will pull out and leave the club with no working capital and massive debt

[ClaretTony]

You obviously don’t spend much time on social media.

And that, I have to say, is a good thing given some of the garbage I see.

[Rileybobs]

He's still be in charge as he is now with a few milliom £ in his bank account.

I’m asking how he’d benefit by retaining his position as club chairman?

I suspect if Garlick wants to stay on as chairman it is to ensure as much as possible that the business continues to run in the best long-term interests of the football club.

[Paul Waine]

I’m asking how he’d benefit by retaining his position as club chairman?

I suspect if Garlick wants to stay on as chairman it is to ensure as much as possible that the business continues to run in the best long-term interests of the football club.

I can't see Mike Garlick staying on as Chairman if he has sold all/most of his shares. A new owner will have the majority of shares (or all 100%) and will make their decision about who will be Chairman.

If MG decides that he will retain, let's say 10% of shares he might remain as a board member - but, this would require the agreement of the new majority shareholder(s).

If I was planning to spend £200 million to acquire a football club I'd want to be the person who has the final say on all decisions - and the biggest decision right at the very beginning will be if I can buy the club for £200m how much more do I need to put into the club to have a good chance of competing in the Premier League, along with where will all the money come from?

[Paul Waine]

What does concern me though is ALK Capital who I believe or an investment company. ALK sound dodgy with the main players being able to protect themselves from a financial loss by passing on the burden to other investors who have jumped on board.
Once investors realise that they aren't going to get a good return, they will pull out and leave the club with no working capital and massive debt

Hi Top, "main players being able to protect themselves from a financial loss by passing on the burden to other investors...." Yes, that's how buying shares in a limited liability company works - and that's why the price of those shares can go down as well as up. Of course, everyone who buys does so on the hope/expectation that they will go up in value. Those that sell also do so on the expectation that they will go down in value.

Based on the little we know about ALK Capital, they will present an investment "story" to potential investors around the opportunity for Premier League soccer clubs (see below) to increase in value over time. This story will be supported by the increase in value that has already been seen in many US sports clubs, in addition to the public domain indications of the value of ManU, as a EPL club listed on US stock markets.

"Soccer club" - I've deliberately used this term. ALK Capital will be targeting investors in the US and will describe any invest opportunity as ownership in a Premier League soccer club."

UTC

[joey13]

If those were true, then why have the board not been taking any money out of the club in the past, particularly during our time in the EPL when some serious money has been coming in?

Given the dog's abuse that Mike Garlick in particular seems to get on this board and elsewhere, I wouldn't criticise him at all for selling out, I'm only surprised by the suggestion that he wants to stay involved with the club after any sale. History tells us that clubs sold to outside investors predominantly go downhill, with said investors having recovered their investment plus a very healthy return and been long gone before the clubs actually hits rock bottom. If MG were to stay in place as the Chairman/front-man but without his current degree of control, whilst the investors recovered their money plus profits, then he'll be the prime candidate for even more abuse both for 'selling us out' to begin with and then overseeing the subsequent decline. I've also no doubt that the overwhelming majority of that future abuse will be coming from those same people who in recent months/years have been demanding outside investment, whilst not actually having the first idea of what 'outside investment' means.

If I were in MG's shoes I'd simply take the money, invest it elsewhere and support BFC from a seat in the stands for the next few years. If I was still interested after watching the realities of Outside Investors being demonstrated to the rose-tinted spectacle wearing clowns who so vociferously called for them, then I might perhaps buy what was left from the Receivers and take on the challenge of overseeing the club's long haul back up to Division 1 or perhaps even making it into the Championship; getting from where we'll be, back to where we are right now would be beyond even my wildest dreams.

Dogs abuse or supporters having an opinion

[Top Claret]

Hi Top, "main players being able to protect themselves from a financial loss by passing on the burden to other investors...." Yes, that's how buying shares in a limited liability company works - and that's why the price of those shares can go down as well as up. Of course, everyone who buys does so on the hope/expectation that they will go up in value. Those that sell also do so on the expectation that they will go down in value.

Based on the little we know about ALK Capital, they will present an investment "story" to potential investors around the opportunity for Premier League soccer clubs (see below) to increase in value over time. This story will be supported by the increase in value that has already been seen in many US sports clubs, in addition to the public domain indications of the value of ManU, as a EPL club listed on US stock markets.

"Soccer club" - I've deliberately used this term. ALK Capital will be targeting investors in the US and will describe any invest opportunity as ownership in a Premier League soccer club."

UTC

I personally would much rather the club be sold to a wealthy family than an investor who can only raise the funds by using other peoples money, may be this is the reason why Garlick is looking at the Egyptian offer

The Yanks more than likely don't have the funds to stump up the cash to make a payment in full and have offered Garlick a share option what he has turned down.

I know one thing the Yanks should put up or shut up

[bf2k]

He's definitely a salaried employee.

No, he's not. He's on a fixed term contract which doesn't make him part of the salaried staff. He's paid a sum of money for the term of his contract. The fact that might be split over a number of payments doesn't mean he's on a salary.

[bf2k]

I have seen Garlick's net worth at about £60m.

You might be right. I thought it was more than that.

[bf2k]

El Kashashy's bid is not based solely on his family wealth though. It's explained further up.

I've missed that bit, although I was reading up on the goings on for over 8 pages

[clarethomer]

No, he's not. He's on a fixed term contract which doesn't make him part of the salaried staff. He's paid a sum of money for the term of his contract. The fact that might be split over a number of payments doesn't mean he's on a salary.

I think you are wrong. It is possible to be on a contract and classed as employed. By your rationale, the squad wouldn't be employees of BFC either.

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts

[Paul Waine]

No, he's not. He's on a fixed term contract which doesn't make him part of the salaried staff. He's paid a sum of money for the term of his contract. The fact that might be split over a number of payments doesn't mean he's on a salary.

clarethomer has quoted the correct position on this. You are an employee if your are employed on a fixed term contract - and the payments you receive are your wage or salary. Your employer also has to pay employer's NIC, currently 13.8%. The employee also has to pay NIC as an employee and has tax deducted under PAYE.

There are lots of posters on here who provide consultancy services. I imagine they have worked out how to handle IR35 regulations which is the law defining who is an employee and who is not an employee.

These things also make a difference to the club's accounts - Sean Dyche and all the players' wages/salaries (including bonuses) are included in the Staff Costs £86,619 (000s) reported in Burnley FC Holdings Limited group accounts for the period to 30-June-2019.

[longside72]

ALK - £170 million upfront
Harry enfields mate - £130 million upfront £60 million 'deferred'.
MG and the board in talks which offer to accept.

[NewClaret]

ALK - £170 million upfront
Harry enfields mate - £130 million upfront £60 million 'deferred'.
MG and the board in talks which offer to accept.

If I were them I’d take the £170m and run. Quickly.

[aggi]

No, he's not. He's on a fixed term contract which doesn't make him part of the salaried staff. He's paid a sum of money for the term of his contract. The fact that might be split over a number of payments doesn't mean he's on a salary.

As others have said, your definition of employee doesn't really match to the legal definition. He's definitely an employee.

[randomclaret2]

Does looking nailed on for relegation affect either offer ?