https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49975
is anyone surprised?Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:39 pmInteresting post from Tariq Panja:
Interesting talk today about owners of newly acquired Premier League scrabbling around to raise £30m (by trying to sell equity stake at far higher valuation). Cash needed to repay debt owed to previous owner. Crazy business
All points to Burnley.
Sports reporter for the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/by/tariq-panja
really Vegas you read the MMT thread often enough - an extremely highly regarded Bristish based sports journalist who writes for the New York Times
This is actually part of the logic used in the takeover and the stage payments for shares, it was inevitable that they would look to flip some shares at a profit to meet those costsNewcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:52 pmEverything is looking like ALK are going to screw over the club.
Hope I am wrong
Chester you obviously have a much better understanding than I.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:56 pmThis is actually part of the logic used in the takeover and the stage payments for shares, it was inevitable that they would look to flip some shares at a profit to meet those costs
Yes, this is what I'm getting at.aggi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:35 pmWhat has been a bit lost is that the club, as a company, can't just give that money away to the previous directors to pay for shares. If the club's bank balance (and I'm not convinced there was a £50m bank balance to be used) was used/is to be used to fund the purchase then there must be a matching transaction. Possibly a loan to somewhere else within the group for instance which means the club is theoretically owed the cash. The money can't just disappear, there needs to be a matching transaction somewhere.
I predicted this in a long article I have done for the London Clarets.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:58 pmChester you obviously have a much better understanding than I.
Surely this is very concerning? No investment in the transfer window and the owners are trying to flip shares so they can afford to pay off Garlick?
It could be concerning, it could be the business plan from day one.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:58 pmChester you obviously have a much better understanding than I.
Surely this is very concerning? No investment in the transfer window and the owners are trying to flip shares so they can afford to pay off Garlick?
It's 13:04 here, I'm working and not concentrating much on either that or the transfer windowChester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:51 pmreally Vegas you read the MMT thread often enough - an extremely highly regarded Bristish based sports journalist who writes for the New York Times
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 4518034435
Yes, I think if you're not too familiar with the rules it's easy to miss the point that you can't just do whatever you want with the club's money, even if you do own it.
Chester could share the report on here? Would be interested in reading it.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:03 pmI predicted this in a long article I have done for the London Clarets.
At the end of the day, they have no money themselves, they know they are on the limit with credit and the ability to service it, they themselves have said they have a tight schedule to make the next payments, it must always have been the plan to bring in new money, ideally at a profit - I suspect Checketts and Parra being announced so early was to make the club more attractive to American investors, they are well regarded in PE over there.
Why, because most on this board have being saying he was before the sale? no matter what he did there were plenty of haters out there and a lot wanted rid just to make Dyche happy - whether that was what Dyche wanted or notrandomclaret2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:06 pmI have to say Mr Garlick isnt coming out of all this covered in glory
If the £50m had been an overdraft ALK would have been responsible for that in the same way they are responsible for the £50m in cash
like I said it is very long and belongs to the London clarets magazine - 'something to write home about' - I am sure they would sell you a copy - in normal times it was on sale at pubs before matchesNewcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:09 pmChester could share the report on here? Would be interested in reading it.
In your opinion is this something to be concerned about.
We were told by people on here that Dyche and Garlick had an irreparably broken relationship, and that the reason we didn't sign anyone (other than Stephens) in the summer was because the two of them wouldn't communicate.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:10 pmWhy, because most on this board have being saying he was before the sale? no matter what he did there were plenty of haters out there and a lot wanted rid just to make Dyche happy - whether that was what Dyche wanted or not
Thank youChester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:13 pmlike I said it is very long and belongs to the London clarets magazine - 'something to write home about' - I am sure they would sell you a copy - in normal times it was on sale at pubs before matches
https://www.londonclarets.org.uk/
I will say that there is really only a sentence or two about the share flip to fund the staged payments
Oh dear, this isnt great ...Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:18 pmIt looks like it is true.
Boden has confirmed “ALK have said No Comment”
I know there are a few posters on here have read it, being London Clarets, so I would suggest you wait to see if they think it was worth the read before you think about spending some money
I wonder if anyone else thinks like us that this was part of the plan - not sure it is the clever stuff that Pace was talking about in is first presseraggi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:03 pmIt could be concerning, it could be the business plan from day one.
Buy the club and then bring in other investors in return for equity. Maybe they were already identified and this is just following through with that, possibly testing the market for a current valuation.
Like a lot of the other stuff out there, it might be bad but it might be something that has been planned, costed, etc.
A comprehensive and clear article on this sorry story under the title of "Please drive carefully". Other contributors have provided their own take on the situation expressing similar concerns. Always a high quality magazine and an excellent read.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:22 pmI know there are a few posters on here have read it, being London Clarets, so I would suggest you wait to see if they think it was worth the read before you think about spending some money
without doubt my favourite poster on hereDevils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:34 pmCould this be linked to the large short position ALK have taken in GameStop?
Just two posts before yours.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:39 pmInteresting post from Tariq Panja:
Interesting talk today about owners of newly acquired Premier League scrabbling around to raise £30m (by trying to sell equity stake at far higher valuation). Cash needed to repay debt owed to previous owner. Crazy business
All points to Burnley.
I hope you're right, if not, they may regret the living locally idea......CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:54 pmWith Wall Street bankers in charge there was always going to be some dynamics to the shareholdings that are different to what we are used to. At this point I continue to give them the benefit of the doubt, but as I stated on the transfers thread, it is concerning we haven’t done any business given how important it is for new owners to make a good first impression (with the caveat that January is often a month for panic buys that we often do well to avoid).
A broader shareholding could be argued to mean more skills, more advice, better performance. I’m assuming this equity would be of such a level that the buyer would have some skin in the game and would not want to be totally silent (e.g. perhaps sitting on the board).
So it could be a good thing.
So if they had to borrow a load of money to buy the club, and now they need to borrow more money just to service the debts (or make the next payments), what exactly is Burnley Football Club getting out of this?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:03 pmI predicted this in a long article I have done for the London Clarets.
At the end of the day, they have no money themselves, they know they are on the limit with credit and the ability to service it, they themselves have said they have a tight schedule to make the next payments, it must always have been the plan to bring in new money, ideally at a profit - I suspect Checketts and Parra being announced so early was to make the club more attractive to American investors, they are well regarded in PE over there.
I too have read this and other contributions and enjoyed them. The negative tone across all somewhat surprised me. Over the course of this month I’ve felt my own optimism wane slightly and I’m questioning why, as it has only been one short month. Tonight, I’m not sure what to think.BedfordsDad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:37 pmA comprehensive and clear article on this sorry story under the title of "Please drive carefully". Other contributors have provided their own take on the situation expressing similar concerns. Always a high quality magazine and an excellent read.
Yeah interesting that this journalist made a rather sarcastic tweet on 30 Jan about Pace's recent interview.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:11 pmEither Pace and Partners have done something historically to annoy sections of the American press, which is quite possible and could be the press responding to things they didn’t like which the group did for the good of their businesses etc, or there’s an increasing amount of smoke.....
Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:34 pmCould this be linked to the large short position ALK have taken in GameStop?
We certainly have to hope for this, and I would not be too surprised if this was the intention - the only thing I would add is that new investors would also bring their own network of contacts too .CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:54 pmA broader shareholding could be argued to mean more skills, more advice, better performance. I’m assuming this equity would be of such a level that the buyer would have some skin in the game and would not want to be totally silent (e.g. perhaps sitting on the board).
So it could be a good thing.
