GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:28 pm

Sigh.

Transfer fees are normally paid over the duration of the players first contract, so that's 5yrs to pay off Lyon.
That's been normal in football for years.

Derby - they've gone bang, of course MSD wanted their money back.
We aren't on the verge of going bang, very far from it.
Derby had been circling the drain for years, we could all see it and many of us have commented on it.

Garlick - that money will be cleared, but again we don't know the terms, it's none of our business either, Garlick and ALK appear to be happy with it.

Maybe some of you need to take a more positive attitude to life, instead of just looking for negatives all the time.

Transfer fees are accounted for over the life of the contract. With a five year contract like Cornet's I'd be very surprised if the fee was paid over that length of time though. Two or three years would be more likely (except for some add-ons floating around maybe).

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:00 pm

No, ALK have to pay it, there's no liability on the club. Why do you think they're looking for investors like this Jenkins bloke?

This has been true all along. ALK agreed to pay £150m or so to Garlick (and Banaskowicz) and there was no liability on the club at all. Unfortunately the fact that the club owed nothing to Garlick didn't stop the club using its funds to pay Garlick, because ALK (with Garlick's agreement and support) used the club money to do it. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same again.

There's also no reason to believe they would.

Taking money out of the club to pay the previous owners will devalue the club with little benefit for ALK. Why would they devalue their investment if their intention is to make money out of it?

I suppose if they can't get the funds to pay the previous any other way, they could do it as a last resort and according to the reports there are mechanisms in place if ALK can't make the repayments, so it certainly shouldn't be considered a club debt.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:05 am

This has been true all along. ALK agreed to pay £150m or so to Garlick (and Banaskowicz) and there was no liability on the club at all. Unfortunately the fact that the club owed nothing to Garlick didn't stop the club using its funds to pay Garlick, because ALK (with Garlick's agreement and support) used the club money to do it. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same again.

Let's not get too far away from what actually happened at the end of Dec2020 when ALK bought 84% of the shares in BFC. The shares were owned by all the shareholder directors of the club, so Mike Garlick, John B, Barry Kilby, Brendan Flood and the others all sold their shares, with Mike Garlick and John B understood to have retained at least 4,000 shares each. The total value of the transaction is reported to be £170 million. Only £102 million was paid to complete the purchase. So far as we understand, MG and JB were the only 2 directors who didn't get paid in full - which maybe is part of the reason why they retained at least 4,000 shares and remain as directors. The reports are that MG and JB will receive the outstanding money in 3 instalments - we don't know if the instalments are equal amounts or the timing.

So, how did ALK fund their purchase of the shares and the immediate payment of £102 million? Based on reports the cash comes from 3 sources: (1) Cash invested in ALK equity by Alan Pace and, possibly, others; (2) Some or all of £60 million loan from MSD and (3) cash held by BFC.

We also know that MSD have charges on BFC assets that act as security for the loan to ALK. The £60 million remains a loan to ALK, just like if any of us were to buy a house the bank lends the money to us and takes a charge, i.e. mortgage over the house we have bought.

Similarly, we know that BFC memorandum and articles were amended to permit BFC loaning money to the owners of BFC. This allowed BFC to loan the cash to ALK to make the 3rd part of the £102 million payment for the shares. So, the cash in BFC has been replaced by money owed to BFC by ALK.

ALK have 84% of BFC shares. Mike Garlick has less than 5%. ALK have the largest number of directors on the board. It isn't necessary for Mike Garlick to agree and support ALK's decisions in how they fund the purchase of the shares. Nor, is it necessary for Mike Garlick to agree and support the amendments to the memo and arts which made these steps. However, I don't see any reason why Mike Garlick would not support ALK's plans - BFC had money in the bank - that money has now been used in a way that is benefitting BFC. BFC still has an asset equivalent in value to the cash that BFC has loaned to ALK.

We can be sure that Alan Pace and ALK have plans to manage the cashflow needs of their investment in BFC, plans that were prepared well before they started the process of bidding to buy BFC and plans that extend 6 or 7 years after the purchase was completed.

Exciting times.

UTC

All of this financial complication will end in disaster unless we continue to recruit younger and better quality players. That always needs to be the most important part of our business plan (especially after watching the u23’s the other night).

Initial signs of the quality of our last three signings have been excellent so I’m remaining optimistic.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:10 am

Let's not get too far away from what actually happened at the end of Dec2020 when ALK bought 84% of the shares in BFC. The shares were owned by all the shareholder directors of the club, so Mike Garlick, John B, Barry Kilby, Brendan Flood and the others all sold their shares, with Mike Garlick and John B understood to have retained at least 4,000 shares each. The total value of the transaction is reported to be £170 million. Only £102 million was paid to complete the purchase. So far as we understand, MG and JB were the only 2 directors who didn't get paid in full - which maybe is part of the reason why they retained at least 4,000 shares and remain as directors. The reports are that MG and JB will receive the outstanding money in 3 instalments - we don't know if the instalments are equal amounts or the timing.

So, how did ALK fund their purchase of the shares and the immediate payment of £102 million? Based on reports the cash comes from 3 sources: (1) Cash invested in ALK equity by Alan Pace and, possibly, others; (2) Some or all of £60 million loan from MSD and (3) cash held by BFC.

We also know that MSD have charges on BFC assets that act as security for the loan to ALK. The £60 million remains a loan to ALK, just like if any of us were to buy a house the bank lends the money to us and takes a charge, i.e. mortgage over the house we have bought.

Similarly, we know that BFC memorandum and articles were amended to permit BFC loaning money to the owners of BFC. This allowed BFC to loan the cash to ALK to make the 3rd part of the £102 million payment for the shares. So, the cash in BFC has been replaced by money owed to BFC by ALK.

ALK have 84% of BFC shares. Mike Garlick has less than 5%. ALK have the largest number of directors on the board. It isn't necessary for Mike Garlick to agree and support ALK's decisions in how they fund the purchase of the shares. Nor, is it necessary for Mike Garlick to agree and support the amendments to the memo and arts which made these steps. However, I don't see any reason why Mike Garlick would not support ALK's plans - BFC had money in the bank - that money has now been used in a way that is benefitting BFC. BFC still has an asset equivalent in value to the cash that BFC has loaned to ALK.

We can be sure that Alan Pace and ALK have plans to manage the cashflow needs of their investment in BFC, plans that were prepared well before they started the process of bidding to buy BFC and plans that extend 6 or 7 years after the purchase was completed.

Exciting times.

UTC

What doesn't add up is ALK were supposed to put 30m of their own money in, then a 60m loan as well as using 60m of the clubs funds. Yet still owe 70m to Garlick and John B?

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:10 am

So, how did ALK fund their purchase of the shares and the immediate payment of £102 million? Based on reports the cash comes from 3 sources: (1) Cash invested in ALK equity by Alan Pace and, possibly, others; (2) Some or all of £60 million loan from MSD and (3) cash held by BFC.

I certainly hope that all the MSD loan went to fund the share purchase. It's bad enough that they used club funds to buy BFC shares; it would be even worse if they used club funds to pay ALK running costs or buy other investments for ALK.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:10 am

Similarly, we know that BFC memorandum and articles were amended to permit BFC loaning money to the owners of BFC. This allowed BFC to loan the cash to ALK to make the 3rd part of the £102 million payment for the shares. So, the cash in BFC has been replaced by money owed to BFC by ALK.

...

BFC still has an asset equivalent in value to the cash that BFC has loaned to ALK.

BFC certainly does not have an asset equivalent in cash value to cash. Nowhere near. The ALK loan is a debtor owed by a company with no money, and whose only asset is a heavily indebted company (BFC) that will have little financial value if we get relegated. Or put another way, if we get relegated, ALK can't pay it back and the debt is worthless.

If that debt is equivalent to cash, can we use it to sign players? Or to pay their wages? If BFC owed you a sum of money, would you be happy to forego the cash and get an equivalent loan note from ALK? If the answer to those is no, then the ALK loan is not equivalent in value to cash in the bank.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:25 am

What doesn't add up is ALK were supposed to put 30m of their own money in, then a 60m loan as well as using 60m of the clubs funds. Yet still owe 70m to Garlick and John B?

It's very, very unlikely that they used both £60m of cash and £60m of MSD loan. There's no indication that all of the working capital has been stripped out of the club.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:25 am

What doesn't add up is ALK were supposed to put 30m of their own money in, then a 60m loan as well as using 60m of the clubs funds. Yet still owe 70m to Garlick and John B?

Hi Quicken, yes, your numbers don't add up. They aren't the right numbers. ALK didn't use £60m of the club's funds. Also, it's not certain how much of the equity paid into ALK was used. I don't think anyone has seen or has access to these figures at this time.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:43 am

I certainly hope that all the MSD loan went to fund the share purchase. It's bad enough that they used club funds to buy BFC shares; it would be even worse if they used club funds to pay ALK running costs or buy other investments for ALK.


BFC certainly does not have an asset equivalent in cash value to cash. Nowhere near. The ALK loan is a debtor owed by a company with no money, and whose only asset is a heavily indebted company (BFC) that will have little financial value if we get relegated. Or put another way, if we get relegated, ALK can't pay it back and the debt is worthless.

If that debt is equivalent to cash, can we use it to sign players? Or to pay their wages? If BFC owed you a sum of money, would you be happy to forego the cash and get an equivalent loan note from ALK? If the answer to those is no, then the ALK loan is not equivalent in value to cash in the bank.

Hi dsr, I think we can be pretty confident that none of the loan from MSD was used to fund ALK "running costs" - for the simple reason that MSD would not have lent the money for that purpose. As for any other ALK investments - are we aware of any other such investments, except for very modest stakes in AIScout and Player Lens? Again, I'd doubt that MSD loan would be permitted to be diverted to other ALK investments. I'd expect all of it to be in relation to BFC, because it is secured by charges on BFC. (There may, of course, be other charges in addition that don't impact include BFC).

"The ALK loan is a debtor owed by a company with no money, and whose only asset is a heavily indebted company (BFC) that will have little financial value if we get relegated. Or put another way, if we get relegated, ALK can't pay it back and the debt is worthless."

This is all a bit circular because ALK owns BFC, as you quite rightly identify, so it's a loan from the company that ALK has acquired to the owner of that company. This, of course, is very different from a loan to you or I if we are independent of the body advancing the loan. Yes, the directors of BFC would have to consider the credit risk in loaning money to ALK - and, this obligation still remains if BFC directors are lending money to another entity also controlled by the same directors. BFC's decision to advance the loan will have included knowledge of ALK's financial plans, including the risks that the club is relegated and how ALK will handle both the loan from MSD and the loan from BFC. As the owners of BFC, I'd expect ALK to have considered these risks deeply and to have options to address these risks. I'm also certain that MSD wouldn't have advanced £60 million to ALK if they hadn't also reviewed ALK's plans for funding BFC, including the risks of relegation. Yes, we don't know these plans. However, we do know that Alan Pace, with multiple years experience in investment banking, plus (some of) his ALK colleagues are professionals and experienced. Equally, I'm confident it's reasonable to assume that MSD executives are professionals and know what they are doing when they agree to advance loans.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:59 pm

Hi dsr, I think we can be pretty confident that none of the loan from MSD was used to fund ALK "running costs" - for the simple reason that MSD would not have lent the money for that purpose. As for any other ALK investments - are we aware of any other such investments, except for very modest stakes in AIScout and Player Lens? Again, I'd doubt that MSD loan would be permitted to be diverted to other ALK investments. I'd expect all of it to be in relation to BFC, because it is secured by charges on BFC. (There may, of course, be other charges in addition that don't impact include BFC).

"The ALK loan is a debtor owed by a company with no money, and whose only asset is a heavily indebted company (BFC) that will have little financial value if we get relegated. Or put another way, if we get relegated, ALK can't pay it back and the debt is worthless."

This is all a bit circular because ALK owns BFC, as you quite rightly identify, so it's a loan from the company that ALK has acquired to the owner of that company. This, of course, is very different from a loan to you or I if we are independent of the body advancing the loan. Yes, the directors of BFC would have to consider the credit risk in loaning money to ALK - and, this obligation still remains if BFC directors are lending money to another entity also controlled by the same directors. BFC's decision to advance the loan will have included knowledge of ALK's financial plans, including the risks that the club is relegated and how ALK will handle both the loan from MSD and the loan from BFC. As the owners of BFC, I'd expect ALK to have considered these risks deeply and to have options to address these risks. I'm also certain that MSD wouldn't have advanced £60 million to ALK if they hadn't also reviewed ALK's plans for funding BFC, including the risks of relegation. Yes, we don't know these plans. However, we do know that Alan Pace, with multiple years experience in investment banking, plus (some of) his ALK colleagues are professionals and experienced. Equally, I'm confident it's reasonable to assume that MSD executives are professionals and know what they are doing when they agree to advance loans.

I agree that ALK almost certainly won't have used the BFC-backed loan for anything other than the purchase of BFC shares. You were the one who brought up that possibility.

I agree too that ALK have considered the options and future plans and contingencies and all that. But what worries me is that I reckon they have considered that one of the options is to take out as much money as they can in dividends and salaries and management charges, and then if BFC becomes a liability rather than an asset, to shrug their shoulders and walk away. Remember they are in it for money, and have spent approx £15m (estimated) of their own money. If the club goes belly up in two or three years, they'll probably have had that money back in salaries and charges. If it thrives, they can make £100m profit perhaps. If it fails they make a relatively small loss.

Venture capitalists like these will often buy four or five businesses, and if one does well and four fail, they make an overall profit. They aren't too bothered about the four that fail. Acquisitive businessmen don't do it out of charity and sentiment. Can you be sure that these people will (like the Venky's) prop up the club with additional funds as necessary? Or will they go "ho hum, another administration" and write off the investment?

All these explanations about how our club is currently financed are genuinely impressive.
I for one admit to having no knowledge whatsoever about such matters.
It has to be a concern though that such business activities are related to how we prosper or fail as a football club.
It all sounds like an impersonal game of monopoly, whereas the loyal supporters just have to grin and bear it.
Must be similar at lot's of other clubs thesedays. Teams with great history and tradition going back over a hundred years, are just acquisitions for huge corporate entities. It just feels wrong somehow.

I am sure that these people who now own our club are serious business people who would not want a failed football club venture on their cv, and for that reason I still remain cautiously optimistic of their intent.

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:17 am

I am sure that these people who now own our club are serious business people who would not want a failed football club venture on their cv, and for that reason I still remain cautiously optimistic of their intent.

The intent can be great and i'm sure it is but you're royally ****** when the bailiffs come knocking and you don't have any money to fund the failing business.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:43 pm

I agree that ALK almost certainly won't have used the BFC-backed loan for anything other than the purchase of BFC shares. You were the one who brought up that possibility.

I agree too that ALK have considered the options and future plans and contingencies and all that. But what worries me is that I reckon they have considered that one of the options is to take out as much money as they can in dividends and salaries and management charges, and then if BFC becomes a liability rather than an asset, to shrug their shoulders and walk away. Remember they are in it for money, and have spent approx £15m (estimated) of their own money. If the club goes belly up in two or three years, they'll probably have had that money back in salaries and charges. If it thrives, they can make £100m profit perhaps. If it fails they make a relatively small loss.

Venture capitalists like these will often buy four or five businesses, and if one does well and four fail, they make an overall profit. They aren't too bothered about the four that fail. Acquisitive businessmen don't do it out of charity and sentiment. Can you be sure that these people will (like the Venky's) prop up the club with additional funds as necessary? Or will they go "ho hum, another administration" and write off the investment?

Hi dsr, "You were the one who brought up that possibility." - Not the possibility that some of the MSD loan was spent on nothing to do with BFC, only the possibility that some of the £60 million loan was used to support some of ALK's other investment in BFC.

ALK aren't "venture capitalists" - ALK Capital Investments are a sports investments entity. That's why they've bought BFC - and why they are developing relationships with smaller, potential feeder clubs. (City Group are doing the same on a much bigger scale, to match their owner's wealth). Yes, I can be sure that ALK won't go "ho hum, another administration..." What Alan Pace and his colleagues have done in their 10 month ownership of BFC doesn't give any suggestion that they aren't in this for the long term. We are already seeing some of the "additional funds" with the introduction to the club of Malcolm Jenkins. I'd expect more minority investors to be added to the ALK group.

Exciting times

UTC

Sounds like a token that can be used to purchase tickets etc…

Most big clubs have them looks like we are joining the crypto world now

I see the new confirmation statement has been filed showing who holds what shares (as at 30/09/21).

As expected, the majority of shares are now owned by Calder Vale Holdings Limited. Their confirmation statement is overdue but they're almost certainly owned by Kettering Capital Limited. Kettering Capital's confirmation statement is also overdue but it's likely they're owned by some overseas company with an opaque ownership structure.

Sounds like another way of using the desire of fans to be involved in their football club to fleece them. There's a lot of this around at the moment (just look at Man City's very short-lived crypto partner).

So ultimately, it’s something worthless, but there’s a value assigned to it based on how well the team performs and how much others want it?

This sort of stuff makes no sense to me, I may be being stupid. To me it looks no different to when kids were trading Pogs or Panini stickers in the school playground.

Arsenal have been stopped from advertising something that looks similar to what has been posted above......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59730984

Interesting...

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 49631.html

Presumably a letter of intent means a commitment to further explore the idea. I’m all for innovation, but as with all things new, some will work and others won’t. But I’d rather the club be leading in these new ideas than not.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:43 am

So ultimately, it’s something worthless, but there’s a value assigned to it based on how well the team performs and how much others want it?

This sort of stuff makes no sense to me, I may be being stupid. To me it looks no different to when kids were trading Pogs or Panini stickers in the school playground.

Effectively it’s a token that will alter in price based on demand.

As an example if there are 1 million tokens in circulation they will be worth what ever they are selling for on the exchanges. Whether that be £1 or £100 per token.

I believe PSG and Barcelona have had relative success with this but they have massive international followings.

ClaretAL wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 am

Interesting...

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 49631.html

I'd marginally prefer investing in a South Sea Bubble.

ClaretAL wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 am

Interesting...

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 49631.html

Are there any other sports clubs using this?

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:19 am

Are there any other sports clubs using this?

Quite a few are to be honest.

However most of them are on your bigger platforms.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:19 am

Are there any other sports clubs using this?

Being fought against very strongly by supporter organisations. Worrying move.

Don't understand a word of it

As I read it, it's a way of lending money to BFC that might pay interest if things go well but you might lose the lot if things go badly, and it's not regulated, not guaranteed, and it's not a secured debt.

Would anyone like some magic beans?

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:56 am

As I read it, it's a way of lending money to BFC that might pay interest if things go well but you might lose the lot if things go badly, and it's not regulated, not guaranteed, and it's not a secured debt.

I thought our owners were against gambling

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:24 am

Being fought against very strongly by supporter organisations. Worrying move.

I had been reading about fan tokens

https://www.ft.com/content/f021c1b7-920 ... 5c48cd12ad

Whilst it looks like it's the same thing but this doesn't read like it's the same thing with its SEC regulation. Is it the fan tokens that are being fought against Tony, or this?

I think part of the beauty of it from the club's point of view, is that if they sell say 10 million tokens at £10 each they get £1m. Then if the tokens go up in value, they can issue 10m more so the originals lost their value because it's been diluted. But if the tokens go down in value, it costs the club nothing. It's unregulated by any government agency, so unless they do illegal adverts like Arsenal, they can't be done for price fixing or generally ripping people off.

The beauty of it from an investor's point of view is a lot harder to spot.

Backofthenet wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:00 pm

I thought our owners were against gambling

It's not them that's gambling. It's risk free as far as the club is concerned.

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best - that's pretty much all that we can do!

Herts Clarets wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:43 am

Arsenal have been stopped from advertising something that looks similar to what has been posted above......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59730984

Heard this on the radio this morning and was about to post it ...

I do a fair bit of investing in Crypto, this seems dodgy in my opinion. The exchange IXN seems very like it has been knocked up by an 17 year old with his mums laptop.

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:02 pm

I think part of the beauty of it from the club's point of view, is that if they sell say 10 million tokens at £10 each they get £1m. Then if the tokens go up in value, they can issue 10m more so the originals lost their value because it's been diluted. But if the tokens go down in value, it costs the club nothing. It's unregulated by any government agency, so unless they do illegal adverts like Arsenal, they can't be done for price fixing or generally ripping people off.

The beauty of it from an investor's point of view is a lot harder to spot.

Once there is a circulating supply there is no more to be minted. If they did a million, that's all there will ever be.

I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

The club ought to be devoting 100% of its time and energies to staying in the Premier League...everything else can wait

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:04 pm

It's not them that's gambling. It's risk free as far as the club is concerned.

Betting sponsors on shirts isn't them gambling, but apparently they are against it.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:03 am

Effectively it’s a token that will alter in price based on demand.

As an example if there are 1 million tokens in circulation they will be worth what ever they are selling for on the exchanges. Whether that be £1 or £100 per token.

I believe PSG and Barcelona have had relative success with this but they have massive international followings.

I get the high level concept, I just don’t see or can’t really understand the point. If I buy shares, I’ve a stake (albeit a small stake) in the company. I buy a token, I’ve no stake in Burnley other than a made up coin / token / whatever, that only has a value based on demand.

It’s alien to me that anyone would want to buy something that isn’t for all intents and purposes, tangible. Hell, I’d rather trade panini stickers, at least I might have a shiny to show for it!

Just sounds like a way of conning money from people for something that’s not actually real. Quite how that sits with being a family and community focussed football club, I haven’t a clue.

Jesus Christ.

Is this some sort of half baked pyramid selling style investment scam?
I used to love it when club news was all about the last result, injury updates, discussion about the next opponents, ticket news and the like.
These days, I hear fans arguing over how to invest £millions, what the club is worth on the stock exchange and how we should be joining in with all the cheating that goes on.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:21 pm

I get the high level concept, I just don’t see or can’t really understand the point. If I buy shares, I’ve a stake (albeit a small stake) in the company. I buy a token, I’ve no stake in Burnley other than a made up coin / token / whatever, that only has a value based on demand.

It’s alien to me that anyone would want to buy something that isn’t for all intents and purposes, tangible. Hell, I’d rather trade panini stickers, at least I might have a shiny to show for it!

Just sounds like a way of conning money from people for something that’s not actually real. Quite how that sits with being a family and community focussed football club, I haven’t a clue.

Things only have value because people say it does.

Must admit, I am not familiar with any of this but found the videos on INX to be quite insightful

https://securities-support.inx.co/hc/en ... ats-Itself

As a very , currently, hard to imagine example of how this could be used based on the videos just watched

- We buy a young hot prospect or a decent player with a bright future.
- We then allow investors to own a fraction of this player- i.e. that they have invested in the current value.
- The money BFC have spent buying the player is then recouped and investors are now taking the risk of this with the hope of us selling for a higher price down the line.

I can actually see this being a far better model for a club like us in terms of how we keep up with the bigger clubs. It kind of makes sense now with the underdog story that seemed to be something our owners were keen on. I just assumed this story was similar to the punching above our weight line we have heard on repeat for years. However, generating excitement for people to get behind the club and become ambassadors of the club in terms of helping finance its success it does make more sense.

Albeit as I started out - very hard to imagine with what we know today.

In theory it should be regulated (with the SEC the article suggests) and it is possible that they would represent actual ownership of shares or similar.

A briefing paper from Deloitte if anyone wants to lean more (I believe the conclusion is that we should get Laws back) https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/D ... 201009.pdf

clarethomer wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:28 pm

Must admit, I am not familiar with any of this but found the videos on INX to be quite insightful

https://securities-support.inx.co/hc/en ... ats-Itself

As a very , currently, hard to imagine example of how this could be used based on the videos just watched

- We buy a young hot prospect or a decent player with a bright future.
- We then allow investors to own a fraction of this player- i.e. that they have invested in the current value.
- The money BFC have spent buying the player is then recouped and investors are now taking the risk of this with the hope of us selling for a higher price down the line.

I can actually see this being a far better model for a club like us in terms of how we keep up with the bigger clubs. It kind of makes sense now with the underdog story that seemed to be something our owners were keen on. I just assumed this story was similar to the punching above our weight line we have heard on repeat for years. However, generating excitement for people to get behind the club and become ambassadors of the club in terms of helping finance its success it does make more sense.

Albeit as I started out - very hard to imagine with what we know today.

This is explicitly against the rules. Hence all the issues with the Tevez and Mascherano signings

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:14 pm

I do a fair bit of investing in Crypto, this seems dodgy in my opinion. The exchange IXN seems very like it has been knocked up by an 17 year old with his mums laptop.

Much like ALK’s website then.