Apologies if has been highlighted elsewhere but does anyone know (if its possible to find out) if the takeover has been fully externally financed or is this a Man Utd/Glazier model whereby the club carries the debt, all or partially?

The club is carrying the debt. It’s all been secured on the twix stock held in the dry powder room.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:14 pm

The club is carrying the debt. It’s all been secured on the twix stock held in the dry powder room.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:14 pm

The club is carrying the debt. It’s all been secured on the twix stock held in the dry powder room.

Classic Twix gag, never gets old

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:14 pm

The club is carrying the debt. It’s all been secured on the twix stock held in the dry powder room.

be careful though as you’ll upset some posters with twix jokes or references.

Why do you think we have kept Garlick... it’s the only substance known to man which can repel Dyche from getting his hands on the twix.

Maybe they have realized MG has done a fantastic job at Burnley!

Rumbletonk wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:12 pm

Apologies if has been highlighted elsewhere but does anyone know (if its possible to find out) if the takeover has been fully externally financed or is this a Man Utd/Glazier model whereby the club carries the debt, all or partially?

It’s been debated on the original ALK thread, but I think the upshot was we don’t know.

Rumbletonk wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:25 pm

Classic Twix gag, never gets old

Never been remotely funny so 2020

Apparently the consensus of opinion is .

These guys have rocked up , bought Burnley with their own money. They are going to invest millions and not want a return for years.

Burnley just found the unicorn.

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:11 pm

Apparently the consensus of opinion is .

These guys have rocked up , bought Burnley with their own money. They are going to invest millions and not want a return for years.

Burnley just found the unicorn.

You're mistaken if you think the consensus is as you describe.

taio wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:16 pm

You're mistaken if you think the consensus is as you describe.

So what’s your opinion???

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:41 pm

So what’s your opinion???

They are going to want a return.

Do we have to call them Twix candy bars from now on....?

Selby Claret wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:46 pm

Do we have to call them Twix candy bars from now on....?

It'll be Hershey Bars from now on

Rumbletonk wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:12 pm

Apologies if has been highlighted elsewhere but does anyone know (if its possible to find out) if the takeover has been fully externally financed or is this a Man Utd/Glazier model whereby the club carries the debt, all or partially?

ALK and the outgoing chairman suggest it is being financed by a small group of wealthy investors. we do know that there has been some finance taken out from MSD Holdings, which will not be cheap and is potentially to be secured against the club's assets, as yet we do not know:
- how much has been loaned,
- what purpose the owners have for obtaining these funds:
- how long the loan is for
- or what assets may be used as security

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:11 pm

Apparently the consensus of opinion is .

These guys have rocked up , bought Burnley with their own money. They are going to invest millions and not want a return for years.

Burnley just found the unicorn.

I don’t think I’ve seen anybody say that, thankfully these lot will want a return.

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:52 pm

It'll be Hershey Bars from now on

I don't like Hershey bars....

ALK Out!!

MG to put in some of his new found wealth ?

They’ll only get a return by investing in the team to keep us in this division, and improving our commercial side - I.e, why would it be a bad thing that they want a return?

We have Twix here too just so you know!

I've seen this a lot
Regards new investors - "will want a return on their money, no one puts money in otherwise, be careful it could all go wrong"

Regards MG - a fan, always wanted what's best for the club, however takes over a sole chairman when the trains pulling upto the station 5 or so years ago, runs it like a business, often thought to leave the playing side short and in risk of going down, however theres a magician working his magic.
He then sells out for an absolute fortune and huge profit, after a few years fattening the bird and putting us in the shop window with a for sale tag on....
But remember he was a fan NOT an investor or business man

I’d love to know what MG paid for his shares. There’s no doubt it was the deal of his life given he’s walking away with £85 million+ (?). But fair play to him I say.

I’m actually shocked we’ve got this deal over the line given the way Ashley has struggled to get rid of Newcastle for the last 5 years for not much more.

It was the Telegraph yesterday that reported that MG would make £85million (over time).
He has made some serious money...but £85million?
I'm wondering if ALK borrowed the money is it now the club debt or ALK?
How much did they borrow?
How and when does it have to paid back?
Who services the loan?
How many American directors will there be eventually and will they be salaried?
They sure ain't doing it for nowt. They want a return on their money.
Pace has made all the right noises and may well live locally. But at the end of the day he is a hard-nosed businessman. With a bit of luck the Brigadoon factor might help him absorb the culture of the place, the family feel, and the community ethos.
In short, have we moved to being a club with a big new debt and salaried directors.

I estimate that garlick has made about 90m, depending on how many shares that he has retained.

claretandy wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:04 am

I estimate that garlick has made about 90m, depending on how many shares that he has retained.

Well earned after the hard work he's put in and how he's moved the club forwards.

Winstonswhite wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:41 am

I’d love to know what MG paid for his shares. There’s no doubt it was the deal of his life given he’s walking away with £85 million+ (?). But fair play to him I say.

I’m actually shocked we’ve got this deal over the line given the way Ashley has struggled to get rid of Newcastle for the last 5 years for not much more.

Newcastle have a lot of debt, apparently their training facilities are in need of upgrading etc.

Plus I wouldn't want to own Newcastle, their fans are harder to please than my ex wife..

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:07 am

Plus I wouldn't want to own Newcastle, their fans are harder to please than my ex wife..

Even when she was at one of them clubs?

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:30 am

I've seen this a lot
Regards new investors - "will want a return on their money, no one puts money in otherwise, be careful it could all go wrong"

Regards MG - a fan, always wanted what's best for the club, however takes over a sole chairman when the trains pulling upto the station 5 or so years ago, runs it like a business, often thought to leave the playing side short and in risk of going down, however theres a magician working his magic.
He then sells out for an absolute fortune and huge profit, after a few years fattening the bird and putting us in the shop window with a for sale tag on....
But remember he was a fan NOT an investor or business man

And the club is in a better state than when he took over.

If the new owners increase the value of the club's assets as much as Garlick did I'm sure the majority of supporters will be happy.

Rodleydave wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:53 am

It was the Telegraph yesterday that reported that MG would make £85million (over time).
He has made some serious money...but £85million?
I'm wondering if ALK borrowed the money is it now the club debt or ALK?
How much did they borrow?
How and when does it have to paid back?
Who services the loan?
How many American directors will there be eventually and will they be salaried?
They sure ain't doing it for nowt. They want a return on their money.
Pace has made all the right noises and may well live locally. But at the end of the day he is a hard-nosed businessman. With a bit of luck the Brigadoon factor might help him absorb the culture of the place, the family feel, and the community ethos.
In short, have we moved to being a club with a big new debt and salaried directors.

Yes of course we have!

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:11 pm

Apparently the consensus of opinion is .

These guys have rocked up , bought Burnley with their own money. They are going to invest millions and not want a return for years.

Burnley just found the unicorn.

I think you mean the consensus of YOUR opinion

claretandy wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:04 am

I estimate that garlick has made about 90m, depending on how many shares that he has retained.

Imagine going into what wasnt work ... having to pay like the rest of us for a drink and or meal...taking not a penny (I'm led to believe) and 5years later collecting upwards of £50 million.Well done Mike and JB.

The money MG and other directors have made is deserved. They ran the club in a way that few clubs have ever done and gained as much success as we have on and off the pitch.
They could have well been within their rights to reward themselves during this period with dividends and salaries but they never did. That’s what many other clubs have done - especially with a constant threat of relegation hanging over the club which would constantly threatened any potential takeover.
The board were directly responsible through the appointments they made and the money they authorised SD to spend for raising more income for the club over a 7 or 8 year period than the rest of the clubs history put together.

As for comments about people thinking that the new owners will not be looking for a return these are typically stupid - I don’t know of literally one person who has said or thinks that yet someone can come on here and post that it’s a “consensus” view !!

We don’t know how ALK will look to achieve returns at this stage or what there expectations are - other than the bleeding obvious that they expect to earn returns.

I’m going to assume that they are not stupid though and expect that the returns they will look to achieve will be done by trying to make the club stronger and whilst an element of this can be done by improving the non playing side I’ve not seen anybody do it without improving things on the pitch too.

The situation is not too different to Newcastle Utd some 10+ years ago. Sir John Hall sold his shares to Mike Ashley for £55m and Freddy Shepherd followed suit later, both had taken large Directors’ salaries for years. Ashley gave loans to the club and used the stadium to advertise Sports Direct but, until recently, refused to fund major player transfers. This angered and alienated a large, loyal supporter base. The club suffered one relegation under Shearer’s caretaker management, won promotion but has done no more than tick over. Latterly Ashley has tried to sell the club to an assortment of Middle East buyers, most recently for £300m but this was knocked back by the FA and PL. Hopefully the Burnley experience will not mirror this but be careful what you wish for.

Kieran Maguire, on his price of football twitter account, has just posted this.
Not being a financier I don’t know if it is bad news or not. Somebody on here will.
He headlined it, “ Burnley set up lending arrangement from MSD Holdings, who have previously lent to Derby and Southampton.”

So Michael dell is part of the investment or one of his companys at least.

Sheedyclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:48 pm

So Michael dell is part of the investment or one of his companys at least.

no - his Private Equity company has lent the new owners money secured against the clubs assets

This might sound stupid but what keeps going around in my mind is if this takeover has been approved and proof of funds have been shown, then obviously the investors have or had the money to invest so the question is why would they need a loan in the first place? Unless Michael Dell is one of the investors and the loan is just in name only from one of his companies to us.

huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:22 pm

Kieran Maguire, on his price of football twitter account, has just posted this.
Not being a financier I don’t know if it is bad news or not. Somebody on here will.
He headlined it, “ Burnley set up lending arrangement from MSD Holdings, who have previously lent to Derby and Southampton.”

066BF323-525E-456F-AC93-EA9560D25247.png

The document gives no clue unfortunately.

We could speculate all the way from the purchase price and the transfer budget, to just may be a transfer budget.

But as suspected they will have borrowed money against the club. On e day we will know how much they borrowed.

gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:11 pm

This might sound stupid but what keeps going around in my mind is if this takeover has been approved and proof of funds have been shown, then obviously the investors have or had the money to invest so the question is why would they need a loan in the first place? Unless Michael Dell is one of the investors and the loan is just in name only from one of his companies to us.

Any borrowing would be included in the proof of funds.

The basic answer is "we don't know".

My gut would be some debt to get things going (Jan transfer window and expansion during covid) but ultimately not a huge amount.

gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:11 pm

This might sound stupid but what keeps going around in my mind is if this takeover has been approved and proof of funds have been shown, then obviously the investors have or had the money to invest so the question is why would they need a loan in the first place? Unless Michael Dell is one of the investors and the loan is just in name only from one of his companies to us.

Im in the process of buying a 2nd property and have had to provide proof of funds. I dont have all the money needed to invest into my new property but the proof of funds includes the money the bank has agreed to loan me.

Im guessing that this was already part of their investment plan submitted to the Premier League or whoever else needs to see proof of funds