Very concerning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... -DOWN.html

One poster on here was saying Kieran Maguire was claiming it was one of the best financial deals in football he'd seen(the ALK leveraged takeover), clearly Maguire doesn't think that and the poster made it up.

by Stockbrokerbelt » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:47 am

So much rubbish spouted on here & is getting worse, the issue with Pace not talking about the deal is 99% likely to be part of the deal, lenders & buyers insert these demands into agreements for future business dealings, i can speak from experience & have been part of a team on 2 large business deals. As for Talksport spouting hot air to fill airtime & the legend in his own brew time Jordan i refer you again to Kieran McGuire & his view on the deal, he has commented more than once that the deal is one of the better ones in Football & how savvy ALK are in dealing with finance.

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:54 pm

Very concerning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... -DOWN.html

Is this Kieron Maguire writing in the Mail - or is it their own reporter?

The figures the Mail reports are misleading. Yes, £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated.

No mention of the relegation clauses in the players contracts - those that will be retained/aren't OOC at the end of the season. So, massive cut in player wages, if relegated.

And, where is the evidence that MSD will require repayment of £60 million if relegated? Would either ALK or MSD have signed those loan terms for Burnley, a club that has often been favourite for relegation.

UTC

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:01 pm

One poster on here was saying Kieran Maguire was claiming it was one of the best financial deals in football he'd seen(the ALK leveraged takeover), clearly Maguire doesn't think that and the poster made it up.

I think Kieran Maguire said as much in a local newspaper along the lines of "these deals can work" and added the caveat as long as "the owners fulfilled their promises". He says as much in this article in that it has clearly worked for Man Utd albeit many Man Utd fans may disagree.

I guess it depends what questions were asked by the journos and how interested Maguire was at the time of asking. I'm sure that if he is being paid he will give it his full attention and think ....WTF!

All I can say is that the longer the season goes on and the closer relegation gets this is going to be Burnley FCs relegation story because ..... well for obvious reasons.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:11 pm

The figures the Mail reports are misleading. Yes, £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated.

And, where is the evidence that MSD will require repayment of £60 million if relegated? Would either ALK or MSD have signed those loan terms for Burnley, a club that has often been favourite for relegation.

Not seen the first point discussed before so who is it that is paid less money if Burnley are relegated?

On the second point I may have misunderstood but is the suggestion that MSD would lend us £60m and agree for us not to repay it all should we get relegated? I can see why that would appeal to Mr Pace but it sounds a little daft that MSD would provide a secured loan to Burnley, "a club that has often been favourite for relegation" with the loan terms agreeing that they wont get repaid the full amount should said club get relegated. I mean they'd be bonkers to put in loan terms that state the full amount of the loan has to be repaid wouldn't they!

None of this is rocket science.

For me, going down has never been an acceptable option, and we really will be in the sh!t.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:01 pm

One poster on here was saying Kieran Maguire was claiming it was one of the best financial deals in football he'd seen(the ALK leveraged takeover), clearly Maguire doesn't think that and the poster made it up.

Not sure who it was that posted that but, if true, Kieran Maguire is now disagreeing with Kieran Maguire.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:41 pm

Not seen the first point discussed before so who is it that is paid less money if Burnley are relegated?

On the second point I may have misunderstood but is the suggestion that MSD would lend us £60m and agree for us not to repay it all should we get relegated? I can see why that would appeal to Mr Pace but it sounds a little daft that MSD would provide a secured loan to Burnley, "a club that has often been favourite for relegation" with the loan terms agreeing that they wont get repaid the full amount should said club get relegated. I mean they'd be bonkers to put in loan terms that state the full amount of the loan has to be repaid wouldn't they!

The point being made was that MSD may not be calling in the loan upon relegation, not that the loan would be written off, which as you say would be bonkers. That was my reading of the comment.

It would likely be in MSD’s interest for us to be promoted quickly, should the worst happen.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:43 pm

None of this is rocket science.

For me, going down has never been an acceptable option, and we really will be in the sh!t.

The situation is very likely to be much worse now than had we gone down say three years ago.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:41 pm

Not seen the first point discussed before so who is it that is paid less money if Burnley are relegated?

On the second point I may have misunderstood but is the suggestion that MSD would lend us £60m and agree for us not to repay it all should we get relegated? I can see why that would appeal to Mr Pace but it sounds a little daft that MSD would provide a secured loan to Burnley, "a club that has often been favourite for relegation" with the loan terms agreeing that they wont get repaid the full amount should said club get relegated. I mean they'd be bonkers to put in loan terms that state the full amount of the loan has to be repaid wouldn't they!

No it is currently interest only. I think it highly possible that if we are relegated we would also have to start paying capital back - but as Paul says no one knows the truth of this albeit The Mail have claimed it before so.......!

I agree it would be bonkers of the club to have to pay it all back; equally, it would be bonkers of MSD not to re-assess the risk to their loan on relegation

Light on any real new information or detail if we're going to be honest.
Just a fluffer article for the Mail so they can talk about relegation etc.

I'll wait for the accounts to be released.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:49 pm

Light on any real new information or detail if we're going to be honest.
Just a fluffer article for the Mail so they can talk about relegation etc.

I'll wait for the accounts to be released.

Which accounts ALKs or Burnley FCs or the consolidated group accounts?

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:48 pm

No it is currently interest only. I think it highly possible that if we are relegated we would also have to start paying capital back - but as Paul says no one knows the truth of this albeit The Mail have claimed it before so.......!

I agree it would be bonkers of the club to have to pay it all back; equally, it would be bonkers of MSD not to re-assess the risk to their loan on relegation

I dont understand what you are saying with regards to my questions.

Are you agreeing with what Paul seems to be suggesting whereby MSD would have built in loan terms to lend us £60m but dont require the £60m to be repaid should we be relegated? If so what would be the logic and benefit for MSD?

Paul says noone knows the truth but is quick to make his own assumptions that are equally unfounded like the above.

Also do you know what Paul was referring too when stating that the price the club was bought for will reduce if we go down? Is this the truth and are the details of who gets less known (if so im interested in the answer) or is this Paul just doing what the Mail are doing and claiming something where the truth is unknown?

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:58 pm

I dont understand what you are saying with regards to my questions.

Are you agreeing with what Paul seems to be suggesting whereby MSD would have built in loan terms to lend us £60m but dont require the £60m to be repaid should we be relegated? If so what would be the logic and benefit for MSD?

Paul says noone knows the truth but is quick to make his own assumptions that are equally unfounded like the above.

Also do you know what Paul was referring too when stating that the price the club was bought for will reduce if we go down? Is the truth and are the details of who gets less known (if so im interested in the answer) or is this Paul just doing what the Mail are doing and claiming something where the truth is unknown?

1. Currently the loan isn't being repaid - it is interest only (£6 million).

2. The article infers (in the way journos have) that if we go down we would also have to start repaying capital

3. I don't agree with Paul on anything but in a very respectful way

4. Paul is suggesting that the loan will carry on being interest only - like you - I find that unlikely but no one knows.

5. Paul does say no one knows and but then does make inferences of his own (refer to 3)

6. The club was bought for £102m with a further £68 million if we stay in the Premiership

7. Paul is correct on No. 6 so please amend No. 3 to I don't agree with Paul 99 % of the time.

I hope that helps.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:47 pm

The situation is very likely to be much worse now than had we gone down say three years ago.

I think the only safe relegation is the one immediately following promotion, to be honest.
Once a club has entered it's second year it starts spending money.
By the time it's entered it's 5th year, all of it's players are on top level money.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:11 pm

Is this Kieron Maguire writing in the Mail - or is it their own reporter?

The figures the Mail reports are misleading. Yes, £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated.

UTC

Paul you need to re-read the share offer letter - The minimum price for the 84% of shares (all 102,852 of them), comes in at less than £500 shy of £170m (relegation almost certainly means it will not be more) - there is also the option to buy the other 12,048 shares from those seven sellers (minimum of another £19.9m) and not forgetting the offer to the small shareholders - 7,578 shares at £1,699 is £12.875m

duncandisorderly wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:08 pm

I think the only safe relegation is the one immediately following promotion, to be honest.
Once a club has entered it's second year it starts spending money.
By the time it's entered it's 5th year, all of it's players are on top level money.

Not quite - as the article states 3 years ago we had £80 million in the bank and a team largely comprised of players at their peak.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:05 pm

1. Currently the loan isn't being repaid - it is interest only (£6 million).
I know this and I was talking about the capital repayment. Reading this response I am now assuming Paul (and you) were talking about a loan term that made the debt immediately repayable. If thats the case then thats the bit I wasnt getting and now get the point and it makes more sense. I thought that Paul was suggesting that the capital amount we would have to repay eventually would reduce if relegated

2. The article infers (in the way journos have) that if we go down we would also have to start repaying capital
As per above but I think that its not so far fetched that in the case of relegation one of the parties might have wanted to reduce some of the loan

3. I don't agree with Paul on anything but in a very respectful way
I was only asking if you agreed with one point. Your response has helped clarify what I was asking Paul and now makes sense

4. Paul is suggesting that the loan will carry on being interest only - like you - I find that unlikely but no one knows.
See #2

5. Paul does say no one knows and but then does make inferences of his own (refer to 3)
number 3 duly referred to

6. The club was bought for £102m with a further £68 million if we stay in the Premiership
Can you clarify please as whose £68m is it if we stay in the Premier League?

7. Paul is correct on No. 6 so please amend No. 3 to I don't agree with Paul 99 % of the time.
I'll defer until #6 is clarified

I hope that helps.

To make it easier Ive replied under your points but thanks it has helped

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:53 pm

Which accounts ALKs or Burnley FCs or the consolidated group accounts?

The club's to see if any debt has been loaded onto it.
I doubt we will see ALK's or Calders?

DCWat wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:45 pm

The point being made was that MSD may not be calling in the loan upon relegation, not that the loan would be written off, which as you say would be bonkers. That was my reading of the comment.

It would likely be in MSD’s interest for us to be promoted quickly, should the worst happen.

The interesting thing is how the remaining payments to Garlick are structured, not much detail around it and I don't believe the talk of Garlick retaking over the club if they fail to pay. Maybe Garlick takes back some shares but not control? who knows

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:05 pm

6. The club was bought for £102m with a further £68 million if we stay in the Premiership

Where did you get that from and who misses out on the £68m? is that the remaining instalments to be paid to Garlick? I haven't seen anywhere that the instalments end if we're relegated and ALK save £68m.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:33 pm

Where did you get that from and who misses out on the £68m? is that the remaining instalments to be paid to Garlick? I haven't seen anywhere that the instalments end if we're relegated and ALK save £68m.

Nor have I but it's logical if we think about it.
A championship club is always worth less than a PL one.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:21 pm

To make it easier Ive replied under your points but thanks it has helped

Good ho....

Point 6 - the £68 million would be paid to the former owners mainly MG / JB not sure about the exact amounts

AN awful lot of money...

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:33 pm

Where did you get that from and who misses out on the £68m? is that the remaining instalments to be paid to Garlick? I haven't seen anywhere that the instalments end if we're relegated and ALK save £68m.

Paul has said the purchase price is £102million. Chester said this will rise to £200 million when al the shares are bought and Paul has said (I'm pretty sure on threads you've been on) that on top of the £102 million a further £68 million will go to the former owners but only if we stay in the Premiership. I think Maguire alludes to it in the article.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:36 pm

Nor have I but it's logical if we think about it.
A championship club is always worth less than a PL one.

Yeah but we did stay in the PL under ALK's control? reports recently suggested deadlines had been changed for repayments, I don't believe the Garlick takes back control if we're relegated stuff but nor do I believe Garlick just gives up on the £68m outstanding?

£68m owed to Garlick, £60m owed to MSD and a yearly loan interest repayment of £6-7m, where did money come from to pay for the fans' shares? wage budget around £80m atm?

pretty enormous figures of cash for a Championship club to find.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:26 pm

The club's to see if any debt has been loaded onto it.
I doubt we will see ALK's or Calders?

The debt won't be on Burnley FCs account - it will be on ALKs because Burnley FC didn't buy itself. The debt is secured on Burnley's assets and that may not be On the accounts either.

There will be management fees but no debt. I can tell you that now without seeing the accounts.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:40 pm

Paul has said the purchase price is £102million. Chester said this will rise to £200 million when al the shares are bought and Paul has said (I'm pretty sure on threads you've been on) that on top of the £102 million a further £68 million will go to the former owners but only if we stay in the Premiership. I think Maguire alludes to it in the article.

Paul said;

The figures the Mail reports are misleading. Yes, £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated

I don't know where he got the final part from, unless he also believes Garlick regains control if they fail to pay the instalments.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:37 pm

Good ho....

Point 6 - the £68 million would be paid to the former owners mainly MG / JB not sure about the exact amounts

AN awful lot of money...

Thats what I thought you meant and therefore I disagree with the below statement

" £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated."

If Burnley are relegated then either the £68m can still be paid to them in full or the ALK purchase of the club for £170m does not complete, part if not most of the club goes back to MG / JB and Mr Pace is gone

DCWat wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:45 pm

The point being made was that MSD may not be calling in the loan upon relegation, not that the loan would be written off, which as you say would be bonkers. That was my reading of the comment.

It would likely be in MSD’s interest for us to be promoted quickly, should the worst happen.

Sorry missed your reply but yes this makes more sense and I was indeed not getting it so thanks

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:40 pm

Paul has said the purchase price is £102million. Chester said this will rise to £200 million when al the shares are bought and Paul has said (I'm pretty sure on threads you've been on) that on top of the £102 million a further £68 million will go to the former owners but only if we stay in the Premiership. I think Maguire alludes to it in the article.

What I have said is in what is considered a legal document (the Share Offer Letter of Oct 4 2021) it is from the club on behalf of CVHL/VSL the equivalent of coming from Alan Pace's mouth

CVHL/VSL have committed to the 102,852 shares at a minimum price
they have an option on the remaining 12,048 shares from those same sellers
they have made an offer for 7,578 shares from the small shareholders

there is nothing vague about it it is clear legal fact, that over 1700 shareholders have received in writing (some of which are member entities (Clarets Trust, Earby Clarets etc) and it is likely a few hundred others have seen the letter too.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:46 pm

Thats what I thought you meant and therefore I disagree with the below statement

" £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated."

If Burnley are relegated then either the £68m can still be paid to them in full or the ALK purchase of the club for £170m does not complete, part if not most of the club goes back to MG / JB and Mr Pace is gone

I don't know whether that is true or not I can only say what I have read in the media and what Paul has said...!

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:48 pm

What I have said is in what is considered a legal document (the Share Offer Letter of Oct 4 2021) it is from the club on behalf of CVHL/VSL the equivalent of coming from Alan Pace's mouth

CVHL/VSL have committed to the 102,852 shares at a minimum price
they have an option on the remaining 12,048 shares from those same sellers
they have made an offer for 7,578 shares from the small shareholders

there is nothing vague about it it is clear legal fact, that over 1700 shareholders have received in writing (some of which are member entities (Clarets Trust, Earby Clarets etc) and it is likely a few hundred others have seen the letter too.

Thanks for the clarification Chester

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:48 pm

What I have said is in what is considered a legal document (the Share Offer Letter of Oct 4 2021) it is from the club on behalf of CVHL/VSL the equivalent of coming from Alan Pace's mouth

CVHL/VSL have committed to the 102,852 shares at a minimum price
they have an option on the remaining 12,048 shares from those same sellers
they have made an offer for 7,578 shares from the small shareholders

there is nothing vague about it it is clear legal fact, that over 1700 shareholders have received in writing (some of which are member entities (Clarets Trust, Earby Clarets etc) and it is likely a few hundred others have seen the letter too.

Where is Paul and Pete getting the less than £170m from if we're relegated, what happens to the £68m owed to Garlick? I haven't seen it reported anywhere to be potentially less than £170m if we're relegated, the only thing reported was the potential for Garlick to regain control.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:44 pm

Paul said;

The figures the Mail reports are misleading. Yes, £170 million to buy the club - but only if the club remains in the Premier League. A lesser figure is due if the club is relegated

I don't know where he got the final part from, unless he also believes Garlick regains control if they fail to pay the instalments.

I don't know KRBFC - like everyone on here I'm repeating what is in the public domain. Like you I think these are enormous figures for a club like Burnley but I am conscious of not misrepresenting anyone's points so don't want to conjecture further.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:54 pm

Where is Paul and Pete getting the less than £170m from if we're relegated, what happens to the £68m owed to Garlick? I haven't seen it reported anywhere to be potentially less than £170m if we're relegated, the only thing reported was the potential for Garlick to regain control.

The £68m (if that is wat it is - we are unable to confirm CVHL/VSL having more than £98m on Dec 30 2020 ) is owed to the 7 sellers proportionately to the shareholdings they sold.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:54 pm

Where is Paul and Pete getting the less than £170m from if we're relegated, what happens to the £68m owed to Garlick? I haven't seen it reported anywhere to be potentially less than £170m if we're relegated, the only thing reported was the potential for Garlick to regain control.

This is where Pauls says it....

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58606&p=1732590&hilit=102#p1732590

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:58 pm

The £68m (if that is wat it is - we are unable to confirm CVHL/VSL having more than £98m on Dec 30 2020 ) is owed to the 7 sellers proportionately to the shareholdings they sold.

but that potential £68m is just wiped out if we're relegated?

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:11 pm

Paul you need to re-read the share offer letter - The minimum price for the 84% of shares (all 102,852 of them), comes in at less than £500 shy of £170m (relegation almost certainly means it will not be more) - there is also the option to buy the other 12,048 shares from those seven sellers (minimum of another £19.9m) and not forgetting the offer to the small shareholders - 7,578 shares at £1,699 is £12.875m

Hi CP, yes, I've still to get my head around the details in the offer to small shareholders, the details reported in Freight Investors annual accounts and the original reports of the deal.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:58 pm

The £68m (if that is wat it is - we are unable to confirm CVHL/VSL having more than £98m on Dec 30 2020 ) is owed to the 7 sellers proportionately to the shareholdings they sold.

Sorry if it’s already been covered on the shareholder thread (or elsewhere) but (and appreciating that our position has become more precarious since the offer) why would ALK be offering to purchase additional shares now?

In a position where our income could reduce significantly, what is the benefit to ALK or indeed the point of them purchasing additional shares?

Why commit to a £12m(?) outlay at this stage, to people likely not even thinking of their shares? Or, was there an obligation?

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:03 pm

This is where Pauls says it....

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58606&p=1732590&hilit=102#p1732590

Thats not based on anything but Paul making up a scenario that fits his narrative. Thats the problem with his postings on this topic in that he took an ideological position from the offset and rather than looking for new info and facts to reassess his position he just looks to try and use them in a way to support his fixed ideological view

A lot of what he states is still true and he genuinely has very good knowledge in this area but he is not open minded and does not take an objective view.

Posters like CP and aggi are far better in that they have the same knowledge of this field but go in search of the truth and will change their views based on different and new info becoming available

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:09 pm

Hi CP, yes, I've still to get my head around the details in the offer to small shareholders, the details reported in Freight Investors annual accounts and the original reports of the deal.

It is very complex - I have spent the last few days writing a section for the corrected article under the heading The Takeover Acquisition: Separating folklore from fact it is over 2000 words long

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:14 pm

Thats not based on anything but Paul making up a scenario that fits his narrative. Thats the problem with his postings on this topic in that he took an ideological position from the offset and rather than looking for new info and facts to reassess his position he just looks to try and use them in a way to support his fixed ideological view

A lot of what he states is still true and he genuinely has very good knowledge in this area but he is not open minded and does not take an objective view.

Posters like CP and aggi are far better in that they have the same knowledge of this field but go in search of the truth and will change their views based on different and new info becoming available

I re-read it and realised as much - the position of the club could be much worse than I feared. And I already fear the worst

So, yes a bit of humble pie for me Mr Advocate....!

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:15 pm

It is very complex - I have spent the last few days writing a section for the corrected article under the heading The Takeover Acquisition: Separating folklore from fact it is over 2000 words long

No link Chester

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:01 pm

One poster on here was saying Kieran Maguire was claiming it was one of the best financial deals in football he'd seen(the ALK leveraged takeover), clearly Maguire doesn't think that and the poster made it up.

Why would i need to make it up, why not try to be as smart as you think you are & read his articles & quotes on the deal.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:11 pm

Sorry if it’s already been covered on the shareholder thread (or elsewhere) but (and appreciating that our position has become more precarious since the offer) why would ALK be offering to purchase additional shares now?

In a position where our income could reduce significantly, what is the benefit to ALK or indeed the point of them purchasing additional shares?

Why commit to a £12m(?) outlay at this stage, to people likely not even thinking of their shares? Or, was there an obligation?

It means any new investor would have to be in VSL not the club, that helps the ALK Three retain overall control, but perhaps more importantly allows any new investor to derive the same benefits and gains from ownership - real partnership. Not necessarily bailing them out like Checketts partner was at Real Salt Lake

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:19 pm

No link Chester

that is because it is not finished or published yet - I said I was working on it

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:18 pm

I re-read it and realised as much - the position of the club could be much worse than I feared. And I already fear the worst

So, yes a bit of humble pie for me Mr Advocate....!

No humble pie needed, its a complicated business and you did help me with the original bit I completely misread so thanks

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:26 pm

The club's to see if any debt has been loaded onto it.
I doubt we will see ALK's or Calders?

Burnley FC Holdings accounts for the year end 31st July 2021 are due to be filed at Companies House by 30th April 2022.

Calder Vale Holdings accounts are due to be filed by 1st July 2022.

Kettering Capital's accounts are due to be filed by the end of July 2022.

I expect we will get some more details as each set of accounts are filed at Companies House.

UTC

Hi, there are 2 Kevin mcguires, 1 writes for chip papers with no background in finance, the other is seen as the senior authority on football finance deals & is a lecturer on finance at Liverpool university & is often asked to give advice on club takeovers. I know which one i believe………