Page 1 of 12
Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:29 pm
by Longtimeclaret
Where are we now Is largely in my view , down to the greed of the previous Chairman and the reluctance to invest in various windows prior to the sale of the Club to ALK
When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:32 pm
by Rileybobs
Mmmmm, garlic cheese.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:35 pm
by Nonayforever
Rileybobs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:32 pm
Mmmmm, garlic cheese.
I'm going to get the port out !
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pm
by Iloveyoubrady
Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:39 pm
by randomclaret2
Iloveyoubrady wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
Lifelong fan apparently...
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
by ClaretTony
Iloveyoubrady wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
by Rileybobs
Nonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:35 pm
I'm going to get the port out !
Sounds like a recipe for heartburn.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:41 pm
by daveisaclaret
If Mike Garlick ran the football club in such a way as to get as much money as possible when he sold it, is his greed not exactly mirrored by the new owners who were happy to buy the club without actually spending their own money on it in hopes of making a profit?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:44 pm
by Lowbankclaret
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Like all Americans, they worship at the alter of profit.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:46 pm
by NickBFC
Does he stand to lose a few quid if we're relegated? Sure I read he will. My thoughts on him are covered by others above.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:48 pm
by BaronGarcia
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
I’d like to think that Pace and ALK can and will be good for our club, but I’m yet to be convinced CT. What I can say with certainty is that Mike Garlick did what was best for Mike Garlick. I don’t think the way he exited his position was done in any way to spite the club, but he had his best interests at heart for some time. There were signings he could have got over the line and didn’t, and it is hurting us big style now.
Mike Garlick may be from Burnley, but he has carved out a very lucrative life, and well done to him, in London. We just happen to be the club from where he was born, not where his life is now.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
by Milltown1882
He fattened the goose long enough to get out but to stay in. Where we are now is on him.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
by Chester Perry
Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:29 pm
Where are we now Is largely in my view , down to the greed of the previous Chairman and the reluctance to invest in various windows prior to the sale of the Club to ALK
When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:59 pm
by Nonayforever
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
I was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.
There was a point, when Garlick as chairman, should have sacked Dyche, but I realised that if he sacked Dyche he would have "lost" the players for a new manager.
I don't think he had any option but to sell.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pm
by ClaretTony
Nonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:59 pm
I was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.
There was a point, when Garlick as chairman, should have sacked Dyche, but I realised that if he sacked Dyche he would have "lost" the players for a new manager.
I don't think he had any option but to sell.
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:02 pm
by boatshed bill
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pm
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
When they fell out publicly?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:03 pm
by Chester Perry
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
this is a great question
my take has long been he couldn't find someone to do that so had to go with someone who he thought the manager would work with from the options that were on the table at that time - I think he understood the urgency of having to go, if he didn't leave the manager would.
there is a kicker in all this in that he has not really left yet, and may still be a major stakeholder for some way into the future (just not quite as big and certainly not as visible as that stake is likely to be in VSL.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pm
by Longtimeclaret
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:06 pm
by Burnleyareback2
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Parts of the fan base wanted him out as we weren’t spending beyond our means. I really doubt there was a long line of buyers.
That’s how I see it.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm
by Nonayforever
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pm
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
The option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager. I can't recall the timing, but will have a look back to find the related incidents.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm
by Chester Perry
Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pm
The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
so shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrong
no doubt he may make a lot of money if the whole plan from VSL comes together - but we have to that happen yet in the meantime the money has to remain on call should the worst happen
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
by IanMcL
They fell out because Mr D could see what Mr G was doing.
Garlick turned out to be a liar "We have to have large reserves for a new stand and to cushion any relegation, so we can get back up" (paraphrased)
He took all that money for himself and those other trusted directors and left the club, irreparably in debt, unless we manage to stay up, by hard work and sudden good fortune.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
by ClaretTony
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:03 pm
this is a great question
my take has long been he couldn't find someone to do that so had to go with someone who he thought the manager would work with from the options that were on the table at that time - I think he understood the urgency of having to go, if he didn't leave the manager would.
there is a kicker in all this in that he has not really left yet, and may still be a major stakeholder for some way into the future (just not quite as big and certainly not as visible as that stake is likely to be in VSL.
The urgency was trying to sell for around four years but, as you say, he's not gone, he's still there as a director although I doubt he has much clout.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
by boatshed bill
Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pm
The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
Actually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.
Spent most of it.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:10 pm
by Longtimeclaret
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm
so shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrong
You got it wrong.Are you an MG friend or family member?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pm
by randomclaret2
boatshed bill wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
Actually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.
Spent most of it.
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:14 pm
by boatshed bill
randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pm
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
no idea. you'd have to ask him.
But we've been grossing in excess of £100 million in the PL.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:21 pm
by Chester Perry
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
The urgency was trying to sell for around four years but, as you say, he's not gone, he's still there as a director although I doubt he has much clout.
the search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020
it came when the manager demanded new contracts for players and more players but wasn't prepared to sell the ones other clubs wanted to buy, to pay for it, There was also the issue that a number of major signings had been devalued by the manager not using them, questions remain as to who actually signed them. The club chose to manage it's way through Covid as it had through the better years by trying to budget for operational breakeven - you do not have to agree with it to understand that was the option chosen.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:24 pm
by ClaretTony
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:21 pm
the search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020
it came when the manager demanded new contracts for players and more players but wasn't prepared to sell the ones other clubs wanted to buy, to pay for it, There was also the issue that a number of major signings had been devalued by the manager not using them, questions remain as to who actually signed them. The club chose to manage it's way through Covid as it had through the better years by trying to budget for operational breakeven - you do not have to agree with it to understand that was the option chosen.
Was it about four years ago that the prospectus was issued.
Yes it did become more urgent and it wasn't just with the manager that Garlick had issues. There were always suggestions that the manager wasn't signing the players and I think that might continue to apply now.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm
by KRBFC
Certainly isn't a fan of this club, nobody who seriously cared about this club would leave us in the absolute financial mess he did by selling to ALK.
We've gone from £60m(ish) in the club coffers, to -£50m(ish) taken by Garlick, a further -£60m(ish) owed to Garlick still and £60m(ish) loaned secured against the club assets to pay Garlick.
How does a Championship club find £110m? £6m a year interest?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm
by Chester Perry
randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pm
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
that was just from Clarets go Large limited - by Jan 2026 Garlick could potentially walk away with almost £100m for all his shareholding, he has not received all that yet and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails, so has to keep a large chunk reasonably accessible in case it is required.
The profits Garlick made on the Clarets go Large shares are substantially less than those fans who took a share in lieu of a season ticket and he also risked more and worked at the club for the last decade or so for free. There is no doubt that he is one of the few to get much richer as a result of owning a club (effectively he has doubled his wealth if it all comes off
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:36 pm
by randomclaret2
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm
that was just from Clarets go Large limited - by Jan 2026 Garlick could potentially walk away with almost £100m for all his shareholding, he has not received all that yet and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails, so has to keep a large chunk reasonably accessible in case it is required.
The profits Garlick made on the Clarets go Large shares are substantially less than those fans who took a share in lieu of a season ticket and he also risked more and worked at the club for the last decade or so for free. There is no doubt that he is one of the few to get much richer as a result of owning a club (effectively he has doubled his wealth if it all comes off
Thanks CP
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:38 pm
by randomclaret2
I would say working at the club " for free " is somewhat offset by the near £100m

Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:40 pm
by ClaretTony
He was a director, then joint chairman and then chairman but throughout that period we employed senior people to run the club so I'm not sure how much work he did at the club.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:42 pm
by ElectroClaret
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm
... and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails...
Jesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.
How likely is that scenario in the event of relegation?
I suppose I'm asking is it more likely if we go down?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:43 pm
by Chester Perry
randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:38 pm
I would say working at the club " for free " is somewhat offset by the near £100m
no doubt, and it is not all profit of course - he has the opportunity to make a lot from it, and that has also been the opportunity for all the shareholders of have sold up, I suspect not one of them though they would get so much return
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:48 pm
by Swizzlestick
Nonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm
The option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager.
What on earth is this based on
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pm
by Chester Perry
ElectroClaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:42 pm
Jesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.
How likely is that scenario in the event of relegation?
I suppose I'm asking is it more likely if we go down?
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:54 pm
by ChrisG
Rileybobs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Sounds like a recipe for heartburn.
Get the port gout, am I right?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:55 pm
by aggi
Lots of Burnley fans were wanting that unicorn. An owner who was morally sound but also willing to invest a load of money (and we're talking upwards of £100m) with no reward.
Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.
There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm
by Bin Ont Turf
Never liked him (a thought long before he sold us) he has absolute dodge pot written in his eyes and smile.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm
by aggi
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pm
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
Is this fact or your supposition? I've not seen anything to suggest it is the case.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm
by Vegas Claret
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
when we spent 800K (or whatever) on Stephens - how much money was in the bank ?
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:59 pm
by dsr
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pm
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
What does "effectively acting as guarantors" mean? It seems an unusually woolly definition of what is normally a precise legal term.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:07 am
by Devils_Advocate
aggi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:55 pm
Lots of Burnley fans were wanting that unicorn. An owner who was morally sound but also willing to invest a load of money (and we're talking upwards of £100m) with no reward.
Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.
There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
^^^^^^^100% This^^^^^^^
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 am
by Chester Perry
aggi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm
Is this fact or your supposition? I've not seen anything to suggest it is the case.
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
dsr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:59 pm
What does "effectively acting as guarantors" mean? It seems an unusually woolly definition of what is normally a precise legal term.
answer contained above - I have been asked not to quote directly from the letter
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:12 am
by dsr
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 am
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
I don't believe in guarantee by supposition. Guarantees have to be recorded in the accounts and at Companies house, for UK companies at least. Let's see those.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:15 am
by aggi
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 am
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
answer contained above - I have been asked not to quote directly from the letter
I should probably have a look at the letter I guess. Sounds more interesting than I expected.
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:15 am
by Chester Perry
dsr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:12 am
I don't believe in guarantee by supposition. Guarantees have to be recorded in the accounts and at Companies house, for UK companies at least. Let's see those.
I agree - just that is how it appears to me from what I have seem - I may have read too much into it, I may not have
Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:19 am
by Chester Perry
aggi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:15 am
I should probably have a look at the letter I guess. Sounds more interesting than I expected.
there are times when I just wish it was out there, given that probably 2000 or more people have seen it - there is much that is open to interpretation though in regards to their statements (5 paragraphs) on the takeover