https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60899
Lifelong fan apparently...Iloveyoubrady wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pmYeah, 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?Iloveyoubrady wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pmYeah, 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.
Sounds like a recipe for heartburn.
Like all Americans, they worship at the alter of profit.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo 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.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
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).Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:29 pmWhere 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
I was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pmThis 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.
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?Nonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:59 pmI 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.
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pmWhy did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
this is a great questionClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pmThis 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.
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.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
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.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pmWhy did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
so shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrongLongtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pmThe 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
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.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:03 pmthis 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.
Actually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pmThe 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
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pmso shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrong
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 .boatshed bill wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pmActually 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.
no idea. you'd have to ask him.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pmDidnt 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 .
the search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pmThe 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.
Was it about four years ago that the prospectus was issued.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:21 pmthe 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.
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.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pmDidnt 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 .
Thanks CPChester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pmthat 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
Jesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.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...
randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:38 pmI 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
What on earth is this based onNonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pmThe option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager.
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.ElectroClaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:42 pmJesus, 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?
Is this fact or your supposition? I've not seen anything to suggest it is the case.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pmIt 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.
when we spent 800K (or whatever) on Stephens - how much money was in the bank ?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pmThis 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.
What does "effectively acting as guarantors" mean? It seems an unusually woolly definition of what is normally a precise legal term.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pmIt 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.
^^^^^^^100% This^^^^^^^aggi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:55 pmLots 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.
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 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.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 amthe 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 should probably have a look at the letter I guess. Sounds more interesting than I expected.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 amthe 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 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
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