Not yet listened but the preview pretty sums up my suspicions around the board and lack of investment

https://twitter.com/skybet/status/15668 ... mb9rNwM2bg

Unbelievable really what they did (and continue to do).

First the lack of investment, building up cash reserves for themselves simply to sell the club and to then knowingly benefit from 40-60m in payments even if the club was relegated and was having its revenue slashed by 70%.

He accepts the team we’re good enough to have won more games but it’s chronic lack of investment to protect the value of the asset they were trying to sell.

Makes it prime for a leveraged buy out and maximises the chances of selling.

The 750k window (Dale Stephens) he mentions was an absolute disgrace.

The sooner Dyche gets a job the better.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:23 pm

Unbelievable really what they did (and continue to do).

First the lack of investment, building up cash reserves for themselves simply to sell the club and to then knowingly benefit from 40-60m in payments even if the club was relegated and was having its revenue slashed by 70%.

Quite the juxtaposition with your views on the new regime who were party to the very same deal.

Nice Skimmer.

Done to death, isn't it?

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:23 pm

Unbelievable really what they did (and continue to do).

First the lack of investment, building up cash reserves for themselves simply to sell the club and to then knowingly benefit from 40-60m in payments even if the club was relegated and was having its revenue slashed by 70%.

This!!

Can’t believe people berate a foreign investment banker for his part in this over an alleged “custodian”. Morally bankrupt is how I’d describe what MG did to us, and I’d rather be in debt with Alan that have MG anywhere near Burnley, at least we know a bankers motives and everyone’s open about it.

Dyche is itching for a job now, that’s like his 30th podcast in a month

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:32 pm

The sooner Dyche gets a job the better.

Sick of hearing his name

I'm glad he didn't hold back regarding The Custodians.

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:18 pm

I'm glad he didn't hold back regarding The Custodians.

That’s if you believe his interpretation.

Good old Fat Mike and John “I’ll buy you a pint” B.

The pair of them are a disgrace.

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:07 pm

This!!

Can’t believe people berate a foreign investment banker for his part in this over an alleged “custodian”. Morally bankrupt is how I’d describe what MG did to us, and I’d rather be in debt with Alan that have MG anywhere near Burnley, at least we know a bankers motives and everyone’s open about it.

Nope not this.

Garlick for many years did not take a penny out of the club and ran the club on a debt free basis. We invested in the team, the ground, the training facilities and also in the manager and his coaching team in terms of salaries and bonuses (all fully deserved btw).

After a number of years of running our club as successfully as any other in the country he did for whatever reason decide he wanted to sell (as he was fully entitled to do).

So yes he took his “dividend” or profit or whatever you want to call it at the end effectively but that is a far better model than we have today being burdened with debt, and contractual commitments etc.

If Alan Pace manage to get us in the premier league and keep us there for the best part of a decade under their financial model then that’s great but that is a very big IF.

Probably would have been interested in knowing a little more of what actually happened, but to hear someone talking in riddles interviewed by `the dullard`, I think I'll give it a miss and remain blissfully pig ignorant.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:29 pm

Nope not this.

Garlick for many years did not take a penny out of the club and ran the club on a debt free basis. We invested in the team, the ground, the training facilities and also in the manager and his coaching team in terms of salaries and bonuses (all fully deserved btw).

After a number of years of running our club as successfully as any other in the country he did for whatever reason decide he wanted to sell (as he was fully entitled to do).

So yes he took his “dividend” or profit or whatever you want to call it at the end effectively but that is a far better model than we have today being burdened with debt, and contractual commitments etc.

If Alan Pace manage to get us in the premier league and keep us there for the best part of a decade under their financial model then that’s great but that is a very big IF.

My point is I wouldn’t expect a local supporter/custodian to take all the money in the bank as a dividend on the back of 1 managerial appointment that he got lucky on and then failed to adequately support. Sell the club sure, it’s value increased under his stewardship so sell, I just hate how he did it.

Been done to death hasn’t it but I don’t think I’ll ever be okay with it, and I’d always supported him when he was an easy target over the years which annoys me more now. I used to think people were deluded saying he takes money out when he clearly doesn’t, turns out he was just saving it all up to take it all, but hey ho it’s done now isn’t it

4midable wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:17 pm

Sick of hearing his name

Who's name



Sean Dyche

Let’s not forget how much Dyche took out as well…fully deserved but he maximised his potential and took out as much as he could, and is now a rich man . Everyone is in it to make a living ..shareholders (some more than others), bankers, players, manager….. except the fans who are in it for other reasons.

I just wish instead of all his insights into his positive results such as Liverpool away he would explain his tactical approach to Norwich away !!
As for Garlick he did a good job in many ways and was entitled to sell for a profit. However the club is a community club built up for over 120 years. It’s heritage made it what it is and Garlic as a “fan” should not have been entitled to take so much. Profit, yes, exploiting our, the fans heritage, no !

Garlick was a majority shareholder in a business, he was entitled to get what he could for his shares, it's simple business but still some of you can't grasp that

I fully understand business but a 120 year old club based in the community is not just a business.

clansman wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:37 am

I fully understand business but a 120 year old club based in the community is not just a business.

It became a business from the moment it started paying players wages and charging fans an entrance fee.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:36 am

Garlick was a majority shareholder in a business, he was entitled to get what he could for his shares, it's simple business but still some of you can't grasp that

No doubt if you supported Oldham, or Bury, or Bolton, or Hereford, or Charlton, or many other clubs who have been stiffed by their owners quite legally, you would be equally sanguine?

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:00 am

No doubt if you supported Oldham, or Bury, or Bolton, or Hereford, or Charlton, or many other clubs who have been stiffed by their owners quite legally, you would be equally sanguine?

Burnley, as yet, haven't gone down the same route as the aforementioned clubs though, the comparison is a bit odd but whatever suits your agenda I suppose.

Anyway, it's clear that this will be done until well past it's death so there isn't much else to regurgitate

clansman wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:37 am

I fully understand business but a 120 year old club based in the community is not just a business.

Unfortunately (sadly) I feel it probably is.
My take on MG is that he ran the club extremely well for a number of years. We had a very, very sensible approach to money, we turned a profit, invested a sensible amount back into players and maintained a relatively small club at the highest level in world club football fairly comfortably. It inexplicably changed when the reinvestment of any of the profit into player upgrades suddenly stopped and instead the money languished in the bank. There may be others explanations for this, but the one explanation most sensible minded people come to is that it made the club far more saleable and allowed for a leveraged buy out, much of which ended up in MG's pocket and that's unfortunately where the fan's interests and MG's interests take wholly different routes.

I'm conscious of the title and the fact that those who do not want to read about finance are not warned off by it so I'm loathe to do the finance thing again but I would say probably the most laughable aspect of MG's era was the principled stand he took on Covid and his angst about the potential £50 million the club could lose as a consequence. Only to sell to a group that has spent £80 million on shares and accrued at least another £35 million's worth of debt

And one note of caution to those who we support Mr Pace and co I would say that they have pursued a very risky strategy and should we fail to get promoted this year we will lose another 30 million PL broadcast money and MSD will likely come knocking. And we are not going to have a £70 million PL player windfall.

Human society began with bartering and the ability to grow crops and generate excess that gave human society the time and space to do other things such as learn and innovate, on behalf of society, without the daily grind of finding food. It can easily fall apart on the back of greed and an excess that is used solely to feather the individuals own nest.

I have no doubt that there are people on here who are close to both parties anxious to vindicate their side but in reality no one looks good out of this whole affair.

I hope Alan Pace pulls it off but I give it as much chance as I give Liz Truss' view that tax cuts will resolve supply side problems and reduce inflation. But hope springs eternal that Liz Truss knows something no one else does and the same can be said for Alan Pace.

Mr Pace has had a decent start this season after seriously faltering last season; let's hope Ms Truss also does by announcing a fuel price cap this week!

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:44 am

should we fail to get promoted this year we will lose another 30 million PL broadcast money and MSD will likely come knocking.

How did you work that out? Parachute payments drop by 10m in year 2.

clansman wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:37 am

I fully understand business but a 120 year old club based in the community is not just a business.

140 years old

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:36 am

Garlick was a majority shareholder in a business, he was entitled to get what he could for his shares, it's simple business but still some of you can't grasp that

"Lifelong fan " as well apparently

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:44 am

I hope Alan Pace pulls it off but I give it as much chance as I give Liz Truss' view that tax cuts will resolve supply side problems and reduce inflation. But hope springs eternal that Liz Truss knows something no one else does and the same can be said for Alan Pace.
Mr Pace has had a decent start this season after seriously faltering last season; let's hope Ms Truss also does by announcing a fuel price cap this week!

This has to be one of the strangest segues this site has ever know. I've given it a 'like' for sheer audacity.

Free pie to anybody who can find a verifiable quote of Liz Truss claiming "tax cuts resolve supply side issues and reduce inflation". She believes that low tax helps to grow strong economies and the proof of that is all around us.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:14 am

This has to be one of the strangest segues this site has ever know. I've given it a 'like' for sheer audacity.

Free pie to anybody who can find a verifiable quote of Liz Truss claiming "tax cuts resolve supply side issues and reduce inflation". She believes that low tax helps to grow strong economies and the proof of that is all around us.

I thought it was a beautiful segue reflecting contemporary themes of football and politics.

We have supply side problems and inflation and she is advocating for tax cuts, which will not solve the underlying problem of supply nor grow the economy.

No offence Rowls, but I think only the swivel eyed loons amongst Tory grass roots think that tax cuts will help grow the economy at this point it will just fuel inflation.

Rishi doesn't agree, Tory MPS don't agree and economists don't agree as Liz often says - she is against orthodoxy.

As for growing economies - we've had sluggish productivity since the 70s. I think Dominic Raab blamed British workers in a book Liz signed up to, which caused a bit of a leadership spat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... more-graft

Anyway this is getting off topic. For balance, I think the Tories are laughable on the economy but I'm not convinced Labour even know what it is.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:58 am

How did you work that out? Parachute payments drop by 10m in year 2.

In 2020, the TV broadcast revenue was £113 million and last £103 million.

It is gone in 3 years.

Unless I've misunderstood it: in the first year we lose 55 percent of the amount that each Premier League team would collect under an equal share of broadcast revenue, reduced to 45 percent in the second year and 20 percent the year after that.

I’m sure all these identical interviews are part of his agent’s strategy to get his face back out there, but it’s beginning to look a bit too obvious and desperate now.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:40 am

In 2020, the TV broadcast revenue was £113 million and last £103 million.

It is gone in 3 years.

Unless I've misunderstood it: in the first year we lose 55 percent of the amount that each Premier League team would collect under an equal share of broadcast revenue, reduced to 45 percent in the second year and 20 percent the year after that.

Yeah slight misunderstanding.

CP explained it best on another thread:

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 13, 2022 2:16 am

the first year parachute payment is 55% of the equal share payments - so forget merit payments and TV appearance/facilities fees money above the minimum - in the current format of parachute payments are: Year 1 - £41.8m; Year 2 - £34.2m; Year 3 - £15.2m. There remains a chance those payments will increase as we enter a new TV cycle, but it will not be by much. Even if the 20 Premier League clubs vote in favour of increasing the equal share element of the Overseas TV revenue, this would only likely amount to an additional £5m in year 1, £4m in year 2 and £2m in year 3.

So it actually only drops by 7m in year 2.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:47 am

Yeah slight misunderstanding.

CP explained it best on another thread:



So it actually only drops by 7m in year 2.

I'm not sure how you are reading that....!

I think the £7 million is the difference between year 1 and year 2. We are going to lose over a £100 million's worth of turnover, as compared to 2020, in 3 years - it can't be only £7 million in year 2.

Saying that it might be more like £20 - £25 million.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:14 am

This has to be one of the strangest segues this site has ever know. I've given it a 'like' for sheer audacity.

Free pie to anybody who can find a verifiable quote of Liz Truss claiming "tax cuts resolve supply side issues and reduce inflation". She believes that low tax helps to grow strong economies and the proof of that is all around us.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:35 am

I thought it was a beautiful segue reflecting contemporary themes of football and politics.

We have supply side problems and inflation and she is advocating for tax cuts, which will not solve the underlying problem of supply nor grow the economy.

No offence Rowls, but I think only the swivel eyed loons amongst Tory grass roots think that tax cuts will help grow the economy at this point it will just fuel inflation.

Rishi doesn't agree, Tory MPS don't agree and economists don't agree as Liz often says - she is against orthodoxy.

As for growing economies - we've had sluggish productivity since the 70s. I think Dominic Raab blamed British workers in a book Liz signed up to, which caused a bit of a leadership spat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... more-graft

Anyway this is getting off topic. For balance, I think the Tories are laughable on the economy but I'm not convinced Labour even know what it is.

Close but no pie.

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:02 am

"Lifelong fan " as well apparently

Should that exclude him from ensuring he gets the best value for money for his shares?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:07 am

Should that exclude him from ensuring he gets the best value for money for his shares?

Ahhhh well, that's the £60 million pound question isn't it?

There's a potential conflict of interest. What is now in the best interest of his personal finances might not have been in the best interests of the club he has supported all his life.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:10 am

Ahhhh well, that's the £60 million pound question isn't it?

There's a potential conflict of interest. What is now in the best interest of his personal finances might not have been in the best interests of the club he has supported all his life.

This is where people are going to keep going round and round though, because they wanted a Burnley fan in charge, but didn't want him to make money and if we'd dropped down the leagues they would've wanted him to support the club regardless

That's why it's fairly pointless discussing it on new threads when we've got lots already

I wish Garlick had never come near the club and we’d stayed as a debt ridden championship club and not had those Premier League years. Thankfully ALK has taken us back to those good old days so we can all be happy!

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:07 am

Should that exclude him from ensuring he gets the best value for money for his shares?

I don't think there's much difference in our positions. We both accept that the owner of a football club, just like the owner of any other business, can legally do what he wants with it. This includes taking out as much money as he can, and it also by the same principle includes closing the company down and selling its premises for housing.

The difference is that some of us (ie. me) are angry about "our" football club losing all that money, and some of us (ie. you) aren't.

And if the club did go into administration or even fold altogether, whether because of the above money losses or whether deliberately forced, some of us (ie. me) would be even angrier while some of us might shrug and say that's the owner's prerogative. I don't know if that would be you, or not.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:21 am

I wish Garlick had never come near the club and we’d stayed as a debt ridden championship club and not had those Premier League years. Thankfully ALK has taken us back to those good old days so we can all be happy!

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:29 am

I don't think there's much difference in our positions. We both accept that the owner of a football club, just like the owner of any other business, can legally do what he wants with it. This includes taking out as much money as he can, and it also by the same principle includes closing the company down and selling its premises for housing.

The difference is that some of us (ie. me) are angry about "our" football club losing all that money, and some of us (ie. you) aren't.

And if the club did go into administration or even fold altogether, whether because of the above money losses or whether deliberately forced, some of us (ie. me) would be even angrier while some of us might shrug and say that's the owner's prerogative. I don't know if that would be you, or not.

You can choose to spend your life angry over a business being sold if you wish, that's your right.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:47 am

Yeah slight misunderstanding.

CP explained it best on another thread:



So it actually only drops by 7m in year 2.

On reflection you could be right the absolute loss from year 0 to year 2 is 55 per cent but the relative loss is only 10 per cent compared to year 1.

From year 0 to year 3 it is 80 per cent and finally 100 per cent by year 4.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:36 am

You can choose to spend your life angry over a business being sold if you wish, that's your right.

Some of us measure our lives in terms of Burnley FC from the day our Dad first took us on to Turf, to the away trips with mates in our teen years, to the first Burnley shirt we bought our toddlers - to the day we took our son on for his first game.

You are an old testament God for sure....!

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:29 pm

Nope not this.

Garlick for many years did not take a penny out of the club and ran the club on a debt free basis. We invested in the team, the ground, the training facilities and also in the manager and his coaching team in terms of salaries and bonuses (all fully deserved btw).

After a number of years of running our club as successfully as any other in the country he did for whatever reason decide he wanted to sell (as he was fully entitled to do).

So yes he took his “dividend” or profit or whatever you want to call it at the end effectively but that is a far better model than we have today being burdened with debt, and contractual commitments etc.

If Alan Pace manage to get us in the premier league and keep us there for the best part of a decade under their financial model then that’s great but that is a very big IF.

Are you serious? The model of being burdened with debt is because Garlick sold the club and burdened us with debt. How you cant understand that is beyond belief

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:21 am

I wish Garlick had never come near the club and we’d stayed as a debt ridden championship club and not had those Premier League years. Thankfully ALK has taken us back to those good old days so we can all be happy!

Now that's my story of humour.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:07 am

Should that exclude him from ensuring he gets the best value for money for his shares?

No..and I initially took this view and defended MG but I've since realised/reflected that he effectively actively manipulated the balance sheet of the club (by not spending money and building up cash reserves) in order to facilitate a leveraged buy-out which enabled him to enrich himself but with he inevitable consequence for BFC being failure on the pitch, relegation and a future with high debt and reduced income. Given the importance of the club to so many people and the general local community that's surely morally indefensible.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:36 am

You can choose to spend your life angry over a business being sold if you wish, that's your right.

Thank you.