Concerned at us getting into trouble again after the recent thread about him potentially buying Shrewsbury, I haven't posted anything on this until now, but it's gone public as per below


The Board of Directors of Cheltenham Town Football Club is delighted to announce that its principal shareholders have signed a letter of intent including a period of exclusivity with Mike Garlick, owner of Spanish club Antequera fc and Gibraltar club St Josephs.

Makes sense I believe he is a lifelong fan.

Goobs wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 12:25 pm

Makes sense I believe he is a lifelong fan.

Grew up yards from their ground...

He's a Cheltenham legend.

Good luck to him. Pathetic the way he's become a scapegoat to those who clearly understand the ALK takeover was bad but can't bare to hold it against ALK.

I only found out about this yesterday but then it went public this morning.

Good luck to him, I hope he's as successful with Cheltenham as he was at Turf Moor. The only problem might be if Cheltenham win next season's FA cup while his Andalusian club win the Spanish cup

Must be the weekend for it. Pace has bought Espanyol apparently.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 1:18 pm

I only found out about this yesterday but then it went public this morning.

Good to know you knew before it went public

KellyClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 1:28 pm

Good to know you knew before it went public

Only a few hours

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 1:08 pm

Good luck to him. Pathetic the way he's become a scapegoat to those who clearly understand the ALK takeover was bad but can't bare to hold it against ALK.

Scapegoat? Nah… I think people rightly questioned his motives during the last 12 months of his tenure.
The lack of investment in the playing side.
The lack of support for his manager who frankly deserved better.
And despite being a “fan” who only had the best interests of the club at heart, decided to capitalise and sell the club to a group of American businessmen when he knew full well how it was to be financed.

I think people remember that and judge him on it, and they have every right to do so.

Incidentally, how many successful seasons, how many great managerial appointments and cracks at the premier league do we need before the ALK haters give them a little credit? Rhetorical question that, it’ll never happen. The desire to be proved right for these people far outweighs any success the club merits…

Are people only against multi club ownership when it's foreign owners?

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 3:10 pm

Are people only against multi club ownership when it's foreign owners?

Probably

Good luck to him. Ran our club very prudently.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 3:10 pm

Are people only against multi club ownership when it's foreign owners?

No is my answer to that

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 3:27 pm

No is my answer to that

As is mine

helmclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 3:18 pm

Good luck to him. Ran our club very prudently.

And, how many years of Premier League football with him at the helm

Shrewsbury guaranteed premier league football then from the way that some described his investment here as sure profit rather than a huge gamble.

Best of luck to him. He did a lot of very good stuff as chairman, just look at Gawthorpe.

Dyche to Shrewsbury ?

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 8:56 pm

Dyche to Shrewsbury ?

Why? Are they Cheltenhams rivals?

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 8:42 pm

Best of luck to him. He did a lot of very good stuff as chairman, just look at Gawthorpe.

I’ve been speaking to supporter reps at Cheltenham and they asked what my thoughts were on him. I basically said he went under the radar in his first few years as a director and then presided over our best period since the 1960s. Then finally the realisation as to how he sold the club.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 9:09 pm

I’ve been speaking to supporter reps at Cheltenham and they asked what my thoughts were on him. I basically said he went under the radar in his first few years as a director and then presided over our best period since the 1960s. Then finally the realisation as to how he sold the club.

Yes, it all ended really badly from Covid onwards I suppose.
I guess we'll never really know what changed, but there were clearly issues between Garlick and Dyche.

Never had Garlick pegged as a multi club owner, but this is his third.

Wow, here is a guy, none Burnley fan, doesn’t invest in the team when we’re in the premier league. Sets us up for an attractive sale, takes over £100m out of the club and everyone wants to kiss his a**e. That was all our money, all those years down to div 4 and all the way back. He took it all and no doubt laughing at us while he plays billy big bollo**s.

Another **** multi club capitalist

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 10:02 pm

Another **** multi club capitalist

And will go on and increase unless legislation can be brought in and enforced.

gazza53 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 10:02 pm

Wow, here is a guy, none Burnley fan, doesn’t invest in the team when we’re in the premier league. Sets us up for an attractive sale, takes over £100m out of the club and everyone wants to kiss his a**e. That was all our money, all those years down to div 4 and all the way back. He took it all and no doubt laughing at us while he plays billy big bollo**s.

Sums my feelings up perfectly. I quite frankly find that it beggars belief how any fan of our club can praise the guy. Any good work he did he totally undid by the way he set it up then sold the club and all to line his back pocket.

Now he is going to try to do it all again..with what amounts to our withheld transfer money that Dyche wasn't given.

What a shyster.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 3:27 pm

No is my answer to that

So you are against Mike buying Cheltenham after already owning another club?

gazza53 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 10:02 pm

Wow, here is a guy, none Burnley fan, doesn’t invest in the team when we’re in the premier league. Sets us up for an attractive sale, takes over £100m out of the club and everyone wants to kiss his a**e. That was all our money, all those years down to div 4 and all the way back. He took it all and no doubt laughing at us while he plays billy big bollo**s.

Garlick did not take any money out of the club

Pace and Co took the money out of the club and used it to pay Garlick for control of BFC

They (not Garlick) did that and, at the same time, decided they would pay themselves very good salaries whilst saddling the club with debt

I have no allegiance to Garlick at all but look at the current owners for the financials we currently endure

Yes, he made a lot of money but that buyout was put forward by Alan and his mates

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:53 am

So you are against Mike buying Cheltenham after already owning another club?

His previous ownership of Burnley is hardly relevant but I don’t like multi club ownership.

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 9:19 am

Garlick did not take any money out of the club

Pace and Co took the money out of the club and used it to pay Garlick for control of BFC

They (not Garlick) did that and, at the same time, decided they would pay themselves very good salaries whilst saddling the club with debt

I have no allegiance to Garlick at all but look at the current owners for the financials we currently endure

Yes, he made a lot of money but that buyout was put forward by Alan and his mates

What happened to the due diligence that Garlick was supposed to do?
Surely any responsible custodian would have discovered that the purchaser had little funds to complete the deal and would have turned them down instead of thinking about the amount of cash that would ultimately rest in his bank account.
Whilst as fans we revere our club the so called custodians just view it as another business opportunity.
Good luck to Cheltenham....

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 9:55 am

His previous ownership of Burnley is hardly relevant but I don’t like multi club ownership.

He is chairman of a Spanish 3rd tier team

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 10:30 am

So I wonder if Mike being chairman of both Antequera CF and Cheltenham would bother you so much

How many times do you have to post this? It’s like having a troll following me. My position is clear on multi club ownership, it doesn’t need you to post time and time again replying to my comments.

Claretnick wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 9:55 am

What happened to the due diligence that Garlick was supposed to do?
Surely any responsible custodian would have discovered that the purchaser had little funds to complete the deal and would have turned them down instead of thinking about the amount of cash that would ultimately rest in his bank account.
Whilst as fans we revere our club the so called custodians just view it as another business opportunity.
Good luck to Cheltenham....

Of course he undertook due diligence.
It was not like we had a long queue of people wanting to buy the club. The only other interested party that was reported sounded like a non starter from a background point of view.

For many years MG took nothing out of the club. No salary, no dividends, no management consultancy fees, no interest (have a look at the current accounts if you want to know how much that is currently costing us). By all accounts COVID had a massive impact on his own private business and his circumstances changed to the point where it was best for him and his family for him to sell the business.

It’s ok fans from the outside who have not put their own money into the club saying he should have sold to the perfect suitors but actually that would probably look a lot like Garlick himself.

He presided over and the most successful financial period in the clubs history where the club earned more revenue and profit under his tenure than the rest of the clubs history put together. He deserves some credit for that.

Nobody enjoyed the last couple of years and the breakdown of relationships with Dyche and the lack of transfer funds. But again in his position with a lack of other options the owners did what the vast majority of people in their position would do. They took an offer the structure of which was not great for the club but that suited both parties.

The debt, interest, dividend and remuneration free structure of the club under Garlick was the exception in football not the norm…..we are now much more like the norm.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:20 am

Nobody enjoyed the last couple of years and the breakdown of relationships with Dyche and the lack of transfer funds. But again in his position with a lack of other options the owners did what the vast majority of people in their position would do. They took an offer the structure of which was not great for the club but that suited both parties.

The debt, interest, dividend and remuneration free structure of the club under Garlick was the exception in football not the norm…..we are now much more like the norm.

Dyche knew what was happening, his own career was being jeapoardised by the ridiculous transfer window for a Premier League campaign:

Dale Stephens €1.10m
Will Norris - Free
Jimmy Dunne - Free (Signed as PL2 Player)
Josh Benson - Free (Signed as PL2 Player)
Ben Gibson - Returned from loan
Aiden O'Neill- Returned from loan

We would still be one of the 17 had if it not been for that window.

Its there for all to see but blinded by the word "leveraged" which its obvious, no-one including the self acclaimed accountants on here, fully understand.

ALK have performed a minor miracle in keeping us in the Premier League.

We could have quite easily plummeted and "done a Luton"

billyhamilton82 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:21 pm

Dyche knew what was happening, his own career was being jeapoardised by the ridiculous transfer window for a Premier League campaign:

Dale Stephens €1.10m
Will Norris - Free
Jimmy Dunne - Free (Signed as PL2 Player)
Josh Benson - Free (Signed as PL2 Player)
Ben Gibson - Returned from loan
Aiden O'Neill- Returned from loan

We would still be one of the 17 had if it not been for that window.

Its there for all to see but blinded by the word "leveraged" which its obvious, no-one including the self acclaimed accountants on here, fully understand.

ALK have performed a minor miracle in keeping us in the Premier League.

We could have quite easily plummeted and "done a Luton"

Dale Stephens & Will Norris signed in summer 2020, Garlick’s last summer window but Josh Benson signed in 2019 and Jimmy Dunne as far back as 2017. Aiden O’Neill left that summer to return to Australia.

billyhamilton82 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:21 pm

ALK have performed a minor miracle in keeping us in the Premier League.

A minor miracle to buy a Premier League team and never avoided relegation from the Premier League?

billyhamilton82 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:21 pm

Dyche knew what was happening, his own career was being jeapoardised by the ridiculous transfer window for a Premier League campaign:

Dale Stephens €1.10m
Will Norris - Free
Jimmy Dunne - Free (Signed as PL2 Player)
Josh Benson - Free (Signed as PL2 Player)
Ben Gibson - Returned from loan
Aiden O'Neill- Returned from loan

We would still be one of the 17 had if it not been for that window.

Its there for all to see but blinded by the word "leveraged" which its obvious, no-one including the self acclaimed accountants on here, fully understand.

ALK have performed a minor miracle in keeping us in the Premier League.

We could have quite easily plummeted and "done a Luton"

All the statistics of the Premier League suggest we would not be one of the 17. We were already defying the odds year on year. No other club on our budgets had enjoyed a sustained period in the premier league for as long as we did and many clubs far bigger than us have spent far less time in the league in the last 10 or 15 years. The history of the league shows that eventually most teams get relegated.

I know the last couple of years the gap has widened and it’s becoming harder to stay up.

And yes I agree we could have quite easily done a Luton. Or we were could easily have joined that long list of clubs that used to be called up until very recently yo yo clubs - Norwich, Watford, West Brom, Boro etc and now struggle to even the make the play offs.

As Burnley fans we have been blessed these last 15 or so years.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:35 pm

All the statistics of the Premier League suggest we would not be one of the 17. We were already defying the odds year on year. No other club on our budgets had enjoyed a sustained period in the premier league for as long as we did and many clubs far bigger than us have spent far less time in the league in the last 10 or 15 years. The history of the league shows that eventually most teams get relegated.

I know the last couple of years the gap has widened and it’s becoming harder to stay up.

And yes I agree we could have quite easily done a Luton. Or we were could easily have joined that long list of clubs that used to be called up until very recently yo yo clubs - Norwich, Watford, West Brom, Boro etc and now struggle to even the make the play offs.

As Burnley fans we have been blessed these last 15 or so years.

Or we could have built on what we had and become more like a Bournemouth or Brighton.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:39 pm

Or we could have built on what we had and become more like a Bournemouth or Brighton.

That’s the hope yes but both those clubs are owned by billionaires and have been significantly subsidised.

Was not that long ago when Brighton were making £50m losses every season and still finishing below us.

Bournemouth also been relegated more than once.

We finished 7th twice didn’t we ? Not sure either of these clubs have done much better than this.

Just saying when you look at the league most of the teams get relegated at some point - and without exception any team with the budget that we were operating under Dyche has been relegated eventually.

History of the league shows you that at some point it’s likely to be Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Wolves, Fulham etc etc time again soon enough.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:45 pm

That’s the hope yes but both those clubs are owned by billionaires and have been significantly subsidised.

Was not that long ago when Brighton were making £50m losses every season and still finishing below us.

Bournemouth also been relegated more than once.

We finished 7th twice didn’t we ? Not sure either of these clubs have done much better than this.

Just saying when you look at the league most of the teams get relegated at some point - and without exception any team with the budget that we were operating under Dyche has been relegated eventually.

History of the league shows you that at some point it’s likely to be Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Wolves, Fulham etc etc time again soon enough.

Bournemouth have only been relegated once but I felt we were building into a more than decent Premier League team.

Once we stopped strengthening the squad it all became inevitable that we’d go down which we duly did.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:49 pm

Bournemouth have only been relegated once but I felt we were building into a more than decent Premier League team.

Once we stopped strengthening the squad it all became inevitable that we’d go down which we duly did.

Not sure really.

Losing Chris Wood, Mee, Tarks, Pope and Dwight was massive and not sure any of these were avoidable given who they signed for and the money we got for the likes of Wood.

At the same time we had really good players like Lowton, Westwood, Barnes, Jay etc who were all getting into their 30s.

There was a big rebuild needed at the club which would have needed a real long term plan of spending a good amount of money each season to gradually replace these. Bearing in mind even our highest transfer spend under Garlick it would have been a monumental task to replace this kind of quality within our normal budget and spend constraints.

But I do think that under Dyche our record in the transfer market was unbelievably good so it was definitely possible that with the right backing he could have done it again

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:39 pm

Or we could have built on what we had and become more like a Bournemouth or Brighton.

and that would have required owners to have financed the club with funds totalling hundreds of millions over a period of 10 to 15 years

Garlick tried to build a new recruitment model and got it immediately wrong in 2018/19 - and needed to wait for another try - which was to be the summer of 2020 when a significant number of the contracts came to an end, thus freeing up wages and there was money available to spend on transfer fees - the failed new approach and the wait to go again contributed significantly to the breakdown in the relationship with Dyche and it appears the plan was for Garlick to go in the summer of 2020 and someone (probably ALK) to come in and have the room that summer to stamp their own approach on the squad

Then Covid came the game stopped and restarted, the summer takeover did not happen and the new season started without certainty if revenues (including TV - there was still no assurance about whether rebates would be demanded in the 2020/21 season), a season played behind closed doors. In fact when Garlick talked in June 2020 of the potential of losing £50m it was even sure that the new season would even start or if it did whether fans would be back in the next two seasons. Almost everyone forgets that Covid cost the club around £28m in declared lost revenues and rebates - but probably a lot more when you see how ALKs action on arrival saw commercial income fall off a cliff - something the club is only just starting to recover from (though still not at the levels of the two season before Covid.

It is worth noting that without Covid ALK would probably not have had to delve as deep into the club's funds to fund their purchase instalments - it would have been more probable that they could have got more investors in their group or had a more successful attempt at a share flip than the one they tried in January/February 2021.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:00 pm

Not sure really.

Losing Chris Wood, Mee, Tarks, Pope and Dwight was massive and not sure any of these were avoidable given who they signed for and the money we got for the likes of Wood.

At the same time we had really good players like Lowton, Westwood, Barnes, Jay etc who were all getting into their 30s.

There was a big rebuild needed at the club which would have needed a real long term plan of spending a good amount of money each season to gradually replace these. Bearing in mind even our highest transfer spend under Garlick it would have been a monumental task to replace this kind of quality within our normal budget and spend constraints.

But I do think that under Dyche our record in the transfer market was unbelievably good so it was definitely possible that with the right backing he could have done it again

We shouldn’t have needed a big rebuild and wouldn’t have had there been some money to spend.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:39 pm

Or we could have built on what we had and become more like a Bournemouth or Brighton.

When people say things like this they just come across as hopelessly naive.

Brighton got to where they are by having an owner who was happy to subsidise them to the tune of £500m. It's not that they were spending slightly more than us and making astute signings.

They were able to suck up huge losses like Alireza Jahanbakhsh (a player who would still be our record signing) and keep on going.

We also made some big errors as a club in being reluctant to trade when the option was there (Tarkowski - who then left for nothing, albeit after giving another two seasons of sterling service). You wonder if Dyche refused to sanction that sale because he knew he’d get none of the money though.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:03 pm

We shouldn’t have needed a big rebuild and wouldn’t have had there been some money to spend.

As said we ever spent that much money even at the peak of our spend under Garlick. We always relied on the profit from player sales too.

We would still have lost the likes of Wood, Pope, Mee and Tarks whether we were going to spend more in the market or not. And the other players I mentioned would have still got older and needed replacing. Even if Dyche would have been given £30m to £40m spend by Garlick (history shows it would not have been much more than this) then that kind of money would have not guaranteed anything even for someone as astute in the market as Dyche. Even Dyche was saying that the days of buying the likes of Tarks, Mee, Tripps, Keane for virtually nothing were long gone.

You only have to look at Weghorst, Gibson and more recently Tresor, Ramsey, Amdouni etc to see how easy it is to spend £50m to get you nowhere.

No doubt that Garlick holding back spend was not a good thing. But you also need to bear in mind that the wage bill had increased to the highest in our history at the time at £92m so even at his most generous Garlick is never giving that much to Dyche as he is was never interested in burdening the club with debt or subsidising big losses with his own money at any point of his tenure.

jedi_master wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:12 pm

We also made some big errors as a club in being reluctant to trade when the option was there (Tarkowski - who then left for nothing, albeit after giving another two seasons of sterling service). You wonder if Dyche refused to sanction that sale because he knew he’d get none of the money though.

Good point and I agree. Tough position because if Garlick would have sold Tarks for £30m plus which was ultimately his decision to make it could have led to an even more difficult relationship with Dyche (not that any managers walk away from their contract these days !).

The best thing for Burnley would have been to sell Tarks and as we historically did try and look for the next Tarks at around £10m to £15m which we know Dyche was very good at doing.

aggi wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:08 pm

When people say things like this they just come across as hopelessly naive.

Brighton got to where they are by having an owner who was happy to subsidise them to the tune of £500m. It's not that they were spending slightly more than us and making astute signings.

They were able to suck up huge losses like Alireza Jahanbakhsh (a player who would still be our record signing) and keep on going.

Not hopelessly naive at all - and I said could have, not would have. At least I haven’t built our all plans on Brighton as the current owners seemed to have done based on Mission.