I'm not remotely knowledgeable of finance.
It's not the most encouraging of reads though.

The majority has gone on £51m player purchases (net), though £30m has gone to other group companies. Another £22m was shelled out on interest payments, which is much more than the £13m invested in infrastructure, while £9m was used to cover operating losses.

Reads like somebody who absolutely hates Burnley. We've made quite a few profits on players recently but he/she tried their best to ignore it.

It's says " Burnley have rarely generated big money from player trading, only twice making more than £15m in the last decade."
Even excluding Odobert & Berge last season , we're not Keane , McNeil , Andre Gray, Collins, Cornet & Wood all sold for over 15M during the last decade ?

We’re up to our eye balls in it, let’s not kid ourselves. But the Premier League loves debt, and while we’re in it every other year, it’s all good.

Totally screwed the first time the yo-yo fails.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:35 pm

We’re up to our eye balls in it, let’s not kid ourselves. But the Premier League loves debt, and while we’re in it every other year, it’s all good.

Totally screwed the first time the yo-yo fails.

You haven’t got a clue what happens ‘when the yo yo fails’, to be fair, and you are completely kidding yourself to be so assertive, in thinking you have the answer.

Reads like a 6th formers module project tbh

Burnley have rarely generated big money from player trading, only twice making more than £15m in the last decade.

I suppose if we buy a player for £1mn and sell him for eight times as much, that isn't "generating big money". Big money not being big profit. Righty-ho.

It’s true, I’m no finance guy. But we’re over £100m in debt, we lose big money in the Prem, and we lose absolute fortunes in the Championship. All the money covering those losses is borrowed against the club, not donated by a generous benefactor.

I am well up for someone with greater knowledge on this stuff to explain why it’s no cause for concern. I genuinely want to hear that.

I don't know about other people, but cards on the table, i try not to stress myself worrying about things i have no control over.....

Andingle wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:29 pm

It's says " Burnley have rarely generated big money from player trading, only twice making more than £15m in the last decade."
Even excluding Odobert & Berge last season , we're not Keane , McNeil , Andre Gray, Collins, Cornet & Wood all sold for over 15M during the last decade ?

Reading it I think it's talking about total transfer profit for a financial year, rather than individual player sales.

So only 2 years in the last decade have we posted a total player trading profit of over £15m in the last decade which I think would be correct. It's just poorly written.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:43 pm

It’s true, I’m no finance guy. But we’re over £100m in debt, we lose big money in the Prem, and we lose absolute fortunes in the Championship. All the money covering those losses is borrowed against the club, not donated by a generous benefactor.

I am well up for someone with greater knowledge on this stuff to explain why it’s no cause for concern. I genuinely want to hear that.

So how can you be so confident in the claim we are totally screwed, if you don’t understand it? We don’t know what the level of debt is right now, but it’s unlikely to be £110m. His picture is well over a year old, even up to two years. Since then, we’ve seen a charge settled, and a new charge of £40m added, to a new lender - this was discussed in relative depth at the time (January) in the ALK thread on here.

As for the ‘hypothetical’ we stop going back up thing - ALK will continue their player trading model, while using part of the profit, or most of it, to pay down debt, in the Championship. They’ve already shown to do this twice. Of course we’ve bounced back twice, which is credit to them, so we haven’t experienced the ‘next’ part - that probably looked like selling Trafford, Esteve and Amdouni, at a minimum, for decent money, to continue paying down the debt, making the ‘total’ even less, and managing it sustainable for parachute year 2. After that, it’s backing themselves to have produced / developed enough young players (via transfers or via the Cat 1 academy) to keep that trading model going and cover inevitable losses.

Andingle wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:29 pm

It's says " Burnley have rarely generated big money from player trading, only twice making more than £15m in the last decade."
Even excluding Odobert & Berge last season , we're not Keane , McNeil , Andre Gray, Collins, Cornet & Wood all sold for over 15M during the last decade ?

You are conflating individual cases with annual reported statements of trading - any transfers post the last accounts is not mentioned because they will be reported in the next accounts

It seemed more than fair to me, the report could have gone a lot heavier on the overall cost of the debt and how that has affected the club's ability to invest on infrastructure in particular. It is worth noting that those wanting a new stand believing it would produce a worthwhile ROI have probably not figured in the interest rates on the monies required to finance such a build

for those who are interested Swiss Ramble has produced his assessment of Burnley's finances today which the above is an interpretation of - from what I can see of the SR's report - though most of it is behind a paywall - I don't have access too, this is what I can see

Burnley Finances 2023/24
Sit Down. Stand Up
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/burn ... ces-202324

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:55 pm

So how can you be so confident in the claim we are totally screwed, if you don’t understand it? We don’t know what the level of debt is right now, but it’s unlikely to be £110m. His picture is well over a year old, even up to two years. Since then, we’ve seen a charge settled, and a new charge of £40m added, to a new lender - this was discussed in relative depth at the time (January) in the ALK thread on here.

As for the ‘hypothetical’ we stop going back up thing - ALK will continue their player trading model, while using part of the profit, or most of it, to pay down debt, in the Championship. They’ve already shown to do this twice. Of course we’ve bounced back twice, which is credit to them, so we haven’t experienced the ‘next’ part - that probably looked like selling Trafford, Esteve and Amdouni, at a minimum, for decent money, to continue paying down the debt, making the ‘total’ even less, and managing it sustainable for parachute year 2. After that, it’s backing themselves to have produced / developed enough young players (via transfers or via the Cat 1 academy) to keep that trading model going and cover inevitable losses.

You do realise we have only been paying down debt when forced to by relegation as for current debt we can assume (yes I know) that £112m - £82m + £40m = £70m and all that is before we look at transfer debt.

It's a balancing act whilst juggling and so far ALK have managed to keep the balls in the air. AP seems to be an experienced administrator and didn't run for the hills when we were relegated the first time. He's shown some resilience so I personally will give him the benefit of the doubt but woe betide us if the money men decide we're no longer a viable risk.

Hopefully when it does go tits up, which it will, we can just go into administration, get 10 points deducted and carry on like nothing happened. Money doesn’t really exist. It is just a smoke screen.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:58 pm

You are conflating individual cases with annual reported statements of trading - any transfers post the last accounts is not mentioned because they will be reported in the next accounts

It seemed more than fair to me, the report could have gone a lot heavier on the overall cost of the debt and how that has affected the club's ability to invest on infrastructure in particular. It is worth noting that those wanting a new stand believing it would produce a worthwhile ROI have probably not figured in the interest rates on the monies required to finance such a build

for those who are interested Swiss Ramble has produced his assessment of Burnley's finances today which the above is an interpretation of - from what I can see of the SR's report - though most of it is behind a paywall - I don't have access too, this is what I can see

Burnley Finances 2023/24
Sit Down. Stand Up
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/burn ... ces-202324

I agree you could argue on some of the minutiae but overall you can't quibble with it.

Deciding something can't be true because it's uncomfortable or doesn't fit a personal narrative is a pointless.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:03 pm

You do realise we have only been paying down debt when forced to by relegation as for current debt we can assume (yes I know) that £112m - £82m + £40m = £70m and all that is before we look at transfer debt.

Yes I do realise that, which is my point, really. A failure to go straight back up, would likely, in my view, have triggered another forced repayment. And possibly again the year after.

Transfer debt is a hard one to put our finger on, given the sheer volume of player trading we’ve been doing in recent years. But the £90-100m received last summer should have ‘balanced’ things a touch…

Whether you agree or disagree with how we reached this point, I don't see it as anything to worry about. Our debt is clearly sustainable. We are hardly operating like a club that's "up to it's eyeballs"

Stay up this year and things look rosier, get relegated we repeat the same formula, sell off valuable assets, pay down the debt, rebuild and go again

It's not a bad way of doing it. It's just different to "fattening the goose" that we did for the previous 10 years while our owners prepared to cash out and make off with a load of money

It's an emotive subject but it someone wants an idea of what we know of the debt on Pages 29 and 30 of the audited accounts you have a list of what is owed to us and what we owe to others, which include trading debt as well as bank debt.

If you exclude the money ALK took out of the club; the bank and trading debts are considerably more than £100 million. But don't take my word for it.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:16 pm

If you exclude the money ALK took out of the club; the bank and trading debts are considerably more than £100 million. But don't take my word for it.

So we're screwed?

On the face of it the ALK strategy of using debt, with the repayments, large interest payments and ALL the risk lumped on the club not ALK, is absolutely a great way to buy something you can’t otherwise afford. Remember the debts and interest being paid by the club is for the purchase of their personal shares in the club, I stupidly used my own money when I bought mine, what was I thinking? The strategy of player trading is fine upon relegation as long as we have player assets that can meet our commitments. The issue I have is ALK are showing no sign of paying down the debt unless forced to do do presumably written into the terms of the loan. Is there any factual evidence of ALK’s exit strategy either in the event BFC is no longer seen as a vehicle to generate profit for themselves or when they decide they need to get out? Does anyone have any proof that they will repay any of the money they owe the football club?

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:26 pm

On the face of it the ALK strategy of using debt, with the repayments, large interest payments and ALL the risk lumped on the club not ALK, is absolutely a great way to buy something you can’t otherwise afford. Remember the debts and interest being paid by the club is for the purchase of their personal shares in the club, I stupidly used my own money when I bought mine, what was I thinking? The strategy of player trading is fine upon relegation as long as we have player assets that can meet our commitments. The issue I have is ALK are showing no sign of paying down the debt unless forced to do do presumably written into the terms of the loan. Is there any factual evidence of ALK’s exit strategy either in the event BFC is no longer seen as a vehicle to generate profit for themselves or when they decide they need to get out? Does anyone have any proof that they will repay any of the money they owe the football club?

That's the $100 million + question

Nothing new in the article really and obviously the accounts they are referring too are a while ago now.
But its a decent enough summary for those who are not close to the finances

As always is the case we have extreme views that we are on the verge of financial collapse and it’s perfectly sustainable and all football clubs are in debt now !!

Truth is that we have a very different finance model now and it’s just a pure fact that the club is carrying more risk now than it was under its previous ownership model. You don’t have to be an accountant to understand that a debt based model compared to no debt is going to result in that when revenue levels are not that different now to what they were under Garlick (in the EPL)

Again stating the obvious but being in the EPL is pretty fundamental to being able to sustain and service our debt commitments.

Whilst you can play around the edges with commercial revenues and the some non staff operational expenses we do not seem to be making any material impact in these areas so it fundamentally comes down to the key variables of our player transfer activity and our wage bill.

Based on where our wage bill seems to be heading and the size of squad we have had recently then we need to hope that we can continue to make pretty significant profit on player sales on a regular basis or else we will continue to make losses as a club and I do not get the impression that is something that the current owners are prepared to do on a sustained basis.

So yep it’s sustainable if

1) we are mostly in the EPL
2) we sell players at decent profits

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:26 pm

.... The issue I have is ALK are showing no sign of paying down the debt unless forced to do do presumably written into the terms of the loan. Is there any factual evidence of ALK’s exit strategy either in the event BFC is no longer seen as a vehicle to generate profit for themselves or when they decide they need to get out? Does anyone have any proof that they will repay any of the money they owe the football club?

That's been my own big worry, more or less, from day one.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:06 pm

Deciding something can't be true because it's uncomfortable or doesn't fit a personal narrative is a pointless.

But it does seem - in the UK especially - to be the modern approach to pretty much all aspects of life.

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:26 pm

On the face of it the ALK strategy of using debt, with the repayments, large interest payments and ALL the risk lumped on the club not ALK, is absolutely a great way to buy something you can’t otherwise afford. Remember the debts and interest being paid by the club is for the purchase of their personal shares in the club, I stupidly used my own money when I bought mine, what was I thinking? The strategy of player trading is fine upon relegation as long as we have player assets that can meet our commitments. The issue I have is ALK are showing no sign of paying down the debt unless forced to do do presumably written into the terms of the loan. Is there any factual evidence of ALK’s exit strategy either in the event BFC is no longer seen as a vehicle to generate profit for themselves or when they decide they need to get out? Does anyone have any proof that they will repay any of the money they owe the football club?

What factual evidence would you be looking for, exactly?

And of course, there cannot be any ‘proof’ to your second question, as it hasn’t happened, and no one is involved in ALK’s boardroom meetings (I’ve probably just answered my own question back to you, for you). What we can speculate upon is how it could happen, given other clubs / other business examples - the most likely scenario being it gets repaid, as the new buyers don’t want these liabilities hanging around, so it’s factored into the sale price or paid from sale proceeds.

Any reasonable conversation on debt, also includes a discussion on assets.

And is this an update, or everything we already know and have discussed to death?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:46 pm

Any reasonable conversation on debt, also includes a discussion on assets.

And is this an update, or everything we already know and have discussed to death?

No update.

It's obviously not an update, it's just a narrative view of the accounts through to 31 July 2024. It's all fine, although less informative than the accounts as they've picked what they think is relevant and excluded other interesting bits..

It is a decently written article to be fair, and it's quite thought-provoking.

As an aside, I'm not sure there's any need for hostility towards someone for saying we'd be in real financial difficulty without at least being a yo-yo club.

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:26 pm

On the face of it the ALK strategy of using debt, with the repayments, large interest payments and ALL the risk lumped on the club not ALK, is absolutely a great way to buy something you can’t otherwise afford. Remember the debts and interest being paid by the club is for the purchase of their personal shares in the club, I stupidly used my own money when I bought mine, what was I thinking? The strategy of player trading is fine upon relegation as long as we have player assets that can meet our commitments. The issue I have is ALK are showing no sign of paying down the debt unless forced to do do presumably written into the terms of the loan. Is there any factual evidence of ALK’s exit strategy either in the event BFC is no longer seen as a vehicle to generate profit for themselves or when they decide they need to get out? Does anyone have any proof that they will repay any of the money they owe the football club?

They repaid about £30m in last year's accounts, it still stands at about £100m at 31/07/24 though.

taio wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:50 pm

It is a decently written article to be fair, and it's quite thought-provoking.

As an aside, I'm not sure there's any need for hostility towards someone for saying we'd be in real financial difficulty without at least being a yo-yo club.

Hostility

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:26 pm

On the face of it the ALK strategy of using debt, with the repayments, large interest payments and ALL the risk lumped on the club not ALK, is absolutely a great way to buy something you can’t otherwise afford. Remember the debts and interest being paid by the club is for the purchase of their personal shares in the club, I stupidly used my own money when I bought mine, what was I thinking? The strategy of player trading is fine upon relegation as long as we have player assets that can meet our commitments.

The most common sense post about the takeover I've read.

A leveraged buyout is the most sensible way to buy anything in business, otherwise its like paying for your home in full without a mortgage, but others on here would have you believe its the devil.

Is there any factual evidence of ALK’s exit strategy either in the event BFC is no longer seen as a vehicle to generate profit for themselves or when they decide they need to get out? Does anyone have any proof that they will repay any of the money they owe the football club?

This is a very valid point and one which could/should be asked by the newly formed group (sorry their name currently eludes me)

It could be quite simple that in the initial propoposal that this is part of the deal drawn up, and I'm sure Mr Garlick would ask for something along those lines to be written in.

The question should be asked, not least because that would stop virtually all of the speculative negative narrative on the subject.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:45 pm

What factual evidence would you be looking for, exactly?

And of course, there cannot be any ‘proof’ to your second question, as it hasn’t happened, and no one is involved in ALK’s boardroom meetings (I’ve probably just answered my own question back to you, for you). What we can speculate upon is how it could happen, given other clubs / other business examples - the most likely scenario being it gets repaid, as the new buyers don’t want these liabilities hanging around, so it’s factored into the sale price or paid from sale proceeds.

And that’s where I have the problem with their model. In the event we are relegated and do not return to the EPL whilst we still receive parachute payments, do you think that the assets will cover the debts? I don’t know and that’s what concerns me. Do you think that ALK will find other funding to clear the debts? Who will they be able to sell a debt ridden club to with, by that time a squad that will be Mid table Championship standard? Could we be the next Bury or Morecambe or Southend or Scunthorpe saddled with ‘wrong un’ owners who are looking to exploit the financial situation? As you say I don’t know the answers to any of these questions but that is why I’m concerned .

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:45 pm

What factual evidence would you be looking for, exactly?

And of course, there cannot be any ‘proof’ to your second question, as it hasn’t happened, and no one is involved in ALK’s boardroom meetings (I’ve probably just answered my own question back to you, for you). What we can speculate upon is how it could happen, given other clubs / other business examples - the most likely scenario being it gets repaid, as the new buyers don’t want these liabilities hanging around, so it’s factored into the sale price or paid from sale proceeds.

That's fine as long as the club can has in inherent value of well over £100m. If, however, the club gets relegated and does not get promoted in 2 years and the parachute money ceases and the best players have been sold, there is no way that a club over £100m in debt in the Championship would be worth that. What's the speculation then? If ALK don't repay that £100m or so, then the club is bankrupt.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:46 pm

Any reasonable conversation on debt, also includes a discussion on assets.

And is this an update, or everything we already know and have discussed to death?

Only in the nightmare scenario where we have to sell a lot of players because we've lost parachute money as opposed to a discussion about investing in the squad. Other than that we should be improving the quality of the squad and therefore the playing assets are not a significant factor.

We only have a few more weeks - let's see where we get to. If we keep Esteve and Trafford and add a quality midfielder and striker to the squad few will have cause for complaint....!

There is that old saying, if you owe the bank 10m, you're in trouble, if you owe the bank 100m the bank is in trouble.....

Maybe we are just playing the game as it is, even if its far from how we would like?

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:04 pm

And that’s where I have the problem with their model. In the event we are relegated and do not return to the EPL whilst we still receive parachute payments, do you think that the assets will cover the debts? I don’t know and that’s what concerns me. Do you think that ALK will find other funding to clear the debts? Who will they be able to sell a debt ridden club to with, by that time a squad that will be Mid table Championship standard? Could we be the next Bury or Morecambe or Southend or Scunthorpe saddled with ‘wrong un’ owners who are looking to exploit the financial situation? As you say I don’t know the answers to any of these questions but that is why I’m concerned .

How ‘debt ridden’ would the club be? I’d imagine the forced repayments in the Championship, along with their prudent debt management, would align assets with debt. If CP is correct and last seasons (Champ) debt was around £70m, I’d imagine they’d be forced to halve that again this season (imagining we didn’t go up) to £35m, the same could apply the following year. So at that point you might be looking at sub £20m. Obviously a key risk is their player trading model and developing youth doesn’t work, but this is why they’ve invested in lots of young players, Cat 1 academy, modern technologies (Mud Analytics) & heavily staff within recruitment, to try and ensure it continues to work, regardless of league. I don’t believe we are anything like those clubs you mention.

It’s a very typical American business model Borrow against the business not the owners but reward the owners when possible. We are now no different to many other pro sports teams around the world I can guarantee that the owners will not loss money overall even if their plan fails Only time will tell

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:16 pm

It's an emotive subject but it someone wants an idea of what we know of the debt on Pages 29 and 30 of the audited accounts you have a list of what is owed to us and what we owe to others, which include trading debt as well as bank debt.

If you exclude the money ALK took out of the club; the bank and trading debts are considerably more than £100 million. But don't take my word for it.

Obviously excluding a £100m asset is going to make things look a lot worse.

I can see why you think it's appropriate but on the other hand £30m of it was paid back last year and the auditors have not yet seen fit to impair it so I'd be wary of that approach.

It all works, until it doesn't work and that has been my concern since we were first 'bought' in the manner that we were. Whilst we continue to make it back to (or, hopefully this time, remain in) the Premier League we are absolutely fine. Likewise, whilst we continue to get relegated and have strong player assets to trade in and pay off the debt repayments whilst also sustaining a promotion challenge with the change we are absolutely fine.

The armageddon scenario that I don't see a way around is we get relegated, don't manage to get up within two seasons, and no longer have players like Odobert, Trafford, Esteve etc that are worth 3 or 4 times what we paid for them. It's why it does remain critical that we bring in this type of player (Tchouna, Humphreys, Weiss as examples this summer) whilst trying to find experience to support them. Unfortunately, the club has gotten quite a few of it's marquee signings that they probably expected to make big profits on wrong (Amdouni, Beyer - though obviously not his fault - and Tresor are the obvious ones here, but even smaller punts like Churlinov, Sambo, Hountondji, Obafemi etc have cost millions in salary and/or transfer fee with likely no return whatsoever) which increases the pressure on the next batch, along with Ramsey on his return. The moment we are in the Championship without promotion and have nothing to sell I don't see a way around for us.

I try to be sanguine about that eventuality as whilst it feels, to me, probably an inevitability one day (such is the difficulty of staying in this league long term for a club like us), it's utterly outside of our control. It's why it feels important to me that fans groups exist to hold the club to account with both the current owners, and possibly whatever comes next in terms of custodians. Everyone supports the club and wants it's long term future to be assured, but at the same time it is right and fair to be analytical of the clubs health and expect accountability and transparency from the ownership.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:50 pm

They repaid about £30m in last year's accounts, it still stands at about £100m at 31/07/24 though.

there is more to it than it being a repayment - and £30m is quite the rounding up

from the takeover thread

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Sat May 17, 2025 12:47 pm

....the last accounts clearly state that Velocity repaid £26.519m of the loans it had taken from the club

What is not stated is why this payment was made - there were obvious cash flow pressures, but what most do not realise is that while there are allowable losses under PL and EFL rules, a very significant proportion of them have to be made up from cash injections from ownership groups - that is what these monies may actually be for, though it is not certain.

It also remains open at some future date for Velocity to loan this money back from the club again, if they find a need to enable their other activities....

The precise nature of the sum returned (£26.215m) would suggest that this is the reason the repayment was made - to be clear while:
- The EFL allow up to £13m of losses a season (in the 3 year aggregate) anything over £3m of losses must be made up by Owner funds
- The Premier League allow up to £35m of losses a season (in the 3 year aggregate) anything over £5m of losses must be made up by Owner funds

while a loan repayment appears to be a questionable way to be allowed to do this, the powers that be are a little strange in what they allow, for instance Manchester United once covered such a deficit with an overdraft extension. The one thing owners cannot do is have the club take out a loan to cover the deficit.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:12 pm

How ‘debt ridden’ would the club be? I’d imagine the forced repayments in the Championship, along with their prudent debt management, would align assets with debt. If CP is correct and last seasons (Champ) debt was around £70m, I’d imagine they’d be forced to halve that again this season (imagining we didn’t go up) to £35m, the same could apply the following year. So at that point you might be looking at sub £20m. Obviously a key risk is their player trading model and developing youth doesn’t work, but this is why they’ve invested in lots of young players, Cat 1 academy, modern technologies (Mud Analytics) & heavily staff within recruitment, to try and ensure it continues to work, regardless of league. I don’t believe we are anything like those clubs you mention.

I genuinely hope you are correct RVClaret and I’m worrying over nothing. The one thing I think we can all agree on is that the club clearly means an awful lot to us all otherwise we wouldn’t all be discussing it. I hate the idea that my football club that has been a huge part of my life for over 50 years and one that has taken over 140 years to develop a culture and passion for us all is seen as a money making vehicle to be exploited for the personal gain of a few. I know this is the way of many sports now but I find it depressing we are in this situation. I cannot get past the thought that if the proverbial hits the fan ALK will disappear over the hill with whatever they can. Don’t get me started on MCO’s and the impending ‘purchase’ of Espanyol!

dsr wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:10 pm

That's fine as long as the club can has in inherent value of well over £100m. If, however, the club gets relegated and does not get promoted in 2 years and the parachute money ceases and the best players have been sold, there is no way that a club over £100m in debt in the Championship would be worth that. What's the speculation then? If ALK don't repay that £100m or so, then the club is bankrupt.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that re bankrupt. Presumably by that point, the third party debt would have been reduced significantly, if not almost completely, so the £100m receivable on the balance sheet would not be ‘needed’ to balance against the (heavily reduced) liabilities, as the clubs net asset position would have improved (or not moved). Therefore the £100m would be less critical for solvency.

But yes, then the new buyer would want to see how ALK/Velocity can settle that balance, or partially, if they can from the groups assets, or they’d have to accept a significant discount, and it wouldn’t be (all) paid back.

Can somebody confirm that being promoted to the Premier League is a good thing - because I'm reading more negativity than I read when we got relegated

Orangebernard wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:33 pm

I hate the idea that my football club that has been a huge part of my life for over 50 years and one that has taken over 140 years to develop a culture and passion for us all is seen as a money making vehicle to be exploited for the personal gain of a few.

The thing is, it definitely has. The upside for BFC fans is that for the few to personally gain, the club needs to be relatively successful. So I’m sure it’s the owner’s intention that everyone gains out of this. The big concern is that the owners are taking this gamble without putting down a significant stake of their own, so if they fail the owners don’t lose, but the club does.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:31 pm

there is more to it than it being a repayment - and £30m is quite the rounding up

from the takeover thread


The precise nature of the sum returned (£26.215m) would suggest that this is the reason the repayment was made - to be clear while:
- The EFL allow up to £13m of losses a season (in the 3 year aggregate) anything over £3m of losses must be made up by Owner funds
- The Premier League allow up to £35m of losses a season (in the 3 year aggregate) anything over £5m of losses must be made up by Owner funds

while a loan repayment appears to be a questionable way to be allowed to do this, the powers that be are a little strange in what they allow, for instance Manchester United once covered such a deficit with an overdraft extension. The one thing owners cannot do is have the club take out a loan to cover the deficit.

typo!!

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 21, 2025 12:45 pm

I don't know about other people, but cards on the table, i try not to stress myself worrying about things i have no control over.....

Exactly this.
Our woes in 1987 nearly threw me over the edge health wise and I have vowed it will never happen again. Past and present owners of the club don't really give any real thought to the fans, they are or were only in it for themselves.
We, of course,will be left to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong....