Confirmed yesterday with Alan Pace as their new chairman.


“Football has always belonged to its people,” said Alan Pace, Managing Partner of ALK Capital and Chairman of Burnley FC. “Our role is not to replace legacy, but to build upon it, with care, with clarity, and with purpose.

“This is not about ownership; it’s about stewardship. Burnley will remain Burnley. Espanyol will remain Espanyol. Each club will retain its own leadership, identity, independence and decision-making, run by its own people, for its own supporters.”


https://alkcapital.com/2025/10/velocity ... barcelona/

What does he mean by “run by its own people”. Who runs Burnley FC - I thought it was Alan Pace?

Hopefully J.J. Watt doesn't get his attire mixed up when he watches us play at home, and wears an Espanyol scarf by mistake.

No doubt easily done

Koleosho’s wages are being paid in full and there is also a penalty they have to pay Burnley if he doesn’t play a minimum number of games (or minutes). Based on the season so far we could be quids in !

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:22 am

Confirmed yesterday with Alan Pace as their new chairman.


“Football has always belonged to its people,” said Alan Pace, Managing Partner of ALK Capital and Chairman of Burnley FC. “Our role is not to replace legacy, but to build upon it, with care, with clarity, and with purpose.

“This is not about ownership; it’s about stewardship. Burnley will remain Burnley. Espanyol will remain Espanyol. Each club will retain its own leadership, identity, independence and decision-making, run by its own people, for its own supporters.”


https://alkcapital.com/2025/10/velocity ... barcelona/

It's heartwarming stuff.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 10:51 am

Koleosho’s wages are being paid in full and there is also a penalty they have to pay Burnley if he doesn’t play a minimum number of games (or minutes). Based on the season so far we could be quids in !

That's fine, but I think we'd be better off with him here.

Winstonswhite wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:46 am

What does he mean by “run by its own people”. Who runs Burnley FC - I thought it was Alan Pace?

He does and with his own people in the main - there are certainly very few people left who were there when he took over.

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 11:03 am

That's fine, but I think we'd be better off with him here.

Bizarre we signed Brunn Larsen and loaned out Luca. I thought Luca towards the end of the season showed signs of full recovery from his year long injury.

Is JJ Watt part of the Espanyol takeover or is he solely involved with us?

We were ready to sign Bruno Larsen at the start of transfer window but the deal was delayed for a couple of months because of an issue with his agent and contract where he was changing agent. The decision to loan Luca out must have been made I guess knowing JBL was on his way.

I agree that I thought Luca would have been better staying here and developing and giving us the option of pace. Don’t think we needed JBL and think he’s looked poor so far this season (though it’s still of course very early days)

Dark Cloud wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 11:48 am

Is JJ Watt part of the Espanyol takeover or is he solely involved with us?

He was out there a few weeks ago

Dark Cloud wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 11:48 am

Is JJ Watt part of the Espanyol takeover or is he solely involved with us?

https://x.com/PatMcAfeeShow/status/1975966992118264248

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 11:57 am

We were ready to sign Bruno Larsen at the start of transfer window but the deal was delayed for a couple of months because of an issue with his agent and contract where he was changing agent. The decision to loan Luca out must have been made I guess knowing JBL was on his way.

I agree that I thought Luca would have been better staying here and developing and giving us the option of pace. Don’t think we needed JBL and think he’s looked poor so far this season (though it’s still of course very early days)

He had a decent spell and scored a few goals for us last time he was with us but I still wasnt convinced he would be a great signing, I wouldnt say I was dissapointed to see him go elsewhere.
I'll support him fully but I'm not sure he will have the same impact this time.
All opinions though and probably harsh to write him off

Alan Pace must be in clover. He's gone from being a divisional Sales Director in an investment bank to owning two European football clubs in the PL and La Liga - one of them in the City of Barcelona and as far as anyone can tell he probably hasn't spent a whole load of his own money. Not a bad way to end your career.

It's a variant of what Marxists would call Rentier capitalism. You buy assets based upon debt and then leverage more debt to benefit from a monopoly market like the Premier League without ever really producing anything or even increasing the commercial revenue of the asset. And the debt bares no relation to the value of the asset external to the monopoly market it resides within...!

The economy of the UK is dying on its *rse because of this kind of capitalism but best of luck to Alan Pace: I wish I'd have thought of it.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 11:58 am

He was out there a few weeks ago

JJWatt team do you support was in Spain with an Espanyol scarf and later in front of his TV drinking Ings from one of their cups

More clubs than Rory McIlroy me thinks

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:09 pm

Alan Pace must be in clover. He's gone from being a divisional Sales Director in an investment bank to owning two European football clubs in the PL and La Liga - one of them in the City of Barcelona and as far as anyone can tell he probably hasn't spent a whole load of his own money. Not a bad way to end your career.

It's a variant of what Marxists would call Rentier capitalism. You buy assets based upon debt and then leverage more debt to benefit from a monopoly market like the Premier League without ever really producing anything or even increasing the commercial revenue of the asset. And the debt bares no relation to the value of the asset external to the monopoly market it resides within...!

The economy of the UK is dying on its *rse because of this kind of capitalism but best of luck to Alan Pace: I wish I'd have thought of it.

"Global Head of...." is how Alan Pace reports his job title while at Citibank. Yes, agree, it was only one division of Citi, but it's not "too shabby."

Many may argue that Premier League football is bringing a lot of investment into the UK. All the well paid Premier League footballers pay a lot of tax to HMRC even though HMRC has to chase for some of the taxes due, (see my recent post on MMT thread).

Congratulations, Alan Pace, ALK Capital and all the investors in Velocity Sports Partners.

UTC

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 10:51 am

Koleosho’s wages are being paid in full and there is also a penalty they have to pay Burnley if he doesn’t play a minimum number of games (or minutes). Based on the season so far we could be quids in !

Is that a loophole we can exploit to technically pay ourselves. Can that money then be used against PSR? Not that I'm suggesting that's what we are doing.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:09 pm

Alan Pace must be in clover. He's gone from being a divisional Sales Director in an investment bank to owning two European football clubs in the PL and La Liga - one of them in the City of Barcelona and as far as anyone can tell he probably hasn't spent a whole load of his own money. Not a bad way to end your career.

It's a variant of what Marxists would call Rentier capitalism. You buy assets based upon debt and then leverage more debt to benefit from a monopoly market like the Premier League without ever really producing anything or even increasing the commercial revenue of the asset. And the debt bares no relation to the value of the asset external to the monopoly market it resides within...!

The economy of the UK is dying on its *rse because of this kind of capitalism but best of luck to Alan Pace: I wish I'd have thought of it.

Spot on. This all works if you stay in the top tier, or yo-yo like we do. But, if you do not win football matches then you could quite easily turn into Sheff Weds. They are chancers, with zero risk to them and a lot of risk to our club. We have got away with it so far.

Vim Fuego wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:13 pm

Spot on. This all works if you stay in the top tier, or yo-yo like we do. But, if you do not win football matches then you could quite easily turn into Sheff Weds. They are chancers, with zero risk to them and a lot of risk to our club. We have got away with it so far.

Are Sheff weds part of a multi ownership group?

Conroy92 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:54 pm

Is that a loophole we can exploit to technically pay ourselves. Can that money then be used against PSR? Not that I'm suggesting that's what we are doing.

The general point with PSR is that you have to be profitable (or not too loss making). Pretty sure that loaning players out helps profitability both in reduction of cost of wages, plus potential receipt of fees, which has got to be one major attractions of MCO for ALK.

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 11:03 am

That's fine, but I think we'd be better off with him here.

So he can keep Tresor company at the weekends?

We lack creativity big style. Yet we own Tresor, Ramsey, Kolo, the injured Amdouni and we don't put Edwards on even for 20 minutes when losing. Really struggling to see how we can win games atm.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 4:08 pm

"Global Head of...." is how Alan Pace reports his job title while at Citibank. Yes, agree, it was only one division of Citi, but it's not "too shabby."

Many may argue that Premier League football is bringing a lot of investment into the UK. All the well paid Premier League footballers pay a lot of tax to HMRC even though HMRC has to chase for some of the taxes due, (see my recent post on MMT thread).

Congratulations, Alan Pace, ALK Capital and all the investors in Velocity Sports Partners.

UTC

I know how much you love AI Paul so I consulted AI as to whether the club is a Rentier in a closed cartel.

Yes, in an economic sense, Burnley FC is a rentier within the Premier League cartel.

The club extracts a massive income that is completely out of proportion to its individual commercial drawing power. In reality, only Burnley fans buy broadcast rights to watch Burnley and that is the precise reason why the rentier term applies.

Here is the breakdown of why this is the case:

The Premier League as a Rent-Generating Cartel

A rentier is an entity that derives a significant portion of its income from the mere ownership or control of a scarce asset, rather than from productive labour, innovation, or risk-taking that creates the underlying value.

The Premier League's scarce asset is its monopoly status as the world's most popular football league. This allows it to charge a huge "monopoly price"—or economic rent—to global broadcasters.

The "rentier" status of Burnley is demonstrated by two key facts:

1. Extreme Reliance on Broadcast Income
Smaller clubs like Burnley depend overwhelmingly on the central pool of TV money to fund their operations.

In the 2023/24 season (their most recent in the Premier League), Burnley's broadcast income totalled £111 million, accounting for an astonishing 83% of their overall turnover.

In contrast, their Matchday revenue was only £8.8 million.

This shows that the club's financial viability is almost entirely tied to the collective broadcasting deal that the league (the cartel) negotiates, not the fans who pay to watch them play live at Turf Moor, or even a large individual commercial appeal.

2. Receiving the Equal Share of the Global Rent

The value of the PL's global broadcast deal is primarily driven by the "Big Six" clubs, whose brand and players attract the massive international subscriptions.

The Premier League pools the colossal global TV revenue (which now exceeds domestic revenue).

This money is distributed to all 20 member clubs, with the vast majority given out as an Equal Share.

Burnley receives a share of this global rent just for being a shareholder in the company (the Premier League) that owns the monopoly license. This equal share is a windfall that smaller clubs did not individually earn but are entitled to simply by virtue of being a part of the exclusive club.

In summary, Burnley's primary revenue stream is derived not from its own productive market activity (selling tickets, individual sponsorship deals, etc.), but from its ownership of a seat in the most lucrative sporting cartel on the planet. This structural reliance on unearned, centrally distributed monopoly income makes the club a classic rentier entity.

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:47 pm

We lack creativity big style. Yet we own Tresor, Ramsey, Kolo, the injured Amdouni and we don't put Edwards on even for 20 minutes when losing. Really struggling to see how we can win games atm.

Indeed. That is my view too. But the takeover is nothing to do with any of them not playing for us - it will be the manager’s choice, probably due to a lack of both physical power and defensive proficiency (none of that list have either).

Whether circumstance forces Parker to have a rethink, and whether he regrets that players like Koleosho and Ramsey are loaned out, well we will see, hopefully not. And if he does, with luck Edwards and Tresor will be a sufficient plan B without worrying about the loan players.

Conroy92 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:54 pm

Is that a loophole we can exploit to technically pay ourselves. Can that money then be used against PSR? Not that I'm suggesting that's what we are doing.

I don’t know the amounts involved but I doubt it’s been done for any other reason than the players development. And if he’s not playing he’s probably not developing. The nature of the loan contract I mentioned though is factual

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:47 pm

We lack creativity big style. Yet we own Tresor, Ramsey, Kolo, the injured Amdouni and we don't put Edwards on even for 20 minutes when losing. Really struggling to see how we can win games atm.

My view too. Annoying isn't it.

Whose money did he use this time?

un club local para gente local

Vim Fuego wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:13 pm

Spot on. This all works if you stay in the top tier, or yo-yo like we do. But, if you do not win football matches then you could quite easily turn into Sheff Weds. They are chancers, with zero risk to them and a lot of risk to our club. We have got away with it so far.

BINGO

Since Alan Pace used Burnley's money to buy the club then how come I can't go into a Ferrari garage and buy a car using their money?

Spijed wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 10, 2025 9:47 am

Since Alan Pace used Burnley's money to buy the club then how come I can't go into a Ferrari garage and buy a car using their money?

Not sure thats true... Im sure some of the money people on there would be able to confirm that though?

Spijed wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 10, 2025 9:47 am

Since Alan Pace used Burnley's money to buy the club then how come I can't go into a Ferrari garage and buy a car using their money?

I guess if you bought the Ferrari garage and there was money in the garage's bank account that you didn't need to run the business then you could do exactly what you say. But, how much would you have needed to pay to buy the Ferrari garage? My guess is a great deal more than the price of one Ferrari.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:55 pm

I know how much you love AI Paul so I consulted AI as to whether the club is a Rentier in a closed cartel.

Yes, in an economic sense, Burnley FC is a rentier within the Premier League cartel.

The club extracts a massive income that is completely out of proportion to its individual commercial drawing power. In reality, only Burnley fans buy broadcast rights to watch Burnley and that is the precise reason why the rentier term applies.

Here is the breakdown of why this is the case:

The Premier League as a Rent-Generating Cartel

A rentier is an entity that derives a significant portion of its income from the mere ownership or control of a scarce asset, rather than from productive labour, innovation, or risk-taking that creates the underlying value.

The Premier League's scarce asset is its monopoly status as the world's most popular football league. This allows it to charge a huge "monopoly price"—or economic rent—to global broadcasters.

The "rentier" status of Burnley is demonstrated by two key facts:

1. Extreme Reliance on Broadcast Income
Smaller clubs like Burnley depend overwhelmingly on the central pool of TV money to fund their operations.

In the 2023/24 season (their most recent in the Premier League), Burnley's broadcast income totalled £111 million, accounting for an astonishing 83% of their overall turnover.

In contrast, their Matchday revenue was only £8.8 million.

This shows that the club's financial viability is almost entirely tied to the collective broadcasting deal that the league (the cartel) negotiates, not the fans who pay to watch them play live at Turf Moor, or even a large individual commercial appeal.

2. Receiving the Equal Share of the Global Rent

The value of the PL's global broadcast deal is primarily driven by the "Big Six" clubs, whose brand and players attract the massive international subscriptions.

The Premier League pools the colossal global TV revenue (which now exceeds domestic revenue).

This money is distributed to all 20 member clubs, with the vast majority given out as an Equal Share.

Burnley receives a share of this global rent just for being a shareholder in the company (the Premier League) that owns the monopoly license. This equal share is a windfall that smaller clubs did not individually earn but are entitled to simply by virtue of being a part of the exclusive club.

In summary, Burnley's primary revenue stream is derived not from its own productive market activity (selling tickets, individual sponsorship deals, etc.), but from its ownership of a seat in the most lucrative sporting cartel on the planet. This structural reliance on unearned, centrally distributed monopoly income makes the club a classic rentier entity.

Hi Pete, I guess you prompted your AI by asking "is BFC a rentier in a closed cartel" to get the response you've quoted. All your quote does is demonstrate that your AI isn't very intelligent.

1) The Premier League is not a "closed cartel." Look up the meaning of the term if you want to know what "closed cartel" means.

2) Rentier - every weekend we get the chance to see how hard the BFC team has to work to play football. Last season we saw the club gain promotion from the Championship, 100 points isn't a weekend "stroll in the park." This season we are all cheering the team on to be in the Premier League again next season. Of course, it's no sure thing.

3) It appears your AI doesn't know a great deal about the town of Burnley or the capacity of Turf Moor. I guess we'd all judge the capacity of Turf Moor has a relationship to the town. Nor, does your AI appear to know much about the history of BFC. The club's match day income is impacted by the town of Burnley. Similarly, the club's individual commercial appeal.

I'd mark an AI that provided the analysis that you quote above F for fail. (The same would apply to any economics student that submitted an essay of the same standard). Must try harder.

UTC

Row x wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:57 pm

Are Sheff weds part of a multi ownership group?

Is that an actual question Alan (or Nori) or are you just being silly or deflective of the point being made ?