ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[NewClaret]

I think whoever takes over should give him a chunk of the equity - it’s the best way to ensure the interests of board and manager are fully aligned.

Absolutely, scouseclaret.

Does make me wonder if the Kettering company has been set up to do exactly that. It would make sense.

A theory:

I don’t buy that Dyche has no idea what’s going on. I wonder, given ALK’s history with Sheffield United, and Dyche’s well-documented friendship with Wilder, whether he was involved in introducing ALK to Garlick. ALK clearly hold SD in high regard and perhaps that’s why. That would also explain reports on the Board being told not to tell Dyche what’s happening (since there’s a potential clear conflict there).

That may also explain why Dyche/Garlick’s relationship has deteriorated, if Dyche feels Garlick is delaying/blocking a sale to ALK or messing them around with the other bid (who Garlick may prefer because they’re offering him a role).

[scouseclaret]

Absolutely, scouseclaret.

Does make me wonder if the Kettering company has been set up to do exactly that. It would make sense.

It would - never thought of that.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don’t think the board of directors are the main reason though are they.

They conducted the interview process, they selected the manager, they've supported the manager through relegation when other clubs get twitchy and fire theirs, they've supported every decision and signing he's asked for in the main and provided the funding for players and a modern training facility etc and have ensured the club is usually on a sound enough financial footing instead of quicksand like many clubs are.

I wouldn't say their input has been negligible either but as I said some people will say it's all down to the manager and no one else.

[Sutton-Claret]

Mohamed El Kashashy (left) and Chris Farnell........ or it could be Alan Partridge

takeover.JPG (49.12 KiB) Viewed 4956 times

[NewClaret]

I don’t think the board of directors are the main reason though are they.

To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever read a post on here suggesting the Board haven’t played a role in our more recent success. And I think generally the fans are extremely supportive of our Chairman/Board.

The issue is that our Chairman has openly been seeking external investment for a number of years. He either wants out or at least financial support as he recognises he doesn’t have the wealth to support a PL club.

On balance, I’d prefer we kept our existing ownership structure but only if we could compete in the transfer windows by spending £10-£20m per window, alongside big sales when players are ready. Since we seem unable to do that at the moment, I think we need some. Not convinced either of the known choices are the right answer, but ALK seem the better of the two from what we know.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

As far as conspiracies go that is ridiculous.

Why would I as a company owner give any equity in my business, to an employee, who is paid a remuneration for their work?

[NewClaret]

As far as conspiracies go that is ridiculous.

Why would I as a company owner give any equity in my business, to an employee, who is paid a remuneration for their work?

Well the PE house that owns my company have given all their leadership team equity. It’s very common for a PE house to give equity.

[Socrates]

As far as conspiracies go that is ridiculous.

Why would I as a company owner give any equity in my business, to an employee, who is paid a remuneration for their work?

I got given equity in a business when I was just a salaried employee.

I’m surprised you’re surprised at this. It’s very, very common.

[scouseclaret]

As far as conspiracies go that is ridiculous.

Why would I as a company owner give any equity in my business, to an employee, who is paid a remuneration for their work?

It’s a thought, not a conspiracy theory, and it happens everywhere, all the time, from private equity to the largest PLCs.

[SammyBoy]

I got given equity in a business when I was just a salaried employee.

I’m surprised you’re surprised at this. It’s very, very common.

I guess it depends on the situation, however from personal experience with the business owners I've worked for it'd be a cold day in hell before any of them gave up even one percent of their company.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

I got given equity in a business when I was just a salaried employee.

I’m surprised you’re surprised at this. It’s very, very common.

I’m not surprised, at all. Yet, I thought the context to this conversation and the premise of this message board is football.

[TheFamilyCat]

I just figured you’d tell em we’re surfing on Albert Hoffman’s bike?

Driving my Steamroller. Not really surfing weather.

[NewClaret]

I guess it depends on the situation, however from personal experience with the business owners I've worked for it'd be a cold day in hell before any of them gave up even one percent of their company.

It is very common at Executive level.

What will typically happen is that the Exec in question won’t be given shares for free - they’ll have to “buy in”. But someone like Dyche will have several £m in the bank, so that won’t be an issue.

They buy in because there’s tax benefits of doing so. Typically the shares they buy will be heavily discounted. Then they “vest” over a period of time, meaning the shares get released to you over your tenure.

If you leave before the next sale, vested shares get bought back at the going rate based on the company value at that time, and unvested shares are bought back at the original price you paid.

But what you’re really doing is waiting for the next sale, at which point all your chips get cashed in - hopefully at a massively increased value if you’ve all done your jobs properly.

[Chester Perry]

In football, because of it's transient nature, equity is usually only given to executive staff not football staff (both Daniel Levey and Ed Woodward have it), and that has mostly been introduced by foreign investors. Stories of managers bringing investors onboard and looking for equity stakes makes you think of Sam Allardyce, Harry Redknapp or for older heads Malcolm Allison and George Graham etc. wide boys and chancers - that is not what I would expect of Sean Dyche. Though it was suggested that Sir Alex Ferguson (who Dyche seems to ape a lot) tried for the same with his Irish racing contacts at Manchester United - they sold him short on a number of fronts though.

I will say that there are different kinds of owners entering the game and such deals are not impossible though a little strange given the different employment model and termination protocols/liabilities for football staff.

[Steddyman]

They conducted the interview process, they selected the manager, they've supported the manager through relegation when other clubs get twitchy and fire theirs, they've supported every decision and signing he's asked for in the main and provided the funding for players and a modern training facility etc and have ensured the club is usually on a sound enough financial footing instead of quicksand like many clubs are.

I wouldn't say their input has been negligible either but as I said some people will say it's all down to the manager and no one else.

And would they have done all those things if we had appointed a different manager? I think not.

A lot of the recent investment in the training ground and facilities as come about because of Sean's vision, not Mike's.

[Chester Perry]

off topic and posted on the MMT thread - apparently Derby County are in takeover talks with parties from Abu Dhabi - they hate Leeds too (if you believe the middle east stand-off is being played out as a proxy war in English football)


https://theathletic.com/news/derby-newc ... JQROiLw7Cn

Exclusive: Sheikh Khaled turns attention from Newcastle takeover to Derby
30 October 2020Updated 11:21 GMT

A senior member of the Abu Dhabi royal family who recently failed with high-profile bids for Liverpool and Newcastle United is interested in a Derby County takeover, Matt Slater can reveal.

Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nehayan, 62, is the cousin of Manchester City's owner Sheikh Mansour and owns the Bin Zayed Group, a Dubai-based conglomerate.

Current owner Mel Morris bought Derby in 2015 but The Athletic understands he has been trying to sell at least a significant chunk of the club since last season.

When did Sheikh Khaled become interested in Derby?
Last month, Derventio Holdings (UK) Limited was registered at Companies House, the UK's registrar of companies, with three directors: Bin Zayed Group managing director Midhat Kamil Kidwai and two Swiss-based British entrepreneurs, Andrew Obolensky and Christopher Samuelson. Sheikh Khaled is listed as a "person with significant control".

Derventio was a Roman town that grew to become the modern city of Derby and representatives of the new company are understood to have attended Derby's recent home against Watford.

What experience do the group have?
Sheikh Khaled was unsuccessful with a bid for Liverpool in 2018 that was worth a reported £2 billion and an offer of £350 million for Newcastle in 2019.

Samuelson is no stranger to English football, having been involved in Russian businessman Anton Zingarevich's takeover of Reading in 2012 and the 2016 purchase of Aston Villa by a Chinese consortium led by Tony Xia.

The 74-year-old Englishman was also behind a failed investment in Everton in 2004 and an unsuccessful bid for Bristol Rovers in 2015.

What is the current situation?
Derby's current owner Morris bought the Championship side from Andy Appleby's American Partners group in 2015 but has been trying to sell at least a significant chunk of the club for at least a year, with Swiss financier Henry Gabay and Foster Gillett, the son of former Liverpool co-owner George Gillett, among those interested in the club.

Having spent six seasons in the Premier League around the turn of new millennium, Derby have only spent one season in the top flight since 2002 and this season is their 13th in a row in the Championship. According to the most recent edition of The Sunday Times Rich List, Morris is worth more than £500 million, largely thanks to his central involvement in the company behind the Candy Crush computer game, but even his wealth has its limits.

Derby have haemorrhaged money in recent seasons, spending large sums on transfer fees and wages but falling short in the play-offs four times in the last six years. Last year, Morris sold the club's Pride Park stadium to another company he owns for £81 million - a transaction that enabled Derby to avoid a breach of the English Football League's profitability and sustainability rules.

Neither the Bin Zayed Group nor Samuelson have responded to requests for comment.

[Chester Perry]

Posted on the other thread.

Can anybody tell me which club Farnell has gone into as a stable well ran club and ruined them?

Depends on how you view his role at Swansea

I am also curious to understand why his tenure as a Director at Wigan was so brief - that was when the Whelan family still ran it - was there something they did not like about him?

[Paul Waine]

Not rich in premier league chairmen terms.
A reported worth of 65m, doubt even 10m will be visable in a bank.

If reports are to be believed, he could go to 165m overnight.
Best bit of business he ever has, or ever will do.

Fair play to him.

Hi Macca, are you suggesting the guys who assessed MG's wealth at £65m included his Burnley shares at £nil?

[cblantfanclub]

Question for Chester and those who have followed this.

I posted an article link from March 2018 in The Times saying an American and Middle eastern bid were being considered for £180 million. Is this the same people over 2 years on who are now finally moving into the end game of very long negotiations?

[Billy Balfour]

Farnell- do we need to take action now?

What futile gesture do you suggest?

There's zilch we can do about it, apart from a spot of online venting.

[MACCA]

Hi Macca, are you suggesting the guys who assessed MG's wealth at £65m included his Burnley shares at £nil?

It was in a paper in 2018, I very much doubt said paper knew what his shares were, and I am pretty certain they wouldn't have valued them at 100m.

[Chester Perry]

Question for Chester and those who have followed this.

I posted an article link from March 2018 in The Times saying an American and Middle eastern bid were being considered for £180 million. Is this the same people over 2 years on who are now finally moving into the end game of very long negotiations?

My guess - and it is a guess based on all the publicly available information - is yes it is the same people - both parties seem to be more than just tyre kickers

[Paul Waine]

It was in a paper in 2018, I very much doubt said paper knew what his shares were, and I am pretty certain they wouldn't have valued them at 100m.

I agree that they wouldn't have been valued at £100m. Did it say it placed any value on them? 50% (approx) of a Premier League football club must be worth something, even if they only "valued" at the amount he first paid for the shares, or the amount any fan would have been asked to pay for the shares at that time.

If Mike G has turned Burnley into a £200m football club he deserves every credit for what he's done over his period of owning the shares and leading the board. Similarly, John B. and the guys who have smaller shareholdings.

UTC

[redcloud203]

personally not enjoying watching football during the pandemic and believe it will not be as it was pre covid for a long long time . Do not blame the current board for cashing in on a depreciating asset ,

[Jakubclaret]

And would they have done all those things if we had appointed a different manager? I think not.

A lot of the recent investment in the training ground and facilities as come about because of Sean's vision, not Mike's.

Mike provided the platform & initial resources without that you've got diddly squat, both deserve credit.

[ClaretAL]

Good read...

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/wh ... -of-an-eye

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And would they have done all those things if we had appointed a different manager? I think not.

A lot of the recent investment in the training ground and facilities as come about because of Sean's vision, not Mike's.

Yes Dyche wanted that investment but he needed the board to ring fence the money.

It's been a joint effort since Dyche was here but some of you don't want to give the board any credit

[ClaretDiver]

I guess it depends on the situation, however from personal experience with the business owners I've worked for it'd be a cold day in hell before any of them gave up even one percent of their company.

I know of a local company, that, a number of years ago gifted their employees shares in the business based upon longevity of service....there were conditions attached but some of the longer serving employees came out with a large amount of equity....

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I got given equity in a business when I was just a salaried employee.

I’m surprised you’re surprised at this. It’s very, very common.

Is that like Vodafone giving employees shares in the business?

My mum has those, part of her pay rises and pension pay off, and cash's them in every so often when she wants some spending money, even though she left Vodafone a decade ago.

[ClaretTony]

I know of a local company, that, a number of years ago gifted their employees shares in the business based upon longevity of service....there were conditions attached but some of the longer serving employees came out with a large amount of equity....

I worked for ICI for a short time between 1989 and 1991. They gave share bonuses but you had to be there for a year before you got any. I got just a handful that then were duplicated with Astrazenica shares which I still have. Only worth about £3,000 but for people who worked there for years it proved to be a little nest egg.

[Chester Perry]

Good read...

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/wh ... -of-an-eye

The question of football club valuation is a complicated one - @KieranMaguire valued us at near £350m a few months back and almost £400m the year before. To most of us those numbers seemed high, but he has advised on club purchases in the past for buyers and has used the same technique (the Markham model - (you can read it and its justification here https://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp ... -paper.pdf)

There is no doubt Covid has played it's part, as will our likely reduced (probably substantially reduced) cash pile, the current and potentially future rebate profile together with an uncertain picture of future TV revenues and the questions hanging over the revenue distribution models of the English game (including the prospect of no parachute payments)

[Duffer_]

I would prefer the outgoing shareholders find a solution that puts a supporters voice (potentially in the form of a Trust) on the Board, rather than the incoming shareholders put a slug of equity in SD's hands.

[Chester Perry]

I would prefer the outgoing shareholders find a solution that puts a supporters voice (potentially in the form of a Trust) on the Board, rather than a slug of equity in SD's hands.

Supporter involvement is a difficult and much more complex matter than many think, you only have to look at this board to see just how many supporters react with volatile emotions when what a club really needs is a steady and somewhat hard headed approach. Then you also have to look at the quality of the supporters trust membership/leadership - When Burnley Supporters Trust started it just filled me with dread rather than hope because of who was involved and I have not been inclined to show any interest since as a result.

[Duffer_]

Supporter involvement is a difficult and much more complex matter than many think, you only have to look at this board to see just how many supporters react with volatile emotions when what a club really needs is a steady and somewhat hard headed approach. Then you also have to look at the quality of the supporters trust membership/leadership - When Burnley Supporters Trust started it just filled me with dread rather than hope because of who was involved and I have not been inclined to show any interest since as a result.

I think we have very different ideas on what it is to support a football club CP. I want to watch us play rather than consider the negative leverage on future viewing rights. I would prefer to see the opportunitues from having a supporters voice on the Board, rather than worry about the impact on the efficiency of the corporate decision making process. Each to their own though.

An accountable supporters Trust could provide a very effective check on unscrupulous behaviour and give fans the confidence to embrace change.

[CrosspoolClarets]

There seems all kinds of rumours and guesses flying around now, but my thoughts are very simple.

From a fan’s perspective, which more or less is all of us posting on here, I want three things - 1 - realistic ambition, 2 - stability and 3 - good quality facilities.

Currently we have only one of those three things. There is a lack of cash for ‘1’ and ‘3’.

Clearly the wrong owner would also put at risk ‘2’.

So we need the right owner with the ability to have sufficient cash in the club’s coffers for ambition on the field and better facilities off it.

Judging by some of the media reports about this takeover, I cannot say I am confident any of the three parties (including the incumbent) would deliver all three of those things. When buying a club for, say, £200m, if a cash injection of a significant amount is then planned, that person would need to be worth at least half a billion, or why would they risk it? I haven’t seen any indication these parties are worth that much.

An owner like Leicester - plenty of wealth and values stability - seems unlikely. So that makes me nervous. But I’ll wait and see.

[Chester Perry]

I think we have very different ideas on what it is to support a football club CP. I want to watch us play rather than consider the negative leverage on future viewing rights. I would prefer to see the opportunitues from having a supporters voice on the Board, rather than worry about the impact on the efficiency of the corporate decision making process. Each to their own though.

An accountable supporters Trust could provide a very effective check on unscrupulous behaviour and give fans the confidence to embrace change.

Aside from your intriguing assumption about me - I am struggling to find an example of a happy club environment that isn't run with a structured business like approach in the upper levels of the game, you may want to watch games rather than think about revenues, but clubs don't play for long in the professional game if they don't manage their finances properly.

in the MMT thread I have posted a number of times about fan involvement with positive and negative examples, what is apparent that much is down to the quality of the people involved.

Much has been made recently about fans being able to watch behind closed door games, it has always been known that to do so would mean the split broadcast times and no two matches played at the same time. Consequently over 60% of the audience (those that live overseas) have had their opportunity to watch games disrupted severely so that domestic fans can watch the games. Fan pressure (mainly by supporters trusts) in this country forced the day - yet for many clubs it is a fact that either the majority or sizeable faction of their fans are from and live overseas - what domestic fans pushed for in effect was to be classed as a more important fan - who checked that unscrupulous behaviour or gave confidence to fans based overseas.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

I think we have very different ideas on what it is to support a football club CP. I want to watch us play rather than consider the negative leverage on future viewing rights. I would prefer to see the opportunitues from having a supporters voice on the Board, rather than worry about the impact on the efficiency of the corporate decision making process. Each to their own though.

An accountable supporters Trust could provide a very effective check on unscrupulous behaviour and give fans the confidence to embrace change.

And how much of the purchase price are you and the fellow members of the supporters trust putting up?

Your problem here is that given the keys to the kingdom you’d very likely act in just such a way as the capitalist pigs you so despise comrade.

[Duffer_]

Aside from your intriguing assumption about me - I am struggling to find an example of a happy club environment that isn't run with a structured business like approach in the upper levels of the game, you may want to watch games rather than think about revenues, but clubs don't play for long in the professional game if they don't manage their finances properly.

in the MMT thread I have posted a number of times about fan involvement with positive and negative examples, what is apparent that much is down to the quality of the people involved.

Much has been made recently about fans being able to watch behind closed door games, it has always been known that to do so would mean the split broadcast times and no two matches played at the same time. Consequently over 60% of the audience (those that live overseas) have had their opportunity to watch games disrupted severely so that domestic fans can watch the games. Fan pressure (mainly by supporters trusts) in this country forced the day - yet for many clubs it is a fact that either the majority or sizeable faction of their fans are from and live overseas - what domestic fans pushed for in effect was to be classed as a more important fan - who checked that unscrupulous behaviour or gave confidence to fans based overseas.

I wasn't aware that I had made an assumption about you CP. I think your last post underlines our differences very nicely. I don't see an equivalence between a season ticket holder with generations of emotional and financial investment in a community based club, and a teenager picking Burnley out of the hat in his Beijing bedroom, welcome though he/she is to do that.

[Duffer_]

And how much of the purchase price are you and the fellow members of the supporters trust putting up?

Your problem here is that given the keys to the kingdom you’d very likely act in just such a way as the capitalist pigs you so despise comrade.

Psst....the supporters stake in my proposal would be provided for by the outgoing shateholders who professed to be custodians of the Club. They would provide a legacy for supporters rather than trousering 100% of the huge unexpected profits from their initially noble cause.

I recognise the difficulties facing Garlick et al in exiting their positions but reckon some unconventional thinking could help with their legacy.

I have "no problem" here btw. Don't pass it on.

[bf2k]

I got given equity in a business when I was just a salaried employee.

I’m surprised you’re surprised at this. It’s very, very common.

I think the difference here is Dyche isn't an employee (salaried). He's essentially a contractor so giving equality in the business to a contractor would be an odd thing to do.

I've also heard of employees being given equity which matures after a certain milestone (years of service, retirement, etc). Again, I can;t see how that would work for a football manager or a "contractor".

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Supporter involvement is a difficult and much more complex matter than many think, you only have to look at this board to see just how many supporters react with volatile emotions when what a club really needs is a steady and somewhat hard headed approach. Then you also have to look at the quality of the supporters trust membership/leadership - When Burnley Supporters Trust started it just filled me with dread rather than hope because of who was involved and I have not been inclined to show any interest since as a result.

There are some people on here that I wouldn't trust with a piggy bank, let alone a multi million pound business.

It's frightening how little many fans across football seem to know or understand about the financial aspect of their clubs, they also seem to fail to understand that a club is a business first and foremost.

[Chester Perry]

I wasn't aware that I had made an assumption about you CP. I think your last post underlines our differences very nicely. I don't see an equivalence between a season ticket holder with generations of emotional and financial investment in a community based club, and a teenager picking Burnley out of the hat in his Beijing bedroom, welcome though he/she is to do that.

Indeed the difference appears that you believe all overseas based fans are teenagers in China - many have the same the same multi-generational and emotional involvement, and your statement appears to resent anyone choosing to become a supporter of our club or at least believe them to be an inferior kind of supporter - what about those who can trace their lineage back to the town and generations of support are they another class of supporter - my wife has family in the USA that would take umbridge at that, same for those who moved to other parts other parts of this country or the world like Hiroshima claret and cannot make it to games what level do you put them at or people that have chosen to support us like DaveManu is he a different class of supporter?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Psst....the supporters stake in my proposal would be provided for by the outgoing shateholders who professed to be custodians of the Club. They would provide a legacy for supporters rather than trousering 100% of the huge unexpected profits from their initially noble cause.

I recognise the difficulties facing Garlick et al in exiting their positions but reckon some unconventional thinking could help with their legacy.

I have "no problem" here btw. Don't pass it on.

I understand your ‘thinking’, I’m still laughing. As you are in the face of capitalism.

The board spent the money, they took the risk, they invested their expertise they rightly deserve to profit from that.

As a person in every other aspect of your life, you invest your money, in return for a service. If you don’t like that service, you can take your money and invest it elsewhere in hope of a better return.

There seems to be a tribalistic juxtaposition in football where fans seem to think they are entitled to direct the position of clubs development without taking an risk to your own personal wealth just because you’ve chosen to align yourself with that particular brand.

Garlick and co have bettered the club during their ownership. They’ve delivered something beyond most of our possible dreams and now they rightly can choose to rest on their laurels and sell to whoever they damn well like without being beholden to anyone.

[BenWickes]

Indeed the difference appears that you believe all overseas based fans are teenagers in China - many have the same the same multi-generational and emotional involvement, and your statement appears to resent anyone choosing to become a supporter of our club or at least believe them to be an inferior kind of supporter - what about those who can trace their lineage back to the town and generations of support are they another class of supporter - my wife has family in the USA that would take umbridge at that, same for those who moved to other parts other parts of this country or the world like Hiroshima claret and cannot make it to games what level do you put them at or people that have chosen to support us like DaveManu is he a different class of supporter?

Well put. I was just thinking along those lines. I was a regular during our awful years in the 80's. Even went on knowing we'd get beat and only had 1-3,000 on most games. Don't get on due to work, location, finances anywhere near as much these days. Maybe I was an uber supporter then and I have slipped down the class rankings?

[bf2k]

in the MMT thread I have posted a number of times about fan involvement with positive and negative examples, what is apparent that much is down to the quality of the people involved.

I agree with you on this. I hear a lot about how fans should have a board representation but can't for the life of me figure out why. If that rep was a complete duck egg, crackpot who wanted nothing else but quick success how is that different from a foreign owner who's been/being labelled with the same tag? I suppose we've had fan representation throughout the whole of Burnley's history. As far back as I can remember Frank Teasdale (didn't end too well there, club was on its knees) and Barry Kilby (who bet the ITV digital money on an attempt at gaining promotion to the Premier League??? Wasn't a bright move in the end). Point is even a fan with perceived good finance acumen isn't guaranteed to look after the best interests of the club long term. You could say the lack of investment at the minute is also going to put the club in more harm long term.

At this minute I do feel sorry for the board. They are between a rock and a hard place. Not got the money/business acumen required to keep us at the top table but the investment on offer looks highly, highly risky for the club.

Something I can't understand though, on Talksport this morning it was suggested that the Egyptian's family wealth is £0.5bn, of which £200m of that is to buy the club. Even if he was willing to invest the families fortune into the club how is £300m going to get us in any better position long term? I'm sure Mike Garlick's net worth is around that figure (can't remember where I saw this but I'm sure it was posted on here).

[BenWickes]

Something I can't understand though, on Talksport this morning it was suggested that the Egyptian's family wealth is £0.5bn, of which £200m of that is to buy the club. Even if he was willing to invest the families fortune into the club how is £300m going to get us in any better position long term? I'm sure Mike Garlick's net worth is around that figure (can't remember where I saw this but I'm sure it was posted on here).

El Kashashy's bid is not based solely on his family wealth though. It's explained further up.

[levraiclaret]

Something I can't understand though, on Talksport this morning it was suggested that the Egyptian's family wealth is £0.5bn, of which £200m of that is to buy the club. Even if he was willing to invest the families fortune into the club how is £300m going to get us in any better position long term? I'm sure Mike Garlick's net worth is around that figure (can't remember where I saw this but I'm sure it was posted on here).

I have seen Garlick's net worth at about £60m.

[Chester Perry]

Well put. I was just thinking along those lines. I was a regular during our awful years in the 80's. Even went on knowing we'd get beat and only had 1-3,000 on most games. Don't get on due to work, location, finances anywhere near as much these days. Maybe I was an uber supporter then and I have slipped down the class rankings?

I find it disturbing that people can be so insular

- over 70% (probably much higher) of all Premier League viewers live overseas
- over 40% of all Premier League revenues (Matchday, Commercial and TV) can be traced to overseas interest/spend. It is not just broadcast income, the majority of commercial income is from overseas

yet for some that does not entitle them to be given an equal status

[ewanrob]

I understand your ‘thinking’, I’m still laughing. As you are in the face of capitalism.

The board spent the money, they took the risk, they invested their expertise they rightly deserve to profit from that.

As a person in every other aspect of your life, you invest your money, in return for a service. If you don’t like that service, you can take your money and invest it elsewhere in hope of a better return.

There seems to be a tribalistic juxtaposition in football where fans seem to think they are entitled to direct the position of clubs development without taking an risk to your own personal wealth just because you’ve chosen to align yourself with that particular brand.

Garlick and co have bettered the club during their ownership. They’ve delivered something beyond most of our possible dreams and now they rightly can choose to rest on their laurels and sell to whoever they damn well like without being beholden to anyone.

Totally agree with that, but within that "whoever they dawn well like" I sincerely hope the money isn't the driving factor for them (albeit they richly deserve a good return) and that they make sure the legacy they have helped deliver is protected & nutured.

[BenWickes]

Totally agree with that, but within that "whoever they dawn well like" I sincerely hope the money isn't the driving factor for them (albeit they richly deserve a good return) and that they make sure the legacy they have helped deliver is protected & nutured.

The fact this seems to have been going on for a considerable time (1-2 years it seems) suggests Garlick et al are making sure it is a good deal for them and for the clubs future. I don't get the impression they'd sell us out. There are other owners who'd sell a club (one in the north east certainly would) very quickly for a decent offer regardless of who put the bid in. They are, however; entitled to make a profit on the club.