ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

I am sure the business plan will centre around raising income levels across multiple areas. That's probably why MSD were happy to lend them the money.

I would say that is the plan, and you have to say that the profile of the new board is probably much better aligned to do this than it's predecessor.

I would also say that the flip of shares could actually further enhance the capability of the new board by adding the knowledge, expertise and contacts of a new member, whilst also being of benefit to the club by not adding to the debt. There is also the possibility that the profit on the flip was to be put back into the club, even if only to pay back some of the inter-company loan we have heard about.

It is well documented that I am not a fan of the debt, but as you have astutely pointed out, it is there now, it is more about how it is serviced. I will say that I suspect that there is no intention to pay down the principal on the debt from MSD, it is more likely to be rolled into another loan at some stage, hopefully at a much reduced rate.

[djemba-djemba]

Important to understand that relegation under the previous ownership, just as much as the current one would have a significant impact on the club.

Relegation under JB + MG = Cash dwindles out then player sales without a quick return to the PL.

Relegation under ALK - Player sales to get rid of debt, without a quick return to the PL.

Either way, we are highly leveraged on PL football, which is unfortunately a by product of most PL clubs (and championship ones too).

Granted cash would have dwindled under Mike if we were relegated.

The difference I see though is that say we were relegated next season with ALK in charge - we’d owe Mike £50,000,000 still (approx) rather than go down with £50,000,000 in the bank?

[Wile E Coyote]

in a nutshell, we as fans have to stand quietly in the shadows, whilst these high flyers go about their business.

Its sad to think we have to remain loyal to our clubs in these corporate swamps. I detest it.

[TsarBomba]

Our financial experts, such as aggi and Chester Perry, have questions and legitimate concerns, but admit there is a lot of unknowns in this deal, which will take time to ascertain and understand.

But in the meantime, we have your average layman with no financial acumen getting hysterical with back of the fag packet calculations, and coming to the conclusion that we are f*cked already.

As always on this board, there is no medium.

We have no choice but to wait and see, and trust MG and JB that they’ve done their due diligence, along with the Premier League.

If we can keep the bedwetting down to a minimum until we have a better idea, that we would be great, thanks.

[Chester Perry]

in a nutshell, we as fans have to stand quietly in the shadows, whilst these high flyers go about their business.

Its sad to think we have to remain loyal to our clubs in these corporate swamps. I detest it.

you will also find that the club will be seeking to extract quite a bit more money from you on match days and through the year, expect the data collection to grow and much greater targeting of offers, it is no coincidence that the latest interview was Clarets player only, you have to register to view it - I didn't and I won't

[Darthlaw]

It's all advertising sales, really, though.

You'd certainly be surprised how highly the prestige of being associated with a PL club is, Particularly in Asia. Trick is to put someone out there to leverage it, really.

[Oshkoshclaret]

What Garlick and Banaskiewicz have done is morally no different than what the Oystons did at Blackpool. They've been less blatant about it but the end result is the same - the asset has been stripped and the money is in their pockets.

[Chester Perry]

What Garlick and Banaskiewicz have done is morally no different than what the Oystons did at Blackpool. They've been less blatant about it but the end result is the same - the asset has been stripped and the money is in their pockets.

That is absolute nonsense

[Dixie Normous]

Are you so limited in your thinking that you only got ticket prices to think of?

And a very good day to you too sir , what was I thinking by expressing an opinion that may not fit with yours ?

[claretonthecoast1882]

What Garlick and Banaskiewicz have done is morally no different than what the Oystons did at Blackpool. They've been less blatant about it but the end result is the same - the asset has been stripped and the money is in their pockets.

Fair play to you, when you think you have seen every stupid comment possible someone comes along and blows the others out the water.

[Darthlaw]

Granted cash would have dwindled under Mike if we were relegated.

The difference I see though is that say we were relegated next season with ALK in charge - we’d owe Mike £50,000,000 still (approx) rather than go down with £50,000,000 in the bank?

Depends if Mike and the gang had decided the gravy train was up and to pull the cash from their business, then. Ultimately, if ALK don't pay MG and JB, they're back in the seat anyway.

I think more likely, MG would have kept the cash in the bank, choosing long term health of the club over an audacious plan to bounce straight back. Learning the lessons of Brian Laws tenure, where we quickly had no money again.

[Dixie Normous]

Our financial experts, such as aggi and Chester Perry, have questions and legitimate concerns, but admit there is a lot of unknowns in this deal, which will take time to ascertain and understand.

But in the meantime, we have your average layman with no financial acumen getting hysterical with back of the fag packet calculations, and coming to the conclusion that we are f*cked already.

As always on this board, there is no medium.

We have no choice but to wait and see, and trust MG and JB that they’ve done their due diligence, along with the Premier League.

If we can keep the bedwetting down to a minimum until we have a better idea, that we would be great, thanks.

Financial experts ? This board doesn’t change does it ? The high and mighty who try and dictate over others , crawling up each other’s fundaments and backing each other up. There is no chance ever of common civility and politeness is there ? Snide arse comments everywhere . Roll on personal identification being required and none of these funsters will spout their nonsense if we knew their real names

[KateR]

the ultimate aim of ALK is to increase revenue and profit above the point it was in order to pay everyone/thing including the loan to such a point that the profit is more than it was under the previous era whist simultaneously increasing the clubs underlying value at a backstop to a future sale.

In order to do that they developed a business plan and undertook debt that would have shown a plan that works, we all know about risk and reward, these guys took the risk and anyone who thinks they have nothing to lose is simply wrong. You know some facts in regard to the structure and debt, which is not our concern as far as they are concerned, you know the fact of the first months operation and the results of the transfer window, you don't know what they have been doing business wise in order to grow the business and you won't know for a considerable time. You can worry about it or not but there is nothing as fans you can do about it other than wait and give them a chance to prove themselves.

It's irrelevant what the previous owners took or how they structured there involvement going forward, the fact is they knew the details and agree with the plan.

I'm not worried about the plan at all, it's the execution moving forward that is the nub of how BFC morphs into its future self, whether that is having more funds for improvements across the board or whether its relegation is a wait and see game, it will all be revealed under the fullness of time.

The other fact you know is that the club was not bought as a rich man's toy to throw millions at it and just buy better players, that's a fact I think many need to get over and come into the land of reality. The converse is also true that many have been crying for new owners as they were adamant that the previous owners could not take the club forward anymore and that was at its peak, they obviously thought the same and saw an opportunity to move forward.

It is irrelevant as to the size of the debt, it's irrelevant to how the payback is structures, it's irrelevant to how the previous owners structured there part in the master plan.

What is relevant is how we play football in the next few months and whether we are a PL club or not at the end of the season, additionally it will then move to the summer window, I for one do not expect big names coming into the club or big payments for players, it is going to be a slow progress, but hopefully progress nonetheless and that's what is relevant.

[IanMcL]

Mr G and Mr B loadsamoney.
Also not taken it all, as yet, so receive huge return on the owed funds....from the club?
Club which was in the black, now totally mortgaged.

It would have been nicer for the former board to have invested, using the assets carefully, rather than what appears to be a total strip, with personal gain.

All this business of getting players and developing them for resale, is the same as every other club. No matter what research has been done, as soon as an approach is made, agent or parent club will alert other clubs of our interest.

We now must hold our breath and hope that Mr D and our heroes continue their success, on our behalf.

[martin_p]

What Garlick and Banaskiewicz have done is morally no different than what the Oystons did at Blackpool. They've been less blatant about it but the end result is the same - the asset has been stripped and the money is in their pockets.

Unbelievable!

[aggi]

As I try to wrap my head around this (as a fan not an accountant) can I get an answer to perhaps the simplest of question which is how are these debts (in theory and in practice) going to be managed?

These debts are not going to disappear. They have to be paid and it's a serious amount of cheddar.

I don't know what the theoretical plan would be. The TV money isn't going to cover the debt above the normal operating costs - not even close.

The only practical plan would be to sell the family silver (Pope/Tarkowski/McNeil) at which point we'd then need to start worrying about how to finance the remaining debt as a Championship Club.

One thing that seems patently obvious now. Investment on the field with this millstone of debt has got to be pie-in-the-sky. If Garlick wasn't willing to invest any money with no debts, why, or perhaps more pertinently, how, is Pace going to spend while owing $90m.

I want to believe it's going to be ok but my doubts are growing and there's some very credible correspondents asking some uncomfortable questions.

By all accounts there are a couple of very different debts.

The first debt is the one to MSD. Rumoured to be about £60m. Servicing it is likely to be £6-7m per year. I suspect there isn't an expectation to pay this off in the short-term, so long as it can be serviced then it can be rolled over. Potentially to be paid off when the club is sold I'd guess.

The second debt is to the old shareholders. In theory this is nothing to do with the club's finances, it may change the owner but shouldn't impact on the finances. Obviously it may not be so clear cut in reality. However, the recent unconfirmed tweet that the owners are looking for more equity investment suggests that they are looking to fulfil that debt without any money coming from the club.

[ClaretMov]

Mr Pace is very quite on twitter normally he's on every day, he's not been seen for two days

[PremierLeagueClass]

Mr Pace is very quite on twitter normally he's on every day, he's not been seen for two days

Good on him, I’d be doing the same. It’s like this board during the last few days of a window or after a defeat. Just let the trolls have at it and avoid until they go back under their rocks.

[DomBFC1882]

Good on him, I’d be doing the same. It’s like this board during the last few days of a window or after a defeat. Just let the trolls have at it and avoid until they go back under their rocks.

You don't think he has any duty at all to address some of these concerns? Amazing how vocal he was when everyone was buzzing but now that's changed and is all over the press about our debt, he should be addressing it. He is the one after all stressing the need for clear and transparent communication between the fans and the board.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You don't think he has any duty at all to address some of these concerns? Amazing how vocal he was when everyone was buzzing but now that's changed and is all over the press about our debt, he should be addressing it. He is the one after all stressing the need for clear and transparent communication between the fans and the board.

If you owned a business would you talk to the public about the financial side of it?
Would you also tell all and sundry the exact details of moving the club forwards?

[RicardoMontalban]

Financial experts ? This board doesn’t change does it ? The high and mighty who try and dictate over others , crawling up each other’s fundaments and backing each other up. There is no chance ever of common civility and politeness is there ? Snide arse comments everywhere . Roll on personal identification being required and none of these funsters will spout their nonsense if we knew their real names

I think you need to calm down.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And a very good day to you too sir , what was I thinking by expressing an opinion that may not fit with yours ?

Your view of financial expansion was limited to ticket prices being increased.

It wasn't about an opinion matching mine, it was about your limited financial view.

[ChristheViking]

"It is irrelevant as to the size of the debt, it's irrelevant to how the payback is structures, it's irrelevant to how the previous owners structured there part in the master plan."

How can the size of the debt be irrelevant. The whole future business plan has to be geared around it whatever division we are in. It's a lot easier if we stay in the Prem but it also makes our job of staying in the Prem now and going forward that much harder.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

in a nutshell, we as fans have to stand quietly in the shadows, whilst these high flyers go about their business.

Its sad to think we have to remain loyal to our clubs in these corporate swamps. I detest it.

I stand by when my favorite businesses go about their daily activities, it's standard practice tbh

[GodIsADeeJay81]

"It is irrelevant as to the size of the debt, it's irrelevant to how the payback is structures, it's irrelevant to how the previous owners structured there part in the master plan."

How can the size of the debt be irrelevant. The whole future business plan has to be geared around it whatever division we are in. It's a lot easier if we stay in the Prem but it also makes our job of staying in the Prem now and going forward that much harder.

It's only harder if we don't grow our revenue streams.
This lot are aware of how to do it, one of our new board people ran Madison Square Gardens ffs...

[KateR]

"It is irrelevant as to the size of the debt, it's irrelevant to how the payback is structures, it's irrelevant to how the previous owners structured there part in the master plan."

How can the size of the debt be irrelevant. The whole future business plan has to be geared around it whatever division we are in. It's a lot easier if we stay in the Prem but it also makes our job of staying in the Prem now and going forward that much harder.

I think you're missing the point, it's all irrelevant to you, me and the fans. It was relevant, as I said, to the business plan and that is what the new owners have executed.

They didn't invite any of the experts or novices, who are fans, to do a risk assessment for very good reasons. So why anyone who makes this statements with zero basis is beyond me because it's irrelevant unless you know facts and details. I will let the new owners do all the worrying regarding the business and wait for further facts to become available.

[ChristheViking]

By all accounts there are a couple of very different debts.

The first debt is the one to MSD. Rumoured to be about £60m. Servicing it is likely to be £6-7m per year. I suspect there isn't an expectation to pay this off in the short-term, so long as it can be serviced then it can be rolled over. Potentially to be paid off when the club is sold I'd guess.

The second debt is to the old shareholders. In theory this is nothing to do with the club's finances, it may change the owner but shouldn't impact on the finances. Obviously it may not be so clear cut in reality. However, the recent unconfirmed tweet that the owners are looking for more equity investment suggests that they are looking to fulfil that debt without any money coming from the club.

Thanks Aggi - I know you are a good authority on this stuff. Come down to my level again for a moment please.

Re the MSD debt - is it not an issue/concern that the terms of that debt are not known? 6-7m a year is ok but is that interest or any of the capital. When would we be realistically free of this 60m debt to MSD?

Re the shareholders debt. Haven't they taken all the Club's money anyway. The coffers are already bare - yes? As such the only two options I see to pay Garlick and JB what they're owed are either selling Tarks and Pope OR going cap in hand to MSD again and further increasing the debt? Is that too simplistic - how else would they raise the amount of money needed and why wouldn't they have done it already?

[ChristheViking]

It's only harder if we don't grow our revenue streams.
This lot are aware of how to do it, one of our new board people ran Madison Square Gardens ffs...

As someone who used to work very close to MSG I wouldn't necessarily use someone running that as an example. There's one reason why MSG has remained functional and that's because James Dolan has put (and continues to put) significant amounts of money in (from his other businesses) to keep them afloat.

Having MSG on your resume is not the gold star you think it is - having a sugar daddy is (and we haven't).

[kentonclaret]

Has the BBC Panorama crew arrived at Turf Moor yet?

[Tall Paul]

As long as they can argue that BFC is still worth what they paid for it, they would be able to keep the loan in at that value.

And how are they going to successfully argue that, if this:

Unfortunately, having taken £90m out of the club, the club is de facto worth £90m less

is true?

[Dodobdobodobo]

For someone like me who knows nothing about finance, sorry!
Could there be more investors in the background?

[aggi]

Thanks Aggi - I know you are a good authority on this stuff. Come down to my level again for a moment please.

Re the MSD debt - is it not an issue/concern that the terms of that debt are not known? 6-7m a year is ok but is that interest or any of the capital. When would we be realistically free of this 60m debt to MSD?

Well the people who have to deal with it know the terms. We'll probably find out in June 2022. I'm basing the £60m and £6-7m a year on media reports and equivalent loans at other clubs. In my assumption it's just interest, no capital repayment.

Personally I suspect this debt will be around for a while. It may be like an interest-only mortgage where the provider changes but the debt is still there. Only my gut feeling though.

Re the shareholders debt. Haven't they taken all the Club's money anyway. The coffers are already bare - yes? As such the only two options I see to pay Garlick and JB what they're owed are either selling Tarks and Pope OR going cap in hand to MSD again and further increasing the debt? Is that too simplistic - how else would they raise the amount of money needed and why wouldn't they have done it already?

I'd be surprised if they've emptied the club bank account, you still need a fair bit of that money to run the club. It appears that they may be trying to pay that debt by getting in outside investment (or they have some in reserve). No need to take out a further loan or sell players. Again, just my gut feeling.

[ChristheViking]

I think you're missing the point, it's all irrelevant to you, me and the fans. It was relevant, as I said, to the business plan and that is what the new owners have executed.

They didn't invite any of the experts or novices, who are fans, to do a risk assessment for very good reasons. So why anyone who makes this statements with zero basis is beyond me because it's irrelevant unless you know facts and details. I will let the new owners do all the worrying regarding the business and wait for further facts to become available.

I don't think I am missing the point if the point if the point is this. That debt - and more importantly the size of that debt - has a direct impact on the manager's budget. That impacts all of us as fans because the lower his budget the harder it is to stay in this league - we can agree on that I hope?

I'll openly admit I don't know/understand the full details of the deal - few have that level of access. But I do know there are some time-served economic fundamentals about cutting your cloth and paying off debts. They've served us pretty well in the last 12 years or so but now they appear to be gone - that in and of itself is worrying. We weren't investing on the field with no debt - not seeing how that's going to improve with 90m debt.

[tim_noone]

Alan Pace net worth is $500.000........I'm wondering Whether the Park view Chippy and its possible Chinese Contacts would have been a better option? Even Lowbank as a Million quid in His back pocket. Dont know if APs Bank Balance is Relevant.

[ewanrob]

you will also find that the club will be seeking to extract quite a bit more money from you on match days and through the year, expect the data collection to grow and much greater targeting of offers, it is no coincidence that the latest interview was Clarets player only, you have to register to view it - I didn't and I won't

Historically our fan base have not been to eager to extract money from their bank accounts and plough it into Burnley FC coffers, I just can't see how anyone could use that as a shrewd business plan...its a hell of a risk.

[dsr]

And how are they going to successfully argue that, if this:


is true?

Easiest way is to say that the bought the club for less than they could sell it now. The auditors won't have an exact formula to value the club. And the auditors are only looking at the value of that asset for the next 12 months, not for ever.

[DuckworthsEA]

As an example (IMPORTANT - THESE FIGURES ARE MADE UP AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTATIVE)

Annualised
Club income - £300m
Operational Costs - £270m
Therefore £30m Profit

Debt - £150m
Interest repayable to service debts - £9m, leaves £21m in the bank profit for player recruitment, ground improvement, etc. Thats if you stand still. in terms of debt and don't repay capital.

Now lets imagine they increase revenue by additional sponsorships, etc. by £9m. In essence, you would say ALK have improved profitability enough to cover the cost of the debt. We're no worse off and arguably we might not have had the additional revenue without the expertise and connections of ALK.

All if's, buts and maybe's currently but I'm sure more will come out in the coming weeks and months.

There you go mate, got it in one! Shame a few more on here can’t grasp the situation.

[Hipper]

As an example (IMPORTANT - THESE FIGURES ARE MADE UP AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTATIVE)

Annualised
Club income - £300m
Operational Costs - £270m
Therefore £30m Profit

Debt - £150m
Interest repayable to service debts - £9m, leaves £21m in the bank profit for player recruitment, ground improvement, etc. Thats if you stand still. in terms of debt and don't repay capital.

Now lets imagine they increase revenue by additional sponsorships, etc. by £9m. In essence, you would say ALK have improved profitability enough to cover the cost of the debt. We're no worse off and arguably we might not have had the additional revenue without the expertise and connections of ALK.

All if's, buts and maybe's currently but I'm sure more will come out in the coming weeks and months.

Two questions:

1. How much, if anything, will the current directors be paying themselves, in salary and perhaps later in dividends too?

2. ALK are an investment firm. What money have they actually invested in our club apart from perhaps their goodwill in getting the loan (having bought a controlling interest in the club via the club's cash and that loan on club assets)?

[Darthlaw]

Re the shareholders debt. Haven't they taken all the Club's money anyway. The coffers are already bare - yes? As such the only two options I see to pay Garlick and JB what they're owed are either selling Tarks and Pope OR going cap in hand to MSD again and further increasing the debt? Is that too simplistic - how else would they raise the amount of money needed and why wouldn't they have done it already?

Chris - to be clear, its important to understand the terms of the loans. It's very unlikely that these are to be paid in such huge payments.

The previous ownership had us as profit making and thats before you take out the wages of Lennon, Hendrick, Hart, etc which we don't pay anymore. We also made signings in the previous windows such as Gibson and still made profit. Granted revenues will be down, because of matchday income, but nevertheless we will (as long as we're in the PL) make profit. This yearly profit can be used to service the loans and no doubt pay back over time what is owed to the previous owners.

The only reason we sell Pope, McNeil and Tarks to pay debts is if we are relegated.

[Tall Paul]

Easiest way is to say that the bought the club for less than they could sell it now. The auditors won't have an exact formula to value the club. And the auditors are only looking at the value of that asset for the next 12 months, not for ever.

They'll need to provide some evidence though.

No auditor worth their salt is going to sign off those accounts if what you have said is true.

[dsr]

As an example (IMPORTANT - THESE FIGURES ARE MADE UP AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTATIVE)

Annualised
Club income - £300m
Operational Costs - £270m
Therefore £30m Profit

Debt - £150m
Interest repayable to service debts - £9m, leaves £21m in the bank profit for player recruitment, ground improvement, etc. Thats if you stand still. in terms of debt and don't repay capital.

Now lets imagine they increase revenue by additional sponsorships, etc. by £9m. In essence, you would say ALK have improved profitability enough to cover the cost of the debt. We're no worse off and arguably we might not have had the additional revenue without the expertise and connections of ALK.

All if's, buts and maybe's currently but I'm sure more will come out in the coming weeks and months.

I've got two questions as well.

1. The loan will only be short term. What happens if we do want to repay the capital?
2. when you say we're no worse off, do you mean that having £40m in the bank is neither better nor worse than having nothing in the bank?

[KateR]

I don't think I am missing the point if the point if the point is this. That debt - and more importantly the size of that debt - has a direct impact on the manager's budget. That impacts all of us as fans because the lower his budget the harder it is to stay in this league - we can agree on that I hope?

I'll openly admit I don't know/understand the full details of the deal - few have that level of access. But I do know there are some time-served economic fundamentals about cutting your cloth and paying off debts. They've served us pretty well in the last 12 years or so but now they appear to be gone - that in and of itself is worrying. We weren't investing on the field with no debt - not seeing how that's going to improve with 90m debt.

again I will say you're missing the point, you're also now making 2 + 2 = 5 in the bargain.

The new owners didn't take on debt to ensure that the managers budget is less, quite the opposite to be exact, however when you first speculate and take on debt there is virtually no business that changes fortunes immediately. It takes time, having debt is not a problem to any business and where it is perceived to be beneficial more debt leads to higher revenue and profit. You just need a sound business plan to be able to service the debt and increase revenues beyond repayment structures, it's business 101.

Perception says if we had 50 million in the bank and no debt then it must be better than having a sizable debt and less free cash, this is not always the case and in the BFC case I would say the potential upside is good in that in a year or two we will see the benefits but there is additional risk.

Of course you can see it how you wish, it's just my opinion and it's what I do for a living but I have done deals that went wrong, that is the risk you take and there is no doubt that BFC is carrying far more risk than that, which was carried under the previous owners.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Historically our fan base have not been to eager to extract money from their bank accounts and plough it into Burnley FC coffers, I just can't see how anyone could use that as a shrewd business plan...its a hell of a risk.

That's because the products on offer have generally been of poor quality.

If the quality of the product is increased...

"if you build it, they will come"

Film quote, but relevant.

[kentonclaret]

Should the worse happen and we are relegated what price do you think we are going to be offered for Tarks, Dwight and Pope when clubs know that we have to sell just to remain solvent?

It certainly won't be top dollar.

[Darthlaw]

Two questions:

1. How much, if anything, will the current directors be paying themselves, in salary and perhaps later in dividends too?

2. ALK are an investment firm. What money have they actually invested in our club apart from perhaps their goodwill in getting the loan (having bought a controlling interest in the club via the club's cash and that loan on club assets)?

1. Whatever they deem reasonable as a board.

2. Most likely very little, similar to that of the Glazers takeover of Man U. That said, their backers will not have just thrown money at any old joe who comes along and says they want to buy a football club. There should be a sound business plan to justify the loan, which I anticipate the FA would have been privy to also, in order to pass the fit and proper owners test.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Should the worse happen and we are relegated what price do you think we are going to be offered for Tarks, Dwight and Pope when clubs know that we have to sell just to remain solvent?

It certainly won't be top dollar.

Other clubs have to sell when they get relegated, do you know if they get top dollar or reduced prices?

[Boss Hogg]

Mr Pace is very quite on twitter normally he's on every day, he's not been seen for two days

If I had egg on my face I would probably avoid Twitter.

[dsr]

They'll need to provide some evidence though.

No auditor worth their salt is going to sign off those accounts if what you have said is true.

The group, as a whole, will be solvent as long as we are in the PL. So the auditor might put a note about the valuation being provided by the directors, or about the value of football clubs being hard to measure, or something on those lines. But it won't be difficult for the board to find a valuer able to provide an adequate valuation to satisfy the auditor.

[ChristheViking]

Chris - to be clear, its important to understand the terms of the loans. It's very unlikely that these are to be paid in such huge payments.

The previous ownership had us as profit making and thats before you take out the wages of Lennon, Hendrick, Hart, etc which we don't pay anymore. We also made signings in the previous windows such as Gibson and still made profit. Granted revenues will be down, because of matchday income, but nevertheless we will (as long as we're in the PL) make profit. This yearly profit can be used to service the loans and no doubt pay back over time what is owed to the previous owners.

The only reason we sell Pope, McNeil and Tarks to pay debts is if we are relegated.

Hi Darthlaw - understood that the loan isn't going to need to be paid next week, next year etc. But they are going to have to be paid back and that's presumably after we pay what is owed to Garlick and John B. I'd like to be convinced that the yearly profits you speak of will pay these loans/debts back but I don't see it.

My guess would be that if Pace has a choice of keeping Dyche happy or MSD/Garlick/John B happy then it's not going to be Dyche. You made a key point ("as long as we're in the PL) - correct. To do that the manager is going to have to get some backing at some point. Now Dyche has some serious competition for that money. I simply don't see how we can get good investment on the field AND pay off these debts. I don't see how that circle is squared.

[Longsider]

I've avoided commenting too much on this as I don't profess to be a financial expert, however after reading the article in the Guardian today equating our take over to that of The Glaziers at Man Utd I am a tad concerned in our direction of travel.