Summer 2021 Transfer Window Rumours - Links - Discussion

[ClaretAndJew]

Garlick definitely has that kind of money, he took it out the club right?

[Rileybobs]

Garlick’s minted. It would be great if someone with his personal wealth became a major shareholder.

[s6t9a2f3f]

Time to go cap in hand down the M65 to the chicken ranch and ask for a venky donation

[Dyched]

Garlick’s minted. It would be great if someone with his personal wealth became a major shareholder.

He is, but lets let him enjoy siping on a few margaritas on the Mediterranean (keep that quite Bosscat will get jealous)!

[Tall Paul]

Interesting to see how Palace have progressed this window. They had an ageing squad, with a number out of contract , but have brought in some good first team players, as well as recruit a new manager. I am also sure they are not finished yet in the window

And yet they're shorter odds for relegation than we are. Weird that.

[Woodleyclaret]

Businessmen are in business to make money
Mike did very well out of his investment in BFC good luck to him
We now need an investor who can throw serious money into the pot and play a long game on getting their cash back
These people are few and far between
Hopefully Alan has businessmen who want to live the dream at Burnley

[joey13]

They are “not willing to invest” in the same way that I am “not willing to invest” in a larger house…. Neither of us have the money. Boss Hogg has nailed it I think. I’m hoping somehow we can still get a couple in before the window shuts .

There’s a difference, I take it you’re not looking to invest in a larger house
I’m amazed that the deal to purchase the club actually went through, our former custodians played a blinder for themselves.

[Boss Hogg]

Some of the funds in the club should have been used for reinvestment previously but Garlick and Co wanted to trouser as much as possible in my opinion. I doubt the new owners realised how weak the squad was in reality. It sounds very much like if Pace and the board don’t strengthen in the next 3 weeks Dyche won’t be signing any new contract. I wouldn’t blame him either.

[Burnley Ace]

Some of the funds in the club should have been used for reinvestment previously but Garlick and Co wanted to trouser as much as possible in my opinion. I doubt the new owners realised how weak the squad was in reality. It sounds very much like if Pace and the board don’t strengthen in the next 3 weeks Dyche won’t be signing any new contract. I wouldn’t blame him either.

So the new owners didn’t do any research on the squad? How naive do you think they are?

[Rileybobs]

Some of the funds in the club should have been used for reinvestment previously but Garlick and Co wanted to trouser as much as possible in my opinion. I doubt the new owners realised how weak the squad was in reality. It sounds very much like if Pace and the board don’t strengthen in the next 3 weeks Dyche won’t be signing any new contract. I wouldn’t blame him either.

This thread is about transfers, or lack of them, so I don’t wish to take this off on a tangent. But you do realise that had we spent more money on players then the club’s value would have changed accordingly? That is to say, in the crudest sense, using £20m of our cash assets to purchase a player worth £20m wouldn’t reduce the value of the club by £20m.

It may be that we needed that cash in the bank, rather than on an intangible asset such as a player in order for the sale to go through - but I thought that people were unanimously agreed that Garlick needed to sell the club. Now, Garlick could have bought a player for £20m and sold the club for £20m less than its true value, but that’s not how the world works, and I doubt it’s what many, if any, of us would do in that situation.

[randomclaret2]

This thread is about transfers, or lack of them, so I don’t wish to take this off on a tangent. But you do realise that had we spent more money on players then the club’s value would have changed accordingly? That is to say, in the crudest sense, using £20m of our cash assets to purchase a player worth £20m wouldn’t reduce the value of the club by £20m.

It may be that we needed that cash in the bank, rather than on an intangible asset such as a player in order for the sale to go through - but I thought that people were unanimously agreed that Garlick needed to sell the club. Now, Garlick could have bought a player for £20m and sold the club for £20m less than its true value, but that’s not how the world works, and I doubt it’s what many, if any, of us would do in that situation.

Presumably a life long fan of the club would do whatever gave the club the best chance of success

[Devils_Advocate]

So the new owners didn’t do any research on the squad? How naive do you think they are?

I heard Mr Pace went on a scouting mission to Benidorm and got stung by the pea man game whilst out there.

[joey13]

This thread is about transfers, or lack of them, so I don’t wish to take this off on a tangent. But you do realise that had we spent more money on players then the club’s value would have changed accordingly? That is to say, in the crudest sense, using £20m of our cash assets to purchase a player worth £20m wouldn’t reduce the value of the club by £20m.

It may be that we needed that cash in the bank, rather than on an intangible asset such as a player in order for the sale to go through - but I thought that people were unanimously agreed that Garlick needed to sell the club. Now, Garlick could have bought a player for £20m and sold the club for £20m less than its true value, but that’s not how the world works, and I doubt it’s what many, if any, of us would do in that situation.

So you speak for everyone in your defense of Garlick , not everyone puts money first .

[joey13]

So the new owners didn’t do any research on the squad? How naive do you think they are?

Probably as much research they did while trying to buy Sheff U where they offered 5 million for a club worth over 100 million .
All Pace and his cronies are interested in is how much they can make .

[Devils_Advocate]

So you speak for everyone in your defense of Garlick , not everyone puts money first .

What should Garlick have done in your opinion? Seems to me he can either not sell the club, sell the club for its market value or let some random buyers have the club on the cheap?

If you wanted him to sell the club and the only deal on the table was the one AKL offered should he have turned them down and carried on until some perfect buyer came along?






/

[Tall Paul]

This thread is about transfers, or lack of them, so I don’t wish to take this off on a tangent. But you do realise that had we spent more money on players then the club’s value would have changed accordingly? That is to say, in the crudest sense, using £20m of our cash assets to purchase a player worth £20m wouldn’t reduce the value of the club by £20m.

It may be that we needed that cash in the bank, rather than on an intangible asset such as a player in order for the sale to go through - but I thought that people were unanimously agreed that Garlick needed to sell the club. Now, Garlick could have bought a player for £20m and sold the club for £20m less than its true value, but that’s not how the world works, and I doubt it’s what many, if any, of us would do in that situation.

In theory, investing cash in the squad would have increased the value of the club, assuming it was invested well, especially if that investment was as desperately needed as many posters make out.

[Boss Hogg]

So the new owners didn’t do any research on the squad? How naive do you think they are?

I’m sure they are very switched on financially. I doubt their real knowledge of football and this squads historic performances and ability is much better than the average fan on here.

[Murger]

05D7FDC5-3177-4BCA-8678-DE52F03272BE.jpeg (38.84 KiB) Viewed 4674 times

Gave me a chuckle.

[IanMcL]

It appears to me that Mr Garlick did what was best for Mr Garlick, to the detriment of Burnley FC. I am not sure how the rest of the former directors fared. Advantageously, in all probability.

Morally not why they were supposedly there.

[KateR]

personally I don't think the question is about how much money the new owners bring but in "will they improve on previous owners?"

As such it's early days and the recruitment is only one aspect of improvement all be it the most important. From SD's interview he stated that there were some players available in Jan and the money was there but he decided they would not come as he didn't think they would alter much, so the owners had backed him to a point.

In this window we have bought and i understand the argument around Gibson going so they've not opened the purse strings in reality but neither did they keep that money in order to pay up and coming debt that we know is there.

Additionally, he said we are still looking, still have options and its a question of trying to get them across the line, I'm sure Lennon is not who he is talking about here, so it's a question of whether we see new faces that can be in and around the 1st team.

My perspective is that there has been much more activity in the youth & under 23 sides with new faces being added, which will hopefully bear fruit in the future. This is where I see the new owners making a bigger difference to previous, that and additional revenue generating business initiatives that will also (hopefully) bear fruit and add to the future ability to attract/retain 1st team players.

Therefore for now, I'm of the opinion the jury is out but it looks promising for future improvements, including this and the Jan window, regarding avoiding relegation and making steady improvement.

If players decide they don't want to come and play for BFC, that's hardly the new owners or SD and his team's fault.

[boatshed bill]

personally I don't think the question is about how much money the new owners bring but in "will they improve on previous owners?"

As such it's early days and the recruitment is only one aspect of improvement all be it the most important. From SD's interview he stated that there were some players available in Jan and the money was there but he decided they would not come as he didn't think they would alter much, so the owners had backed him to a point.

In this window we have bought and i understand the argument around Gibson going so they've not opened the purse strings in reality but neither did they keep that money in order to pay up and coming debt that we know is there.

Additionally, he said we are still looking, still have options and its a question of trying to get them across the line, I'm sure Lennon is not who he is talking about here, so it's a question of whether we see new faces that can be in and around the 1st team.

My perspective is that there has been much more activity in the youth & under 23 sides with new faces being added, which will hopefully bear fruit in the future. This is where I see the new owners making a bigger difference to previous, that and additional revenue generating business initiatives that will also (hopefully) bear fruit and add to the future ability to attract/retain 1st team players.

Therefore for now, I'm of the opinion the jury is out but it looks promising for future improvements, including this and the Jan window, regarding avoiding relegation and making steady improvement.

If players decide they don't want to come and play for BFC, that's hardly the new owners or SD and his team's fault.

Or Mike Garlick's, to be perfectly fair.

[KateR]

Or Mike Garlick's, to be perfectly fair.

very true if you're referring to the last sentence.

[joey13]

What should Garlick have done in your opinion? Seems to me he can either not sell the club, sell the club for its market value or let some random buyers have the club on the cheap?

If you wanted him to sell the club and the only deal on the table was the one AKL offered should he have turned them down and carried on until some perfect buyer came along?

It wasn’t the only deal on the table




/

[boatshed bill]

very true if you're referring to the last sentence.

Indeed I was.
And it's not new.

[Devils_Advocate]

So you wanted Garlick to sell but to someone other than AKL - is that right?

If so what as far as you are aware was the other deal Garlick could have taken?

Im not trying to catch you out here im just trying to work out what people wanted who seem to be unhappy with Garlick not investing in the club and also unhappy with Garlick selling the club for what ALK were willing to pay. You at least seem to have another option but im honestly not aware of a second confirmed bid that could have been accepted by Garlick

[BurnleyFC]

So you wanted Garlick to sell but to someone other than AKL - is that right?

If so what as far as you are aware was the other deal Garlick could have taken?

Im not trying to catch you out here im just trying to work out what people wanted who seem to be unhappy with Garlick not investing in the club and also unhappy with Garlick selling the club for what ALK were willing to pay. You at least seem to have another option but im honestly not aware of a second confirmed bid that could have been accepted by Garlick

The Egyptian bloke and his sports lawyer pal were heavily rumoured to have tabled a bid as well.

Whether they actually had any more money than Al and his mates, who knows?

[s6t9a2f3f]

personally I don't think the question is about how much money the new owners bring but in "will they improve on previous owners?"

As such it's early days and the recruitment is only

Additionally,

My perspective is that there has been much more activity in the youth & under 23 sides with new faces being added, which will hopefully bear fruit in the future. This is where I see the new owners

Therefore for now, I'm of the opinion the jury is out but it looks promising for future improvements, including this and the Jan window, regarding avoiding relegation and making steady improvement.

[/quote]

What nonsense including the January window ? We can't get the players we want pre season so who are going to attract in January ? as we are guaranteed to be in and around the bottom 7.

[Rileybobs]

Presumably a life long fan of the club would do whatever gave the club the best chance of success

How would selling the club for less than its market value give the club a better chance of success? ALK would get a football club on the cheap, they’d be the ones to benefit.

And this ‘lifelong fan of the club’ business is so childish and reductive.

[Rileybobs]

So you speak for everyone in your defense of Garlick , not everyone puts money first .

I’m not speaking for everyone in any way shape or form. I’m saying that I doubt that many, if any of us, would sell a football club for far less than its worth. Why would you do that?

[Devils_Advocate]

The Egyptian bloke and his sports lawyer pal were heavily rumoured to have tabled a bid as well.

Whether they actually had any more money than Al and his mates, who knows?

Yes and Ive no idea about how accurate the rumours were, what the bid was and what kind of potential owners they would have been. This is where Joey may have more knowledge to share.

Im pretty neutral on the whole Garlick / AKL debate but there are a fair few on here who seem to have wanted Garlick out as he couldnt or wasnt prepared to invest to the level people wanted but are equally upset that he sold the club for the deal AKL tabled.

Garlick couldnt control who wanted the club and who was prepared to pay for it and its not Garlicks responsibility to let it go on the cheap so the new owners can throw the cash about so having a go at him for both not selling the club and selling the club to the willing buyer seems a bit ridiculous

[Rileybobs]

In theory, investing cash in the squad would have increased the value of the club, assuming it was invested well, especially if that investment was as desperately needed as many posters make out.

Very true. It’s like banging your head against the wall at times on here though because people are so entrenched in their reductive view of the situation.

[Steve1956]

FB_IMG_1628804699914.jpg (26.5 KiB) Viewed 4109 times

All has been revealed

[Rileybobs]

The Egyptian bloke and his sports lawyer pal were heavily rumoured to have tabled a bid as well.

Whether they actually had any more money than Al and his mates, who knows?

I don’t recall the Egyptian consortium being a particularly popular option on here.

[DCWat]

So you wanted Garlick to sell but to someone other than AKL - is that right?

If so what as far as you are aware was the other deal Garlick could have taken?

Im not trying to catch you out here im just trying to work out what people wanted who seem to be unhappy with Garlick not investing in the club and also unhappy with Garlick selling the club for what ALK were willing to pay. You at least seem to have another option but im honestly not aware of a second confirmed bid that could have been accepted by Garlick

Is your continued use of AKL as opposed to ALK intended, for some reason?

Unfortunately, this is another thread that’s going the same way as others - back to the debate about ALK and Garlick.

For what it’s worth - we’ve effectively swapped one owner with little inclination to invest his own money, for another and at a hefty price.

All the chips are now on Pace and whether he and his team can deliver improvements to the sort of levels needed.

[Chester Perry]

Probably as much research they did while trying to buy Sheff U where they offered 5 million for a club worth over 100 million .
All Pace and his cronies are interested in is how much they can make .

That was for a circa 50% share of a club that didn't own it's own ground or training facility that was losing money - incidentally that was the price the current owner paid for the share after a convoluted legal hearing - the previous shareholder did not want to sell it to him but was forced to by the courts - that is why ALK did not buy Sheffield United - it is all clearly documented in the public domain

[boatshed bill]

Really, life would be so much easier if supporters could choose the chairman

[Devils_Advocate]

Is your continued use of AKL as opposed to ALK intended, for some reason?

Nope just accidental. Im trying to understand the perspective who wanted Garlick to sell and are now moaning at him for selling the club

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Screenshot_20210812-231923.png (651.81 KiB) Viewed 3937 times

Swap out the names and it's a similar whinge

[Goody1975]

Nah, they've bought a winger.

[KRBFC]

Businessmen are in business to make money
Mike did very well out of his investment in BFC good luck to him
We now need an investor who can throw serious money into the pot and play a long game on getting their cash back
These people are few and far between
Hopefully Alan has businessmen who want to live the dream at Burnley

Pace is a chancer, it's simply an opportunity to make money for him and ALK. They aren't going to invest a single dollar from their own pockets, if it all goes tits up, they will sell the club and get a nice little payday and ride off back to America leaving the club in debt.

for ALK it's a win win win, they simply cannot financially lose.

It's genuinely incredible the PL approved the deal, Gary Neville was quite right to question Richard Scudamore about why the PL approved it. How on earth do you take full control of a PL club with £130m income yearly without spending a single dime on shares and without saddling yourself in debt.

The proof of funds check must've been lenient.

[Burnleyareback2]

It appears to me that Mr Garlick did what was best for Mr Garlick, to the detriment of Burnley FC. I am not sure how the rest of the former directors fared. Advantageously, in all probability.

Morally not why they were supposedly there.

Eventually that’s exactly what he did, however my view is that this was done due to the pressure and expectation from parts of the fan base. Probably the same section of fans that where expecting huge signings when he sold.

Our model has been to be the 4th worst team in the league with a team that if the worst case happens will win the championship.
Expectation was probably that the worst case would happen and we could rebuild the wage structure and now that is catching us out.

[KRBFC]

If players decide they don't want to come and play for BFC, that's hardly the new owners or SD and his team's fault.

Cut the sh!t, lets have it right, 95% of professional footballers would give their left testicle to play Premier League football on £50k-60k a week wages. Open your eyes, we're not in League Two. The South Americans dream of playing in Europes top top leagues. The best players in Scotland run through broken glass to leave Celtic and join Southampton.

I don't think you truly understand the power of the PL beast. Our wage bill is higher than most of Europe, we pay more in wages than Benfica

[KateR]

There's always tomorrow, or next week, even the week after that, will we get to the 250 page mark by the end of the window.


Just out of curiosity, does anyone know our record number of pages for any given window aimed at recruitment and transfer rumours, be nice to know if we can set an new thread record on the same subject, involving nothing but 90% moaning

[KRBFC]

ALK would get a football club on the cheap, they’d be the ones to benefit.

What do you mean by they would, surely you meant they have got it on the cheap?

Are you aware the MSD loan is loaned against the club and not ALK?

Also, ALK haven't had to spend on shares, that money was already in the club.


You're acting like ALK have loaned against ALK and then bought the rest of the shares with their own money, confusing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Can we use another thread for the ALK mudslinging?

[WiscoClaret]

Shaqiri a done deal to Lyon. Surely he is Cornet's replacement. I wonder if once he's announced that will set off our deal? You cant tell Liverpool that a deal is done for Cornet or they will know Lyon is flush with cash. Ergo, Shaqiri is done first to Lyon, then Cornet to us, and so on and so on...hopefully a trigger.
I think Nixon is letting on with his french tweets. There are probably a lot of details to work out on this one! Here's hoping he's announced by this time next week in our away kit!

Though....to be honest I'm not holding my breath.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

What do you mean by they would, surely you meant they have got it on the cheap?

Are you aware the MSD loan is loaned against the club and not ALK?

Also, ALK haven't had to spend on shares, that money was already in the club.


You're acting like ALK have loaned against ALK and then bought the rest of the shares with their own money, confusing.

Omg Jesus Christ.
There are people literally pleading with you to stop and not recycle this (again) back around to the have they got or not got money argument. It’s been done to death. And yet you can’t help yourself.

Classic narcissism.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

It was Thursday did we sign anyone??

[Chester Perry]

Pace is a chancer, it's simply an opportunity to make money for him and ALK. They aren't going to invest a single dollar from their own pockets, if it all goes tits up, they will sell the club and get a nice little payday and ride off back to America leaving the club in debt.

for ALK it's a win win win, they simply cannot financially lose.

It's genuinely incredible the PL approved the deal, Gary Neville was quite right to question Richard Scudamore about why the PL approved it. How on earth do you take full control of a PL club with £130m income yearly without spending a single dime on shares and without saddling yourself in debt.

The proof of funds check must've been lenient.

I know you are using speculation that I posted on here - but please remember I clearly stated it was speculation not fact as to ALK not spending any money on the purchase of the club's shares

as for the proof of funds check - you would think that with the club's previous record of fiscal discipline (including regular profitability), cash holding and lack of debt (including football debt) that a commitment to run it in a similar fashion would result in a relatively easy test, particularly given that Mike and John were still on board and the failsafe of the club being returned to them

[Taffy on the wing]

Pace is a chancer, it's simply an opportunity to make money for him and ALK. They aren't going to invest a single dollar from their own pockets, if it all goes tits up, they will sell the club and get a nice little payday and ride off back to America leaving the club in debt.

for ALK it's a win win win, they simply cannot financially lose.

It's genuinely incredible the PL approved the deal, Gary Neville was quite right to question Richard Scudamore about why the PL approved it. How on earth do you take full control of a PL club with £130m income yearly without spending a single dime on shares and without saddling yourself in debt.

The proof of funds check must've been lenient.

I think it's far more likely that MR Garlick will buy the club back for a pittance, & ALK will return to the land of the latter day Saints empty handed.........Time will tell...........We (BURNLEY) might be in a lower league mind!