The most concerning financial journo article yet!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Maybe so! But having a bland rebuttal issued on behalf of the club makes sense. You must agree because you made the point yourself.

And indeed if we weren't facing relegation this would not be an issues in the same way that if there were no icebergs in the North Atlantic Ocean Leo Di Caprio wouldn't have starred in a movie about the Titanic.

I just don't see the need for the club to respond to every article when there's nothing new, the media may as well just say " it's nothing new but we've moved some words around" and I certainly don't see the need for the club to lay out its business plan because some fans think they're entitled to see it.

[ClaretPete001]

Except we do know more than we did then and I know Paul does too - there is no discount on relegation - relegation would likely mean no bonus payment - this is much more than a subtle difference

There is more in that Offer Letter that deals in part with your closing hypothesis - not quite as you say or indeed the handback most famously stated by David Hellier for Bloomberg on Jan 7 2021 but there are measures in place to prevent an insolvency - this is clearly referred to in that letter.

As I have also said this and other details will be further detailed in my corrected, revised and extended article for the London Clarets, It is a complex and deep piece that I am still working on

I think the insolvency clauses will be interesting because unless you are prepared to accept conjecture about what ALK may or may not bring to the table or apply "anti-vaxxer" levels of scepticism to the nature of facts you would have to conclude, based upon Blackburn Rovers experience of relegation (and to a lesser extent Stoke), that £128 million quid's worth of high interest debt repayment will be very difficult to maintain in the Championship on a turnover that could eventually be as little as £20 million (after 3 years) without significant intervention from billionaire owners.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/f ... ue-3651238

Because it is these known facts and the self-evident conclusion you can draw from them, which is driving media speculation. And that is all I'm asking for anyone on here to do - argue based on known facts and not conjecture or an extreme scepticism about known facts.

[RVclaret]

I think the insolvency clauses will be interesting because unless you are prepared to accept conjecture about what ALK may or may not bring to the table or apply "anti-vaxxer" levels of scepticism to the nature of facts you would have to conclude, based upon Blackburn Rovers experience of relegation (and to a lesser extent Stoke), that £128 million quid's worth of high interest debt repayment will be very difficult to maintain in the Championship on a turnover that could eventually be as little as £20 million (after 3 years) without significant intervention from billionaire owners.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/f ... ue-3651238

Because it is these known facts and the self-evident conclusion you can draw from them, which is driving media speculation. And that is all I'm asking for anyone on here to do - argue based on known facts and not conjecture or an extreme scepticism about known facts.

So it’s 128m high interest debt repayment now is it? That’s jumped.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Blackburn's issue was and still is their wage bill exceeding their income.
The last reports showed it at 189% of turnover.
All clubs in debt have the same issue with wages.

Assuming we still have relegation clauses we should be able to manage our finances reasonably well.

[ClaretPete001]

So it’s 128m high interest debt repayment now is it? That’s jumped.

If you read it properly I didn't say £128 million of debt repayment - It said £128million quid's WORTH of debt repayment. In other words, repayments on £128 million quid debt whatever that maybe. I think you know what I meant...

And we are back into semantic anti-vaxxer levels of debate again.

There is a substantive point to be rebutted but what you get it silly semantics, which says much in itself.

[RVclaret]

If you read it properly I didn't say £128 million of debt repayment - It said £128million quid's WORTH of debt repayment. In other words, repayments on £128 million quid debt whatever that maybe. I think you know what I meant...

And we are back into semantic anti-vaxxer levels of debate again.

There is a substantive point to be rebutted but what you get it silly semantics, which says much in itself.

Well you’re making claims on debt levels which you simply don’t know are true.

[Rombald]

If you read it properly I didn't say £128 million of debt repayment - It said £128million quid's WORTH of debt repayment. In other words, repayments on £128 million quid debt whatever that maybe. I think you know what I meant...

And we are back into semantic anti-vaxxer levels of debate again.

There is a substantive point to be rebutted but what you get it silly semantics, which says much in itself.

It doesn't help matters if you keep mentioning anti vaxxer statements. Not relevant and detracts from any comments you may be making .
I'm not actually what you want the club to say. Clearly you don't like the debt structure but there is no need to go on and on about it. It's not going to change.

[ClaretPete001]

Well you’re making claims on debt levels which you simply don’t know are true.

Then what is the truth?

[RVclaret]

Then what is the truth?

We don’t know in full yet, hopefully the accounts of BFC shed a bit more light, which is way I think it’s better waiting for them than speculating and throwing figures around like 128m worth of debt to pay. But even then I doubt they will divulge any special arrangements in the event of relegation, for example.

[ClaretPete001]

We don’t know in full yet, hopefully the accounts of BFC shed a bit more light, which is way I think it’s better waiting for them than speculating and throwing figures around like 128m worth of debt to pay. But even then I doubt they will divulge any special arrangements in the event of relegation, for example.

As you know, or should do if you know anything, the debt is not Burnley's so it won't be in the clubs accounts. You may find out a little more but ultimately you won't know everything because the club is unlikely to want us to know everything; particularly, if it's not favourable to the club - then what?

[ClaretPete001]

It doesn't help matters if you keep mentioning anti vaxxer statements. Not relevant and detracts from any comments you may be making .
I'm not actually what you want the club to say. Clearly you don't like the debt structure but there is no need to go on and on about it. It's not going to change.

Apropos of nothing It is not possible to mute or block Rombald on this forum? That would seem to be your best way forward. And if you can it would be useful to know.

And yes it's time to move on albeit I'm looking forward to Chester's analysis, which will be very useful.

[Jakubclaret]

It doesn't help matters if you keep mentioning anti vaxxer statements. Not relevant and detracts from any comments you may be making .
I'm not actually what you want the club to say. Clearly you don't like the debt structure but there is no need to go on and on about it. It's not going to change.

“Clearly you don’t like the debt structure” seriously hand on heart does anybody? the money which could be utilised towards the betterment of the club is being used to pay interest rates off because our owners couldn’t finance the purchase using their own money, to say it’s not ideal would be a gross understatement!

[Rombald]

“Clearly you don’t like the debt structure” seriously hand on heart does anybody? the money which could be utilised towards the betterment of the club is being used to pay interest rates off because our owners couldn’t finance the purchase using their own money, to say it’s not ideal would be a gross understatement!

No, most, if not all would prefer no debt. That's obvious. However droning on about it isn't going to change anything

[Jakubclaret]

No, most, if not all would prefer no debt. That's obvious. However droning on about it isn't going to change anything

No it doesn’t but equally pretending it’s not an issue isn’t helpful.

[Rombald]

Apropos of nothing It is not possible to mute or block Rombald on this forum? That would seem to be your best way forward. And if you can it would be useful to know.

And yes it's time to move on albeit I'm looking forward to Chester's analysis, which will be very useful.

Mure me if you'd like. The feeling is more than mutual.

[Rombald]

Mute even

[ClaretPete001]

Mute even

I don't want to mute you Rombald I think your contributions are fantastic

I was just suggesting you could mute me, frankly, I find myself really boring. You know I'm from Burnley and getting on a bit and I suppose over the years you grow attached to things and those things become part of your identity so you do tend to go on a bit sometimes - so I sympathise with your pain.

I just wondered that while muting me you could tell me how to do it for future reference. I might even mute myself if I get too boring.

[Paul Waine]

As you know, or should do if you know anything, the debt is not Burnley's so it won't be in the clubs accounts. You may find out a little more but ultimately you won't know everything because the club is unlikely to want us to know everything; particularly, if it's not favourable to the club - then what?

Pete, when BFC accounts are published accounting disclosure rules mean we should learn something about the obligations BFC has for the Calder Vale loan from MSD which has been reported to be £60 million. We should also learn something about intercompany transactions between BFC and Calder Vale, which could include any loans made by BFC to Calder Vale (or other ALK entity). I don't know if we will learn anything about ALK's arrangements with the former directors for the purchase of their shares and how much of the purchase price had already been paid at the date of the accounts, 31st July 2021, and how much is due, in instalments, at later dates. We should learn if the ALK directors are receiving any remuneration from BFC.
We may learn something about the offer to small shareholders, even though this offer was some months after the end of the 31st July 2021 accounting period and this offer was not made by BFC. Details made include the club credit arrangements, all assuming the accounts are signed off shortly before the due date of publishing the accounts, 30th April 2022.

We should be prepared to learn one or two items in the accounts that we have not been expecting.

UTC

[Jakubclaret]

I just don't see the need for the club to respond to every article when there's nothing new, the media may as well just say " it's nothing new but we've moved some words around" and I certainly don't see the need for the club to lay out its business plan because some fans think they're entitled to see it.

“I certainly don’t see the need for the club to lay out its business plan because some fans think they’re entitled to see it” & by that same token it could be perfectly understandable for some concerned fans/supporters to stop spending their money until they do see a business plan (if 1 exists) with reassurances that the club is in safe hands. It works both ways.

[ClaretPete001]

Pete, when BFC accounts are published accounting disclosure rules mean we should learn something about the obligations BFC has for the Calder Vale loan from MSD which has been reported to be £60 million. We should also learn something about intercompany transactions between BFC and Calder Vale, which could include any loans made by BFC to Calder Vale (or other ALK entity). I don't know if we will learn anything about ALK's arrangements with the former directors for the purchase of their shares and how much of the purchase price had already been paid at the date of the accounts, 31st July 2021, and how much is due, in instalments, at later dates. We should learn if the ALK directors are receiving any remuneration from BFC.
We may learn something about the offer to small shareholders, even though this offer was some months after the end of the 31st July 2021 accounting period and this offer was not made by BFC. Details made include the club credit arrangements, all assuming the accounts are signed off shortly before the due date of publishing the accounts, 30th April 2022.

We should be prepared to learn one or two items in the accounts that we have not been expecting.

UTC

True Paul - your are a well of wisdom even if I find your "excitement" bordering on madness..!

[NewClaret]

And that is all I'm asking for anyone on here to do - argue based on known facts and not conjecture or an extreme scepticism about known facts.

Genuine question claretpete001 - what are you seeking to achieve with your continual prophesying of doom on this subject?

Do you just feel better discussing it? Are you looking to form a group to try and do something about it? Or just convince everyone they should be as worried as you?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

“I certainly don’t see the need for the club to lay out its business plan because some fans think they’re entitled to see it” & by that same token it could be perfectly understandable for some concerned fans/supporters to stop spending their money until they do see a business plan (if 1 exists) with reassurances that the club is in safe hands. It works both ways.

That's fine, there's a core of about 6k fans who won't change their spending habits, the rest are only after PL or at best championship football.
If the club dropped to league 1 and stayed there a while the attendances would reflect that despite the claims fans are tied to the club forever etc

[Jakubclaret]

That's fine, there's a core of about 6k fans who won't change their spending habits, the rest are only after PL or at best championship football.
If the club dropped to league 1 and stayed there a while the attendances would reflect that despite the claims fans are tied to the club forever etc

That’s true the hardcore will support no matter what but the position the club are in they (ALK) need far more than the 6K who religiously attend & discouraging people from attending probably isn’t advisable, some fans albeit a small minority will want to see the business plans & won’t be satisfied until that happens. If you engage & become transparent the more casual leaning fans become onboard with the purpose.

[TheFamilyCat]

That’s true the hardcore will support no matter what but the position the club are in they (ALK) need far more than the 6K who religiously attend & discouraging people from attending probably isn’t advisable, some fans albeit a small minority will want to see the business plans & won’t be satisfied until that happens. If you engage & become transparent the more casual leaning fans become onboard with the purpose.

You've already stopped attending because of the knee thing. For the good of this board lock yourself away in a room with no WiFi and just Talksport for company.

[Jakubclaret]

I wish he would! It’s something I’ve been striving towards for years he just won’t take the hint.

[aggi]

I think the insolvency clauses will be interesting because unless you are prepared to accept conjecture about what ALK may or may not bring to the table or apply "anti-vaxxer" levels of scepticism to the nature of facts you would have to conclude, based upon Blackburn Rovers experience of relegation (and to a lesser extent Stoke), that £128 million quid's worth of high interest debt repayment will be very difficult to maintain in the Championship on a turnover that could eventually be as little as £20 million (after 3 years) without significant intervention from billionaire owners.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/f ... ue-3651238

Because it is these known facts and the self-evident conclusion you can draw from them, which is driving media speculation. And that is all I'm asking for anyone on here to do - argue based on known facts and not conjecture or an extreme scepticism about known facts.

I don't think anyone disputes that £128m (I do love how specific this is, I'd be intrigued to see how it has been arrived at) of high interest debt would be difficult to service in the championship.

What people are disputing is whether Burnley would have to service £128m of high interest in the championship. You seem very certain it's going to happen and belittle anytime who questions it but the actual evidence presented has been minimal at best.

[TheFamilyCat]

I wish he would! It’s something I’ve been striving towards for years he just won’t take the hint.

Five years spent writing 6,000 posts of utter drivel had just been an attempt to get me to block you? Well, it has been a Herculean effort, I will give you that. I'm keen to see how much longer you keep trying.

[Quickenthetempo]

Does anyone know what the loan was used for?

Was it 60m?

You don't pay 6m a year interest to have it saved away for a rainy day.

[Devils_Advocate]

When you buy shares off people to take over a football cub you have to pay them for their shares. I suspect that is what the £60m was used for

[BurnleyFC]

Does anyone know what the loan was used for?

Was it 60m?

You don't pay 6m a year interest to have it saved away for a rainy day.

It was used to put towards Alan’s beautiful mortgage for the club which we should all be really happy about.

[ClaretCliff]

That’s true the hardcore will support no matter what but the position the club are in they (ALK) need far more than the 6K who religiously attend & discouraging people from attending probably isn’t advisable, some fans albeit a small minority will want to see the business plans & won’t be satisfied until that happens. If you engage & become transparent the more casual leaning fans become onboard with the purpose.

I’m sorry, Jakub, but that is complete b*ll*cks. Do you honestly think that some supporters will not go on the Turf because they do not have sight of the club’s business plans??? There are some genuine reasons why people might skip a game - lack of cash, bad weather, something else on, even the taking of the knee (:lol:) - but to not go on because you haven’t seen the clubs business plan!!??!! As I said, complete b*ll*cks.

[Jakubclaret]

I’m sorry, Jakub, but that is complete b*ll*cks. Do you honestly think that some supporters will not go on the Turf because they do not have sight of the club’s business plans??? There are some genuine reasons why people might skip a game - lack of cash, bad weather, something else on, even the taking of the knee (:lol:) - but to not go on because you haven’t seen the clubs business plan!!??!! As I said, complete b*ll*cks.

Yes that’s true people have various different reasons for not attending, we have to pick Oscar up from the youth club or sally my missus is doing a double shift & I need to look after the little uns & so on….. I’m not disputing other reasons won’t exist, regarding the business plans when some people decide to support a football club some people are investing their time & money & to a degree some emotion into doing so, you’ve literally taken my post & perceived I don’t think a myriad of excusable & justifiable reasons don’t exist for people not attending, some people won’t be attending because of a poor transfer window, the entertainment on offer, our league position & the interpretation we are getting taken for a ride by the owners, it must be stressed that there’s no suggestion I’m implying that is the case.

[ClaretPete001]

I don't think anyone disputes that £128m (I do love how specific this is, I'd be intrigued to see how it has been arrived at) of high interest debt would be difficult to service in the championship.

What people are disputing is whether Burnley would have to service £128m of high interest in the championship. You seem very certain it's going to happen and belittle anytime who questions it but the actual evidence presented has been minimal at best.

I know but we are back to scepticism again. Nobody knows the specifics of climate change or whether a vaccine may or may not have long term effects on a particular population. We don't know how the global economy will perform after Covid or the impact of Brexit on the stock market. And more to the point no one knows whether Burnley will be relegated or otherwise yet it doesn't stop people arguing about it ad infinitum.

Nobody knows this stuff....! Nobody is every going to know the detail

I am not certain on the actual figures but expect someone to be able to develop a narrative on the direction of travel.

Paul does it very well and you learn a lot from him. I don't agree with his view that ALK will find external funding to the extent that seems necessary or that ALK will bring an expertise but he has a narrative that makes sense. I just don't agree with him and he doesn't agree with me - where is the problem?

[ClaretPete001]

Genuine question claretpete001 - what are you seeking to achieve with your continual prophesying of doom on this subject?

Do you just feel better discussing it? Are you looking to form a group to try and do something about it? Or just convince everyone they should be as worried as you?

Believe it or not it is because people keep quoting me, and I feel out of courtesy and possibly a little bit of last wordism, that I need to respond. Factually speaking I don't create these posts nor seek to raise the issue on any other threads.

[Colburn_Claret]

I've not read this thread. Too much conjecture and pessimistic mentality can cloud a persons judgement.

No one likes debt, but most businesses, and certainly most football clubs carry debt. Many of them ridiculous amounts of debt.
The only question is is it manageable.
I would suggest that Burnleys debt, without seeing the books, is. If it wasn't the Chris Wood money would have gone straight to the bank, we wouldn't have tried to buy a winger and a midfielder (even though we ultimately failed), and the Turf wouldn't look like Blackpool illuminations.

We don't know what Alan Pace is doing, but it seems clear through the last 2 windows, and the investment around the ground, that AP does. Sometimes you have to have a little faith.

[ClaretPete001]

I've not read this thread. Too much conjecture and pessimistic mentality can cloud a persons judgement.

No one likes debt, but most businesses, and certainly most football clubs carry debt. Many of them ridiculous amounts of debt.
The only question is is it manageable.
I would suggest that Burnleys debt, without seeing the books, is. If it wasn't the Chris Wood money would have gone straight to the bank, we wouldn't have tried to buy a winger and a midfielder (even though we ultimately failed), and the Turf wouldn't look like Blackpool illuminations.

We don't know what Alan Pace is doing, but it seems clear through the last 2 windows, and the investment around the ground, that AP does. Sometimes you have to have a little faith.

I would like to try and get away from this thread but this is a classic example:

"Too much conjecture"

and then

"I would suggest that Burnleys debt, without seeing the books, is. If it wasn't the Chris Wood money would have gone straight to the bank, we wouldn't have tried to buy a winger and a midfielder (even though we ultimately failed), and the Turf wouldn't look like Blackpool illuminations."

[Jakubclaret]

I would like to try and get away from this thread but this is a classic example:

"Too much conjecture"

and then

"I would suggest that Burnleys debt, without seeing the books, is. If it wasn't the Chris Wood money would have gone straight to the bank, we wouldn't have tried to buy a winger and a midfielder (even though we ultimately failed), and the Turf wouldn't look like Blackpool illuminations."

Roughly half was & that’s no conjecture & managing something in 1 league & another league are completely different beasts.

[Colburn_Claret]

I would like to try and get away from this thread but this is a classic example:

"Too much conjecture"

and then

"I would suggest that Burnleys debt, without seeing the books, is. If it wasn't the Chris Wood money would have gone straight to the bank, we wouldn't have tried to buy a winger and a midfielder (even though we ultimately failed), and the Turf wouldn't look like Blackpool illuminations."

If you think it's unreasonable to assume that we wouldn't have bought Weghorst, IF we are in financial difficulties, then you aren't making use of the few facts we are party to.
I know no more than the next man, in fact some on here probably do know more, but any one should be able to see that we wouldn't be spending money if we couldn't afford it. There is nothing in APs history, or demeanour to suggest he buys businesses to run them into the ground.

It's a fact that no one on this message board knows more about our finances than AP does, so if he sees fit to buy players, and pursue others, then if you have to speculate, it's a lot safer to assume that the club are in control of finances.

[NewClaret]

Believe it or not it is because people keep quoting me, and I feel out of courtesy and possibly a little bit of last wordism, that I need to respond. Factually speaking I don't create these posts nor seek to raise the issue on any other threads.

That’s a fair point ClaretPete.

I do think these discussions become cyclical because there are so many unknowns, theories prevail over facts (barring a small number of very insightful posters) and I’m not sure what good that can achieve.

Setting aside some good progress by ALK in other areas, the financial aspects are obviously a concern to all fans in the event of relegation. But that hasn’t happened yet, may not (albeit looks more probable than not atm), and I think we all agree in the short-term we’re very lucky to have relegation clauses, expiring contracts and saleable assets that will comfortably prevent implosion. So this conversation is about several years in to the future. And that feels to me like worrying about a deadly disease before you’ve caught it - we all know there’s a risk of doing so but living in fear until you do is a complete waste of life.

[ClaretPete001]

If you think it's unreasonable to assume that we wouldn't have bought Weghorst, IF we are in financial difficulties, then you aren't making use of the few facts we are party to.
I know no more than the next man, in fact some on here probably do know more, but any one should be able to see that we wouldn't be spending money if we couldn't afford it. There is nothing in APs history, or demeanour to suggest he buys businesses to run them into the ground.

It's a fact that no one on this message board knows more about our finances than AP does, so if he sees fit to buy players, and pursue others, then if you have to speculate, it's a lot safer to assume that the club are in control of finances.

For the record, I don't think anybody has said the club is in financial difficulties currently or anything like it.

[ClaretPete001]

That’s a fair point ClaretPete.

I do think these discussions become cyclical because there are so many unknowns, theories prevail over facts (barring a small number of very insightful posters) and I’m not sure what good that can achieve.

Setting aside some good progress by ALK in other areas, the financial aspects are obviously a concern to all fans in the event of relegation. But that hasn’t happened yet, may not (albeit looks more probable than not atm), and I think we all agree in the short-term we’re very lucky to have relegation clauses, expiring contracts and saleable assets that will comfortably prevent implosion. So this conversation is about several years in to the future. And that feels to me like worrying about a deadly disease before you’ve caught it - we all know there’s a risk of doing so but living in fear until you do is a complete waste of life.

True but to be fair, American style leveraged buyouts - the direction of travel of the Premiership and where Burnley fits into it seems more relevant to a Burnley Football forum than Cressida Dick.

[ClaretCliff]

Yes that’s true people have various different reasons for not attending, we have to pick Oscar up from the youth club or sally my missus is doing a double shift & I need to look after the little uns & so on….. I’m not disputing other reasons won’t exist, regarding the business plans when some people decide to support a football club some people are investing their time & money & to a degree some emotion into doing so, you’ve literally taken my post & perceived I don’t think a myriad of excusable & justifiable reasons don’t exist for people not attending, some people won’t be attending because of a poor transfer window, the entertainment on offer, our league position & the interpretation we are getting taken for a ride by the owners, it must be stressed that there’s no suggestion I’m implying that is the case.

Sorry, Jakub, but you have got the wrong end of the stick. I am saying there are a large number of valid reasons for missing games, but failure to have sight of the clubs business plans is not one of them.

[taio]

True but to be fair, American style leveraged buyouts - the direction of travel of the Premiership and where Burnley fits into it seems more relevant to a Burnley Football forum than Cressida Dick.

Absolutely right that this continues to be discussed. I struggle to think of a more important subject for this messageboard. There have been some great contributions on the topic from a handful of very knowledgeable posters. And of course those who don't want to engage needn't visit or revisit the thread(s).

[Jakubclaret]

Sorry, Jakub, but you have got the wrong end of the stick. I am saying there are a large number of valid reasons for missing games, but failure to have sight of the clubs business plans is not one of them.

It’s not for you & might not be for the majority but have you asked every single non attendee their reasons, like I’ve said a multitude of reasons will exist. If it wasn’t for the knee business that in addition would be another reason I’d abstain. If you think there isn’t 1 single burnley fan who doesn’t attend turf & not of them aren’t keen on ALK & that’s the reason fair enough.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It’s not for you & might not be for the majority but have you asked every single non attendee their reasons, like I’ve said a multitude of reasons will exist. If it wasn’t for the knee business that in addition would be another reason I’d abstain. If you think there isn’t 1 single burnley fan who doesn’t attend turf & not of them aren’t keen on ALK & that’s the reason fair enough.

There will be numerous fans unsure of ALK and what the future holds.
There will be barely any refusing to attend because they haven't had a full briefing of ALK's future plans for the club.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Absolutely right that this continues to be discussed. I struggle to think of a more important subject for this messageboard. There have been some great contributions on the topic from a handful of very knowledgeable posters. And of course those who don't want to engage needn't visit or revisit the thread(s).

Probably doesn't need a new thread though anytime there's an article in the media, especially when it's not really saying anything new or insightful

[Jakubclaret]

There will be numerous fans unsure of ALK and what the future holds.
There will be barely any refusing to attend because they haven't had a full briefing of ALK's future plans for the club.

Nobody wants & nobody is asking for the ins & outs of a backend of a fart, any efforts for smidgens of information seems to be bizarrely interpreted as if drilling deep down into the depths of ALKs business model & complete financial overview is being asked of, when people simply want to know basic everyday run of the mill stuff.

[taio]

Probably doesn't need a new thread though anytime there's an article in the media, especially when it's not really saying anything new or insightful

Possibly not. But given the subject's significant importance, and relative to the importance of many other threads, it doesn't surprise me at all there's more than one thread.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Nobody wants & nobody is asking for the ins & outs of a backend of a fart, any efforts for smidgens of information seems to be bizarrely interpreted as if drilling deep down into the depths of ALKs business model & complete financial overview is being asked of, when people simply want to know basic everyday run of the mill stuff.

They want to know the club's plans in detail.
The basic everyday stuff is easy to see, buy and sell players, improve squad as they go along and improve revenue streams via advertising and sponsorship etc and has been discussed on here.

There are a core group who feel they're entitled to have full access to everything and make demands that the club address every article by releasing all of the information, which no club does because it's no business of the fans quite simply

[Jakubclaret]

They want to know the club's plans in detail.
The basic everyday stuff is easy to see, buy and sell players, improve squad as they go along and improve revenue streams via advertising and sponsorship etc and has been discussed on here.

There are a core group who feel they're entitled to have full access to everything and make demands that the club address every article by releasing all of the information, which no club does because it's no business of the fans quite simply

I want the man at the top to show some testicular fortitude & to front Jordan up & stop being dismantled, mainly in the event of relegation - how will the landscape change & how will that impact upon our current obligations regarding the debt repayments, not difficult answers with a plan in place & to allay concerns, some people aren’t asking for chapter & verse & full access for everything, bog standard questions = bog standard answers.