ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Colburn_Claret]

Last time we got relegated we kept all possible players and made some big incoming transfers to replace the ones that left. With hindsight, would we have done better selling everything that moved?

Obviously no, but at that point we still had money in the bank and didn't have to spend fortunes on repaying loans and loan interest that brought no benefit ot the club at all.

The squad was a lot younger then, we needed a big overhaul, and that would never be possible if we'd kept our best players and tried to raise funds from the rest. It isn't right to compare the 2 because they are completely different circumstances.

[spt_claret]

Well it started badly, tailed off a little towards the middle, and the less said about the ending the better. Other than that…..utter dog toffee

Garlick wanted out with as much money trousered as possible. Hence no support for Dyche. That’s not the fault of Pace.

Dyche repeatedly demonstrated during his time here that he had his favourites in the squad, and he got away with that stubbornness/arrogance for a very long time. And then he didn’t, and it cost us. That’s not the fault of Pace.
The message sent by the performances against Brighton and Spurs Stevie Wonder could’ve seen, and I think maybe SD could too, but his sheer bloody mindedness saw us relegated. That’s not the fault of Pace.

Pace did his best to get players in, but it was far too late for that. He even traveled to Croatia to try to secure the services of a player. There simply wasn’t enough time to reverse the trend, and not enough willingness by SD to acknowledge the “old way” wasn’t enough anymore.

To suggest SD is solely to blame is naive I’ll give you that, but to suggest as you have it’s nothing to do with SD and is the fault of others is equally naive.

Pace this and pace that, and all the while the real culprit is sunning himself somewhere watching and laughing whilst people blame his replacement for our current predicament.

Pace will be judged at some point, no doubt about it, but he should be judged on what happens during his full tenure, not what happened in the few weeks after he took over somebody else’s shitshow.

Nonsensical.
"That’s not the fault of Pace." - Nobody made him make an offer of a leveraged takeover. He did not have to buy Burnley, and it's not like he wanted to buy with his own cash but Garlick said "No you must use club assets". It's absurd to blame Garlick for accepting the terms of the sale, but not Pace for the terms of HIS OWN PURCHASE OFFER.
It's truly fascinating to me that anyone could blame the person agreeing to a leveraged offer but not the person making it. So what if Pace isn't a Burnley fan and Garlick claims to be? Pace now owns the club and has done so by stacking the purchase obligations on the club itself. Just because he's not a fan doesn't mean he's free from blame, he was the active party in the deal, and the idea that they were 'entitled' to do it is equally ludicrous. They were legally permitted to do it, yes. I'd argue there is a moral entitlement, regarding community assets like a football club, to not jeopardise their future just so you can acquire ownership. On this entitlement the takeover was somewhat lacking. And the FA clearly agree with the idea of moral responsibilities in takeovers, as our takeover is being talked about as an example of an area where rules may need to be changed to prevent this happening again.

"Dyche had his favourites...and he got away with it....and then he didn't". He stopped getting away with it when Garlick stopped sanctioning transfers Dyche wanted/thrusting players on him years after the fact, and, if claims are to be believed, when Pace started picking the transfers for him. Oh, and when Wood was sold- which, yes he had only had 3 last season, it was good money, made sense as a deal- the year before he'd also been slow scoring til January then went on a tear. Not against the sale, wasn't at the time, fully thought Weghorst was an upgrade but it didn't work out that way. To imply that Dyche 'got away with' the success he had is a great disservice to him, given things started going wrong as soon as his budget went from 'small' to 'nonexistant' and his actual say in transfers got diminished. And for the record- summer 2021 still saw us spend less GROSS than summer 2019, so no, Pace did not invest more than Garlick except compared to 2020- when the sale was already being prepped.
The Croatia travel is entirely the work of a single local journalist puff piece. You again talk about Dyche not acknowledging the old way didn't work- it was Dyche's way being changed for him first by budget then by owners overruling him that coincided with on pitch struggles.

I do agree for the record that Dyche had his favourites, that he was resistant to adapt selections or tactics even when they yielded success (Cork & Pieters coming in through injuries, 433 vs Chelsea), both between and during matches. That at least one member of his backroom staff sounds to have been a problem with some players. I do think these are flaws which contributed to our problems & relegation- I happen to just think they contributed significantly less than other actions (budget squeezing, transfer policy clashes) and that the positives he brought, even in 2020-21 when we survived narrowly, offset those flaws more than either Garlick or Pace's positives did. And yes there are some people who won't ever criticise Dyche - I will even though I'm still unsure about the sacking- but there's also people who seem incapable of criticising Pace. Garlick squeezed the budgets, sold the club accepting a bad deal for the club's own future, but he also had run a financially sustainable ship with plenty of futureproofing, oversaw growth of many assets including Barnfield, the Academy and the hospitality investment which was then completed under Pace's tenure, and put his own money in to begin with, even if he took a hefty profit out. Pace (and I'm doing my best to find positives for balance) has done much better media engagement & PR than Garlick, he is certainly willing to make bold calls (although with that comes huge risk), he's made some exciting-sounding signings like Cornet and Weghorst (albeit the latter hasn't worked out like hoped and allegedly wasn't wanted by Dyche) and he's been positive and ambitious about a five year plan for European football which is an admirable goal, but he has overseen a slew of backwards steps from financial security to Academy status to real-terms transfer spending to, most obviously, league status. And to play that off as "the few weeks after he took over someone else's shitshow" is extremely protective of the man. It's been 2 years since the takeover talks began and 18 months since he took over, and guess what? The problems started 2 years ago. If we don't rebound this season, the club is going to have a much taller order of ever regaining Premier League status because we face the prospects of more player churn and more financial squeezing between revenue drops and loan repayments. I genuinely fear that if we miss the rebound, we may end up becoming a Championship feeder club for the next 10-15 years. I hope Kompany and his signings can pull it off, but we're facing such turmoil right now that it's a massive ask for him. And it's a position that he's bravely chosen to take on, but a position that has been almost entirely created by the prelude, negotiations, terms, and subsequent internal disputes arising from the sale. Which was driven by 2 parties, not 1.

[Big Vinny K]

Point 1:

I’m saying the club is operating under a new financial framework and that selling its best players is not to pay for a new chairman but to service / pay for a very different set of costs and commitments than existed under the previous owners (and with after relegation a very different level of revenue too).

The new commitments you refer to are the shares paid for by the club and now owned by the new Chairman and his fellow investors.

Point 2:

"Most clubs that are relegated have always faced similar challenges - sponsorship revenue falling, TV income etc and often when the clubs are debt ridden the debt providers will have clauses relating to relegation to reduce their exposure."

This is true but it doesn't tell the whole truth, which is that while most clubs do have issue of the nature you describe Burnley's is exacerbated because the current owners used £50 million quid of the clubs money to buy purchase the club.

Point 3:

And in our case it’s made significantly harder because we got relegated in the year after a take over that has clearly burdened the club with tens of millions of costs we did not have previously.

Well yes to facilitate the new ownership and new chairman

No offence Big Vinny, I don't think I've ever seen anyone go through so many hoops to avoid saying what is self-evidently being said...!

Honestly - the irony of your last “no offence” sentence is hilarious. Have a look back at your own posting on this thread yesterday…..reminds me very much of a certain Ringo Mc in style, frequency, length etc !!

I understand that the nature of our takeover was unusual and I am not for one minute trying to justify it or say it is anything other than a bad thing for the club. I have no idea how some posters on here manage to find any optimism whatsoever in our new financial position.

But I am saying that our situation of being relegated and finding ourselves in a perilous financial position is not unique……do I seriously need to list the many clubs who have ended up in a mess after being relegated ? And whilst they may not have had the kind of leveraged take over we did they will have had their own “unique” set of issues which in any other sector than football they would be very unlikely to get away with.

Just look around at the clubs on our doorstep who have been relegated - Blackburn, Bolton and Blackpool and you will see 3 examples all with their unique financial issues that crystallised after relegation and led to their fans being unhappy (an understatement I know !!) with their club.

Unfortunately it’s more probable than not based on recent history that we are going to join that very long list of clubs who have taken on far too great a financial risk exposure to cope with the consequences of relegation from the Premier League (or compete with some of the clubs in the championship with stronger finances than us)

[Paul Waine]

And was it suggested that the 100m was going to be invested in Burnley FC, or was it going to be invested in ALK capital?

ALK Capital is Burnley FC. Though, if you read my other posts I think any new investments gained by Alan Pace will be in Velocity Sports US, because that is the vehicle for new investors.

[spt_claret]

ALK Capital is Burnley FC. Though, if you read my other posts I think any new investments gained by Alan Pace will be in Velocity Sports US, because that is the vehicle for new investors.

Don't be facetious Paul. When he says "invested in ALK Capital or Burnley FC" he very clearly means is it going on the owners debts/other ventures/pockets or on playing staff, sporting infrastructure, facilities etc. For the football club.

[Paul Waine]

Last time we got relegated we kept all possible players and made some big incoming transfers to replace the ones that left. With hindsight, would we have done better selling everything that moved?

Obviously no, but at that point we still had money in the bank and didn't have to spend fortunes on repaying loans and loan interest that brought no benefit ot the club at all.

In April 2014, through work, I met one of the then BFC co-chairmen. We chatted about BFC. I asked if Sean Dyche would get the team promoted in his first full season. He told me that, if it happened, it was too soon, the board was planning and preparing for promotion the next season. As we all know we went up in second place. Many were then disappointed that little was done to strengthen the team and relegation followed in May 2015. There weren't many "premier league" players in the team that was relegated, so not a lot who had made their claim to be sold and remain with another club in the Premier League. So, that's why for the most part the team and squad stayed together. Of course, accessing Premier League tv money, followed by a season of parachute payments helped strengthen the squad, plus provide the funds for the development of Barnfield and the other infrastructure stuff around Turf Moor.

[joey13]

Honestly - the irony of your last “no offence” sentence is hilarious. Have a look back at your own posting on this thread yesterday…..reminds me very much of a certain Ringo Mc in style, frequency, length etc !!

I understand that the nature of our takeover was unusual and I am not for one minute trying to justify it or say it is anything other than a bad thing for the club. I have no idea how some posters on here manage to find any optimism whatsoever in our new financial position.

But I am saying that our situation of being relegated and finding ourselves in a perilous financial position is not unique……do I seriously need to list the many clubs who have ended up in a mess after being relegated ? And whilst they may not have had the kind of leveraged take over we did they will have had their own “unique” set of issues which in any other sector than football they would be very unlikely to get away with.

Just look around at the clubs on our doorstep who have been relegated - Blackburn, Bolton and Blackpool and you will see 3 examples all with their unique financial issues that crystallised after relegation and led to their fans being unhappy (an understatement I know !!) with their club.

Unfortunately it’s more probable than not based on recent history that we are going to join that very long list of clubs who have taken on far too great a financial risk exposure to cope with the consequences of relegation from the Premier League (or compete with some of the clubs in the championship with stronger finances than us)

So enlighten us what was your old user name ?

[Paul Waine]

Don't be facetious Paul. When he says "invested in ALK Capital or Burnley FC" he very clearly means is it going on the owners debts/other ventures/pockets or on playing staff, sporting infrastructure, facilities etc. For the football club.

I've not got the faintest idea what you mean. What is "facetious" about the facts? The investors put their money in VS US. The money in VS US then flows through to meet the investment needs of the club, in exactly the same way as the original equity that ALK put into the deal when they bought the club.

It's why I say that Vincent Kompany gaining an MBA by studying at Manchester Business School is so important for the club. It makes him someone who understands finance and accounting and how businesses are run.

I know there are clubs who have been bought by their "super fans" and others who have been bought by billionaires who want to wear the cap of a super fan. None of those clubs are sustainable beyond the period that the super fan has their money to spend. Yes, there are also the Manchester Uniteds that have a global fan base and can make money selling tickets to watch the grass grow at Old Trafford and shirts to those who can't make it to Old Trafford. But, the rest of the world isn't like that.

[dsr]

ALK Capital is Burnley FC. Though, if you read my other posts I think any new investments gained by Alan Pace will be in Velocity Sports US, because that is the vehicle for new investors.

No it isn't. ALK owns Burnley FC, but Burnley FC is a separate entity in its own right. And as spt-claret accurately pointed out, if someone invests £100m in Burnley FC for use of Burnley FC to buy players and pay wages and help run a football club, it will be of more value to the club than if the money is paid to ALK to help pay ALK's debts and to give a nice little bonus to ALK's shareholders.

[dsr]

I've not got the faintest idea what you mean. What is "facetious" about the facts? The investors put their money in VS US. The money in VS US then flows through to meet the investment needs of the club, in exactly the same way as the original equity that ALK put into the deal when they bought the club.

Could you please clarify the bit about the equity that ALK put in, flowing through to meet the investment needs of the club?

[spt_claret]

I've not got the faintest idea what you mean. What is "facetious" about the facts? The investors put their money in VS US. The money in VS US then flows through to meet the investment needs of the club, in exactly the same way as the original equity that ALK put into the deal when they bought the club.

It's why I say that Vincent Kompany gaining an MBA by studying at Manchester Business School is so important for the club. It makes him someone who understands finance and accounting and how businesses are run.

I know there are clubs who have been bought by their "super fans" and others who have been bought by billionaires who want to wear the cap of a super fan. None of those clubs are sustainable beyond the period that the super fan has their money to spend. Yes, there are also the Manchester Uniteds that have a global fan base and can make money selling tickets to watch the grass grow at Old Trafford and shirts to those who can't make it to Old Trafford. But, the rest of the world isn't like that.

You're steadfastly "quoting the facts" with an exceptionally to the letter technical interpretation of meaning and ignoring the obvious meaning and context. You ignored it just now.

As for your fixation on the MBA, I have a colleague with an MBA who is a rude, abusive, arrogant and frankly not all that intelligent man. Loves signing off his emails with his MBA to remind everyone though. Meanwhile, one of the smartest people I know who spent his whole working life negotiating business deals and has an excellent grasp of finances has no qualifications beyond 2 A Levels. Speaking as someone with a Bsc & MSc from a Russell Group University across 2 disciplines - a qualification is a guideline but not a guarantee of aptitude or intelligence,and you can possess both without a qualification.

You're right, almost no football club is sustainable without either massive commercial appeal or someone pouring money into it. But being sustainable for as long as you have a billionaire owner is still better than not being sustainable. We happen to have no billionaire owner, are never going to have a Man U size global brand, but were sustainable prior to the sale. We now are not.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I'm not so convinced we were that sustainable prior to the sale.
The wage bill was increasing year on year, leaving very little for large moves in the transfer market.

We don't know for definite that we aren't sustainable anymore, because we're just in the process of rebuilding the team, we don't know how much our wage bill came down with the PL wages being reduced via departures and relegation clauses

[Paul Waine]

Could you please clarify the bit about the equity that ALK put in, flowing through to meet the investment needs of the club?

The reports back when the takeover took place was that somewhere between £10m and £15m of the payment was ALK Capital's equity. Do you think MSD would have loaned £65m without seeing evidence that ALK were putting some of their own money in? Do you think Mike Garlick and the other directors would have agreed to sell and agree arrangements for some of the consideration to be deferred if they didn't know that ALK were putting some of their own money in?

Yes, £10m-£15m is a "bit thin" - but we also understand that ALK's plans were to bring a number of new investors in through VS US. I expect the covid-19 pandemic extended longer than they anticipated, just like it extended longer than everyone else anticipated, and that made it harder to add significantly to the equity in the early stages. Based on introductions, maybe it is just Malcolm Jenkins who has invested. And, I know we have no idea how much he has invested. That's how it works. There are many investors who aren't looking to "go public" and meet the fans. Nothing wrong with that, it's just their money that they've decided to invest.

[Paul Waine]

You're steadfastly "quoting the facts" with an exceptionally to the letter technical interpretation of meaning and ignoring the obvious meaning and context. You ignored it just now.

As for your fixation on the MBA, I have a colleague with an MBA who is a rude, abusive, arrogant and frankly not all that intelligent man. Loves signing off his emails with his MBA to remind everyone though. Meanwhile, one of the smartest people I know who spent his whole working life negotiating business deals and has an excellent grasp of finances has no qualifications beyond 2 A Levels. Speaking as someone with a Bsc & MSc from a Russell Group University across 2 disciplines - a qualification is a guideline but not a guarantee of aptitude or intelligence,and you can possess both without a qualification.

You're right, almost no football club is sustainable without either massive commercial appeal or someone pouring money into it. But being sustainable for as long as you have a billionaire owner is still better than not being sustainable. We happen to have no billionaire owner, are never going to have a Man U size global brand, but were sustainable prior to the sale. We now are not.

Sorry, spt. I know we can all make things up, but it doesn't move anything forward. That's why I stick to the facts that are in the public domain, i.e. we can "fact check" and know that those facts are correct. Where I'm using my judgement/guesswork/speculating I always aim to say that's what I'm doing.

As for your colleague, I haven't claimed that obtaining an MBA qualification makes someone a "nice person" or anything similar. All I'm saying is that Vincent Kompany is an elite level footballer - we know that from his career and the awards and trophies he has gained as captain of Man City and Belgian international - and Vincent Kompany has taken the time to study and obtain his MBA qualification. We can all, if we wish to, make our own judgements about his character and suitability as a football team manager.

I agree with you about aptitude and intelligence.

I also agree with you about sustainability among football clubs. Given the way billionaires have joined the football world, there's no way a small town club can survive amongst them. I have a friend who I was at college with - 50 years since I went to college - he's involved with a "small town club" - population larger than Burnley. The club he's involved with is in the 8th tier (or maybe 7th) and he feels that's as "good as it gets."

[dsr]

The reports back when the takeover took place was that somewhere between £10m and £15m of the payment was ALK Capital's equity. Do you think MSD would have loaned £65m without seeing evidence that ALK were putting some of their own money in? Do you think Mike Garlick and the other directors would have agreed to sell and agree arrangements for some of the consideration to be deferred if they didn't know that ALK were putting some of their own money in?

Yes, £10m-£15m is a "bit thin" - but we also understand that ALK's plans were to bring a number of new investors in through VS US. I expect the covid-19 pandemic extended longer than they anticipated, just like it extended longer than everyone else anticipated, and that made it harder to add significantly to the equity in the early stages. Based on introductions, maybe it is just Malcolm Jenkins who has invested. And, I know we have no idea how much he has invested. That's how it works. There are many investors who aren't looking to "go public" and meet the fans. Nothing wrong with that, it's just their money that they've decided to invest.

You really need to stretch the English language quite a lot to construe money paid to Mike Garlick as "meeting the investment needs of the club". Surely "investment needs of the club" would have to involve the club receiving some benefit.

[Paul Waine]

You really need to stretch the English language quite a lot to construe money paid to Mike Garlick as "meeting the investment needs of the club". Surely "investment needs of the club" would have to involve the club receiving some benefit.

I'm beginning to feel as though I've entered a parallel universe or fallen down a rabbit hole. You do know that you need to buy a football club from the previous owners before you can make your own investments in the club, don't you?

I see, of course, that you are fixated on every penny that is spent on players transfer fees and wages counts as an "investment in the club" and nothing else matters.

My view is a lot broader than that.

UTC

[dsr]

I'm beginning to feel as though I've entered a parallel universe or fallen down a rabbit hole. You do know that you need to buy a football club from the previous owners before you can make your own investments in the club, don't you?

I see, of course, that you are fixated on every penny that is spent on players transfer fees and wages counts as an "investment in the club" and nothing else matters.

My view is a lot broader than that.

UTC

Like I say, different definitions. My idea of "investing in the club" is putting money into the club for the good of the club. Yours, it seems, it taking money out of the club for the good of the owners.

ALK have not put a penny into Burnley FC and have taken out over £100m. If your idea is that any new investors' cash "flows through to meet the investment needs of the club, in exactly the same way as the original equity that ALK put into the deal when they bought the club", then we would be better off without the new investors because we haven't got any more hundreds of millions of pounds to give out.

[aggi]

The reports back when the takeover took place was that somewhere between £10m and £15m of the payment was ALK Capital's equity. Do you think MSD would have loaned £65m without seeing evidence that ALK were putting some of their own money in? Do you think Mike Garlick and the other directors would have agreed to sell and agree arrangements for some of the consideration to be deferred if they didn't know that ALK were putting some of their own money in?

Yes, £10m-£15m is a "bit thin" - but we also understand that ALK's plans were to bring a number of new investors in through VS US. I expect the covid-19 pandemic extended longer than they anticipated, just like it extended longer than everyone else anticipated, and that made it harder to add significantly to the equity in the early stages. Based on introductions, maybe it is just Malcolm Jenkins who has invested. And, I know we have no idea how much he has invested. That's how it works. There are many investors who aren't looking to "go public" and meet the fans. Nothing wrong with that, it's just their money that they've decided to invest.

I don't know if this is DSR's point but none of that equity came into the club. It obviously all went to the former shareholders.

It does not appear that ALK have invested any of their money into the club (e.g. by the way of loans or share issues).

EDIT: I should probably have refreshed before posting.

[Paul Waine]

I don't know if this is DSR's point but none of that equity came into the club. It obviously all went to the former shareholders.

It does not appear that ALK have invested any of their money into the club (e.g. by the way of loans or share issues).

EDIT: I should probably have refreshed before posting.

Hi aggi, I'm sure you understand that to be an investor in a club you must first be an owner of the club. Similarly, to have been an investor and a former owner you must sell to a new owner and you will do that at the agreed valuation (with all the complexities that exist in m&a activities). No one invests without first establishing ownership rights. No one leaves ownership without receiving the value of their investment when they exit that ownership. The transfer of shares and the value of those shares between previous owners and new owners is an important and necessary part of new investors and new investment.

ALK are the owners of the club, thus they have invested in the club. They've taken on the role of owners with all the responsibilities that go with ownership. This includes the responsibilities of running a club in a manner that meets their aim - which they've recently expressed as returning to the Premier League and, I understand they said, playing again in Europe somewhere in the future. I'm pretty sure that, for most of us, the owners' aims for the club aligns with the fans hopes and wishes for the club.

[BurnleyFC]

Smiling assassin is Pace. A proper snake charmer.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi aggi, I'm sure you understand that to be an investor in a club you must first be an owner of the club. Similarly, to have been an investor and a former owner you must sell to a new owner and you will do that at the agreed valuation (with all the complexities that exist in m&a activities). No one invests without first establishing ownership rights. No one leaves ownership without receiving the value of their investment when they exit that ownership. The transfer of shares and the value of those shares between previous owners and new owners is an important and necessary part of new investors and new investment.

ALK are the owners of the club, thus they have invested in the club. They've taken on the role of owners with all the responsibilities that go with ownership. This includes the responsibilities of running a club in a manner that meets their aim - which they've recently expressed as returning to the Premier League and, I understand they said, playing again in Europe somewhere in the future. I'm pretty sure that, for most of us, the owners' aims for the club aligns with the fans hopes and wishes for the club.

Wittgenstein argued that language is understood in context. Paul, I think you could add a new insight into his philosophical contribution in that you have shown that language can also be misunderstood in any context.

I think Aggi well understands the meaning of investment and you well understand the context in which it is being used here.

[Paul Waine]

Wittgenstein argued that language is understood in context. Paul, I think you could add a new insight into his philosophical contribution in that you have shown that language can also be misunderstood in any context.

I think Aggi well understands the meaning of investment and you well understand the context in which it is being used here.

I see that you were arguing that someone can use the term "fire sale" to mean anything they want on another post and the rest of us can accept what has been said even though we know it's wrong. I'm undecided whether you are arguing against yourself this time or you are just not understanding what you are typing. I know I don't understand why you and other posters keep insisting on arguing that "red is blue" (or any other opposites).

[GodIsADeeJay81]

ClaretPete just likes to waffle with long winded posts.

[dsr]

Hi aggi, I'm sure you understand that to be an investor in a club you must first be an owner of the club. Similarly, to have been an investor and a former owner you must sell to a new owner and you will do that at the agreed valuation (with all the complexities that exist in m&a activities). No one invests without first establishing ownership rights. No one leaves ownership without receiving the value of their investment when they exit that ownership. The transfer of shares and the value of those shares between previous owners and new owners is an important and necessary part of new investors and new investment.

ALK are the owners of the club, thus they have invested in the club. They've taken on the role of owners with all the responsibilities that go with ownership. This includes the responsibilities of running a club in a manner that meets their aim - which they've recently expressed as returning to the Premier League and, I understand they said, playing again in Europe somewhere in the future. I'm pretty sure that, for most of us, the owners' aims for the club aligns with the fans hopes and wishes for the club.

Let me put it this way. For every pound that ALK have put into Burnley FC, Burnley FC have put £112 million into ALK.

[dsr]

I see that you were arguing that someone can use the term "fire sale" to mean anything they want on another post and the rest of us can accept what has been said even though we know it's wrong. I'm undecided whether you are arguing against yourself this time or you are just not understanding what you are typing. I know I don't understand why you and other posters keep insisting on arguing that "red is blue" (or any other opposites).

What you can use "fire sale" to mean, as it often is in American sports but with the same relevance over here, is when a club needs to get the payroll down and gets rid of the established, veteran players in order to replace them with cheapr, younger alternatives. I think it's fair comment to say this is what's happening here.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Fire_Sale

[Paul Waine]

Let me put it this way. For every pound that ALK have put into Burnley FC, Burnley FC have put £112 million into ALK.

Always happy to let you put it any way you want, dsr. ALK are still the owners of BFC.

[spt_claret]

Sorry, spt. I know we can all make things up, but it doesn't move anything forward. That's why I stick to the facts that are in the public domain, i.e. we can "fact check" and know that those facts are correct. Where I'm using my judgement/guesswork/speculating I always aim to say that's what I'm doing.

As for your colleague, I haven't claimed that obtaining an MBA qualification makes someone a "nice person" or anything similar. All I'm saying is that Vincent Kompany is an elite level footballer - we know that from his career and the awards and trophies he has gained as captain of Man City and Belgian international - and Vincent Kompany has taken the time to study and obtain his MBA qualification. We can all, if we wish to, make our own judgements about his character and suitability as a football team manager.

I agree with you about aptitude and intelligence.

I also agree with you about sustainability among football clubs. Given the way billionaires have joined the football world, there's no way a small town club can survive amongst them. I have a friend who I was at college with - 50 years since I went to college - he's involved with a "small town club" - population larger than Burnley. The club he's involved with is in the 8th tier (or maybe 7th) and he feels that's as "good as it gets."

Sincere question Paul- are you missing every point on purpose? Your entire rhetorical style, with everyone, is to argue semantics or address things that nobody is saying while ignoring what they do say. Or to draw them into over explaining so you can pick on one element which you think is weakest, ignore everything else, and pretend this means you 'won' the debate.

I didn't "make things up". You're moving literally nothing forward, and actively ignoring comments. Let me spell out the "is the 100m going to ALK or Burnley" thing another way since you're insisting the two are the same, and apparently need a detailed breakdown to understand.
Do you believe future investment will go towards the financial obligations of the buyout, the owners' outside business ventures whether through VSL, investments in things like their app, or just other businesses, or their own bank accounts- all of which for the avoidance of doubt I am going to categorise under the term 'ALK Capital' - or towards things like strengthening the playing staff, restoring the Academy to Cat 1, advancing the sporting and stadium infrastructure of the football club known as Burnley FC (specifically the people who run around on the pitch kicking the ball and the people who help coach & train them to do so and the facilities they use to do so) here termed 'Burnley Football Club'.

Let me spell out the point I was making again about the MBA because you've singled in on a single element, the nice person bit, and ignored the rest: Do you believe an MBA is an inherent guarantee of a person's aptitude, and that anybody with an MBA is automatically better at management tasks, sporting or otherwise, than anybody without an MBA? Do you believe that Vincent Kompany having an MBA makes him a better football manager in terms of on-pitch performance specifically, considered by most (though perhaps not ALK) the most important measure of a manager's performance? Do you believe that it is in any way useful to pre-judge a person's performance on the basis of a qualification which they have not yet noticeably put to use?

This small town club was surviving amongst them, for 6 years, while making incremental improvements to the club infrastructure to set us up for a stale future and building up a cash surplus that would have safeguarded against many of the current issues we are now facing with relegation. Do you believe ALK's takeover, and the terms of the takeover, have improved the club's sustainability so much through their brilliance at finance, that the debt, loss of cash safeguard, loss of Academy status, the requirement to sell players that this has triggered resulting in further squeezing of the footballing staff, and recent relegation, are all offset by their brilliance?

[scouseclaret]

Hi aggi, I'm sure you understand that to be an investor in a club you must first be an owner of the club. Similarly, to have been an investor and a former owner you must sell to a new owner and you will do that at the agreed valuation (with all the complexities that exist in m&a activities). No one invests without first establishing ownership rights. No one leaves ownership without receiving the value of their investment when they exit that ownership. The transfer of shares and the value of those shares between previous owners and new owners is an important and necessary part of new investors and new investment.

ALK are the owners of the club, thus they have invested in the club. They've taken on the role of owners with all the responsibilities that go with ownership. This includes the responsibilities of running a club in a manner that meets their aim - which they've recently expressed as returning to the Premier League and, I understand they said, playing again in Europe somewhere in the future. I'm pretty sure that, for most of us, the owners' aims for the club aligns with the fans hopes and wishes for the club.

Boris Johnson has spent his entire life saying things that are untrue, and some people believed him until it became manifestly obvious they weren’t! Alan Pace might have said all the right things (although the highly orchestrated social media appearances seem to have dried-up since he sacked Dyche) but it would be naive to assume his motives could not possibly be ulterior.

This is a highly leveraged buy-out. There is very little of his own capital at risk, and what there is, I suspect he is looking to take out at the earliest possible opportunity.

First and foremost, he is a venture capitalist who’s primary concern is to make a return on his investment. Does he care whether the Club is successful? It might have been easier if we’d stayed up and he’d been able to filch off a few more years of Premier League revenues, but that model would not be sustainable in the long-term. Relegation has triggered a plan B that means paying off debt obligations and protecting his own commitment.

Over the next three years the club will continue to be a cash cow from which the parachute payments and further players sales can be milked. The team can take its chances with a rookie manager and equally unproven young players. If it works, more booty, if not, no skin off Mr Pace’s nose.

Exciting times indeed.

[Vegas Claret]

Boris Johnson has spent his entire life saying things that are untrue, and some people believed him until it became manifestly obvious they weren’t! Alan Pace might have said all the right things (although the highly orchestrated social media appearances seem to have dried-up since he sacked Dyche) but it would be naive to assume his motives could not possibly be ulterior.

This is a highly leveraged buy-out. There is very little of his own capital at risk, and what there is, I suspect he is looking to take out at the earliest possible opportunity.

how much money did he put in ?

[RVclaret]

What you can use "fire sale" to mean, as it often is in American sports but with the same relevance over here, is when a club needs to get the payroll down and gets rid of the established, veteran players in order to replace them with cheapr, younger alternatives. I think it's fair comment to say this is what's happening here.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Fire_Sale

‘a sale of goods or assets at a very low price, typically when the seller is facing bankruptcy.’

The sales have not been at a very low price, I’d say all sales so far have been at a fair price.

The seller is not facing bankruptcy - if they were, they would not have reinvested 13m - 15m, with more to come, in the playing squad, and made the manager the highest paid in the league.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Sincere question Paul- are you missing every point on purpose? Your entire rhetorical style, with everyone, is to argue semantics or address things that nobody is saying while ignoring what they do say. Or to draw them into over explaining so you can pick on one element which you think is weakest, ignore everything else, and pretend this means you 'won' the debate.

I didn't "make things up". You're moving literally nothing forward, and actively ignoring comments. Let me spell out the "is the 100m going to ALK or Burnley" thing another way since you're insisting the two are the same, and apparently need a detailed breakdown to understand.
Do you believe future investment will go towards the financial obligations of the buyout, the owners' outside business ventures whether through VSL, investments in things like their app, or just other businesses, or their own bank accounts- all of which for the avoidance of doubt I am going to categorise under the term 'ALK Capital' - or towards things like strengthening the playing staff, restoring the Academy to Cat 1, advancing the sporting and stadium infrastructure of the football club known as Burnley FC (specifically the people who run around on the pitch kicking the ball and the people who help coach & train them to do so and the facilities they use to do so) here termed 'Burnley Football Club'.

Let me spell out the point I was making again about the MBA because you've singled in on a single element, the nice person bit, and ignored the rest: Do you believe an MBA is an inherent guarantee of a person's aptitude, and that anybody with an MBA is automatically better at management tasks, sporting or otherwise, than anybody without an MBA? Do you believe that Vincent Kompany having an MBA makes him a better football manager in terms of on-pitch performance specifically, considered by most (though perhaps not ALK) the most important measure of a manager's performance? Do you believe that it is in any way useful to pre-judge a person's performance on the basis of a qualification which they have not yet noticeably put to use?

This small town club was surviving amongst them, for 6 years, while making incremental improvements to the club infrastructure to set us up for a stale future and building up a cash surplus that would have safeguarded against many of the current issues we are now facing with relegation. Do you believe ALK's takeover, and the terms of the takeover, have improved the club's sustainability so much through their brilliance at finance, that the debt, loss of cash safeguard, loss of Academy status, the requirement to sell players that this has triggered resulting in further squeezing of the footballing staff, and recent relegation, are all offset by their brilliance?

I am convinced Paul is a politician.

It’s like watching Sunak and Truss reading his posts

[Paul Waine]

I am convinced Paul is a politician.

It’s like watching Sunak and Truss reading his posts

No, I'm not a politician, Newcastle93.

Which one am I if you are thinking Sunak and Truss?

Of course, we don't do politics on this mb.

UTC

[dsr]

‘a sale of goods or assets at a very low price, typically when the seller is facing bankruptcy.’

The sales have not been at a very low price, I’d say all sales so far have been at a fair price.

The seller is not facing bankruptcy - if they were, they would not have reinvested 13m - 15m, with more to come, in the playing squad, and made the manager the highest paid in the league.

That's the beauty of the English language. It's so wide ranging that a word or phrase can have several different meanings. so if you want to disagree with someone for the sake of it, you pick the meaning that is not what was meant and say this is wrong.

One of the definitions of fire sale (as used in the world of sport) is the disposing of all available older, more expensive players and their replacement with younger, cheaper ones. I think it's a reasonable description of what's going on here.

The original, literal fire sale was the man whose store burnt down and he sold his goods off cheaply because he was in urgent need of cash. You may argue that has similarities with BFC as well. (Or, of course, you may not.)

[bfcjg]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the takeover we are where we are. Surely it's time to move on move forward and all pull the same way. Who knows if ALK pull off their long term vision to grow the club we all benefit.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

We still bickering over the use of the term fire sale?

We've done a much needed and much delayed overhaul of the playing staff, of course the costs will be reduced and as we've seen a number of them have no desire to be in the championship, not during a world cup year.

By all means carry on batting fire sale back and forth though

[Paul Waine]

Sincere question Paul- are you missing every point on purpose? Your entire rhetorical style, with everyone, is to argue semantics or address things that nobody is saying while ignoring what they do say. Or to draw them into over explaining so you can pick on one element which you think is weakest, ignore everything else, and pretend this means you 'won' the debate.

I didn't "make things up". You're moving literally nothing forward, and actively ignoring comments. Let me spell out the "is the 100m going to ALK or Burnley" thing another way since you're insisting the two are the same, and apparently need a detailed breakdown to understand.
Do you believe future investment will go towards the financial obligations of the buyout, the owners' outside business ventures whether through VSL, investments in things like their app, or just other businesses, or their own bank accounts- all of which for the avoidance of doubt I am going to categorise under the term 'ALK Capital' - or towards things like strengthening the playing staff, restoring the Academy to Cat 1, advancing the sporting and stadium infrastructure of the football club known as Burnley FC (specifically the people who run around on the pitch kicking the ball and the people who help coach & train them to do so and the facilities they use to do so) here termed 'Burnley Football Club'.

Let me spell out the point I was making again about the MBA because you've singled in on a single element, the nice person bit, and ignored the rest: Do you believe an MBA is an inherent guarantee of a person's aptitude, and that anybody with an MBA is automatically better at management tasks, sporting or otherwise, than anybody without an MBA? Do you believe that Vincent Kompany having an MBA makes him a better football manager in terms of on-pitch performance specifically, considered by most (though perhaps not ALK) the most important measure of a manager's performance? Do you believe that it is in any way useful to pre-judge a person's performance on the basis of a qualification which they have not yet noticeably put to use?

This small town club was surviving amongst them, for 6 years, while making incremental improvements to the club infrastructure to set us up for a stale future and building up a cash surplus that would have safeguarded against many of the current issues we are now facing with relegation. Do you believe ALK's takeover, and the terms of the takeover, have improved the club's sustainability so much through their brilliance at finance, that the debt, loss of cash safeguard, loss of Academy status, the requirement to sell players that this has triggered resulting in further squeezing of the footballing staff, and recent relegation, are all offset by their brilliance?

What points am I missing, spt?

ALK don't have any outside business ventures - the AI Scout bit is tiny and it's part of their investment in BFC - remember the trials? The investors they are known to have been seeking to invest in VS US is as investors in BFC.

The only things that matter about Vincent Kompany's MBA is that (1) it shows he made time while a full time professional footballer, captain of his club and a successful international to study for an MBA; (2) the MBA provides Vincent Kompany the knowledge and understanding of businesses and their finances such that when he says he's Alan Pace has provided him full disclosure on BFC's finances and took the manager's job having received that full disclosure gives me confidence that the club's finances are not in the condition many on here seem to believe they are. Vincent Kompany's success as a footballer and his undoubted intelligence is what gives me confidence he will give it his best shot to make BFC successful as a football club.

Do I believe ALK's takeover has improved the club's prospects? Yes, the previous owners had taken the club as far as they could take it. Time had run out for them. It had run out for Sean Dyche in that the Premier League had moved on. It had run out for most of the players, there's only so many times you can turn out and defend as an ageing squad however well drilled they were. Yes, the club wasn't going to be bought by a billionaire , but lots of money is required to run a football club. Yes, that means a firm such as ALK Capital, with access to many other modest sized investors. Yes, it means borrowing from an entity such as MSD. Yes, it means that the price to buy the club agreed between the previous owners needs to be paid over an extended period, and I suspect (but, no more than suspect, I've not yet seen any public domain evidence) that the amount payable reduces in the event of relegation. So, yes, it comes with the need for sensible cash management. If a reserve of cash had been built up by the previous owners there is no reason why the new owners should chose to use that cash for other purposes. And, yes, it comes down to Alan Pace and ALK is giving Burnley a chance to extend it's time amongst the elite football clubs.

[spt_claret]

What points am I missing, spt?

ALK don't have any outside business ventures - the AI Scout bit is tiny and it's part of their investment in BFC - remember the trials? The investors they are known to have been seeking to invest in VS US is as investors in BFC.

You're doing it again Paul. Ignoring everything I said, I even said 'the owners' and that I was using 'ALK capital' as a catchall to describe what I meant. You switch the definition back to the company only. Or are you honestly tryng to tell me that Alan Pace no longer does anything excpt work as Burnley chairman?
You also steadfastly ignored the other 2 areas I suggested the money could go to.

Vincent Kompany making time for his MBA is admirable, but footballers have a lot of free time compared to most jobs on the planet.
Him taking the job with full disclosure of the finances could mean they're okay, or it could be because he's got reportedly the best wage in the Championship and knows that with how bad the finances are, even if it goes wrong he'll be okay because nobody would reasonably blame him when having to operate under such conditions. It goes wrong, it's probably not fair to blame him unless he's a total shambles as manager on top- which I don't think he will be- it works, he's cemented his reputation for delivering success with those kinds of obstacles. Sometimes taking on a difficult situation is a good challenge, because it's one that even if you lose it's not your fault.

The last bit is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. As for "If a reserve of cash had been built up by the previous owners there is no reason why the new owners should chose to use that cash for other purposes" you're talking nonsense again. There's no legal reason why they can't. There's plenty reasons, morally, why they shouldn't, as custodians of a community institution who are then taking money from that institution, having already jeopardised its future with their takeover methods, to put into personal ventures with zero regard for the club.

The more you talk, the worse you make me feel about ALK, I hope you realise that. I start being inclined to be as charitable as possible, something mildly positive happens and I'll do my best to get on board, then something goes awry and out comes the spin. Fronting up does better than spin because spin implies there's worse to hide.

[scouseclaret]

So we’ve gone from being a Premier League club with £50-100m of cash in the bank to and Championship club with £100m+ of debt that is haemorrhaging players to reduce it, and you think that’s improved our prospects???

The comparison with you and a Tory politician is a good one - if only for the consistent and abject denial of obvious realities.

[aggi]

Hi aggi, I'm sure you understand that to be an investor in a club you must first be an owner of the club. Similarly, to have been an investor and a former owner you must sell to a new owner and you will do that at the agreed valuation (with all the complexities that exist in m&a activities). No one invests without first establishing ownership rights. No one leaves ownership without receiving the value of their investment when they exit that ownership. The transfer of shares and the value of those shares between previous owners and new owners is an important and necessary part of new investors and new investment.

ALK are the owners of the club, thus they have invested in the club. They've taken on the role of owners with all the responsibilities that go with ownership. This includes the responsibilities of running a club in a manner that meets their aim - which they've recently expressed as returning to the Premier League and, I understand they said, playing again in Europe somewhere in the future. I'm pretty sure that, for most of us, the owners' aims for the club aligns with the fans hopes and wishes for the club.

Lots of people invest in clubs without owning them but that's by the by.

I think the issue was your suggestion that money flows through to meet the investment needs of the club, in exactly the same way as the original equity that ALK put into the deal when they bought the club

Suggesting that the investment needs of the club were to be taken over by ALK and money from the club paid to the former owners (as opposed to, for instance, signing players) is, I think, very much overselling what ALK are bringing to the table.

[KRBFC]

They bought a football club by selling it's players and using money from the clubs bank account

Anyone claiming that benefits the club is absolutely in denial. Talking in riddles

[ClaretLoup]

Simple question, but might be difficult to answer.

So, if ALK put the club up for sale now, how much would they get for it?

[Big Vinny K]

Simple question, but might be difficult to answer.

So, if ALK put the club up for sale now, how much would they get for it?

Let’s just say not £180m !!

Someone would be buying a club with a much reduced revenue stream post relegation
And a much reduced level of saleable players assets too.
And then you would be taken on the debt too.

It took us however many years for someone to buy us when we were in the premier league with £100m plus of TV income, record sponsorship deals, no debt and significant cash in the bank.

In the past businesses with large levels have debt have been purchased for nominal amounts on the condition the purchasers take on the debt commitments.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Simple question, but might be difficult to answer.

So, if ALK put the club up for sale now, how much would they get for it?

Interesting question.
So the club's infrastructure is still the same.

The playing staff and manager however are very different, there is no longer an ageing squad on big money, it's now being filled with younger players with more potential

I think we can presume the club is still being ran within its means in regards to the wage bill.

The only reason the value could be lower is due to which league we're in, but most of the hard work has been done so....dunno

[Newcastleclaret93]

Simple question, but might be difficult to answer.

So, if ALK put the club up for sale now, how much would they get for it?

Depends if ALK right off the debt or not.

I would say that minus the debt the club is probably worth around the 30-40m mark.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Depends if ALK right off the debt or not.

I would say that minus the debt the club is probably worth around the 30-40m mark.

It's believed Clowes paid more than that for Derby, around £60 million, which includes £22 million for Pride Park.
They also need to rebuild their squad and are in league 1.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think you've low-balled your valuation of Burnley there.

[dsr]

Depends if ALK right off the debt or not.

I would say that minus the debt the club is probably worth around the 30-40m mark.

ALK owe Burnley FC money, not the other way round. If ALK were to pay the club the £112m+ that they owe, then the club would be worth a significant fee. If ALK don't pay the £112m, the club is properly in Dickie's meadow and is worth very little.

[Newcastleclaret93]

It's believed Clowes paid more than that for Derby, around £60 million, which includes £22 million for Pride Park.
They also need to rebuild their squad and are in league 1.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think you've low-balled your valuation of Burnley there.

Or similarly Hull city were just purchased for 30m in the championship.

They have a bigger stadium and are just as likely to get promoted this season.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Or similarly Hull city were just purchased for 30m in the championship.

They have a bigger stadium and are just as likely to get promoted this season.

The previous owners had been trying to sell the club for 8yrs.
The club had debts to said owners of around £40 million
Wage bill exceeded income.

We won't agree, because you don't want any positives, but you've undervalued Burnley

[Newcastleclaret93]

The previous owners had been trying to sell the club for 8yrs.
The club had debts to said owners of around £40 million
Wage bill exceeded income.

We won't agree, because you don't want any positives, but you've undervalued Burnley

What do you think the clubs worth?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

What do you think the clubs worth?

Closer to £100 million