Paul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:09 pm
Can I assume that you understand that money moving in and out of the club is all reported in the club's accounts? There's no way a player is brought into the club or exits the club without the money going through the club's accounts. Can I assume you understand the difference between equity investment and capital that comes into the club by way of debt? There are very different rules how debt is repaid and how equity investments earn a return. So long as you keep the distinction in your mind between equity and debt it is very easy to "track whose money is going where ... etc etc.
Anyway, as before, I'm glad we've cleared up that ALK/VS US don't have any other ventures other than Burnley Football Club.
UTC
I know I said I wouldn't engage further but I don't like when someone disingenously claims I've agreed with them, or addresses something I've not said.
This isn't about the reporting in the accounts. For the avoidance of doubt I'll clarify because I appreciate my wording was a little ambiguous (even though I specifically said I didn't mean anything illicit or illegal)- when I said it can be harder to follow I meant to the average person at a glance it's harder to see what has gone on. Yes it's all on balance sheets so you can see where the money is going, yes it's all declared on companies house and through the various offshore taxation arrangements, what I meant was it's harder at a glance to see who is ending up with what where, and for what. The money for a player goes into the club's accounts, then money might go out to a holding company, then money might go from that holding company to another holding company. You can technically argue it's not "the same money" because the exact same numbered bill isn't moving all that way through but most people would understand it as "that money has gone to X". You can also argue that it's being invested in "other ventures" or whatever that are relevant to ALK's interests and since you insist ALK=BFC then to you those other ventures are also BFC, but the fact would remain that those ventures are not the football club's playing staff or club infrastructure (whether academy, training ground, stadiium, commercial sector, etc.) and so in ANY common understanding, they would not be investments in Burnley Football Club.
You absolutely love insisting on your own definitions of things even when other people repeatedly define what they mean, then refuse to accept what they say unless they articulate it in terms which you have already made impossible to articulate in through your rigid use of language. Multilinguals often say they have to think in another language to speak it, and that some thoughts/concepts can only be expressed in certain languages, you're certainly making some impossible to express with your definitions.
Again yes I know that equity investment and loans are different, that isn't the point. The point is that these investments all operate on one underlying principle- the investors intend to take out more than they put in, otherwise there's no profit in it for them. Unless that investment has led to commercial growth/acquisition of assets (eg. players) which still leave profit left for the club after the investors get their share or loans plus interest are repaid, then the net result to the club is at best neutral, arguably a negative as the club is still selling assets such as players but not seeing growth in reinvestment from those sales.
As before Paul I find it bizarre if the owners have no other business investments and mystifying how they got approved to buy the club with so little collateral, but that remains the case regardless with the terms of the leveraged takeover. But I'll concede to your claim that Alan Pace and his associates have no other investments, ventures, or business interests beyond Burnley Football Club, however unlikely that seems to me. The rest however i really don't know how to articulate it any further.
