Burnley's MSD loan reduction essentially confirmed

[Swizzlestick]

Harsh on Katie Price who is a very successful businesswoman.

[Conroy92]

I like how people keep saying "selling all the assets to pay back the debt" when we have also signed 10 plus players.
There needs to be some parity on here, we have funded the rebuild that was required along with paying off some ot the debt.

[Colburn_Claret]

Harsh on Katie Price who is a very successful businesswoman.

She owes a fortune, but still lives the life of Reilly thanks to 'friends '.
She maybe successful at something, but it's not business.

[Swizzlestick]

She owes a fortune, but still lives the life of Reilly thanks to 'friends '.
She maybe successful at something, but it's not business.

Was slightly tongue in cheek but she was for a time!

[AfloatinClaret]

...MG sold the club with it's own money. I wish he hadn't. But he did.

Any money in the bank and indeed all of the club's other assets belonged to Mike Garlicks and the rest of the shareholders, including all those small/single shareholders who've been similarly paid out; was there a similar degree of upset on the forum when MG et al used their money to buy/fund the club?

[arise_sir_charge]

The VSL model is all about attracting additional investment.

If you invest in VSL you are m indirectly investing in BFC.

It will be the ability to secure additional investment (probably more likely with a promotion push) that would facilitate them being able to repay the money owed to BFC.

[Bertie2015]

The VSL model is all about attracting additional investment.

If you invest in VSL you are m indirectly investing in BFC.

It will be the ability to secure additional investment (probably more likely with a promotion push) that would facilitate them being able to repay the money owed to BFC.

My suspicion would be that any new money into VSL would pay down debt to third parties not to BFC. I can also see dividend payments from BFC to VSL being used to clear down the amounts owed to BFC

[Nonayforever]

The VSL model is all about attracting additional investment.

If you invest in VSL you are m indirectly investing in BFC.

It will be the ability to secure additional investment (probably more likely with a promotion push) that would facilitate them being able to repay the money owed to BFC.

What is an outside investor investing in ?
Burnley, A Pace or V Kompany ?
If we are successful the most likely investors will be a top 6 side in V Kompany.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I like how people keep saying "selling all the assets to pay back the debt" when we have also signed 10 plus players.
There needs to be some parity on here, we have funded the rebuild that was required along with paying off some ot the debt.

What I find interesting is imagining the club having about £180m cash flow over and above if we had been a Championship side - about £90m from selling players, and about £90m from parachute payments (£40m, £35m, £15m for 3 years). OK, probably a bit less due to sell on fees owed but there are also bonus clauses that may kick in.

Then they have to decide how to spend that.

Paying down debt, lets say £35m, is only a fairly small chunk of that. Payments for new players, let’s say that will end at £30m is another chunk. Kompany’s wages and that of the staff and players over and above what we would normally afford, I’ll guess at being the big chunk over the next 2-3 seasons, probably about £50m. Let’s remember the payments for new players will be made over 2-3 years too.

So there is still a lot left of that original £180m, even though there remains a lot of the takeover to wash through the accounts there is a good amount of the cash left. There was also the original cash balance in the club. I find that highly reassuring because nothing can change the fact that the takeover meant a lot of money will flow out of the club. I think what I am saying is that even if this is a 3 year project to get back up, we may be able to sustain it.

(I know the above is simplistic in many ways but this is a fag packet set of numbers just to reinforce my feel that we are in OK shape for this Kompany era and that the board aren’t taking undue risks and haven’t taken the money and run either). In that sense they need some credit which I think is what the above poster is also saying.

[Colburn_Claret]

Was slightly tongue in cheek but she was for a time!

Probably overreacted the woman grinds me, I can't stand her.

[Big Vinny K]

Now now, let’s keep it civil.
From reading this thread and the great work CP has done, it’s clear that ALK have done a great job from a purely business/financing point of view. But no new money has come into the club from ALK. We could very well have sold the same players had we been under the previous ownership but those proceeds would most likely have stayed in the club; that doesn’t seem to be the case now.

I’m fully aware of that.
I’m not happy with the financial situation of the club either.
But the previous owners have to take a lot of responsibility for the way the club was sold….and the couple of years of building up the cash balances and starving Dyche of the funds he clearly needed to rebuild an ageing team and deal with the contract situation of our star players.

I am have commercial finance background so I understand more about the takeover deal and what has happened since more than most. This particular poster despite being told many times by people with a lot more knowledge than him that what he is posting is often rubbish he continues to spout the same old stuff.

And bear in mind despite what he says about liking VK all of this criticism directed towards ALK and ruining every thread comes after years of similar negativity about the best manager the club has had in the last 50 years.

Not being happy with the state of affairs does not mean you have to be ignorant.

[Duffer_]

Any money in the bank and indeed all of the club's other assets belonged to Mike Garlicks and the rest of the shareholders...

BFC could have paid a dividend to shareholders based on available profits and with regard to cash flow. Profit and cash could have been increased over time through player sales. How would you have felt if MG, unlike the Oystons, had done that in a legally compliant way? Would taking cash generated from PL revenue out of the Club in this way been OK with you? I am not saying it is btw - I don't know your views, hence the questions.

The big difference from what actually happened was the change in ownership. It's now AP's name over the door not MG's but the Club, and this is the important point to me, is largely in the same position as if the value had been extracted through the payment of dividends. Arguably it would have been better as the value extraction through dividends could have happened over time and the Club wouldn't have been subjected to high interest charges on external debt.

MG was legally entitled to extract as much value from the Club as he could from the shares he owned. I have never understood why so many are OK with the leveraged buyout, based on legal entitlement, when they would have been up in arms if the cash had been bled through dividends. It seems to me it's a masterstroke on MG's part because people just don't get what has happened.

I appreciate there is an alternative perspective: I am naive and it's easy for me to take this position as it's not my money. And that's fine but I doubt even Ronaldo has earned more from the PL than MG - and the bottom line is that the value has gone and is no longer in the Club. The Blackpool fans were not angered by the fact that the Oystons had not followed the rules and failed to give Belokon his share of the £27m; they were angry that, amongst other things, the revenue generated in the PL was not used for the betterment of their Club.

[Bertie2015]

I’m fully aware of that.
I’m not happy with the financial situation of the club either.
But the previous owners have to take a lot of responsibility for the way the club was sold….and the couple of years of building up the cash balances and starving Dyche of the funds he clearly needed to rebuild an ageing team and deal with the contract situation of our star players.

I am have commercial finance background so I understand more about the takeover deal and what has happened since more than most. This particular poster despite being told many times by people with a lot more knowledge than him that what he is posting is often rubbish he continues to spout the same old stuff.

And bear in mind despite what he says about liking VK all of this criticism directed towards ALK and ruining every thread comes after years of similar negativity about the best manager the club has had in the last 50 years.

Not being happy with the state of affairs does not mean you have to be ignorant.

Yep totally agree and just trying to keep the thread on topic; there's a lot of people that can provide useful insights and we should try to do just that

[Duffer_]

Yep totally agree and just trying to keep the thread on topic...

But whilst you're policing us all there must be a golf club that's not measuring sock length. Still, our gain I suppose

[KRBFC]

I’m fully aware of that.
I’m not happy with the financial situation of the club either.
But the previous owners have to take a lot of responsibility for the way the club was sold….and the couple of years of building up the cash balances and starving Dyche of the funds he clearly needed to rebuild an ageing team and deal with the contract situation of our star players.

I am have commercial finance background so I understand more about the takeover deal and what has happened since more than most. This particular poster despite being told many times by people with a lot more knowledge than him that what he is posting is often rubbish he continues to spout the same old stuff.

And bear in mind despite what he says about liking VK all of this criticism directed towards ALK and ruining every thread comes after years of similar negativity about the best manager the club has had in the last 50 years.

Not being happy with the state of affairs does not mean you have to be ignorant.

You were spouting absolute horse crap about the finances and getting torn apart previously. You have 0 understanding.

We have sold our best players, used money from player sales to pay back debt, debt that was taken out by ALK to takeover the club.

It's factual, what exactly are you arguing? it's not rubbish.

[AfloatinClaret]

BFC could have paid a dividend to shareholders based on available profits... Would taking cash generated from PL revenue out of the Club in this way been OK with you?...

... it would have been better as the value extraction through dividends could have happened over time and the Club wouldn't have been subjected to high interest charges on external debt.

... people just don't get what has happened.

Clearly they don't.

If MG and the other shareholders had taken money out of the club to pay themselves dividends, and/or levied charges for their time and effort in managing the club for many years that would've been 'OK with me'; that's how the world works. Their not having done so was a bonus/windfall for the club, particularly during those years when we couldn't have afforded to pay them without selling players - consider how different things might've been if we hadn't been able to buy Andre Grey when Danny Ings left. I doubt that ALK's Directors/officers are being so generous with their time/abilities, nor indeed the Directors of many/most other clubs.

Even if MG and the other shareholders had taken such money over the years and let's be honest, there were lots of years when they couldn't and were instead putting their own money in to keep us afloat financially and doing that at a time when no commercial bank (probably quite sensibly) would touch us with a barge pole, they would still have owned the shares/club and been due payment for them when the club was sold to ALK.
Let me try to explain simply:
If you put some money into a post office savings bank that is an 'investment', the post office will then pay you 'interest' on that money every year and this is a 'dividend'; you can take that interest out and buy some sweeties, or you can leave it in the post office and the following year they will pay you interest on both that amount and on the pocket money that you put in originally. But whichever option you choose, if/when you eventually decide to close your savings account, the post office will pay you all the accumulated interest AND return your original investment to you; it's not one or the other.

[Big Vinny K]

You were spouting absolute horse crap about the finances and getting torn apart previously. You have 0 understanding.

We have sold our best players, used money from player sales to pay back debt, debt that was taken out by ALK to takeover the club.

It's factual, what exactly are you arguing? it's not rubbish.

You’re not a full shilling.
Where exactly was this thread that you have made up in your head you idiot ?
My 10 year old nephew understands more about finance than you do……
You have absolutely no threshold of embarrassment on this board.

Now run along and go give Harvey a bath before you spend another evening alone bashing the hell out of that keyboard of yours.

[KRBFC]

You’re not a full shilling.
Where exactly was this thread that you have made up in your head you idiot ?
My 10 year old nephew understands more about finance than you do……
You have absolutely no threshold of embarrassment on this board.

Now run along and go give Harvey a bath before you spend another evening alone bashing the hell out of that keyboard of yours.

You're an angry argumentative guy aint you? TVC15 (former username, probably ban evading), you big bullish-it

What point are you arguing with? Show me, the part of my statement that isn't factual and tell me why. Otherwise stop wasting my time, I have no time for low IQ idiots who don't even know how to use punctuation properly.

The topic of you getting ripped apart is the ALK Capital or Farnell one. Comedy gold

[Vegas Claret]

lads, can I suggest you both go and get a bit of fresh air before you get another thread pulled.

[KRBFC]

If you don't understand money from player sales is going towards the MSD debt, which was taken out to fund the takeover, then I question the legitimacy of your history in finance. It's base level, a factual simple statement. There is no arguing against it, only someone out of the loop would even attempt it.

[Big Vinny K]

If you don't understand money from player sales is going towards the MSD debt, which was taken out to fund the takeover, then I question the legitimacy of your history in finance. It's base level, a factual simple statement. There is no arguing against it, only someone out of the loop would even attempt it.

I’ve never disputed that you idiot.
It is a fact that money from player sales which are part of our overall income / revenue that is being used to reduce the debt.

It’s the other ignorant crap you constantly post.
Let’s not pretend you have the first clue though eh. As said it’s embarrassing.

[Duffer_]

Clearly they don't.

If MG and the other shareholders had taken money out of the club to pay themselves dividends, and/or levied charges for their time and effort in managing the club for many years that would've been 'OK with me'; that's how the world works. Their not having done so was a bonus/windfall for the club, particularly during those years when we couldn't have afforded to pay them without selling players - consider how different things might've been if we hadn't been able to buy Andre Grey when Danny Ings left. I doubt that ALK's Directors/officers are being so generous with their time/abilities, nor indeed the Directors of many/most other clubs.

Even if MG and the other shareholders had taken such money over the years and let's be honest, there were lots of years when they couldn't and were instead putting their own money in to keep us afloat financially and doing that at a time when no commercial bank (probably quite sensibly) would touch us with a barge pole, they would still have owned the shares/club and been due payment for them when the club was sold to ALK.
Let me try to explain simply:
If you put some money into a post office savings bank that is an 'investment', the post office will then pay you 'interest' on that money every year and this is a 'dividend'; you can take that interest out and buy some sweeties, or you can leave it in the post office and the following year they will pay you interest on both that amount and on the pocket money that you put in originally. But whichever option you choose, if/when you eventually decide to close your savings account, the post office will pay you all the accumulated interest AND return your original investment to you; it's not one or the other.

Thank you for your clear response - not sure the Post Office story added much though. I note your line of reasoning is very similar to that proferred by the Oystons.

Karl Oyston: "'But frankly after the way he has supported the club all these years, if it was an £11m salary to my father, so what?'"

[Bobzuruncle]

You're an angry argumentative guy aint you? TVC15 (former username, probably ban evading), you big bullish-it

What point are you arguing with? Show me, the part of my statement that isn't factual and tell me why. Otherwise stop wasting my time, I have no time for low IQ idiots who don't even know how to use punctuation properly.

The topic of you getting ripped apart is the ALK Capital or Farnell one. Comedy gold

In an attempt to defuse then surely the second sentence should be separated by more than a comma for the comment on punctuation to be taken seriously? (that’s if anything should actually be taken seriously of course)

[Big Vinny K]

You're an angry argumentative guy aint you? TVC15 (former username, probably ban evading), you big bullish-it

What point are you arguing with? Show me, the part of my statement that isn't factual and tell me why. Otherwise stop wasting my time, I have no time for low IQ idiots who don't even know how to use punctuation properly.

The topic of you getting ripped apart is the ALK Capital or Farnell one. Comedy gold

Rather than make stuff up (something you commonly do) why don’t you post where exactly where I was getting ‘ripped apart’ ?
I doubt very much there is anything on that thread you would have the first clue about.

[KRBFC]

I’ve never disputed that you idiot.
It is a fact that money from player sales which are part of our overall income / revenue that is being used to reduce the debt.

It’s the other ignorant crap you constantly post.
Let’s not pretend you have the first clue though eh. As said it’s embarrassing.

So why are you trying to argue with me then if you're in agreement what I said was factual? Confusing

My post you quoted was ''Imagine giving credit to Alan Pace for selling our best players and using the money to pay for his shares lmaooo''

It's a fact, what exactly are you arguing against? You just keep throwing out insults without much of an argument.

[Big Vinny K]

So why are you trying to argue with me then if you're in agreement what I said was factual? Confusing

My post you quoted was ''Imagine giving credit to Alan Pace for selling our best players and using the money to pay for his shares lmaooo''

It's a fact, what exactly are you arguing against? You just keep throwing out insults without much of an argument.

That post pretty much sums you up.
You think that paying off the debt of a third party loan is the same as using the money to pay for Alan Pace’s shares ?
You have posted frequently about the money we have got from selling players is going straight into Pace’s pocket.
You cannot stand getting called out for posting rubbish and when asked to post any basis or evidence for your allegations you just carry on in your own little mad world talking nonsense.

[KRBFC]

That post pretty much sums you up.
You think that paying off the debt of a third party loan is the same as using the money to pay for Alan Pace’s shares ?
You have posted frequently about the money we have got from selling players is going straight into Pace’s pocket.
You cannot stand getting called out for posting rubbish and when asked to post any basis or evidence for your allegations you just carry on in your own little mad world talking nonsense.

I have never ever said that, that would be libel and potentially get me into trouble. There is no evidence the money is going straight into Pace's pocket, so I have never made those claims. I've been very careful not to cross that line.

There's no surprise you think I'm talking rubbish when you're intentionally lying and pretending I've said things I haven't said. The mods on here do a great job and taking down libellous comments, they haven't had to do that with me about Alan Pace. I learnt my lesson on libel years ago when I did potentially cross that line and mods quite rightly took action (not about ALK)


As for paying off the loan being the same as paying for shares, the loan was taken out to purchase shares.

[Big Vinny K]

I have never ever said that, that would be libel and potentially get me into trouble. There is no evidence the money is going straight into Pace's pocket, so I have never made those claims. I've been very careful not to cross that line.

There's no surprise you think I'm talking rubbish when you're intentionally lying and pretending I've said things I haven't said. The mods on here do a great job and taking down libellous comments, they haven't had to do that with me about Alan Pace. I learnt my lesson on libel years ago when I did potentially cross that line and mods quite rightly took action (not about ALK)


As for paying off the loan being the same as paying for shares, the loan was taken out to purchase shares.

You said that Pace is selling players and using that money to pay for his shares. Have you any evidence whatsoever of that ? ‘Paying for his shares is the same as the money going to Pace - whether it’s in his back pocket or not is semantics. You are saying that the money from players is going to Pace. How can you argue that you are not saying that when you said it’s being used to pay for something that he owns ?

The loan was taken to purchase the club.
The club is a company so by definition to buy the club you have to purchase shares.
That is very different to saying Pace is using money from selling players to pay for his shares - and yes that probably is libellous for you to say that. But feel free to prove everyone wrong and provide evidence of what you have said.
Or alternatively don’t bother because it falls into that same category of those who were getting upset by terms like asset stripping and fire sale under the pretence that any of the owners of Burnley football club would actually give 2 sh*ts about posters like you making ignorant allegations

[KRBFC]

You said that Pace is selling players and using that money to pay for his shares. Have you any evidence whatsoever of that ? ‘Paying for his shares is the same as the money going to Pace - whether it’s in his back pocket or not is semantics. You are saying that the money from players is going to Pace. How can you argue that you are not saying that when you said it’s being used to pay for something that he owns ?

The loan was taken to purchase the club.
The club is a company so by definition to buy the club you have to purchase shares.
That is very different to saying Pace is using money from selling players to pay for his shares - and yes that probably is libellous for you to say that. But feel free to prove everyone wrong and provide evidence of what you have said.
Or alternatively don’t bother because it falls into that same category of those who were getting upset by terms like asset stripping and fire sale under the pretence that any of the owners of Burnley football club would actually give 2 sh*ts about posters like you making ignorant allegations

You're on a topic which is titled ''Burnley's MSD loan reduction essentially confirmed'' asking for proof Pace is paying off the MSD from player sales. Vincent Kompany has confirmed this. There is a recent mail article on this. RVClaret posted a link https://tisegroup.com/market/companies/8061

If you apply for a loan and state you need a loan for a new pair of shoes, guess what you are repaying that loan for?
ALK took out a loan from MSD to buy shares in BFC. It's not rocket science. Now quit with your defamation lies, pretending I said things I didn't.

[Bertie2015]

ALK purchase the (majority of) shares in BFC via VSL
That purchase is largely funded by borrowings from MSD and BFC (itself) and a small amount from ALK
BFC crystalize the value of their prime assets (most valuable players)
Some of that is reinvested in less expensive players who can hopefully perform and increase their value for future sales
Residual sales proceeds are used to pay down immediate obligations to third party finance providers and/or stage payments to previous owners
It all hinges on the success of the investment in VK and team - which looks to be promising

[Big Vinny K]

You're on a topic which is titled ''Burnley's MSD loan reduction essentially confirmed'' asking for proof Pace is paying off the MSD from player sales. Vincent Kompany has confirmed this. There is a recent mail article on this. RVClaret posted a link https://tisegroup.com/market/companies/8061

If you apply for a loan and state you need a loan for a new pair of shoes, guess what you are repaying that loan for?
ALK took out a loan from MSD to buy shares in BFC. It's not rocket science. Now quit with your defamation lies, pretending I said things I didn't.

Don’t try and be clever. Honestly it really does not suit you.
Stop changing what you actually said by introducing what we all already know and which I have never disputed. I have already said I am fully aware that we have used part of our current revenue streams to reduce our debt with a third party. That is factual. What you saying simply is not a fact.

But I’ll ask you again.
Did you or did you not say that Pace is using the money from the sale of players to pay for his own shares ?

Since we know that the answer to that is in black and white on this thread I’ll again ask where is the evidence for that ?

Or am I still ‘pretending’ you said things you didn’t ?

[KRBFC]

Don’t try and be clever. Honestly it really does not suit you.
Stop changing what you actually said by introducing what we all already know and which I have never disputed. I have already said I am fully aware that we have used part of our current revenue streams to reduce our debt with a third party. That is factual. What you saying simply is not a fact.

But I’ll ask you again.
Did you or did you not say that Pace is using the money from the sale of players to pay for his own shares ?

Since we know that the answer to that is in black and white on this thread I’ll again ask where is the evidence for that ?

Or am I still ‘pretending’ you said things you didn’t ?

ALK are using player sales to reduce the MSD debt that was taken out to purchase shares in BFC.


Are you arguing the MSD loan wasn't used to pay for ALK shares? What exactly is your argument here? Seems like you're arguing something you agree with, strange stance to take. You should take a breather and calm down, you're getting all angry and childish over nothing.

[Big Vinny K]

ALK are using player sales to reduce the MSD debt that was taken out to purchase shares in BFC.


Are you arguing the MSD loan wasn't used to pay for ALK shares? What exactly is your argument here? Seems like you're arguing something you agree with, strange stance to take. You should take a breather and calm down, you're getting all angry and childish over nothing.

Who is angry ?
I’m certainly not.
The MSD loan was used to purchase the club.
Already said that several times.

You are never going to provide the evidence of what it is you said about Pace.
You even deny saying it even though it’s in black and white.
Every time you respond you bring up a point that I am not disputing and that what we all already know.

So I’ll give it one more go since you keep on asking me what I am questioning.

Where is your evidence that Alan Pace used the money from the sale of players to pay for his own shares ?

It really is not a difficult question. You either have the evidence or you have made it up.

[KRBFC]

Who is angry ?
I’m certainly not.
The MSD loan was used to purchase the club.
Already said that several times.

You are never going to provide the evidence of what it is you said about Pace.
You even deny saying it even though it’s in black and white.
Every time you respond you bring up a point that I am not disputing and that what we all already know.

So I’ll give it one more go since you keep on asking me what I am questioning.

Where is your evidence that Alan Pace used the money from the sale of players to pay for his own shares ?

It really is not a difficult question. You either have the evidence or you have made it up.

Round and round in circles, arguing nothing. I tap out to your boringness, you win.

[Big Vinny K]

Round and round in circles, arguing nothing. I tap out to your boringness, you win.

Circles that you made yourself.
My question never changed. It’s you who introduced points that we already knew to try and deflect from answering the question.
Pretending you did not say what you did is pretty weird even for you !

And now you ‘tap out to my boringness” still not substantiating what you fabricated and producing one shred of evidence ?
How convenient.

You could have saved us both and everyone else a bit of time if you would have just provided the evidence for what you are alleging or deleted your comment.

[Devils_Advocate]

[KRBFC]

Circles that you made yourself.
My question never changed. It’s you who introduced points that we already knew to try and deflect from answering the question.
Pretending you did not say what you did is pretty weird even for you !

And now you ‘tap out to my boringness” still not substantiating what you fabricated and producing one shred of evidence ?
How convenient.

You could have saved us both and everyone else a bit of time if you would have just provided the evidence for what you are alleging or deleted your comment.

ALK took out a loan from MSD to pay for shares in BFC. Alan Pace is now using part of the income from player sales to trim the MSD debt.

VK has said this himself.

Therefor the statement ''Alan Pace is selling players to pay for shares'' is accurate.

You're being childish and arguing because I didn't clarify in my post that the shares he's paying for are the ones purchased using the MSD loan but that doesn't make the statement false or incorrect. You're acting ignorant and stupid to be pedantic.

Your statement of ''you said Alan Pace was selling players and back pocketing the cash'' is infact defamation, wholly untrue and completely fabricated. Then you wanna talk about semantics? your whole boring argument is based on petty squabble.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi Pete, have I ever tried to point to "any other means of revenue," I don't recall? I'm asking CP what he knows and how he knows it. Is this public domain information, rather than "a modicum of common sense," as you express it?

Indeed Paul, but it's also true that by persistently asking for public domain evidence of things, which are (1) unlikely to be in the public domain (2) are common sense; you are gaslighting the thread and potentially misleading the reader.

If you are unaware of VSL generating other income then it is unlikely that they will be able to repay the £112 million. Moreover in that circumstance the only means they have of repaying the club is by revenue generated by the club.

[ClaretPete001]

ALK took out a loan from MSD to pay for shares in BFC. Alan Pace is now using part of the income from player sales to trim the MSD debt.

VK has said this himself.

Therefor the statement ''Alan Pace is selling players to pay for shares'' is accurate.

You're being childish and arguing because I didn't clarify in my post that the shares he's paying for are the ones purchased using the MSD loan but that doesn't make the statement false or incorrect. You're acting ignorant and stupid to be pedantic.

Your statement of ''you said Alan Pace was selling players and back pocketing the cash'' is infact defamation, wholly untrue and completely fabricated. Then you wanna talk about semantics? your whole boring argument is based on petty squabble.

I wouldn't say accurate or true but it's certainly a reasonable assumption that players have been sold to pay the debt incurred buying shares in the club.

And if this forum is intended to give reasonably accurate information to Clarets then it would seem to be certainly seem more true than assuming the £35 million was paid by some other means.

If Mr Pace, Paul and others can identify some other means that VSL/ALK paid the £35 million and will use to pay back the £112 million owed to the club then great we can all move on. In the meantime, what is anyone supposed to think?

[roperclaret]

I’m sure I’m not they only one bored of the same few posters constantly banging on about the way the club was purchased. It’s not ideal , but it happened, just bloody get over it . You can’t change it.

[Jakubclaret]

I wouldn't say accurate or true but it's certainly a reasonable assumption that players have been sold to pay the debt incurred buying shares in the club.

And if this forum is intended to give reasonably accurate information to Clarets then it would seem to be certainly seem more true than assuming the £35 million was paid by some other means.

If Mr Pace, Paul and others can identify some other means that VSL/ALK paid the £35 million and will use to pay back the £112 million owed to the club then great we can all move on. In the meantime, what is anyone supposed to think?

There is no other way the club itself will pay for the acquisition that’s always been the intention if the intention was any different more upfront capital would have been fronted & sourcing outside investment didn’t materialise & may never do.

[ClaretPete001]

I’m sure I’m not they only one bored of the same few posters constantly banging on about the way the club was purchased. It’s not ideal , but it happened, just bloody get over it . You can’t change it.

I've studied your form Roper - 24 posts and tbh the only thing that is going to make our posts on this thread look less boring is you posting more on it.

[Paul Waine]

Indeed Paul, but it's also true that by persistently asking for public domain evidence of things, which are (1) unlikely to be in the public domain (2) are common sense; you are gaslighting the thread and potentially misleading the reader.

If you are unaware of VSL generating other income then it is unlikely that they will be able to repay the £112 million. Moreover in that circumstance the only means they have of repaying the club is by revenue generated by the club.

Hi Pete, you've got some 'chutzpah," suggesting I'm "'gaslighting' when you are trying to gaslight the questions I've asked CP. I've asked CP is there is any public domain information that evidences the amount and dates of the instalment payments CP refers. I've also asked him why he believes the money owed by VSL will be reduced by 'impairment.' These are both factual questions. If CP wishes to respond by saying there is no public domain information that confirms these facts then that's fine. CP is usually very good about distinguishing between facts and his assumptions and personal opinions. 'Common sense' doesn't come into these questions.

I've noted the way you have responded to roperclaret. I think he's got the right idea. It progresses nothing if people continually state opinions when what we want is facts.

[Duffer_]

I've noted the way you have responded to roperclaret. I think he's got the right idea. It progresses nothing if people continually state opinions when what we want is facts.

Hi Paul - we have always exchanged views respectfully and I value your contributions and insight. This is a messageboard and therefore a place for opinions, which are formed and evolve over time, sometimes with reference to new information and sometimes upon further reflection. It is tiresome to be told when and where I and others can espouse views. Dialogue and discussion often progress thinking and that has value, even in the absence of new facts. Inference is not a dirty word - if you disagree with inferences drawn, then by all means proffer your reasons but please don't dismiss them as being without value, particularly when facts are so sparse.

I wish you a good night. Exiting times.

[IanMcL]

In the beginning there was a small town football club, in a big league, with guaranteed income.

The director with most of its assets had been telling folk that the huge pule in the bank, was to safeguard against a relegation and/or build a new stand.

The people were pleased.

That man then sold the club and all its assets, to an outfit with little funds of its own but with lots of financial connections.

The price for the club, included the money in the bank. A massive total borrowed to handover to the previous Big Cheese and his lesser shareholding fellows. They became rich. The club was charged the debt and so has to repay it itself.

The club is very poor and was relegated. Its financial security disappearing overnight, although backed up by a parachute wad.

The new owners of the now debt ridden club had to pay off a big loan, if the club was relegated. How?
1.keep costs low by releasing players without contract.
2. Sell the remaining prem quality players and use that money to replace the squad with lesser but younger players and at least half to massively reduce a particularly volatile loan.

So now tge previous owners are rich
The new owners have less debt
The club is still debt ridden
The new squad is very, very young and only time will tell if able to succeed.

If they don't succeed, then when the parachute is folded away, that young squad will also be sold, to pay off more debt and sign another squad, who will no longer be known as a Prem team.

Fingers well and truly crossed.

[Foshiznik]

So essentially the TLDR of this thread is:

If we hadn’t been bought with the clubs own money, we would be drowning in cash now, despite relegation?

[Vegas Claret]

I've studied your form Roper - 24 posts and tbh the only thing that is going to make our posts on this thread look less boring is you posting more on it.

jesus wept, what a bizarre response

[Jakubclaret]

So essentially the TLDR of this thread is:

If we hadn’t been bought with the clubs own money, we would be drowning in cash now, despite relegation?

We wouldn’t have been relegated in the first place, MG stopped spending building stockpiles of cash up in reserve knowing he was getting out had that plan being different he would have spent & you could logically argue had that reserve cash been spent on the players supporting dyche we wouldn’t be where we are now. The club should have sold in a responsible fashion but due to undesirable factors, garlic wanting shut & a lack of buyers he pretty much had to accept this or decided it was wise to accept this as the only way of getting the club sold.

[aggi]

...
- £10m was "advanced" to VSL - in all probability to help pay for supporters shares
...

I do wonder whether this is actually the club credit. It needs to be accounted for somehow but I can't remember whether the amounts tie up.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul - we have always exchanged views respectfully and I value your contributions and insight. This is a messageboard and therefore a place for opinions, which are formed and evolve over time, sometimes with reference to new information and sometimes upon further reflection. It is tiresome to be told when and where I and others can espouse views. Dialogue and discussion often progress thinking and that has value, even in the absence of new facts. Inference is not a dirty word - if you disagree with inferences drawn, then by all means proffer your reasons but please don't dismiss them as being without value, particularly when facts are so sparse.

I wish you a good night. Exiting times.

Hi Duffer_ no problems. I'm 'good' with opinions, though I'm also seeking facts that can help others share those opinions. I felt claretpete was out of order jumping on roperclaret. Roperclaret's opinion is just as worth expressing as all the others on this mb. He may be a new poster with just 24 posts to his name - or he may be an old poster re-engaging under a new user name. I don't think we are a closed group offering respect to the user names we've seen around for some time. We should also welcome new posters and give them our respect.

Millwall tonight. Looking forward to another great performance.

UTC