ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[ClaretTony]

Some background on our new CFO Alexander - Sasha - Ryazantsev

http://www.futbolgrad.com/alexander-ryazantsev-everton/

Appointment at Burnley now confirmed.


Burnley Football Club has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of Alexander (Sasha) Ryazantsev as the Club’s CFO Advisor.

Ryazantsev was a Board Member at Everton Football Club between 2016 and 2021 and served as the Merseyside club’s Chief Financial and Commercial Officer. He was also the Managing Director of Everton Women.

Prior to his time at Everton, Ryazantsev had a successful career in finance and investment banking spanning more than 20 years, working in senior advisory roles at ABN AMRO Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland in London.

Ryazantsev is a Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) and holds a Masters in Finance degree from the London Business School. He has also completed the Business of Entertainment, Media and Sport programme at Harvard Business School.

Ryazantsev will report to Executive Chairman Alan Pace and be involved in overseeing the club’s financial operations, while playing a key role in implementing the Board’s vision and values.

[Chester Perry]

Appointment at Burnley now confirmed.


Burnley Football Club has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of Alexander (Sasha) Ryazantsev as the Club’s CFO Advisor.

Ryazantsev was a Board Member at Everton Football Club between 2016 and 2021 and served as the Merseyside club’s Chief Financial and Commercial Officer. He was also the Managing Director of Everton Women.

Prior to his time at Everton, Ryazantsev had a successful career in finance and investment banking spanning more than 20 years, working in senior advisory roles at ABN AMRO Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland in London.

Ryazantsev is a Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) and holds a Masters in Finance degree from the London Business School. He has also completed the Business of Entertainment, Media and Sport programme at Harvard Business School.

Ryazantsev will report to Executive Chairman Alan Pace and be involved in overseeing the club’s financial operations, while playing a key role in implementing the Board’s vision and values.

Worth noting that at Everton he was involved on the commercial side too

[Vegas Claret]

so was he in part responsible for the mess at Everton ?

[Chester Perry]

so was he in part responsible for the mess at Everton ?

That can almost all be put down to Moshiri (or if you choose to believe it, the power behind him) - he ignored his directors - particularly directors of football and finance

All Moshiri's major decisions appeared to be influenced/sanctioned by Alisher Usmanov

[775claret]

Did Ryazantsev have any input into the development and financing of Bramley Moore Dock?

[Paul Waine]

so was he in part responsible for the mess at Everton ?

If he was a board member he shares responsibilities with all other board members for the period he was a member of the board. However, he would only share responsibility for things that went wrong during the period he was a board member.

Note: it's very clear that Ryazantsev is not a board member at Burnley, he's been appointed as "CFO Advisor."

I'd not heard of the qualification: Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) before. Wikipedia states that the CGMA qualification commenced in 2012, a combined initiative of the American CPA and the British CIMA.

[ClaretTony]

Did Ryazantsev have any input into the development and financing of Bramley Moore Dock?

A lot I think from what I read last week

[Vegas Claret]

cheers lads

[aggi]

so was he in part responsible for the mess at Everton ?

The guy who comments a lot on the Everton finances, the Esk, seems to think he's decent and he has been scathing about a lot of the other executive staff involved at Everton.

[aggi]

Just looking for something elsewhere I came across a couple of old posts from when I used to do a review of the annual accounts. Interest in the accounts (and football finance in general) was fairly minimal and, in the case of 2008 at least, the club had no money either.

Thought some may find it interesting to see how far we have come so I'll post them up here:

Year ending 30 June 2008 accounts

Overall, they're not a great set of results. We are technically insolvent and without the loans that the directors have made to the club there's no doubt in my mind that we'd be in administration.

The directors' report makes a good read with a few interesting comments.

A good thing is that turnover increased to by £1.8m to £8.5m. This was mainly down to an increase in matchday income (think the Arsenal game helped, plus the £800k from the Premier League) which includes TV money but not cash from catering (this went up by about £200k).

On the downside, costs increased by £4.3m to £15.6m, and increase of ~40%. It's obvious that we can't cope at this rate of costs increasing at such a great rate compared to income.

Most worrying is that staff costs increased by 37% to £9.8m (2007: £7.1m) As a couple of points of comparison, Preston's staff costs were £8.9m and Wolves' were £11.7m. We will end up screwed if we continue with our salaries higher than our income, no doubt about it.

This gives us a loss before player sales of £6.7m, £2.5m higher than last year!

Fortunately we sold Gray, Thomas and Lafferty which brought in a profit of £5.8m. If things continue as they are we'll have to keep on doing that most years to stand a chance of survival. Even given that though we still made a loss of £1.7m.

Just as a note, the players that we signed don't affect the profit or loss during the year, spending more money on players won't increase the loss.

Looking at the balance sheet, as I said before, we are technically insolvent with net liabilities of £4.5m, as compared to £2.7m in 2007. Given that we have had £10m invested via shares overall this is worrying.

Cash wise we had a £200k overdraft as at 30 June, although we were owed over £4m of cash at that point. Mainly from the Lafferty sale I'd suspect.

Another few interesting things I picked up.

We have creditors (amounts that we owe) of £12m. Approx £6m of this is to the directors, £2m to the tax man and £2m represents money received for next season's season tickets.

We are paying rent of £335k a year to Longside Properties for the ground (I seem to remember this was agreed and set when the ground was sold).

None of the directors received any remuneration for their work at the club (Preston paid their directors £150k last year).
Barry Kilby loaned the club £500k and Brendan Flood loaned £2.7m during the year. The total amount loaned to the club by the directors is £5.8m. Interest is payable on these loans at 2% above base rate which gave interest of £375k in the year.


This has turned out a little longer than expected, well done if you got to the end. Overall, these don't look like a good set of results from a normal companies point of view. In terms of other football clubs, our debt is a lot more manageable than many other clubs and, if we get lucky this season and go up then that would do wonders for these figures with what appear to be sensible directors at the helm.

[aggi]

Year ending 30 June 2010 accounts

Obviously the turnover, profit, expenses and the rest are vastly inflated from the previous season which is pretty easy to see.

An interesting comment in the directors' report. The repayment of the Modus loans and season tickets resulted in us taking out additional commercial loans, giving an interest charge of £1m. Pretty clear why they were so slow in repaying the Premiership Pledge season tickets there.

A couple of things to note in terms of transfers, the signing of Fletcher was in last year's accounts. The sale of Fletcher was in this year's (2010) accounts.

Turnover pretty much quadrupled to £45m (2009: £11m).

Staff costs increased to £22m from £13m, the real increase was probably about 100% though once you strip out the promotion bonus. As many predicted, staff costs were way in excess of the £15m being bandied about. As a comparison, this is about half of Bolton’s wage bill.

This gave an operating profit of £10.7m, profit on the sale of players (mainly Fletcher I'd assume) gave an extra £4.5m less the £1m mentioned above for interest gave a profit of £14.4m

The tax charge was £4.2m but this won't involve any actual cash being paid out. I'll talk about the tax later.

Balance sheet wise, a few items stick out. We have debtors (cash owed to us) of £9m. No detail of what this is but I'd imagine it's some tv money and so on plus some of the cash for Fletcher (I think, very rusty on stat cash flows, will try and check this tomorrow).

The value of the players is a couple of million higher and the ground improvements were another £1.5m or so.

Liquid cash is about £2m, not the massive amount of dry powder some were suggesting. I’d suspect a lot of this is season ticket sales too, basically cash relating to next season.

This lack of cash also, I would suspect, explains why we’ve not bought the ground back.

The thing that really leaps out at me though is our creditors (money we owe to other people). It was £25m at the end of last year (still including the amounts due to Modus and most of the directors) and is now £23m. (Note 14 shows the detail)

Trade creditors have increased by £2m, not altogether surprising given the increase in trading and there may be some transfer fee elements in there. Other tax (e.g. VAT, PAYE, NI) has also gone up by a couple of million, again probably due to the increase in trading.

The drop in other creditors is due mainly to the £1.75m put aside for the Premiership Pledge. The drop in accruals is probably due to the decrease in season ticket sales, at least in part.

Directors’ loans have dropped from £4m to £1m (that being an amount still being loaned by Kilby). Interest is being paid on commercial rates on the directors’ loans. These loans have effectively been replaced by commercial loans it seems. Different people will have different views on the rights and wrongs of this.

The interesting one is the increase in Other Loans, up from £5.7m (including the Modus loan) to £8.7m. I guess this is mainly the commercial loan we’ve taken out to keep the cashflow going. This is down as repayable in under one year so I would guess that the plan is to use the parachute payments to repay it (although the intention is to bring the club debt free in 3 years so there may be a longer term plan). This may be an interesting question for anyone at the AGM, what’s the strategy for becoming debt-free, is it fully dependent on promotion.

Regarding the tax, a couple of interesting points. We didn’t actually pay any tax because we offset some of those losses from previous years against the tax charge (which was actually only £3.5m). No money was physically paid. We still have tax losses available to offset against future profits but, at the moment, we’re not recognising them as we very much suspect we won’t make a profit this year.

As always, I’ve written far too much. My basic feeling on these accounts is they would have been good if we’d stayed up and been looking at more of the same next year. However, now that we’ve come down the income from last year isn’t going to sustain us for another five seasons or so. We definitely don’t have the millions upon millions of spare cash sloshing around that we hoped we would to sustain us. We may break even with the parachute money but after they’re finished it’s back in trouble again.

Even with the parachute payments this year, if we have plans of becoming debt free that isn’t going to leave much spare, particularly as it’s likely that our wage bill is still going to be very significant this year.

Anyway, if you made it this far I hope you found it interesting reading and that this doesn’t have too many mistakes (always the trouble with doing stuff when you should be in bed). Any questions, I’ll do my best to answer.

[Chester Perry]

we are in for an interesting week - aside from last nights encouraging performance

Today sees Kettering capital's 1st accounts officially 9 months late and 12 months late from original due date
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12975630

Next Monday as well as being financial year end for the Football Club, is also the due date for the 2nd sets of accounts for both Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital Limited.

I expect that if the 1st set have not been filed that the directors cannot apply or an extension on the second set? as they did with ALK Capital Limited last month.

How Pace and co are going to handle this is quite intriguing - will they really be releasing two years worth of accounts simultaneously - given the established current practice it is hard to believe they would

I am still very intrigued as to why Calder Vale Holdings Limited has not been subject to a First Gazette notice like Kettering Capital Limited has.

[Carwin261]

Typical isn’t it?
They say every cloud had a silvery lining ,not on this MB it’s every silvery lining has a cloud.

[Chester Perry]

Typical isn’t it?
They say every cloud had a silvery lining ,not on this MB it’s every silvery lining has a cloud.

The post was made because of the anniversary date

I take it that you don't think it is a questionable issue that the entities that effectively control our club, and owe it £114.8m as of this time last year (according to the club's accounts, have not fulfilled their legal obligation to file their own first set accounts 21 months after their period end date and 5 days before the second set are officially due.

I will say I would be surprised if it makes the edit of 'Mission to Burnley'

[aggi]

I see the latest MSD accounts are out. https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Nothing very exciting in them, no real indicator on whether there were significant penalties or not on repayment of the loan (as I've said before, I don't agree with CP's theory that penalties would be the equivalent of the future cost) or even if the loan was repaid (although given what we know of MSD's other loans I think it is reasonably certain that the loan was repaid prior to 31 December as various other things have suggested).

I'm assuming that penalties would be classed as interest income. If they are classed as other income then they are not significant but I can't say for certain either way how they would be presented.

[Chester Perry]

I see the latest MSD accounts are out. https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Nothing very exciting in them, no real indicator on whether there were significant penalties or not on repayment of the loan (as I've said before, I don't agree with CP's theory that penalties would be the equivalent of the future cost) or even if the loan was repaid (although given what we know of MSD's other loans I think it is reasonably certain that the loan was repaid prior to 31 December as various other things have suggested).

I'm assuming that penalties would be classed as interest income. If they are classed as other income then they are not significant but I can't say for certain either way how they would be presented.

The clearest indication of a penalty payment (or whatever name is ascribed to it) having been made was the TISE balance of £32,762,013.75 being paid off in full by a new loan of £39,748,458 in November 2022. That is very close to a £7m difference and starkly in contrast to the enforced repayment of £20m arising from relegation, where no additional sum was recorded by the club.

Cancellation request TISE Listing outstanding balance MSDUKH.JPG (47.13 KiB) Viewed 4923 times

Cancellation confirmation TISE Listing outstanding balance MSDUKH.JPG (50.77 KiB) Viewed 4923 times

The Burnley Football & Athletic Company Limited Annual Report and Financial Statements Year
Ended 31 July 2022: Notes to the Financial Statements
27. Events after the reporting period
On 10 November 2022, the Company entered into a new loan agreement with a UK lender which
provided loan proceeds of £39,748,458 at a 7.5% fixed rate of interest. The proceeds of this loan
were used to repay in full the loan balance then outstanding with a US lender in Burnley FC
Holdings Limited, which carried a much higher interest rate…

[roperclaret]

Then again £7 mill is a very similar amount to the €9 mill we purportedly paid for Foster in January.

[Chester Perry]

Then again £7 mill is a very similar amount to the €9 mill we purportedly paid for Foster in January.

but that just ignores what amounts to a legal declaration in the accounts

[Carwin261]

The post was made because of the anniversary date

I take it that you don't think it is a questionable issue that the entities that effectively control our club, and owe it £114.8m as of this time last year (according to the club's accounts, have not fulfilled their legal obligation to file their own first set accounts 21 months after their period end date and 5 days before the second set are officially due.

I will say I would be surprised if it makes the edit of 'Mission to Burnley'

No problem with that Chester,but unfortunately we can’t do beggar all about so I’m afraid ignorance is bliss.

[roperclaret]

but that just ignores what amounts to a legal declaration in the accounts

No it doesn’t. Nowhere does it say ALL the proceeds of this loan were used to pay off the previous loan. What it says is that the proceeds of this loan were used to pay ALL of the previous loan. 2 very different things

[Chester Perry]

No problem with that Chester,but unfortunately we can’t do beggar all about so I’m afraid ignorance is bliss.

You have to say, given the structure and level of control that we know Pace, Smith and Hunt have over the whole ALK/VSL structure, that there is no obvious reason why the delays should be so significant, and that should include getting access to US sourced financial information - The directors and persons of significant influence over the UK entities are also the ones in absolute charge of the US/offshore ones.

[aggi]

The clearest indication of a penalty payment (or whatever name is ascribed to it) having been made was the TISE balance of £32,762,013.75 being paid off in full by a new loan of £39,748,458 in November 2022. That is very close to a £7m difference and starkly in contrast to the enforced repayment of £20m arising from relegation, where no additional sum was recorded by the club.


Cancellation request TISE Listing outstanding balance MSDUKH.JPG


Cancellation confirmation TISE Listing outstanding balance MSDUKH.JPG


The Burnley Football & Athletic Company Limited Annual Report and Financial Statements Year
Ended 31 July 2022: Notes to the Financial Statements
27. Events after the reporting period
On 10 November 2022, the Company entered into a new loan agreement with a UK lender which
provided loan proceeds of £39,748,458 at a 7.5% fixed rate of interest. The proceeds of this loan
were used to repay in full the loan balance then outstanding with a US lender in Burnley FC
Holdings Limited, which carried a much higher interest rate…

That's possible (although as roperclaret points out, not definitive).

Back of fag packet calculations I guess that £7m would be something along the lines of a bit over half the interest payments due on the loan if it had carried through to original redemption date. Probably high enough that refinancing wouldn't be worth it.

[Chester Perry]

That's possible (although as roperclaret points out, not definitive).

Back of fag packet calculations I guess that £7m would be something along the lines of a bit over half the interest payments due on the loan if it had carried through to original redemption date. Probably high enough that refinancing wouldn't be worth it.

It is quite close to the baseline 8% rate plus LIBOR from December 2020

Yes we have the classic ALK/VSL specifically vague statements designed to encourage multiple positions of interpretation and consequent lack of certainty within interested observers - it is a real talent they have, and we are left to try and find paths through the obfuscation. My way of doing this is to overlay the different strands and see what the picture is - it is an inexact approach, but standard intelligence gathering procedure. Crucially, I then share my interpretations with detail of how they are arrived at and invite critique and more importantly reasoned alternatives that account for the evidence laid out. Critique I have had aplenty, reasoned alternatives are very scarce.

The new loan amount is a strange figure if it was not used to clear the outstanding valance pus charges - the numbers don't add up if you say it is the clearance sum plus £?? million for other uses

Of course that last balance was the outcome of a strange, unforced capital sum reduction the previous August

There is still the factor that MSD quite clearly stated in their first accounts the fact that such penalty mechanisms were envisaged as part of their operational model and toolset

As for the refinancing not being worth it - it is a strong argument, when accounting for the MSD loan timeframe, the new loan is likely to be over a period that extends beyond that.

Other benefits of the new loan are:
- it disassociates the owners and the club from MSD, we have seen many here believe that the debt relationship of the takeover is now at an end, and the replacement is the clubs attempt to borrow money to grow, and there fore quite reasonably the club's responsibility to repay.
- the fixed interest rate (that is looking an even better deal at the moment than when it was done) provides budgeting certainty

I do not claim to be right, I have just not perceived or received a stronger explanation

[aggi]

It is quite close to the baseline 8% rate plus LIBOR from December 2020

Yes we have the classic ALK/VSL specifically vague statements designed to encourage multiple positions of interpretation and consequent lack of certainty within interested observers - it is a real talent they have, and we are left to try and find paths through the obfuscation. My way of doing this is to overlay the different strands and see what the picture is - it is an inexact approach, but standard intelligence gathering procedure. Crucially, I then share my interpretations with detail of how they are arrived at and invite critique and more importantly reasoned alternatives that account for the evidence laid out. Critique I have had aplenty, reasoned alternatives are very scarce.

The new loan amount is a strange figure if it was not used to clear the outstanding valance pus charges - the numbers don't add up if you say it is the clearance sum plus £?? million for other uses

Of course that last balance was the outcome of a strange, unforced capital sum reduction the previous August

There is still the factor that MSD quite clearly stated in their first accounts the fact that such penalty mechanisms were envisaged as part of their operational model and toolset

As for the refinancing not being worth it - it is a strong argument, when accounting for the MSD loan timeframe, the new loan is likely to be over a period that extends beyond that.

Other benefits of the new loan are:
- it disassociates the owners and the club from MSD, we have seen many here believe that the debt relationship of the takeover is now at an end, and the replacement is the clubs attempt to borrow money to grow, and there fore quite reasonably the club's responsibility to repay.
- the fixed interest rate (that is looking an even better deal at the moment than when it was done) provides budgeting certainty

I do not claim to be right, I have just not perceived or received a stronger explanation

Libor is something like 5.5% I think (not sure which they were using). £32m x 13.5% x 3 ≈ £13m. Obviously you'd expect that to be discounted so maybe around £11.5m, about two-thirds higher than the £7m.

Maybe they did want the certainty of a fixed rate, maybe they wanted to get away from MSD (maybe the Derby situation concerned them), maybe it was the first instalment for Foster, maybe there was a hefty finance charge for a bridging loan until Macquarie came on board in the next year (seems unlikely). All possible scenarios and it may be that the simplest explanation of that the new loan was used to pay off the old loan/fees is the correct one.

In terms of disclosure, no company likes to disclose more than it is legally obliged to so there's always a bit of guesswork and without the full picture it can be tough to get the commercial arguments to make sense..

[Chester Perry]

Compulsory Strike off action for Kettering Capital Limited has been discontinued - has the 1st set of accounts (at least) have been posted? there is no indication as yet - though the 2nd set are overdue as well

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

No news yet about overdue filings at Calder Vale Holdings Limited

Companies house recently confirmed, to a shareholder in the club, that processes were in active progress, following some Freedom of Information requests - though the requests themselves were denied as not being in the public interest - the notion, that entities solely created to manage a controlling majority shareholding in a Premier League Football as part of a complex, obfuscated network across multiple territories, some that restrict public disclosure, not being in the public interest is being challenged, particularly as the UK government regularly uses the Premier League as part of its soft power actions push globally.

[Paul Waine]

particularly as the UK government regularly uses the Premier League as part of its soft power actions push globally.

Hi CP, do you really think the UK Government, whichever party is in power enlists the Premier League owner's as part of UK "soft power?" Russian oligarchs, Chinese owners, middle eastern owners, numerous American owners and a few "dodgy Brits" owners?

And, many of these same types are also owners of clubs in many of the other European leagues.

[spt_claret]

Hi CP, do you really think the UK Government, whichever party is in power enlists the Premier League owner's as part of UK "soft power?" Russian oligarchs, Chinese owners, middle eastern owners, numerous American owners and a few "dodgy Brits" owners?

And, many of these same types are also owners of clubs in many of the other European leagues.

You're moving the goalposts a tad here I feel, Paul.
The LEAGUE is used as a tool.
The owners as you point out are a who's who of global cartels & oligarchs for the most part and doutless use their buy-ins to the league for the same ends. But the Premier League, and access to/membership of it, is very clearly an appealing proposition for international interests- hence so many overseas owners- it would be naive to think the government doesn't utilise the soft power of access to the PL whether as a club owner or just in terms of its image as an elite, cosmpolitan powerhouse.

[Chester Perry]

Hi CP, do you really think the UK Government, whichever party is in power enlists the Premier League owner's as part of UK "soft power?" Russian oligarchs, Chinese owners, middle eastern owners, numerous American owners and a few "dodgy Brits" owners?

And, many of these same types are also owners of clubs in many of the other European leagues.

The UK government makes regular use of the Premier League for its purposes very often actually, it is the foremost League in the world and an example of English/British openness to inward investment and ability trade on a global scale there have been plenty of references to it down the years. The mixture of owners just a metaphor of how open and flexible the country is for trade.

[Paul Waine]

The UK government makes regular use of the Premier League for its purposes very often actually, it is the foremost League in the world and an example of English/British openness to inward investment and ability trade on a global scale there have been plenty of references to it down the years. The mixture of owners just a metaphor of how open and flexible the country is for trade.

Yes, but none of this has got anything to do with "obsucating network across multiple territories" etc. Excellent example of being open to inward investment - and lots of players from other countries to. Kettering Capital and Calder Vale financial disclosures are neither here or there in this big international picture.

[Paul Waine]

You're moving the goalposts a tad here I feel, Paul.
The LEAGUE is used as a tool.
The owners as you point out are a who's who of global cartels & oligarchs for the most part and doutless use their buy-ins to the league for the same ends. But the Premier League, and access to/membership of it, is very clearly an appealing proposition for international interests- hence so many overseas owners- it would be naive to think the government doesn't utilise the soft power of access to the PL whether as a club owner or just in terms of its image as an elite, cosmpolitan powerhouse.

I fear the pitch has been swung round 90 degrees. I'm questioning CP's linking of Kettering Capital and Calder Vale financial disclosures to "soft power."

[Chester Perry]

Yes, but none of this has got anything to do with "obsucating network across multiple territories" etc. Excellent example of being open to inward investment - and lots of players from other countries to. Kettering Capital and Calder Vale financial disclosures are neither here or there in this big international picture.

The issue is about wider public interest - that is the reason given for not answering the FoIR - as we know KCL and CVHL are just conduits of control for over 86% of the shares in the club, the obfuscation is around who forms part of that ownership group - though PAE, Hunt and Smith are said to be the figures in control and (historically at least) had the significant shareholding, though the ratios have likely changed somewhat.

[Paul Waine]

The issue is about wider public interest - that is the reason given for not answering the FoIR - as we know KCL and CVHL are just conduits of control for over 86% of the shares in the club, the obfuscation is around who forms part of that ownership group - though PAE, Hunt and Smith are said to be the figures in control and (historically at least) had the significant shareholding, though the ratios have likely changed somewhat.

But, the corporate structure of the ownership of BFC has no connection with the UK Government enjoying the Premier League being an example of the UK economy (and society, if we like) being open to inward investment.

Hard for me, or many others, to comment on communications between Companies House and the (minority) Burnley shareholder who submitted a FoIR. I don't know what the FoI request asked if who asked it. I don't know what Companies House said in their response.

It's all a little curiosity for Burnley fans who also have interest in the club's ownership and finances. But, no more than that.

If we focus on ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US plus the club's directors that's all we need to know about the club's ownership. We many never know how much, for example, JJ and Kealia Watt have invested in "the club" - which really means how much have they invested in Velocity Sports.

[ClaretPete001]

I'm guessing Chester's point is that if an FOI can get rebutted on the basis of not being in the public interest when the public aren't interested and nor would the response have to reveal any information other than the most perfunctory it says much about how easy it is for institutions to swat away freedom of information requests.

If we focus on ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US plus the club's directors that's all we need to know about the club's ownership.

Fair enough, Paul. Point us in the direction of the Financial Accounts...

[Paul Waine]

I'm guessing Chester's point is that if an FOI can get rebutted on the basis of not being in the public interest when the public aren't interested and nor would the response have to reveal any information other than the most perfunctory it says much about how easy it is for institutions to swat away freedom of information requests.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:32 pm
If we focus on ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US plus the club's directors that's all we need to know about the club's ownership.

Fair enough, Paul. Point us in the direction of the Financial Accounts...

Hi Pete, we all know that the club publishes the club's financial accounts on the club's own website. We also all know that the club's accounts, including the group accounts of BFC Holdings Limited are filed and placed in the public domain on Companies House website.

My comment re "ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US plus the club's directors" is that "that's all we need to know about the club's ownership." We don't need to know who all the investors in ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US are, nor do we need to know how much each investor has invested in either of those entities.

Yes, a little curiosity that Calder Vale and Kettering Capital haven't published their accounts at Companies House, yet. It appears that Companies House is satisfied on reasons provided by the directors of those two limited companies for their respective delays. Anyone who is owed money that is past due by either Calder Vale of Kettering Capital may have cause for action against one or other of them, but that action would be through the courts rather than a FoI to Companies House. Yes, as reported in the accounts of BFCHL at 31st July 2022, BFCHL was owed a significant amount by Calder Vale and/or other companies in the ALK/VSL corporate structure. However, there's no indication that any amount is past due. If it was, it would be up to the directors of BFCHL to take appropriate action. That's the only reason Companies House can respond "not in public interest" to a FoI request that asks for information that doesn't fall within the scope of FoI requests. In other words, the information requested is not about the actions of a public body, it's (I assume - as above I've no knowledge of who asked or exactly what they asked) about the actions of a private limited company.

[aggi]

Hi CP, do you really think the UK Government, whichever party is in power enlists the Premier League owner's as part of UK "soft power?" Russian oligarchs, Chinese owners, middle eastern owners, numerous American owners and a few "dodgy Brits" owners?

And, many of these same types are also owners of clubs in many of the other European leagues.

Yes.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bori ... 29725.html

[aggi]

Compulsory Strike off action for Kettering Capital Limited has been discontinued - has the 1st set of accounts (at least) have been posted? there is no indication as yet - though the 2nd set are overdue as well

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

No news yet about overdue filings at Calder Vale Holdings Limited

Companies house recently confirmed, to a shareholder in the club, that processes were in active progress, following some Freedom of Information requests - though the requests themselves were denied as not being in the public interest - the notion, that entities solely created to manage a controlling majority shareholding in a Premier League Football as part of a complex, obfuscated network across multiple territories, some that restrict public disclosure, not being in the public interest is being challenged, particularly as the UK government regularly uses the Premier League as part of its soft power actions push globally.

For what it's worth I agree that it isn't in the public interest (or not sufficiently in the public interest to override the commercial considerations).

That argument could be used to get all sorts of commercial info from HMRC, companies house, etc in many different sectors

[Paul Waine]

Yes.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bori ... 29725.html

Isn't that the exact opposite? The Saudi government/MBS using their power to buy a Premier League club?

[roperclaret]

Isn't that the exact opposite? The Saudi government/MBS using their power to buy a Premier League club?

Yes it is. Self serving lying Tory (proven multiple times been sacked for lying more than once) folding to pressure because of money. Again

[aggi]

Isn't that the exact opposite? The Saudi government/MBS using their power to buy a Premier League club?

The government then reportedly "leaning" on the premier league sounds a lot like " the UK government regularly uses the Premier League as part of its soft power actions push globally ".

[ClaretPete001]

Hi Pete, we all know that the club publishes the club's financial accounts on the club's own website. We also all know that the club's accounts, including the group accounts of BFC Holdings Limited are filed and placed in the public domain on Companies House website.

My comment re "ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US plus the club's directors" is that "that's all we need to know about the club's ownership." We don't need to know who all the investors in ALK Capital US and Velocity Sports US are, nor do we need to know how much each investor has invested in either of those entities.

Yes, a little curiosity that Calder Vale and Kettering Capital haven't published their accounts at Companies House, yet. It appears that Companies House is satisfied on reasons provided by the directors of those two limited companies for their respective delays. Anyone who is owed money that is past due by either Calder Vale of Kettering Capital may have cause for action against one or other of them, but that action would be through the courts rather than a FoI to Companies House. Yes, as reported in the accounts of BFCHL at 31st July 2022, BFCHL was owed a significant amount by Calder Vale and/or other companies in the ALK/VSL corporate structure. However, there's no indication that any amount is past due. If it was, it would be up to the directors of BFCHL to take appropriate action. That's the only reason Companies House can respond "not in public interest" to a FoI request that asks for information that doesn't fall within the scope of FoI requests. In other words, the information requested is not about the actions of a public body, it's (I assume - as above I've no knowledge of who asked or exactly what they asked) about the actions of a private limited company.

The club publishes the bare minimum of financial information on its own web site. The club is pretty much the sole asset of an investment group registered in Delaware. The club's websIte publishes accounts that are meaningless outside of the broader context of the group's accounts much of which we either can't see or aren't yet published.

The club is owed a significant amount of money but as you know there is no due date on those repayments and the directors of the club are the same as the holding group so the notion that the directors of the club would take action based on those debts or that those debts are overdue is just meaningless. The money is gone and that is that....!

I can understand why a disinterested party would defend the right of owners to fail to publish accounts on the basis that it is a private limited company - I just struggle to understand why Burnley fans would do it. Even if you think that the owners are going in the right direction the inability to publish accounts on time is a concern and thus far there seems no obvious commercial reasons for the delayed accounts that have now been published.

And I agree wIth CP, the job of companies House is to publish Financial Accounts. It is an important democratic function and not a trifling matter between bureaucrats and accountants.

Once AI comes into being in a big way, how will all these antiquated institutions and 19th century professions cope?

[Paul Waine]

The government then reportedly "leaning" on the premier league sounds a lot like " the UK government regularly uses the Premier League as part of its soft power actions push globally ".

Again, aggi, I believe you are making exactly the opposite argument that CP is seeking to make. But, I fear we are straying into "politics" so I'm leaving this one here.

[Andreshotboots]

A lot I think from what I read last week

That explains a lot then. Watch out for the cranes moving in to reclaim the land next to Clowbridge Reservoir and a super stadium going up..

[Paul Waine]

The club publishes the bare minimum of financial information on its own web site. The club is pretty much the sole asset of an investment group registered in Delaware. The club's websIte publishes accounts that are meaningless outside of the broader context of the group's accounts much of which we either can't see or aren't yet published.

The club is owed a significant amount of money but as you know there is no due date on those repayments and the directors of the club are the same as the holding group so the notion that the directors of the club would take action based on those debts or that those debts are overdue is just meaningless. The money is gone and that is that....!

I can understand why a disinterested party would defend the right of owners to fail to publish accounts on the basis that it is a private limited company - I just struggle to understand why Burnley fans would do it. Even if you think that the owners are going in the right direction the inability to publish accounts on time is a concern and thus far there seems no obvious commercial reasons for the delayed accounts that have now been published.

And I agree wIth CP, the job of companies House is to publish Financial Accounts. It is an important democratic function and not a trifling matter between bureaucrats and accountants.

Once AI comes into being in a big way, how will all these antiquated institutions and 19th century professions cope?

Hi Pete, so far as I'm aware the club publishes all the financial information it is required to publish. What do you feel the club is omitting?

Yes, the club is owed a very significant amount of money by other companies connected to the club via the majority shareholders. The collectability of these amounts are mentioned in the club's accounts and, for the purpose of going concern, the amounts are confirmed as assets for the period 12 months after the accounts were signed off. If the money was "gone" as you suggest, the amounts wouldn't be classed as assets in the club's accounts.

I believe I've said that it is a "little curiosity" that Calder Vale and Kettering Capital accounts have not yet been published. I'll read them when they do appear in the public domain. I'm not a "disinterested party."

I recommend you take a second look at the role of Companies House. It isn't to "publish financial accounts," but rather to make documents available in the public domain that limited companies and other relevant forms of legal entities are required to file.

I guess if AI "comes into being in a big way" as you suggest no one will be watching football any more. In the same way that you are suggesting that AI can replace the accounting and legal professions, AI will be able to tell everyone which team has come "top of the AI league" at the end of every AI season. Put it another way, in the same way that AI won't be able to replace 11 football players playing against another team of 11 footballers, AI will not be able to prepare and publish any limited company's accounts, whether a football club or any other type of business venture - all accounts will still require all the specific underlying data. Yes, AI can no doubt assist, but Companies House will still be required (maybe the form will be updated) and directors, accountants, lawyers and auditors will all be required, even if some activities are assisted by appropriate AI.

[Goalposts]

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... or-burnley

[ClaretPete001]

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... or-burnley

That's a media classic.

The accounts referred to are the relegation season, which the article does state but all the PL broadcast revenue is in there. And it's pretty much the first season back after Covid.

And of course with £115 million in broadcast revenue everything is bigger and better than in the clubs history. Prior to Covid the turnover was much higher.

The only thing ALK could affect was the organic commercial revenue, which went down. So, like much in the media you would read nothing that was incorrect in the article but little that was meaningfully true either, except, we had a great season and Vinny is a winner....

[Big Vinny K]

That's a media classic.

The accounts referred to are the relegation season, which the article does state but all the PL broadcast revenue is in there. And it's pretty much the first season back after Covid.

And of course with £115 million in broadcast revenue everything is bigger and better than in the clubs history. Prior to Covid the turnover was much higher.

The only thing ALK could affect was the organic commercial revenue, which went down. So, like much in the media you would read nothing that was incorrect in the article but little that was meaningfully true either, except, we had a great season and Vinny is a winner....

Looks like a pretty harmless and accurate report to me.
Not sure there was really a plan b if we would not have been promoted but from the information I have we had reduced our wage bill to below £30m so guess that was a very significant step in being able to cope with relegation.

In terms of organic commercial revenue going down what were the figures here ?
Presumably match day revenues are at record highs and I’m guessing it’s the same for corporate hospitality revenue.
If total commercial revenues have reduced is this fundamentally our club main sponsor deal and other advertising revenue ?
Because if it is then this is likely to be more of a global economic post covid phenomenon with the general reductions seen in the amount spent on advertising.

I was no lover or the takeover and the position it left us in (which still exists to a lesser degree) but I think that we need to see the financial position over at least 3 years and probably nearer to 5 years to make a true assessment. I’m not really sure what more you would expect from the 2022 accounts - it looked like a decent start to me but the historical nature of year end accounts means that time moves on a lot by the time they are published.

[ClaretPete001]

Looks like a pretty harmless and accurate report to me.
Not sure there was really a plan b if we would not have been promoted but from the information I have we had reduced our wage bill to below £30m so guess that was a very significant step in being able to cope with relegation.

In terms of organic commercial revenue going down what were the figures here ?
Presumably match day revenues are at record highs and I’m guessing it’s the same for corporate hospitality revenue.
If total commercial revenues have reduced is this fundamentally our club main sponsor deal and other advertising revenue ?
Because if it is then this is likely to be more of a global economic post covid phenomenon with the general reductions seen in the amount spent on advertising.

I was no lover or the takeover and the position it left us in (which still exists to a lesser degree) but I think that we need to see the financial position over at least 3 years and probably nearer to 5 years to make a true assessment. I’m not really sure what more you would expect from the 2022 accounts - it looked like a decent start to me but the historical nature of year end accounts means that time moves on a lot by the time they are published.

Isn't that just what I said? Those figures are from the relegation year when we were last in the Prem' and pretty much meaningless.

I think at it's highest turnover, prior to Covid, was around £137 million compared to £123 million here. Commercial revenue has been as high as £12 million - it's £7 million here but likely Covid and relegation affected.

Crowds have been remarkable consistent around 20,000 but 3 years of inflation since Covid means the revenue is slightly higher.

I would guess from a profit and loss perspective this year will be much as it was in 19/20, however, the balance sheet will be more interesting.

As long as we are winning there are no problems but citing accounts from the last year in the PL prior to a relegation is pretty much meaningless in terms of understanding where we are now.

[Big Vinny K]

Isn't that just what I said? Those figures are from the relegation year when we were last in the Prem' and pretty much meaningless.

I think at it's highest turnover, prior to Covid, was around £137 million compared to £123 million here. Commercial revenue has been as high as £12 million - it's £7 million here but likely Covid and relegation affected.

Crowds have been remarkable consistent around 20,000 but 3 years of inflation since Covid means the revenue is slightly higher.

I would guess from a profit and loss perspective this year will be much as it was in 19/20, however, the balance sheet will be more interesting.

As long as we are winning there are no problems but citing accounts from the last year in the PL prior to a relegation is pretty much meaningless in terms of understanding where we are now.

Season ticket price increases plus the pretty significant increase in walk on price the new owners brought in will have a decent impact on revenue (I know it’s still a fraction of the tv money). I don’t think we were selling out our home games under the last couple of years of Dyche like we did last season and this season.

I agree talking about historical accounts is pretty meaningless to what is happening now - especially when you consider what’s happened at Burnley during the last year or two.

Balance sheet could be interesting to see the true picture as to where we are with our debt etc.
I’m more interested in our P and L though given what I was told about our wage bill and also the cost of some of our new ways of financing things like the factoring deals we did on tv monies and player sales.

[Chester Perry]

Just come across this interview on LinkedIN (whilst looking for something else)

BFC Head of Commercial - Marcus Mellor - in a Meet the Member Interview for isportconnect
https://www.isportconnect.com/meet-the- ... partments/

[Chester Perry]

copied over from the KV Kortrijk thread

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... &start=200

My guess is that, based on our transfer window activity, ALK/VSL have added more investors than we are aware of.

Of course, we will know in time. On the other hand, we should not expect every new investor to be introduced to the media and everyone at Turf Moor in the manner that JJ and Kealia Watt or the Dude Perfect guys. VSL allows individuals to join as investors without any need to make their investment public if that's what they desire.

This is a question for the finance and ownership experts on here, Chester Perry may know the answer. What are the rules if any in football managers being part of ownership groups? Is it possible for Kompany to be part of the ownership group investing in the Belgium club but not be part of the ownership group at Burnley?

Kompany already owns a football club in Belgium, that will probably have some bearing on how involved he can be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BX_Brussels

It would be easy, from a financial perspective, for Vincent Kompany to be an investor in VSL and therefore be an investor in the ownership of both Burnley and any KV Kortrijk, (or another other club that ALK/VSL invested in). I can't think of any football regulations (Premier League, FA, UEFA, FIFA) that would ban a football manager/coach from having an ownership stake in the club they are the coach for. However, football is a lot more used to a situation where the owners can fire the manager. OK, it can also happen that a manager who is also an investor can still be fired as the manager. Thinking of other clubs, was Alex Ferguson also a shareholder in ManU - shares are listed on NY stock exchange, so no reason why not. American employers are also a lot keener to reward employees with shares and share options.

All that without the separate information that Vincent Kompany has his own business activities.

Be great if Alan Pace has found a way to keep his favourite football manager interested and involved with the club for a long, long time.

UTC

I'd be amazed if Kompany had any shares in Burnley or ALK. The shares aren't publicly traded and it's pretty likely Kompany will have left before the club is sold so it would be difficult to realise the value of them at that point.

Having shares in Burnley whilst managing another club, particularly in the same division, would be terrible optics even if there aren't specific rules against it.

Hi aggi, we can all be 100% certain Vincent Kompany doesn't have any shares in either "Burnley or ALK." However. it is not impossible that Vincent Kompany may be an investor in VSL. The whole idea of these US partnerships (not just for sports) is that investors can buy in and exit as they choose.

I agree that having a major shareholding in one football club while being involved in another football club in the same pyramid would be a massive "no, no" - and not, just "terrible optics." That would go right to the integrity of the league. However, having a small investment with no direct involvement and control in the club that the small investment is in would not conflict with being the manager, player or any other senior role in another club. Footballers aren't allowed to place bets on football. There's no rule that I'm aware of (* see note) that a Manchester City player (or any other footballer) can't be a shareholder in Manchester United - using this as an example because ManU are one of the few publicly listed football clubs in the UK.

* Note: It's possible that Manchester City (in this example) have internal rules that require their employees to declare their shareholdings in other football club - just as all banks and others in the financial sector require their staff to declare their shareholdings in other banks plus any other entities, including clients and potential clients, that might result in conflicts of interest.

If Kompany does have shares in VSL they are perhaps more likely to be Incentive Shares via either via his role as an employee or via the service partner relationship of MUD Analytics

I have an article in the next issue of the London Clarets Magazine 'Something to write home about' (out next week - look for a copy in pubs before the game or in the new Burnley FC archive room at Burnley Central Library )that looks at what I found in Jersey about VSL and Velocity Sports Feeder Ltd together with other updates on the known ALK/VSL structure. It contains this about Incentive shares

"Notably, Incentive shares can be awarded to employees and service providers, and are retained
while service continues, though they must be returned, without cost, once that service has been
completed/terminated. It sounds like they are there to provide a bonus if dividends or other
profits are collected. Appleby Global Services, in some guise, may have held/hold such shares. As
may other entities. ‘Mission to Burnley’ appeared to show a number of such entities, providing
advisory services to the owners at a deeply engaged level. Though not identified as such, that
appeared to include MUD Analytics Limited, of whom our manager is a co-owner alongside Lee
Mooney, who featured a number of times in boardroom scenes wearing full Burnley FC staff kit
across the series."

I’m pretty certain we’ve had some significant investment and I don’t mean DP.

Pace talks about securing investment as being easier when the team is playing well in Mission to Burnley.

As PW says, some will be silent investors but it’s the ones like JJ and DP that excite me the most. Russell Ball also suggested “others will come on board” in his TurfCast interview.

The introduction of Vlad Torgovnik to the BFC board may be the clearest indication of new investment and possibly significant investment in ALK/VSL - though as we saw in 'MtB' not all board members are directors - particularly thinking of Adrian Bettridge, who I am assuming is also part of the ownership group.

What does seem apparent is that there are a growing number of minor investors in ALK/VSL who are not publicised - not unsurprisingly they share common background and judging by posts on social media, it is that community which has been a consistent source for introducing new people to the club/ownership group

Hi CP, you've got something factually wrong with "not all board members are directors." The full description of the group that directs any business is the "board of directors." The board consists of all those people who are named on Companies House filings as being directors (similar arrangements in other countries). A person can seek to avoid their responsibilities for the actions of a business that they control by not being registered as a director, but they can be found to be a "shadow director." The sanction for businesses that fail and transgress in various ways is often banning some or all of the directors (and shadow directors) from acting as a director of any business for a number of years.

Mission to Burnley showed a number of meetings, but the film didn't state which, if any of them, were formal board meetings of either BFCHL or the club. Board meetings will often invite other people to present to the board and join the board discussions. We saw Vincent Kompany and others in meetings with some of the club's directors, We didn't see the formalities that declared a certain meeting as a Board of Directors' meeting: record of directors attending in person, others maybe on video call and which ones were absent; agenda; minutes of previous meeting etc. Only the directors take formal decisions on behalf of the board, others presenting to the board may have already left the meeting before formal board decisions are made.

Who's Adrian Bettridge? Was he named in Mission to Burnley? I guess I need to watch and enjoy it again.

Vlad Torgovnik joining the board of directors is, of course, evidence that there has been investment in ALK/VSL. It's possible that he's invested his own money in ALK - hence becoming a director. Given that he is Chief Information Officer at Millenium it's not certain that Millenium has also invested in ALK/VSL. More news to come sometime, possibly.

That is how i would normally take it - but for the fact that Adrian Bettridge was clearly identified as being a member of the Burnley FC Board in 'MtB' - he appeared across most of the meetings







- his background is in finance (actual in consulting in the financial sector) and no need to guess his faith, he seem to be actively introducing other CoLDS members to the club/ownership though though

https://www.baringa.com/en/people/exper ... bettridge/

https://byums.byu.edu/events/details/by ... el-london/

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/adrian-bettr ... din.com%2F

he appears to be relatively high ranking in the CoLDS set-up, being a member of the 7th quorum of the seventies
https://www.deseret.com/2023/3/30/23663 ... ip-session

There is relatively little about him on the web though this gives an insight to how he sells himself professionally

https://www.sourceglobalresearch.com/po ... leadership

Thanks, CP. As I said I will need to watch Mission to Burnley again. As I posted earlier, none of the meetings shown in Mission to Burnley we stated to be "Board meetings." I wonder if some of these people in the meetings represent parts of the ALK/VSL hierarchy above the BFCHL group - and are attending in the capacity of consultants (and management fees). ALK/VSL will be very careful to avoid creating a "permanent establishment" issue in the UK by holding board meetings of any of the non-UK parts of the larger corporate structure.

I know people at Baringa from my working days. Baringa started out as an energy risk software firm and has extended into financial risk management in one direction and consultancy in another direction. It's also got an extensive "world wide" reach. Yes, it's grown very successfully since I first heard of them. It's a small world - I'd expect Baringa and John B's Freight Investor Services may possibly know each other quite well.

The other name to feature in 'MtB' was Clayton Wyatt, he was identified as an advisor to the Board of the club, his background is property, though appears to be something of a specialist (guru) in funding and cash flows -he now runs a consultancy - and yes he is a member of CoLDS

Clayton Wyatt - advisor.JPG (20.57 KiB) Viewed 2667 times

Clayton Wyatt - advisor.JPG


https://www.linkedin.com/in/clayton-wya ... e.co.uk%2F

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/clayton-wyatt-4032

Would be interesting to know who the blurred names are on this zoom call. Assume these board members ticked the no publicity box when they signed up.

Helps if I upload the picture which failed when I posted the above

I will carry thison in a second post as I have hit the image limit within a post