ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[ClaretPete001]

Pete,

1) It is possible to negotiate, agree and execute finance deals in a matter of days. Anyone with a little corporate banking/investment banking experience would expect to do this.

2) What I'm "asserting" (I'll use your word, if you like) is that BFC directors are in control of the club's cashflows.

Macquarie loan facility has capital repayment terms in the event of relegation. BFC not having a good season in Premier League and (in December) there is risk of relegation. The club prepares 12 months cashflow forecast, Dec-2023 to Dec-2024, - i.e. extending 12 months from the date of signing off the accounts - as a normal part of preparing the 2022/23 accounts. The auditors prepare their "true and fair" audit opinion. The auditors also mention "material uncertainty" concerning cashflows as required by International Auditing Standards. Remember BDO state "Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter."

Shortly after the club's accounts have been signed off, BFC execute a new finance arrangement with Mgg Lux, replacing the existing facility with Macquarie - "continuation of external facilities" is the second item on BDO's list of items included in the cashflow forecast "prepared by the board."

No club will know the value of player sales in future transfer windows. Will a number of clubs bid for X or Y? Will the club be able to sell players, R, S and T at a profit? So, there will always be uncertainty about the cash receipts from player sales.

However, there's very little subjectivity relating to a finance agreement. The size of the facility is known, the terms of the facility are known and the costs of the facility are known. So, take control and, if you are able to, negotiate a new facility agreement.

If you mean that a new loan is a sign that the Directors still have some tools available to allow them to affect the cashflow then I would agree. But that is not the same as being in control.

Being in control would mean being able to persuade the auditors there would be no cashflow issues as the Directors of Luton, Sheff Utd and Notts Forest were able to do but not Everton.

The issue was only likely to occur if we were relegated and to a period in summer 24. I think the only rational reading of a new loan taken in January only weeks after the accounts were signed off is that the loan had little to do with the audit and would not have materially affected the cashflow projections presented to the auditors.

[Paul Waine]

If you mean that a new loan is a sign that the Directors still have some tools available to allow them to affect the cashflow then I would agree. But that is not the same as being in control.

Being in control would mean being able to persuade the auditors there would be no cashflow issues as the Directors of Luton, Sheff Utd and Notts Forest were able to do but not Everton.

The issue was only likely to occur if we were relegated and to a period in summer 24. I think the only rational reading of a new loan taken in January only weeks after the accounts were signed off is that the loan had little to do with the audit and would not have materially affected the cashflow projections presented to the auditors.

We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

[Turfytop]

Paul ,don’t entertain him, just ignore him (claretpete) he won’t listen to anyone else , no matter what alk do he will always be against it

[ClaretPete001]

We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

Absolutely both views are there for all to see, which what you want from a discussion forum.

[ClaretPete001]

Paul ,don’t entertain him, just ignore him (claretpete) he won’t listen to anyone else , no matter what alk do he will always be against it

109 posts in 8 years and 1 of them is a pop at me. I feel quite humbled that you would take the time. Thank you..!

I am of the belief that taking £124 million out of a community club will only end one way. I maintained that view when we were top of the Championship and bottom of the PL.

[Chester Perry]

Vincent Kompany leaves his role as director of MUD Analytics Limited but still retains his 50% ownership via his primary group company Plankton and Smallfish Ltd. Note also that his interest in MUD Analytics is still looked over by long term business partner (and I believe, mentor) Klass Jan Gaublomme who retains his role of director there

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

Anyone know if Lee Mooney is still involved at our club?

[GetIntoEm]

109 posts in 8 years and 1 of them is a pop at me. I feel quite humbled that you would take the time. Thank you..!

I am of the belief that taking £124 million out of a community club will only end one way. I maintained that view when we were top of the Championship and bottom of the PL.

what do you think defines us as a community club? what makes us different to the other 91 clubs?

[Ightenhill_Claret]

Vincent Kompany leaves his role as director of MUD Analytics Limited but still retains his 50% ownership via his primary group company Plankton and Smallfish Ltd. Note also that his interest in MUD Analytics is still looked over by long term business partner (and I believe, mentor) Klass Jan Gaublomme who retains his role of director there

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

Anyone know if Lee Mooney is still involved at our club?

We had a mini-discussion about this on the podcast last week CP - I wonder if the recruitment department under VK was part-BFC and part-Mooney/MUD. The signings of Shurandy Sambo and Pires (expected any day) don't feel like a huge departure from the ALK model of picking up younger talent that can be developed and sold on for profit.

I wonder whether these two might be the last two from any arrangement with MUD or whether MUD will continue to be involved in some capacity.

The fear when we found out about MUD was what would happen to the recruitment department if it was basically outsourced to a VK company. A little bit of digging suggests the VK company (MUD) were part of the recruitment department as opposed to BEING the department.

[RVclaret]

We had a mini-discussion about this on the podcast last week CP - I wonder if the recruitment department under VK was part-BFC and part-Mooney/MUD. The signings of Shurandy Sambo and Pires (expected any day) don't feel like a huge departure from the ALK model of picking up younger talent that can be developed and sold on for profit.

I wonder whether these two might be the last two from any arrangement with MUD or whether MUD will continue to be involved in some capacity.

The fear when we found out about MUD was what would happen to the recruitment department if it was basically outsourced to a VK company. A little bit of digging suggests the VK company (MUD) were part of the recruitment department as opposed to BEING the department.

I shared this article on another thread recently, it’s worth a quick read:

https://statsbomb.com/news/statsbomb-ca ... s-2022-23/

The club use StatsBomb (another data & analytics platform used by many other clubs) and have their own Head of Technical Scouting. A quick check on LinkedIn shows George Foster-Vigors still in this role. So your suggestion seems accurate.

[123EasyasBFC]

I shared this article on another thread recently, it’s worth a quick read:

https://statsbomb.com/news/statsbomb-ca ... s-2022-23/

The club use StatsBomb (another data & analytics platform used by many other clubs) and have their own Head of Technical Scouting. A quick check on LinkedIn shows George Foster-Vigors still in this role. So your suggestion seems accurate.

George is chief scout at the club

[RVclaret]

George is chief scout at the club

Yep, Head of Technical Scouting (the modern term for Chief Scout) like I said!

[Chester Perry]

We had a mini-discussion about this on the podcast last week CP - I wonder if the recruitment department under VK was part-BFC and part-Mooney/MUD. The signings of Shurandy Sambo and Pires (expected any day) don't feel like a huge departure from the ALK model of picking up younger talent that can be developed and sold on for profit.

I wonder whether these two might be the last two from any arrangement with MUD or whether MUD will continue to be involved in some capacity.

The fear when we found out about MUD was what would happen to the recruitment department if it was basically outsourced to a VK company. A little bit of digging suggests the VK company (MUD) were part of the recruitment department as opposed to BEING the department.

that all fits with the other thing that I have been pointing out for quite some time, which is that MUD Analytics has no full time employees.

What seems evident from a number of different thread discussions is that while Kompany was at the club he found ways to involve his own business interests and partners into the clubs business and support operations without ever fully seeking to take them over.

They appear to be significant partners in areas where a change in the football sides strategic direction required rapid growth in areas that (even Sean Dyche argued under Garlick) were not as developed as they need to be to facilitate the change.

[NewClaret]

Tbh I think this whole point about MUD and their involvement has been massively overplayed.

1. We know their accounts show very small volumes of expenditure - particularly relative to agency fees which everyone seems to accept as a recruitment cost.
2. They seem to sell a software package for analysis. Presumably this is in addition to packages like StatsBomb.
3. They’ve always supplemented and not replaced our scouting department.
4. I’m not sure how having an ex City employee/head of data science involved in our scouting can be a bad thing. I think employing external experts is a good thing providing you learn things from each of them.
5. Over the last two years we’ve identified and signed some fantastic young talent - Muric, Maatsen, Tella, Beyer, AAD, Ekdal, Benny, Zaroury, Berge, Koleosho, Odobert, Esteve, O’Shea, Assignon, etc, etc - and while others have done less well I’m not sure anyone expected us to get every signing right.

I hope Mooney/MUD remain involved assuming they are still adding value and, if not, what they taught the recruitment team is now well embedded. And I certainly hope we’re not going back to the days of signing Nat Phillips, etc.

[Chester Perry]

Tbh I think this whole point about MUD and their involvement has been massively overplayed.

1. We know their accounts show very small volumes of expenditure - particularly relative to agency fees which everyone seems to accept as a recruitment cost.
2. They seem to sell a software package for analysis. Presumably this is in addition to packages like StatsBomb.
3. They’ve always supplemented and not replaced our scouting department.
4. I’m not sure how having an ex City employee/head of data science involved in our scouting can be a bad thing. I think employing external experts is a good thing providing you learn things from each of them.
5. Over the last two years we’ve identified and signed some fantastic young talent - Muric, Maatsen, Tella, Beyer, AAD, Ekdal, Benny, Zaroury, Berge, Koleosho, Odobert, Esteve, O’Shea, Assignon, etc, etc - and while others have done less well I’m not sure anyone expected us to get every signing right.

I hope Mooney/MUD remain involved assuming they are still adding value and, if not, what they taught the recruitment team is now well embedded. And I certainly hope we’re not going back to the days of signing Nat Phillips, etc.

Mud Analytics accounts by their nature of being Micro Accounts do not show anything of revenues or costs

The worry about the level of influence was significantly increased by MtB where it was absolutely obvious that Mooney was a key player in recruitment identification and was always significantly supported by Kompany.

[NewClaret]

Mud Analytics accounts by their nature of being Micro Accounts do not show anything of revenues or costs

The worry about the level of influence was significantly increased by MtB where it was absolutely obvious that Mooney was a key player in recruitment identification and was always significantly supported by Kompany.

I dissagree CP. The fact they are micro accounts means that two of the following apply:

- a turnover of £632,000 or less.
- £316,000 or less on its balance sheet.
- 10 employees or less.

Bear in mind we spent £6m or whatever on agents fees it really is not a big deal whatsoever.

I really can’t understand why anyone would find it concerning that an expert from the best club in the world (at the time) with loads of knowledge in talent identification and recruitment were advising the club and Kompany? I could understand the concern if they were ex Kidderminster Harriers, not City. They’re exactly the type of people we should be looking to attract to the club.

Senior people in every organisation in the land have their trusted and preferred suppliers and when they change, typically so do the suppliers.

Although in this case I think we found some great talent very cheaply across the two years so if he was heavily involved I very much hope he remains heavily involved.

[aggi]

Tbh I think this whole point about MUD and their involvement has been massively overplayed.

1. We know their accounts show very small volumes of expenditure - particularly relative to agency fees which everyone seems to accept as a recruitment cost.
2. They seem to sell a software package for analysis. Presumably this is in addition to packages like StatsBomb.
3. They’ve always supplemented and not replaced our scouting department.
4. I’m not sure how having an ex City employee/head of data science involved in our scouting can be a bad thing. I think employing external experts is a good thing providing you learn things from each of them.
5. Over the last two years we’ve identified and signed some fantastic young talent - Muric, Maatsen, Tella, Beyer, AAD, Ekdal, Benny, Zaroury, Berge, Koleosho, Odobert, Esteve, O’Shea, Assignon, etc, etc - and while others have done less well I’m not sure anyone expected us to get every signing right.

I hope Mooney/MUD remain involved assuming they are still adding value and, if not, what they taught the recruitment team is now well embedded. And I certainly hope we’re not going back to the days of signing Nat Phillips, etc.

The most likely role for Lee Mooney/MUD was/is (I've no idea if he's still employed) building the analytical models pulling in data from statsbomb and the like and interpreting the millions of data points into something useful that can be easily understood. That's his background.

[aggi]

I dissagree CP. The fact they are micro accounts means that two of the following apply:

- a turnover of £632,000 or less.
- £316,000 or less on its balance sheet.
- 10 employees or less.

Bear in mind we spent £6m or whatever on agents fees it really is not a big deal whatsoever.

I really can’t understand why anyone would find it concerning that an expert from the best club in the world (at the time) with loads of knowledge in talent identification and recruitment were advising the club and Kompany? I could understand the concern if they were ex Kidderminster Harriers, not City. They’re exactly the type of people we should be looking to attract to the club.

Senior people in every organisation in the land have their trusted and preferred suppliers and when they change, typically so do the suppliers.

Although in this case I think we found some great talent very cheaply across the two years so if he was heavily involved I very much hope he remains heavily involved.

I don't think that is the concern. I think the concern is that the beneficial owner of MUD is Kompany. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories of some that Kompany was sacrificing the team's performance in order to line his own pockets but it is the kind of thing that prompts some additional scrutiny and the obvious question, "What will happen when Kompany leaves"?

[NewClaret]

The most likely role for Lee Mooney/MUD was/is (I've no idea if he's still employed) building the analytical models pulling in data from statsbomb and the like and interpreting the millions of data points into something useful that can be easily understood. That's his background.

I agree, probably using his software/analytics tooling. Most likely paid a day rate and/or lincence fee for the software.

Really feels much ado about nothing.

[NewClaret]

I don't think that is the concern. I think the concern is that the beneficial owner of MUD is Kompany. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories of some that Kompany was sacrificing the team's performance in order to line his own pockets but it is the kind of thing that prompts some additional scrutiny and the obvious question, "What will happen when Kompany leaves"?

The thing is, every senior person in the land has their own preferred suppliers and trusted contacts that they use when they are appointed in to a role.

When they leave the new guy typically brings his. So what we’re talking about here just the same, which goes on in every organisation globally.

Thats why organisations have a Chairmen and Board for governance to keep them in check and protect the long term interests of the organisation. So any concerns must surely be in lack of faith in our chairman or board to govern the club properly.

In the conflict of interests point, I’m pretty sure that Pace, JJ and the other investors have been around the block long enough not to allow unscrupulous behaviour by a member of their leadership. Whatever MUDs role was, they’ll have known Kompany’s involvement and deemed it to be acceptable.

On the succession planning piece, I think it was up to the Board to make sure that we didn’t become reliant on one supplier or, if we were, they were protected contractually for a long period of time. If they didn’t do either, that is the their fault, but for all we know they were no way reliant on MUD anyway.

Likewise, if they had exposed themselves you’d expect them to have recognised that failing and use the interview process to identify a candidate that could bring with them a replacement supplier.

I think you’re probably right on the role. Wouldn’t shock me if there was a fee for Mooney’s time (professional services) to extract the data and input it, then for licences/access to his software that analysed it. In which case I’d imagine that he’d have also taught our recruitment team how to do that themselves (that’s what good PS firms do - embed expertise) and left them with an ongoing licence cost if they want to continue with that approach.

[ClaretPete001]

Tbh I think this whole point about MUD and their involvement has been massively overplayed.

1. We know their accounts show very small volumes of expenditure - particularly relative to agency fees which everyone seems to accept as a recruitment cost.
2. They seem to sell a software package for analysis. Presumably this is in addition to packages like StatsBomb.
3. They’ve always supplemented and not replaced our scouting department.
4. I’m not sure how having an ex City employee/head of data science involved in our scouting can be a bad thing. I think employing external experts is a good thing providing you learn things from each of them.
5. Over the last two years we’ve identified and signed some fantastic young talent - Muric, Maatsen, Tella, Beyer, AAD, Ekdal, Benny, Zaroury, Berge, Koleosho, Odobert, Esteve, O’Shea, Assignon, etc, etc - and while others have done less well I’m not sure anyone expected us to get every signing right.

I hope Mooney/MUD remain involved assuming they are still adding value and, if not, what they taught the recruitment team is now well embedded. And I certainly hope we’re not going back to the days of signing Nat Phillips, etc.

I'm trying to bite my fingers off not to respond but to be fair 5 of those players came from Belgium. Arguably, only a couple of those bought in the Championship made it in the PL (Muric and Cullen) and both of those were not selected for large periods of the season: unfathomably.

The rest cost over a Eur100 million and gained 24 points in 38 games. Successful? I think the jury is out as yet.

I agree with New that the main concern with MUD is not a substantive one, however, I think it lends itself to the perception that it is a club seen as an investment opportunity where everyone can get rich (to quote the ALK director from the documentary).

If we have a good season and manage a further couple of season in the PL then these perceptions are assigned as the paranoid ramblings of weirdos like me.

If not, then no doubt some will adopt the stance of a Joe Biden staffer with a shrug of the shoulder and a 'who knew' look of utter surprise.

Facts are facts, but history plays a part in the truth of perceptions held at any given time.

[NewClaret]

I'm trying to bite my fingers off not to respond but to be fair 5 of those players came from Belgium. Arguably, only a couple of those bought in the Championship made it in the PL (Muric and Cullen) and both of those were not selected for large periods of the season: unfathomably.

The rest cost over a Eur100 million and gained 24 points in 38 games. Successful? I think the jury is out as yet.

I agree with New that the main concern with MUD is not a substantive one, however, I think it lends itself to the perception that it is a club seen as an investment opportunity where everyone can get rich (to quote the ALK director from the documentary).

If we have a good season and manage a further couple of season in the PL then these perceptions are assigned as the paranoid ramblings of weirdos like me.

If not, then no doubt some will adopt the stance of a Joe Biden staffer with a shrug of the shoulder and a 'who knew' look of utter surprise.

Facts are facts, but history plays a part in the truth of perceptions held at any given time.

Re: the Championship players not making it in the Premier League, I agree. Hardly surprising when they were basically all ~£2m purchases, though, is it? Coming against teams that now nearly all spend £20m+ on players. Brentford recently bid £35m for Archie Gray and even Bournemouth sign players at £25m these days.

That’s actually part of the problem with our squad. It’s full of the very good championship player because they all came in for fees, whereas most Championship players are picked up on frees, loans, etc. But as we found last year couldn’t scratch the surface when it comes up against boys that cost the big money.

The issue really was going for too many in the £10-15m category and not buying four at £25m. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson on that.

Irrespective, though, I think every player we’ve signed has a lot of technical quality and huge amount of promise. The issue in my view is we signed too much youth and coupled it with a young manager. In the longer term the youth policy should pay off though.

[ClaretPete001]

Re: the Championship players not making it in the Premier League, I agree. Hardly surprising when they were basically all ~£2m purchases, though, is it? Coming against teams that now nearly all spend £20m+ on players. Brentford recently bid £35m for Archie Gray and even Bournemouth sign players at £25m these days.

That’s actually part of the problem with our squad. It’s full of the very good championship player because they all came in for fees, whereas most Championship players are picked up on frees, loans, etc. But as we found last year couldn’t scratch the surface when it comes up against boys that cost the big money.

The issue really was going for too many in the £10-15m category and not buying four at £25m. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson on that.

Irrespective, though, I think every player we’ve signed has a lot of technical quality and huge amount of promise. The issue in my view is we signed too much youth and coupled it with a young manager. In the longer term the youth policy should pay off though.

Fundamentally, you are in danger of debunking the whole business model.

Yes, we paid £3-£5 million to get top Championship players in a league where many players are free etc but how then do you make money on them if they can't progress?

If we have to spend £25 million to get PL players then that's a £100 million for four players, which leaves you with 12 players in the first team squad not good enough. It also means if you are relegated you have to get your £25 million back and there is a limited market for that kind of player even amongst PL teams.

The difference between the likes of Amdouni and Cole Palmer/Anthony Gordon is immense so selling them at inflated fees into the top 6 is not possible.

I agree with much of what you are saying but your fundamental point seems to be that the MUD/data science approach is working but I think the jury is very much out on that because we are buying at the top of the market in the Championship and unable to progress them and unable to buy players good enough to gain more than 24 points in the PL.

Your saving grace assumption is that the players we bought in the PL are good enough to improve but having given up on the Championship players you have little evidence to justify your viewpoint.

And I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you're opinion is based on an optimistic assumption about the ability of the likes of Amdouni.

[Big Vinny K]

Re: the Championship players not making it in the Premier League, I agree. Hardly surprising when they were basically all ~£2m purchases, though, is it? Coming against teams that now nearly all spend £20m+ on players. Brentford recently bid £35m for Archie Gray and even Bournemouth sign players at £25m these days.

That’s actually part of the problem with our squad. It’s full of the very good championship player because they all came in for fees, whereas most Championship players are picked up on frees, loans, etc. But as we found last year couldn’t scratch the surface when it comes up against boys that cost the big money.

The issue really was going for too many in the £10-15m category and not buying four at £25m. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson on that.

Irrespective, though, I think every player we’ve signed has a lot of technical quality and huge amount of promise. The issue in my view is we signed too much youth and coupled it with a young manager. In the longer term the youth policy should pay off though.

Bournemouth spend last season was not too dissimilar to ours.
We spent not far off £50m in our first season under VK which in the championship is serious money. We could and had to do this because we had brought in more than this in player sales and had to replace so much of the old squad.

The amount we spent last year was the biggest in our history by some margin. It was comparable spend to a number of clubs in the EPL but I get that getting promoted meant that we needed to strengthen to compete. But that’s not far off £200m spent on that squad and you already have some existing experienced players like JayRod, Brownhill, Taylor etc.

It’s far too easy to say we should have been buying £25m players instead of the £15m to £20m players we did. One of the teams you mentioned spent their 2 big purchases last season on players who played a total of 6 games between them - they cost the £25m each you are referring to.

Fundamentally it comes down to how you spend your money. Palace spent around £20m on Adam Wharton - that’s not much more than we spent on Tresor and a lot less than Bournemouth spent on 2 players who hardly kicked a ball from them.

We went for quantity over quality last season and whilst this maybe part of our model it’s hard to see how this can be successful. If you buy as many players as we have then you end up with a big proportion of them not playing every week. So how can you increase the value of a player and hope to sell him at a profit when he’s not playing. And the issue you have when you have as bad a season as we had is that the ones that are playing are in the most unproven at Premier League level.

Again it comes back to the very simple point that you can spend £200m on your squad very easily but if they are not good enough then you are in a precarious position. Or you can buy players like Eze, Olise and Wharton and they can not only maintain your EPL status but from the money you make when you sell them set you up for a few years financially.

[aggi]

I don't think that is the concern. I think the concern is that the beneficial owner of MUD is Kompany. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories of some that Kompany was sacrificing the team's performance in order to line his own pockets but it is the kind of thing that prompts some additional scrutiny and the obvious question, "What will happen when Kompany leaves"?

Interesting to note that Lee Mooney of MUD was involved in our new manager search which I assume should lessen some of the concerns that people had about "What will happen when Kompany leaves?".

[aggi]

Interesting change in wording on the confirmation statement on the share particulars. Previous wording of:

ONE VOTE PER SHARE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DISTRIBUTION DECLARED ON THE SHARES FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION ON THE SHARES NO SPECIFIC REDEMPTION RIGHTS

changed to:

THE SHARES HAVE ATTACHED TO THEM FULL VOTING AND DIVIDEND RIGHTS. ON A WINDING-UP OF THE COMPANY, THE SURPLUS ASSETS SHALL BE APPLIED, FIRST, IN REPAYING THE SHAREHOLDERS THE AMOUNT PAID ON THEIR SHARES RESPECTIVELY. IF SUCH ASSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE SAID AMOUNT IN FULL, THEY SHALL BE APPLIED RATEABLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 77.1 OF THE COMPANY’S ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. IF THE SURPLUS ASSETS ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS THE WHOLE AMOUNT PAID UPON THEIR SHARES, THE BALANCE
SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION BENEVOLENT FUND, OR TO SOME CLUB OR INSTITUTE IN THE BURNLEY AREA HAVING OBJECTS SIMILAR TO THOSE SET OUT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OR TO ANY LOCAL CHARITY, OR CHARITABLE OR BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION SITUATED WITHIN THE BURNLEY AREA. ALTERNATIVELY, SUCH BALANCE MAY BE DISPOSED OF IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS THE SHAREHOLDERS MAY, WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED, DETERMINE. THE SHARES DO NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS OF REDEMPTION.

Not sure if that is owner driven or something that has come through the FA/EFL (I have some vague memories of things changing but can't really remember what).

[Foshiznik]

Crikey, i hope that was a EFL/FA pushed change because if not, the mention of winding up and repaying shareholders first sounds very concerning to an absolute layman like myself.

[GetIntoEm]

Crikey, i hope that was a EFL/FA pushed change because if not, the mention of winding up and repaying shareholders first sounds very concerning to an absolute layman like myself.

what about all the positive stuff?

[aggi]

Crikey, i hope that was a EFL/FA pushed change because if not, the mention of winding up and repaying shareholders first sounds very concerning to an absolute layman like myself.

I wouldn't be at all worried about that.

[Chester Perry]

Interesting change in wording on the confirmation statement on the share particulars. Previous wording of:

ONE VOTE PER SHARE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DISTRIBUTION DECLARED ON THE SHARES FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION ON THE SHARES NO SPECIFIC REDEMPTION RIGHTS

changed to:

THE SHARES HAVE ATTACHED TO THEM FULL VOTING AND DIVIDEND RIGHTS. ON A WINDING-UP OF THE COMPANY, THE SURPLUS ASSETS SHALL BE APPLIED, FIRST, IN REPAYING THE SHAREHOLDERS THE AMOUNT PAID ON THEIR SHARES RESPECTIVELY. IF SUCH ASSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE SAID AMOUNT IN FULL, THEY SHALL BE APPLIED RATEABLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 77.1 OF THE COMPANY’S ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. IF THE SURPLUS ASSETS ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS THE WHOLE AMOUNT PAID UPON THEIR SHARES, THE BALANCE
SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION BENEVOLENT FUND, OR TO SOME CLUB OR INSTITUTE IN THE BURNLEY AREA HAVING OBJECTS SIMILAR TO THOSE SET OUT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OR TO ANY LOCAL CHARITY, OR CHARITABLE OR BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION SITUATED WITHIN THE BURNLEY AREA. ALTERNATIVELY, SUCH BALANCE MAY BE DISPOSED OF IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS THE SHAREHOLDERS MAY, WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED, DETERMINE. THE SHARES DO NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS OF REDEMPTION.

Not sure if that is owner driven or something that has come through the FA/EFL (I have some vague memories of things changing but can't really remember what).

Note this is the Confirmation Statement for Burnley Football and Athletic Company Limited, which is wholly owned by Burnley FC Holdings Limited

It reads very much like like it is FA instigated and very clearly matches up with FA rules which relates back to the old rule 34, first formed in the 1890's as clubs were turning into registered businesses, before being voluntarily decimated without a whimper in the 1980's - this being the last remnant of it.

The question is with the separation of land and infrastructure assets into Longside Properties Limited courtesy of Barry Kilby in the noughties will the same be applied to to that and indeed the Burnley FC Holdings Limited and Burnley FC Women Limited

[Foshiznik]

what about all the positive stuff?

Which is? As I say I am a layman when it comes to financial bookkeeping, so am just going by what others have said, mostly on here.

[Chester Perry]

A bit dramatic but not altogether wrong

note the interest rate quoted for our club is the one from the Macquarie loan declared in the accounts - the loan interest with MGG is unknown

Matt Williams recently told the London Clarets cash flows would be fine this season, (nothing said beyond that).

from The Business Desk

Mounting cash problems pile up for Lancashire clubs
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... 3.7million.
https://archive.ph/ySQyC

[Paul Waine]

Matt Williams recently told the London Clarets cash flows would be fine this season, (nothing said beyond that).

We wouldn't expect anyone to be in a position to comment beyond the current season.

It is, however, an extension by several months from the previous 12 months to end of December in the club's "going concern" cash flow forecasts.

UTC

[aggi]

A bit dramatic but not altogether wrong

note the interest rate quoted for our club is the one from the Macquarie loan declared in the accounts - the loan interest with MGG is unknown

Matt Williams recently told the London Clarets cash flows would be fine this season, (nothing said beyond that).

from The Business Desk

Mounting cash problems pile up for Lancashire clubs
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... 3.7million.
https://archive.ph/ySQyC

It read a bit like an article that had decided on the headline and then tried to fill in some words to go with it.

[Quickenthetempo]

It's a bit sad that fans hard earned money they pay for STs etc.. doesn't even cover the interest payments of the loans the owners have taken out.

[Paul Waine]

It read a bit like an article that had decided on the headline and then tried to fill in some words to go with it.

Mounting and pile being the two words they wanted to use.

[ClaretPete001]

There must be someone on here other than me who read the auditors report and saw the loss of revenue after the last relegation and ponders how we have still managed to spend more than we have sold (including VK) this summer.

I would have expected sales of 6 or 7 first team players and income of getting on towards £50 million by now.

ALK truly are defying gravity...!

[ClaretTony]

I would have expected sales of 6 or 7 first team players and income of getting on towards £50 million by now.

There’s still time.

[ClaretPete001]

There’s still time.

Indeed on the one hand you don't want it to happen and on the other there is the concern that they can't sell them.

Unlike the last time there isn't a whole host of players out of contract. I guess we haven't got long to wait.

[BigGaz]

News coming out of Utd this morning that they're back around the table for Ugarte and PSG look willing to negotiate down from the money they wanted for him, having bought him for about 50m

I believe they've been quite cunning here, by intimating that theyre ready to walk away and look at other targets, IE Berge.

I still find it unlikely he'll go there as their first choice option so fingers crossed.

[aggi]

There must be someone on here other than me who read the auditors report and saw the loss of revenue after the last relegation and ponders how we have still managed to spend more than we have sold (including VK) this summer.

I would have expected sales of 6 or 7 first team players and income of getting on towards £50 million by now.

ALK truly are defying gravity...!

I'd expect at least one big ticket sale (Trafford, Odobert, Berge probably) and a few smaller ones still to come. I suspect we may still end up with more out on loan than we'd like but cutting the wages is important and I would suspect that relegation clauses, relatively inexperienced players and losing a few high earners will help a lot there.

£10m+ for Kompany surely wasn't budgeted so probably a bit more breathing room there.

[ClaretPete001]

I'd expect at least one big ticket sale (Trafford, Odobert, Berge probably) and a few smaller ones still to come. I suspect we may still end up with more out on loan than we'd like but cutting the wages is important and I would suspect that relegation clauses, relatively inexperienced players and losing a few high earners will help a lot there.

£10m+ for Kompany surely wasn't budgeted so probably a bit more breathing room there.

I think they will be sailing very close to the wind if that is the extent of the summer sales. The club itself said they hoped to sell 5 or 6 player who felt that a move back to the PL was a possibility, which means 5 or 6 of the better first 11 players. Not sure what has happened to that...!

In the end, if we go back up then it won't matter as much albeit I don't see the club being able to generate a £90 million spend again.

Saying that if it is just Trafford leaving then it is a very strong squad going forward with (hopefully) a more pragmatic manager in charge.

[Spike]

Was sent an article today that reviewed local Championship teams
It suggested the loans went up to £70m and at an interest rate of 11.23%
This would mean interest repayments of £21k per day
Source was businessdesk.com

What do those who have studied the figures think of these figures

[Big Vinny K]

Was sent an article today that reviewed local Championship teams
It suggested the loans went up to £70m and at an interest rate of 11.23%
This would mean interest repayments of £21k per day
Source was businessdesk.com

What do those who have studied the figures think of these figures

Those figures would not be surprise. If anything I think they could be a little low but not a million miles off.
Not surprised on the interest rate either.

As an aside it’s not just the interest that we are paying on our financing. In addition to this we will have paid some significant fees for the factoring facilities.

[Chester Perry]

Was sent an article today that reviewed local Championship teams
It suggested the loans went up to £70m and at an interest rate of 11.23%
This would mean interest repayments of £21k per day
Source was businessdesk.com

What do those who have studied the figures think of these figures

The article you read was posted further up this page

The loans went up to £70m in June 2023 (with Macquarie - an Australian bank with an established UK operation well known and established for financing in English football) as confirmed in the last set of published accounts - which also confirmed the interest rate as being 8% + SONIA which came to 11.23% at the sign off date (Dec 19 2023). There was to be a repayment on that loan of £4.375m within the last financial year, though we do not know when.

All of that became redundant information in early January when the Macquarie loan was replaced with one from MGG (an New York based Private Equity group) whose loan to the club came via a Luxembourg based offshoot. It is plausible that the refinance came in advance of the staged repayment. Earlier this summer we learned that the other arrangement with Macquarie (the factoring of 3 years of Premier League TV revenue) and concluded 2 years early - this would have required payment of 2024/25 and 2025/26 elements to Macquarie - early.

It is plausible to believe that the loan from MGG covered the full £70m balance of the Macquarie loan, and the factored sums for 2024/24 and 2025/26 that were due to Macquarie so therefore a sum likely to be circa £80m - £90m (possibly more). Historically ALK/VSL have not rounded the fees for setting up these loans (which can run into the millions) into the the loan value, though there is a probability that the penalty incurred for early redemption (if there was one) may have been, that certainly appeared to be the cased when the MSD loan was replaced.

So why have these changes occurred - we know (again courtesy of the latest accounts that the Macquarie loan included early redemptions on relegation (just as the MSD one did), it may be that MGG loan was structured differently and was less onerous in the 1st year outside the Premier League. As for the factoring deal with Macquarie, MGG founder and CEO Kevin Griffin is on record as saying that he only gets involved in these deals if he is the only creditor in the piece, it will have been a demand of the relationship.

So now we are in a situation where we do not know the value of debt that the club holds, for what period, at what level of interest and under what operational terms - a situation deliberately contrived by ALK/VSL in signing off the accounts so early.

The was nothing in the article that provided fresh information and it was poorly constructed - as you will gather from the comments on it up the thread. Some will tell you that the it is manageable, certainly when in receipt of Premier League monies but it is reasonable to assume that things will become more challenging if the club was to spend more than a season outside the top flight.

[Chester Perry]

Interesting change in wording on the confirmation statement on the share particulars. Previous wording of:

ONE VOTE PER SHARE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DISTRIBUTION DECLARED ON THE SHARES FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION ON THE SHARES NO SPECIFIC REDEMPTION RIGHTS

changed to:

THE SHARES HAVE ATTACHED TO THEM FULL VOTING AND DIVIDEND RIGHTS. ON A WINDING-UP OF THE COMPANY, THE SURPLUS ASSETS SHALL BE APPLIED, FIRST, IN REPAYING THE SHAREHOLDERS THE AMOUNT PAID ON THEIR SHARES RESPECTIVELY. IF SUCH ASSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE SAID AMOUNT IN FULL, THEY SHALL BE APPLIED RATEABLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 77.1 OF THE COMPANY’S ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. IF THE SURPLUS ASSETS ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS THE WHOLE AMOUNT PAID UPON THEIR SHARES, THE BALANCE
SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION BENEVOLENT FUND, OR TO SOME CLUB OR INSTITUTE IN THE BURNLEY AREA HAVING OBJECTS SIMILAR TO THOSE SET OUT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OR TO ANY LOCAL CHARITY, OR CHARITABLE OR BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION SITUATED WITHIN THE BURNLEY AREA. ALTERNATIVELY, SUCH BALANCE MAY BE DISPOSED OF IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS THE SHAREHOLDERS MAY, WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED, DETERMINE. THE SHARES DO NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS OF REDEMPTION.

Not sure if that is owner driven or something that has come through the FA/EFL (I have some vague memories of things changing but can't really remember what).

same wording (with variations relating to the two share classes) now applied to the Confirmation Statement of Longside Properties Limited

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

[ClaretPete001]

ClaretPete001 wrote: Tue Aug 06, 2024 3:35 pm

'I would have expected sales of 6 or 7 first team players and income of getting on towards £50 million by now.

There’s still time.

You weren't wrong.....!

[dsr]

For the record with the £230m, it comes from the club accounts.

Bank loans £70m
Factored loans £31m
Amounts owed to other clubs £66m
Other creditors £63m
Total £232m. This is fact, as per the club accounts July 2023, so no need for argument about it.

From that we can deduct cash at bank £20m and £40m owed by other clubs, plus £7m sundry debtors.

But we also know that between July and December a further £40m was spent on transfers, net of monies received from sales, funded we know not how, but the cost is in the accounts after-date figures. And we know that further purchases were made in January, eg. Esteve. So the debt will have risen for those.

[copied and pasted from transfer thread]

[dsr]

Hi dsr, what would ‘other creditors’ be?

Most of "other creditors" is believed to be income for 2023-24 received in advance before the end of July 2023. It's fair to include it in net creditors, at least, because if we hadn't got it the £20m bank balance would have been a long way overdrawn.

[dsr]

I’ll take your info as fact, if you’ve any info on what’s owed to us by other clubs, which will positively affect the balance sheet, it’d be interesting to know.

The amount owed by other clubs is £40m but that is mostly offset by the amount we owe on factoring. Basically we got a factoring company to give us £30m up front and when the £40m comes in, we will pay £30m plus interest and charges to the factor company, leaving us with net £5m-£7m as a rough guess.

[Big Vinny K]

For the record with the £230m, it comes from the club accounts.

Bank loans £70m
Factored loans £31m
Amounts owed to other clubs £66m
Other creditors £63m
Total £232m. This is fact, as per the club accounts July 2023, so no need for argument about it.

From that we can deduct cash at bank £20m and £40m owed by other clubs, plus £7m sundry debtors.

But we also know that between July and December a further £40m was spent on transfers, net of monies received from sales, funded we know not how, but the cost is in the accounts after-date figures. And we know that further purchases were made in January, eg. Esteve. So the debt will have risen for those.

[copied and pasted from transfer thread]

But as I’ve just posted on the transfer spend £230m as our “overall debt” number is a headline type number which in isolation is meaningless.
Under the previous owners people always talk about us never having any debt - they never quoted our creditors figures in that context.

As you point out I know the very least you should do is deduct cash at bank and total debtors if you want to have a debate about how much the club owes to everyone in total

The figures are also now historical - if we are going to try and start estimating how much we have spent since July 23 then we should also factor in the £100m of sales we have seen in the last month or so.

Not trying to defend the owners whatsoever as clearly we have more debt now than in the history of the club which makes the spend of last summer even more of a ridiculous risk but I think the player purchase and sale model is just a different debate whether you agree with it or not - which I don’t. But under every ownership model you do have some kind of transfer model (which I do accept is intrinsically linked to your finances)