ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
BleedingClaret
Posts: 3894
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:06 am
Been Liked: 1141 times
Has Liked: 1874 times
Location: Burnley Boy exiled in Nelson

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by BleedingClaret » Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:06 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:36 pm
Where was the £70m confirmed in June 23 confirmed, CP? Must’ve missed that.

Great summary though. Technically it has gone up a bit from the £33m I last remember being the confirmed amount, but down from £70m by a not inconsiderable £30m!

So £65m > £33m > £70m > £40m is my understanding of the various refinances.

What is reassuring is that ALK have proven both willingness and means to reduce it the debt. I hope to god we go up and they reduce it further.
Am I correct in saying the original MSD loan of 65ml added to by around 60ml of BFC Cash so ALK loaned or borrowed 125ml approximately but the subsequent figures of 33ml 70ml and now thought to be 40mil owed so a reduction of 25ml in owed to financiers don’t include the 60ml cash in the bank that’s gone.
If I’m right, which I don’t know if I am, which is the point of asking the positive spin of 65m down to 40ml is conveniently missing the 60ml in the bank to 40ml owing calculation is it not

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:33 pm

BleedingClaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:06 pm
Am I correct in saying the original MSD loan of 65ml added to by around 60ml of BFC Cash so ALK loaned or borrowed 125ml approximately but the subsequent figures of 33ml 70ml and now thought to be 40mil owed so a reduction of 25ml in owed to financiers don’t include the 60ml cash in the bank that’s gone.
If I’m right, which I don’t know if I am, which is the point of asking the positive spin of 65m down to 40ml is conveniently missing the 60ml in the bank to 40ml owing calculation is it not
yes the £59.07m loaned from the club has still to be repaid as of the last published accounts
This user liked this post: BleedingClaret

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:12 pm

BleedingClaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:06 pm
Am I correct in saying the original MSD loan of 65ml added to by around 60ml of BFC Cash so ALK loaned or borrowed 125ml approximately but the subsequent figures of 33ml 70ml and now thought to be 40mil owed so a reduction of 25ml in owed to financiers don’t include the 60ml cash in the bank that’s gone.
If I’m right, which I don’t know if I am, which is the point of asking the positive spin of 65m down to 40ml is conveniently missing the 60ml in the bank to 40ml owing calculation is it not
You are right - CP will confirm the exact numbers, but in my simple terms the club have loaned ALK £124m and £65m of that was raised by way of financing (debt), the rest loaned from the club.

I am saying it is positive that the £65m has reduced to £40m. Especially since it’s been up and down a few times, demonstrating a willingness to keep it in check and pay some of it off.

Other money has “left” the club but that is distinct and separate because it’s technically “due back”. There are varying views as to whether it will ever be returned. Most expect not, I’m slightly more hopeful (not optimistic).

I am not putting a positive spin on how this takeover was financed though, overall it’s incredibly frustrating from where we were to where we are now.
This user liked this post: BleedingClaret

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:19 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:24 pm
New Charge incoming on the club at Companies House - a refinance (this would be 4th time since we ended the MSD relationship in November 2022) or additional loan?

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

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

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

LPL
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
I suspect this is confirmation that the MGG loan deal was replaced by the one with Fasanara Capital Ltd - if so, that appears to be a significant reduction in debt. it will be interesting to see how it was achieved.

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

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

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

nothing as yet for Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:47 pm

Excellent, excellent news CP!

I assume the reduction was funded by £100m of sales in the summer?

Poulton-le-Claret
Posts: 1749
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:12 pm
Been Liked: 538 times
Has Liked: 1281 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Poulton-le-Claret » Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:12 pm

Have I read that correctly as £40m in debt now owed?

Goliath
Posts: 3784
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2023 10:08 pm
Been Liked: 714 times
Has Liked: 277 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Goliath » Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:23 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:19 pm
I suspect this is confirmation that the MGG loan deal was replaced by the one with Fasanara Capital Ltd - if so, that appears to be a significant reduction in debt. it will be interesting to see how it was achieved.

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

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

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

nothing as yet for Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Might explain why we have been seemingly so strapped for cash this season in relation to money brought in during the last 2 seasons.

RVclaret
Posts: 16243
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 4478 times
Has Liked: 3014 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by RVclaret » Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:24 pm

Poulton-le-Claret wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:12 pm
Have I read that correctly as £40m in debt now owed?
Yes.
These 2 users liked this post: Poulton-le-Claret NewClaret

Spike
Posts: 3245
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 687 times
Has Liked: 1589 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Spike » Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:28 pm

Poulton-le-Claret wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:12 pm
Have I read that correctly as £40m in debt now owed?
Is this correct that the debts for the club are £40m
Do ALK have any obligation to repay the £60m that was in the bank when they rode in ?
Could they sell the club and pocket everything above the £40m

Poulton-le-Claret
Posts: 1749
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:12 pm
Been Liked: 538 times
Has Liked: 1281 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Poulton-le-Claret » Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:35 pm

Spike wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:28 pm
Is this correct that the debts for the club are £40m
Do ALK have any obligation to repay the £60m that was in the bank when they rode in ?
Could they sell the club and pocket everything above the £40m
I'll leave that for others more informed than me to answer for definite. My guess would be:

Yes (using RVs comment above)
No
Yes
This user liked this post: NewClaret

GetIntoEm
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 773 times
Has Liked: 224 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GetIntoEm » Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:54 pm

Good news on the debt repayment. Well done Pace and co
This user liked this post: NewClaret

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Fri Feb 28, 2025 11:01 pm

Poulton-le-Claret wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:35 pm
I'll leave that for others more informed than me to answer for definite. My guess would be:

Yes (using RVs comment above)
No
Yes
Correct.

ecc
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 2093 times
Has Liked: 1710 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ecc » Fri Feb 28, 2025 11:29 pm

£40m is unhealthy but if we make it back to the PL we could potentially begin to wipe out that debt, couldn't we?

I realise it's not as simple as that with transfer installments owing, promotion bonuses plus the essential transfer fees to have at least an outside chance of staying up.

dsr
Posts: 16212
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4862 times
Has Liked: 2582 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Sat Mar 01, 2025 12:50 am

GetIntoEm wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:54 pm
Good news on the debt repayment. Well done Pace and co
They took over a PL club with £80m in the bank. They now own a Championship club £40m in debt. Well done indeed!

Darnhill Claret
Posts: 3061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 663 times
Has Liked: 2300 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Darnhill Claret » Sat Mar 01, 2025 2:59 am

Well dsr, even with your take on it, that it still quite an impressive financial turnaround, trending positively.

CharlieinNewMexico
Posts: 3490
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:53 am
Been Liked: 915 times
Has Liked: 580 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by CharlieinNewMexico » Sat Mar 01, 2025 3:02 am

dsr wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 12:50 am
They took over a PL club with £80m in the bank. They now own a Championship club £40m in debt. Well done indeed!
£80 mill in the bank but with playing assets like Jon Walters, Scott Arfield and Matt Lowton. Now we have £100mill + playing assets.

Burnley1989
Posts: 8523
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
Been Liked: 2664 times
Has Liked: 2358 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Burnley1989 » Sat Mar 01, 2025 3:04 am

Spike wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:28 pm
Is this correct that the debts for the club are £40m
Do ALK have any obligation to repay the £60m that was in the bank when they rode in ?
Could they sell the club and pocket everything above the £40m
Obligation to who? It's technically their business now.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 3700
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1463 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Big Vinny K » Sat Mar 01, 2025 6:02 am

CharlieinNewMexico wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 3:02 am
£80 mill in the bank but with playing assets like Jon Walters, Scott Arfield and Matt Lowton. Now we have £100mill + playing assets.
Arfield and Walters had left 2 years before the takeover.
At the time of the takeover playing assets included Chris Wood, Tarks, Nick Pope, Ben Mee, McNeil, Westwood, Barnes, Charlie Taylor, Jay Rod etc.

Given the takeover was more than 4 years ago now and where some of those players have ended up I think the playing assets plus the cash in the bank would be higher than the playing assets today less the debt we owe in loans and the net amounts we still owe to other clubs for our transfer activity (especially given all of the players listed above will have been paid for in full in 2020)
This user liked this post: Eddiebfc

Row x
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:51 am
Been Liked: 573 times
Has Liked: 111 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Row x » Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:49 am

Big Vinny K wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 6:02 am
Arfield and Walters had left 2 years before the takeover.
At the time of the takeover playing assets included Chris Wood, Tarks, Nick Pope, Ben Mee, McNeil, Westwood, Barnes, Charlie Taylor, Jay Rod etc.

Given the takeover was more than 4 years ago now and where some of those players have ended up I think the playing assets plus the cash in the bank would be higher than the playing assets today less the debt we owe in loans and the net amounts we still owe to other clubs for our transfer activity (especially given all of the players listed above will have been paid for in full in 2020)
Those playing assets were not worth as much as you may think
Mee and Tarks were leaving on frees
Wood would go for the release clause agreed by the previous regime
McNeil went for ok money, but the rest were assets losing, or had lost their big value

Yes we will have owed clubs on transfers, but clubs would also owe us, just as they will now.

Stonehouse
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2024 5:56 pm
Been Liked: 421 times
Has Liked: 429 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Stonehouse » Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:56 am

At least we appear to be heading in the right direction which is more than get be said for the likes of Man U and that lot down the road..

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 19695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 4185 times
Has Liked: 2240 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Quickenthetempo » Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:56 am

Can we come back to this discussion tomorrow please.

Leave match days for positive thoughts? At least to start off with.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 3700
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1463 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Big Vinny K » Sat Mar 01, 2025 8:13 am

Row x wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:49 am
Those playing assets were not worth as much as you may think
Mee and Tarks were leaving on frees
Wood would go for the release clause agreed by the previous regime
McNeil went for ok money, but the rest were assets losing, or had lost their big value

Yes we will have owed clubs on transfers, but clubs would also owe us, just as they will now.
How do you know what I think the players were worth ?

But we sold 3 of them for £55m.

Tarks and Mee were also still in contract when the takeover took place - they didn’t leave till 16 or 17 months after so they were not leaving for a free in December 2020.

As for clubs owing us money that’s why I used the word “net”

In general though I was questioning whether we are better off now in terms of assets ( and liabilities) than pre the takeover

FeedTheArf
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 436 times
Has Liked: 178 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by FeedTheArf » Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:01 am

GetIntoEm wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:54 pm
Good news on the debt repayment. Well done Pace and co
Define irony…

GetIntoEm
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 773 times
Has Liked: 224 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GetIntoEm » Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:55 am

FeedTheArf wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:01 am
Define irony…
We were very unlikely to find a buyer that had the capital to buy us outright at the price they wanted. This was a good option. If we go up I imagine they'll pay off the rest and we are good to go.

RVclaret
Posts: 16243
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 4478 times
Has Liked: 3014 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by RVclaret » Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:01 am

GetIntoEm wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:55 am
We were very unlikely to find a buyer that had the capital to buy us outright at the price they wanted. This was a good option. If we go up I imagine they'll pay off the rest and we are good to go.
While possible, last time they did the opposite, borrowed more to help fund the transfer window.
This user liked this post: IanMcL

The Shire Claret
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2023 11:17 am
Been Liked: 338 times
Has Liked: 259 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by The Shire Claret » Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:18 am

The fact it’s going down is a good sign …

Not many clubs in the world had the kind of cash we did at the time and there was no investment in players while the last owner was looking to sell because of this..

It’s always good to remain Skeptical and question things but just like when a house owner sells a house and makes profit if they paid it off. The person buying the house usually takes a mortgage if they don’t have all the cash ….

Many football owners have paid outright and left clubs in a right mess so there are many permutations to ownership

This is a good sign
This user liked this post: GetIntoEm

GetIntoEm
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 773 times
Has Liked: 224 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GetIntoEm » Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:26 am

RVclaret wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:01 am
While possible, last time they did the opposite, borrowed more to help fund the transfer window.
And if they don't people will moan about not spending. Can't win

FeedTheArf
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 436 times
Has Liked: 178 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by FeedTheArf » Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:56 am

GetIntoEm wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:26 am
And if they don't people will moan about not spending. Can't win
Genuinely not bothered about how much we spend IF we go up. The players we brought in last time were, in the main, no better than what we had.

Now it’s not the VK show I’d hope they’ve learnt some lessons in replacing a whole squad every transfer window. Let’s put some trust in the ones that got us there and supplement with 3 or 4 quality additions.

FeedTheArf
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 436 times
Has Liked: 178 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by FeedTheArf » Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:59 am

GetIntoEm wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:55 am
We were very unlikely to find a buyer that had the capital to buy us outright at the price they wanted. This was a good option. If we go up I imagine they'll pay off the rest and we are good to go.
Nobody will ever convince me that a leveraged buyout will ever be a good option.

I’m astounded this day that it’s even legal, but that’s probably my naivety of the business/finance world.
These 2 users liked this post: IanMcL NewClaret

Conroy92
Posts: 1902
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:06 pm
Been Liked: 709 times
Has Liked: 49 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Conroy92 » Sat Mar 01, 2025 12:10 pm

The Shire Claret wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:18 am
The fact it’s going down is a good sign …

Not many clubs in the world had the kind of cash we did at the time and there was no investment in players while the last owner was looking to sell because of this..

It’s always good to remain Skeptical and question things but just like when a house owner sells a house and makes profit if they paid it off. The person buying the house usually takes a mortgage if they don’t have all the cash ….

Many football owners have paid outright and left clubs in a right mess so there are many permutations to ownership

This is a good sign
This for me.

They could quite easily have left the debt hanging over the club (still could) but the fact they are paying it off can only be seen as a good thing.
This user liked this post: The Shire Claret

Row x
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:51 am
Been Liked: 573 times
Has Liked: 111 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Row x » Sat Mar 01, 2025 1:12 pm

FeedTheArf wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:59 am
Nobody will ever convince me that a leveraged buyout will ever be a good option.

I’m astounded this day that it’s even legal, but that’s probably my naivety of the business/finance world.
Might not be the best option, but nobody else was queuing up to buy it any other way, and the owners were desperate to sell.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:55 am

GetIntoEm wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:54 pm
Good news on the debt repayment. Well done Pace and co
CharlieinNewMexico wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 3:02 am
£80 mill in the bank but with playing assets like Jon Walters, Scott Arfield and Matt Lowton. Now we have £100mill + playing assets.
The thing we are never likely to a a very definite answer for is whether all this financial bouncing around has actually been of overall benefit for the club. All of the following occurred whilst the club pulled in over £200m of revenues that did not include player trading

Essentially if the new capital debt balance is £40m, then it is slightly more than the £39.7m of mid November 2022, which was somewhat more than the £32.3m balance of late August 2022 (the difference potentially being the early repayment penalty to MSD and possible the loan fee for the November 2022 loan - of course the club had already paid MSD £20m in enforced repayments on relegation, a further £12.7m in voluntary early repayment (presumably with an early redemption penalty) and at least £11m in interest

That £39.7m loan was supposedly reduced to around £33m by April 2023 so a £6m-£7m capital repayment not forgetting the interest of around £1.7m by the time the loan was replaced by one for £70m in June 2023 that required between 12.5% and 13.2% in annual interest and contained a capital repayment plan - It is worth noting that the annual interest was roughly aligned to the new expected match day incomes following the price increases.

Alongside that loan was a factoring deal over 3 years of Premier League revenues (based on 1 year of Prem money and two years of parachute payments) that too carries a lost revenue value in the accounts (and yes I know it has less of a cash impact because of inflation).

So good were those June 2023 deals that they were replaced again in January 2024 with a new loan of an as yet undeclared value (probable early redemption penalties and also new loan arrangement fees) also because of the nature of the new lender the factoring deal had to be paid up early via a loan from the new lender that would require further interest payments on a sum that had already seem and upfront charge when first factored.

To get to a £40m capital debt balance with a 4th new lender 26 months will have required a net debt repayment of somewhere £26m - £50m (depending on the overall loan balance, for which we can only give a range estimate), probable early redemption penalties (we still don't know if relegation triggered enforced capital repayments) and interest payments of between £7.5 £10.5m. Not to mention the likely loan fee with Fasanara Capital and the brokers who set it up.

Those are all tangible costs - though we are unlikely to ever know the true total of them/ Some may argue that the profits on player trading have made up for that - we may never know that answer either, because the actual cash flow from sales is a drip feed not a sudden influx.

Not that all the additional borrowed monies went on player recruitment - Promotion in May 2023 meant that Calder Vale Holdings borrowed circa £9.1m to make the final bonus payment to the original 7 director sellers, players and coaches likely received somewhat more and facility upgrades were required to meet newly revised Premier League requirements.

There is also the intangible cost to factor in - the club became a lot more unstable as an entity, particularly on the playing side, which led to what we now know to a deeply divided and unsettled playing and coaching staff. The impact on the town and fanbase has also to be factored in. Even BFC in the Community saw it's funding alter in 3 different seasons, which has had a direct impact on what it is able to do and who it is able to employ (the club provides little in cash terms for it - the majority of it's funding comes from the Premier League and other sources.
Spike wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:28 pm
Is this correct that the debts for the club are £40m
Do ALK have any obligation to repay the £60m that was in the bank when they rode in ?
Could they sell the club and pocket everything above the £40m
1 - it is looking that way

2 - Actually yes they do. but there are ways to do that which would mean they don't have to dip into their own pockets to do so. Also there is no timeframe as to when it has to be done and of course no interest to be paid on it. With inflation, the true value of the debt is diminishing all the time (that is why it is standard practice to pay interest on loans)

3 - It is possible to sell the club with it's capital debt intact - it is the club's debt after all. Some arrangement would have to be made over the £124.07m they owed the club - it would be factored into the selling price. My reckoning is that the ALK/VSL ownership group have a net £60m or so in share spend (after the flip to Vladimir Torgovnick), that is the net number they are looking to exceed in any return from a sale for their 90% shareholding. It would be entirely possible for a new owner to buy Velocity Capital (UK) Holding Ltd and still hold the £124.7m debt there, they would also have the opportunity to enforce the purchase of the shares from all other shareholders.

What theoretically makes that interesting from a cash buyers perspective is that they could buy 100% of the club relatively cheaply and have the opportunity to provide an influx of cash into the club via a future loan repayment from VCUKHL. Of course, the previous owners spent 7 years looking for such a cash buyer, they are thin on the ground for a club such as ours
ecc wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2025 11:29 pm
£40m is unhealthy but if we make it back to the PL we could potentially begin to wipe out that debt, couldn't we?
Stonehouse wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:56 am
At least we appear to be heading in the right direction which is more than get be said for the likes of Man U and that lot down the road..
It could be very reasonably argued that the probable current state of debt is merely a holding position that can be rapidly changed if promotion does come - remember all those obligations to buy and promotion bonuses have to be paid for somehow. We have done it brfore and It would be of little surprise if it happened again.
This user liked this post: Stonehouse

ClaretTony
Posts: 76770
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 37387 times
Has Liked: 5717 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretTony » Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:59 pm

CharlieinNewMexico wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 3:02 am
£80 mill in the bank but with playing assets like Jon Walters, Scott Arfield and Matt Lowton. Now we have £100mill + playing assets.
Jon Walters & Scott Arfield were not at the club when it was purchased by ALK. They did take over a club with Tarkowski, Pope, Wood, McNeil though, greater value than we have now overall.

ClaretTony
Posts: 76770
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 37387 times
Has Liked: 5717 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretTony » Sun Mar 02, 2025 5:02 pm

GetIntoEm wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:55 am
We were very unlikely to find a buyer that had the capital to buy us outright at the price they wanted. This was a good option. If we go up I imagine they'll pay off the rest and we are good to go.
Do you really?

CoolClaret
Posts: 9847
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
Been Liked: 3121 times
Has Liked: 3119 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by CoolClaret » Sun Mar 02, 2025 5:05 pm

CharlieinNewMexico wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 3:02 am
£80 mill in the bank but with playing assets like Jon Walters, Scott Arfield and Matt Lowton. Now we have £100mill + playing assets.
We have a few good players worth a bob or two, I cant imagine we will ever recoup what we paid for Foster and are yet to pay for Flemming and Anthony (I like those two signings btw) - but at least we didn't owe money on Walters, Arfield and Matt Lowton, which we undoubtedly do owe on a lot of our players.

GetIntoEm
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 773 times
Has Liked: 224 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GetIntoEm » Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:04 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 5:02 pm
Do you really?
Yes, do you not? Why do you think they are in it for anything other than to make profit? To make profit they need to clear the debt. Not sure why they would do otherwise

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:57 pm

GetIntoEm wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:04 pm
Yes, do you not? Why do you think they are in it for anything other than to make profit? To make profit they need to clear the debt. Not sure why they would do otherwise
I do not believe that this is necessarily the case and have said as much a number of times previously

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:59 pm

FeedTheArf wrote:
Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:59 am
Nobody will ever convince me that a leveraged buyout will ever be a good option.

I’m astounded this day that it’s even legal, but that’s probably my naivety of the business/finance world.
I’m sure I read that it isn’t legal any more and rightly so.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:08 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:59 pm
I’m sure I read that it isn’t legal any more and rightly so.
The leverage deal that occurred on December 30 2020 that saw our club change ownership would still pass the current rules that have been put in place, as would that of Manchester United by the Glazers - this has been discussed a number of times previously.

It would be naive to believe that the owners of Premier League clubs would implement rules that would restrict them from selling their asset

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:16 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:08 pm
The leverage deal that occurred on December 30 2020 that saw our club change ownership would still pass the current rules that have been put in place, as would that of Manchester United by the Glazers - this has been discussed a number of times previously.

It would be naive to believe that the owners of Premier League clubs would implement rules that would restrict them from selling their asset
Fair enough, must’ve misunderstood it. Personally don’t think it should be the Premier League setting these rules though.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:25 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:16 pm
Fair enough, must’ve misunderstood it. Personally don’t think it should be the Premier League setting these rules though.
As both Manchester City and Leicester have shown it is not within the Premier League's/EFL's capabilities to introduce rules that restrict what is otherwise legal business practice in this country.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 3700
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1463 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Big Vinny K » Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:52 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:59 pm
I’m sure I read that it isn’t legal any more and rightly so.
What is it that you do not think is legal anymore ?
Leveraged buyouts happen every day of the week….including Sundays !!

Whilst football tries to set its own financial rules to try and maintain a level playing field (cough cough !) and try and make sure clubs do not over reach themselves financially to a point it puts the club at risk of not surviving they have no legal jurisdiction over financial law.

Leveraged buyouts in football have happened for a number of years now. They have took place in the commercial sector for a lot longer.

Not really sure that the rules football has in place around the debt levels football clubs carry has ever had any real impact. Back in the day (20 years ago plus now probably) when the main lenders to football clubs were the major UK banks then that kind of meant that there was some element of control as the banks would have pretty similar gearing ratios they would work to. But even then I know that where I worked we gave special treatment to football clubs than other commercial sectors - which is firstly part of the reason that so many clubs went into and administration during this period and secondly why most banks pulled out of the sector eventually !!

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:38 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:25 pm
As both Manchester City and Leicester have shown it is not within the Premier League's/EFL's capabilities to introduce rules that restrict what is otherwise legal business practice in this country.
No, that’s a fair point. I thought you had said some rules had been brought in that meant our leveraged takeover would be the last allowed by the authorities. Have I completely dreamt that up or have I confused what you said?

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:39 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:52 pm
What is it that you do not think is legal anymore ?
Leveraged buyouts happen every day of the week….including Sundays !!

Whilst football tries to set its own financial rules to try and maintain a level playing field (cough cough !) and try and make sure clubs do not over reach themselves financially to a point it puts the club at risk of not surviving they have no legal jurisdiction over financial law.

Leveraged buyouts in football have happened for a number of years now. They have took place in the commercial sector for a lot longer.

Not really sure that the rules football has in place around the debt levels football clubs carry has ever had any real impact. Back in the day (20 years ago plus now probably) when the main lenders to football clubs were the major UK banks then that kind of meant that there was some element of control as the banks would have pretty similar gearing ratios they would work to. But even then I know that where I worked we gave special treatment to football clubs than other commercial sectors - which is firstly part of the reason that so many clubs went into and administration during this period and secondly why most banks pulled out of the sector eventually !!
I just thought I’d read somewhere on this thread, and CP specifically, that rules had been introduced to ban leveraged buy outs. More specifically, I thought CP had said ours would be the last of its kind under new regulations, but must’ve got that wrong.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20148
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3299 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:32 pm

This was the last time we discussed Leveraged buyouts

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=78193&p=2439445&hil ... r#p2439445

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:26 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:32 pm
This was the last time we discussed Leveraged buyouts

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=78193&p=2439445&hil ... r#p2439445
Okay, so you’d already answered that question, my apologies. I was sure you or someone had said somewhere that our takeover would be the last of its kind.

How have the rules changed then? (i.e. what was permissible that is no longer)

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:34 am

Sorry, ignore above, just re-read the full thread. So basically the rules used to allow 100% leverage and now 65%.

Still nowhere near good enough in my view.

Row x
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:51 am
Been Liked: 573 times
Has Liked: 111 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Row x » Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:52 am

NewClaret wrote:
Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:34 am
Sorry, ignore above, just re-read the full thread. So basically the rules used to allow 100% leverage and now 65%.

Still nowhere near good enough in my view.
Good, bad or indifferent, time will tell

The question is if they hadn't bought the club, who else would have done? And where would we be now, we had an aging squad, with no sign of real investment in the team, so we could have over 100 million in the bank, but mid table in league one

NewClaret
Posts: 17497
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3943 times
Has Liked: 4905 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:11 am

Row x wrote:
Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:52 am
Good, bad or indifferent, time will tell

The question is if they hadn't bought the club, who else would have done? And where would we be now, we had an aging squad, with no sign of real investment in the team, so we could have over 100 million in the bank, but mid table in league one
My comments are not in relation to Burnley, more football clubs in general.

I think football clubs should be viewed as community assets and therefore owners should not be able to leverage clubs to buy them out. That would seriously limit who could own them outright and you probably end up with more listed or under shared ownership. Any leverage should be personal and secured against their own assets.

On ALK I’m indifferent. There’s a lot that I think has been really positive. It’s impossible to say we’ve moved forward on the pitch but we were sliding backwards anyway, as you say. The rot had set in, they just didn’t stop it.

This is a big season.

CharlieinNewMexico
Posts: 3490
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:53 am
Been Liked: 915 times
Has Liked: 580 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by CharlieinNewMexico » Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:20 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:55 am
The thing we are never likely to a a very definite answer for is whether all this financial bouncing around has actually been of overall benefit for the club. All of the following occurred whilst the club pulled in over £200m of revenues that did not include player trading

Essentially if the new capital debt balance is £40m, then it is slightly more than the £39.7m of mid November 2022, which was somewhat more than the £32.3m balance of late August 2022 (the difference potentially being the early repayment penalty to MSD and possible the loan fee for the November 2022 loan - of course the club had already paid MSD £20m in enforced repayments on relegation, a further £12.7m in voluntary early repayment (presumably with an early redemption penalty) and at least £11m in interest

That £39.7m loan was supposedly reduced to around £33m by April 2023 so a £6m-£7m capital repayment not forgetting the interest of around £1.7m by the time the loan was replaced by one for £70m in June 2023 that required between 12.5% and 13.2% in annual interest and contained a capital repayment plan - It is worth noting that the annual interest was roughly aligned to the new expected match day incomes following the price increases.

Alongside that loan was a factoring deal over 3 years of Premier League revenues (based on 1 year of Prem money and two years of parachute payments) that too carries a lost revenue value in the accounts (and yes I know it has less of a cash impact because of inflation).

So good were those June 2023 deals that they were replaced again in January 2024 with a new loan of an as yet undeclared value (probable early redemption penalties and also new loan arrangement fees) also because of the nature of the new lender the factoring deal had to be paid up early via a loan from the new lender that would require further interest payments on a sum that had already seem and upfront charge when first factored.

To get to a £40m capital debt balance with a 4th new lender 26 months will have required a net debt repayment of somewhere £26m - £50m (depending on the overall loan balance, for which we can only give a range estimate), probable early redemption penalties (we still don't know if relegation triggered enforced capital repayments) and interest payments of between £7.5 £10.5m. Not to mention the likely loan fee with Fasanara Capital and the brokers who set it up.

Those are all tangible costs - though we are unlikely to ever know the true total of them/ Some may argue that the profits on player trading have made up for that - we may never know that answer either, because the actual cash flow from sales is a drip feed not a sudden influx.

Not that all the additional borrowed monies went on player recruitment - Promotion in May 2023 meant that Calder Vale Holdings borrowed circa £9.1m to make the final bonus payment to the original 7 director sellers, players and coaches likely received somewhat more and facility upgrades were required to meet newly revised Premier League requirements.

There is also the intangible cost to factor in - the club became a lot more unstable as an entity, particularly on the playing side, which led to what we now know to a deeply divided and unsettled playing and coaching staff. The impact on the town and fanbase has also to be factored in. Even BFC in the Community saw it's funding alter in 3 different seasons, which has had a direct impact on what it is able to do and who it is able to employ (the club provides little in cash terms for it - the majority of it's funding comes from the Premier League and other sources.



1 - it is looking that way

2 - Actually yes they do. but there are ways to do that which would mean they don't have to dip into their own pockets to do so. Also there is no timeframe as to when it has to be done and of course no interest to be paid on it. With inflation, the true value of the debt is diminishing all the time (that is why it is standard practice to pay interest on loans)

3 - It is possible to sell the club with it's capital debt intact - it is the club's debt after all. Some arrangement would have to be made over the £124.07m they owed the club - it would be factored into the selling price. My reckoning is that the ALK/VSL ownership group have a net £60m or so in share spend (after the flip to Vladimir Torgovnick), that is the net number they are looking to exceed in any return from a sale for their 90% shareholding. It would be entirely possible for a new owner to buy Velocity Capital (UK) Holding Ltd and still hold the £124.7m debt there, they would also have the opportunity to enforce the purchase of the shares from all other shareholders.

What theoretically makes that interesting from a cash buyers perspective is that they could buy 100% of the club relatively cheaply and have the opportunity to provide an influx of cash into the club via a future loan repayment from VCUKHL. Of course, the previous owners spent 7 years looking for such a cash buyer, they are thin on the ground for a club such as ours





It could be very reasonably argued that the probable current state of debt is merely a holding position that can be rapidly changed if promotion does come - remember all those obligations to buy and promotion bonuses have to be paid for somehow. We have done it brfore and It would be of little surprise if it happened again.
No offense, but everything you post is conjecture

“It could very reasonably be argued” is just opinion 🤷🤷🤷

Post Reply