ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 4461
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2462 times
- Has Liked: 352 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Sorry, just realised the PL money won’t be in the next accounts.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Not sure why the selling of either of those two would be required with the following £88m in sales.agreenwood wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:49 pmYou’d imagine selling Trafford and/or Esteve this summer, in addition to the £88m of player sales in the current year and PL money, should see us on the right side of the line regrading PSR.
-
- Posts: 4461
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2462 times
- Has Liked: 352 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Depends on the extent of our losses this season I suppose.
We’re going to need to post a healthy year next time to avoid penalties, which on paper is going to be much harder given it covers a season in the Championship.
Last edited by agreenwood on Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Pace said we’d be amazed when we found out how it was all financed
Club record debts increasing year on year is shocking
Club record debts increasing year on year is shocking
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It would be a crying shame to see that trinity of players broken up just to meet FFPagreenwood wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:49 pmYou’d imagine selling Trafford and/or Esteve this summer, in addition to the £88m of player sales in the current year and PL money, should see us on the right side of the line regrading PSR.
however, it depends on what is left against their amortised value and the cost of acquiring Anthony, Hannibal, Edwards and Humphries as well as the promotion bonuses and additional performance related fees on existing squad players
I think they are not able to take the Leicester approach as the EFL has since closed that loophole
-
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1460 times
- Has Liked: 358 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
£40m of contingent liabilities compared to £11m of contingent assets.
Suppose the positive thing about that should be that if we hit that maximum exposure it should mean good things have happened on the pitch and with our players (we hope !!)
Suppose the positive thing about that should be that if we hit that maximum exposure it should mean good things have happened on the pitch and with our players (we hope !!)
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The initial £1m is odd to me.
After July 31st we permanently signed Etienne Green (Aug 7th), Worrall (Aug 22nd), Mejbri (Aug 28th), Laurent (Aug 28th) & Adewumi (Aug 28th).
Assuming the £88m is Bastien (Aug 8th), Odobert (Aug 16th), Twine (Aug 16th), Berge (Aug 22nd), Zaroury (Aug 22nd), JBG (Aug 23rd), O'Shea (Aug 25th), Al-Dakhil (Aug 27th), Weghorst (Aug 29th), McNally (Aug 29th) & Vitinho (Aug 30th).
Muric & Vigouroux should be in this annual report, likely Kompany too.
Only sold Egan since then, and signed Sonne & Banel with Flemming, Anthony, Humphreys & Edwards about to sign.
Only 2 loan players allowed at a time in the Prem, so harder to push fees to another accounting period.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Restricting transfer spend won't matter. Anything we spend this summer will be counted as an expense over the period of the contract, starting next year not this year, regardless of whether we buy before or after the accounts year end date.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:38 pmJust going through them now.
Initial impressions are that I’m surprised at the size of our wage bill and also to a degree the level of interest. Pretty sure they are both record levels in the clubs history - and they aren’t the good kind of records our defence has been setting !!
In the context of FFP and Chester’s points then I’m assuming they have a plan to avoid breach. We’ve got one quarter left of the 3 year assessment period which I guess may mean restricting transfer spend up until the end of July. Though it may not hinder us either as we should have significant player sales in this current financial year and as said you would think the club is planning all this through.
The accounts are always news to us supporters but to the club and our accountants they should be very much old history and they will have a detailed view of where we are on a month to month basis and act accordingly to mitigate things like FFP (or we might just take the breach like other clubs do !!)
I would have thought the £88m sales in summer, which must have generated a fair wodge in profit above the remaining contract value, might well be enough to see us OK. We're about £52m down over the two years to 2024 but some of those costs (eg. cost of the academy) can be ignored.
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It could very reasonably be argued that £10m - £15m (perhaps more) of that £52m is related to Academy, BFC Women and infrastructure/capital expense all of which can be discounted from PSRdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:12 pmRestricting transfer spend won't matter. Anything we spend this summer will be counted as an expense over the period of the contract, starting next year not this year, regardless of whether we buy before or after the accounts year end date.
I would have thought the £88m sales in summer, which must have generated a fair wodge in profit above the remaining contract value, might well be enough to see us OK. We're about £52m down over the two years to 2024 but some of those costs (eg. cost of the academy) can be ignored.
This user liked this post: dsr
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
On the face of it this is indeed a positive
worth noting that there is no longer a statement that the outstanding £97.6m that Velocity owe can be met by dividends - though the reserves they would have come from have been significantly diminished
-
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1460 times
- Has Liked: 358 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
What’s your view on the outstanding loans now CP ?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:31 pmOn the face of it this is indeed a positive
worth noting that there is no longer a statement that the outstanding £97.6m that Velocity owe can be met by dividends - though the reserves they would have come from have been significantly diminished
Guess that there is still a big element of unknowns as to what might have happened since last July.
As an aside did notice that external consultancy fee come down by a million last year.
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It is too early to tell, though it is apparent there has been an awful lot of cashflow pressure and as we know loans can increase againBig Vinny K wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:38 pmWhat’s your view on the outstanding loans now CP ?
Guess that there is still a big element of unknowns as to what might have happened since last July.
As an aside did notice that external consultancy fee come down by a million last year.
I have wondered if it related to FFP, a proportion of allowable losses has to be met with owner input (Manchester United did it one year with an overdraft facility) so while it cannot be via a bank loan this repayment may cover it
as for the management fee - £750k has been deferred (shown as a credit), so an actual £250k drop, itself a surprising given when they did this deferral before it was for £1m and an overall fee of £2.5m
-
- Posts: 10172
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2411 times
- Has Liked: 3315 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Key thing to be aware of is that Alan Pace signed off these accounts on 31st December 2024. So, nothing in the accounts or post balance sheet events extends beyond 31st December 2024. (This is very similar to 31-July-2023 accounts - signed off 19-Dec-2023).
-
- Posts: 17427
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3926 times
- Has Liked: 4893 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Great news about the loan repayment. I always suspected that might happen when cash was needed.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Income from catering dropped from £2.34m to £836,000. No wonder!
-
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1460 times
- Has Liked: 358 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yep noticed that !
I know the catering hasn’t been the best but I’m not sure that would explain such a drop with the attendances remaining pretty much the same. Suspect it could more relate to a difference in how they categorise certain revenue lines. Especially bearing in mind the price increases in food and drink too.
And we already know from the other thread that they are not taking cash and keeping this out of the books !!
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Previously in-house so that would have been total sales now just the fee and a share of any profit share
interestingly clubs in Europe are considering bringing catering and retail back in house as the overall income counts against UEFA new version of squad cost
These 3 users liked this post: Leisure Spike gawthorpe_view
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I am not very clued up on finances. But from my limited understanding.
It feels like we've pushed the transfer fees down the road with the loan to buys. Many people said these fees had been accounted for.
It feels like that's a strategory we'll have to continue as I'm not sure how you finance last summer's deals and this one at the same time, that'll continue to see the can kicked further down the road.
While we may have paid 30m back pre December 2024. There's nothing to say we don't take out more loans to help with our financing now we've been promoted. Kicking another can down the road.
Eventually the cans will meet.
Hope I'm a mile off and it looks rosey.
It feels like we've pushed the transfer fees down the road with the loan to buys. Many people said these fees had been accounted for.
It feels like that's a strategory we'll have to continue as I'm not sure how you finance last summer's deals and this one at the same time, that'll continue to see the can kicked further down the road.
While we may have paid 30m back pre December 2024. There's nothing to say we don't take out more loans to help with our financing now we've been promoted. Kicking another can down the road.
Eventually the cans will meet.
Hope I'm a mile off and it looks rosey.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I appreciate what you are saying re kicking the can down the road, but this could/should be offset by pretty big players sales we can expect in the coming year or two.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So how much in loans did the takeover leave the club in debt?
What do these accounts show our overall debt to be
What do these accounts show our overall debt to be
-
- Posts: 4497
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 1003 times
- Has Liked: 1595 times
- Location: burnley
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
More from McGuire from the BE. He is fairly positive apart from interest rates.
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... ts-5107727
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... ts-5107727
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It's fine so long as you get players that develop and you can sell for a hefty profit each time, it's when that dries up that you have a problem. You're always going to have some duds (I seem to remember Brighton spending some big money on an Iranian striker who was a total flop) but you need enough positives to outweigh the negatives and enough players to sell for big fees even in poor seasons.Conroy92 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:18 pmI am not very clued up on finances. But from my limited understanding.
It feels like we've pushed the transfer fees down the road with the loan to buys. Many people said these fees had been accounted for.
It feels like that's a strategory we'll have to continue as I'm not sure how you finance last summer's deals and this one at the same time, that'll continue to see the can kicked further down the road.
While we may have paid 30m back pre December 2024. There's nothing to say we don't take out more loans to help with our financing now we've been promoted. Kicking another can down the road.
Eventually the cans will meet.
Hope I'm a mile off and it looks rosey.
Lots of clubs try and do it, not many succeed. Albeit lots of clubs that try and do it are starting from not having much and as a way to get established rather than a big budget and already established.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The comparison to Sheffield Utd is an interesting one. Their wages hardly increased last season and they spent about £64m. A big chunk less than our £93m.summitclaret wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 10:00 amMore from McGuire from the BE. He is fairly positive apart from interest rates.
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... ts-5107727
-
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1460 times
- Has Liked: 358 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I am surprised at the £93m wage bill.
It’s the record in our history and surpasses the previous highest under Dyche (though from memory that previous figure was for an extended financial year period as we changed the year end)
The trajectory of the wage bill under Dyche was also a symptom of a very different model where we had a number of experienced players who had been at the club for a few years and after a sustained period in the EPL we ended up extending contracts to the likes of Wood, Tarks, Mee, McNeil, Westwood, Barnes, Pope. We also had the likes of Wout, Collins, Cornet on the books who we know were on decent wages.
The £93m in the last accounts reflects the biggest squad we have ever had and when you spent as much in the transfer market we did then these players are not joining us on low wages. We also had many of the players left at the club who we signed in the first season under VK and I’d imagine most if not all of these had automatic increases in their salary built in after promotion. We have since got a rid of a lot of this squad and guess the wage bill this season was back nearer to a £50m to £60m type figure but as we return to the EPL we have the bonuses to pay, the increase in salaries of existing players, whatever the agreed salary is of the loan players we are signing permanently (undoubtedly more than we paid them this season) and any new players we sign from here on in.
Reality maybe now that is it does not take much to take that salary bill back up to the £90m plus type figures and this is the levels the current owners are happy to work within as long as we continue to make decent profit on player sales each season.
It’s the record in our history and surpasses the previous highest under Dyche (though from memory that previous figure was for an extended financial year period as we changed the year end)
The trajectory of the wage bill under Dyche was also a symptom of a very different model where we had a number of experienced players who had been at the club for a few years and after a sustained period in the EPL we ended up extending contracts to the likes of Wood, Tarks, Mee, McNeil, Westwood, Barnes, Pope. We also had the likes of Wout, Collins, Cornet on the books who we know were on decent wages.
The £93m in the last accounts reflects the biggest squad we have ever had and when you spent as much in the transfer market we did then these players are not joining us on low wages. We also had many of the players left at the club who we signed in the first season under VK and I’d imagine most if not all of these had automatic increases in their salary built in after promotion. We have since got a rid of a lot of this squad and guess the wage bill this season was back nearer to a £50m to £60m type figure but as we return to the EPL we have the bonuses to pay, the increase in salaries of existing players, whatever the agreed salary is of the loan players we are signing permanently (undoubtedly more than we paid them this season) and any new players we sign from here on in.
Reality maybe now that is it does not take much to take that salary bill back up to the £90m plus type figures and this is the levels the current owners are happy to work within as long as we continue to make decent profit on player sales each season.
-
- Posts: 9813
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 3104 times
- Has Liked: 3100 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Just like the Dyche years, if the wage bill is all tied to bonuses, etc, then fair enough, though we've been a bit silly there, considering how many players we had on the books that have barely been used.
As usual, I'm not too keen on the model and believe our risk level is too high. Still, as long as we avoid a situation where we have players on huge base salaries without significant wage reductions on relegation, etc, then that'll do.
I do believe that ALK have learnt a lot on the job though and although I do not like/agree with the model in it's entirety, I think they're a lot more switched on/savvy than a damn site number of the boards in English football.
As usual, I'm not too keen on the model and believe our risk level is too high. Still, as long as we avoid a situation where we have players on huge base salaries without significant wage reductions on relegation, etc, then that'll do.
I do believe that ALK have learnt a lot on the job though and although I do not like/agree with the model in it's entirety, I think they're a lot more switched on/savvy than a damn site number of the boards in English football.
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Just to be clear - bonuses are paid for promotion or staying up - if we had stayed up the bonuses would have taken the wages some way north of £100mCoolClaret wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 12:36 pmJust like the Dyche years, if the wage bill is all tied to bonuses, etc, then fair enough, though we've been a bit silly there, considering how many players we had on the books that have barely been used.
As usual, I'm not too keen on the model and believe our risk level is too high. Still, as long as we avoid a situation where we have players on huge base salaries without significant wage reductions on relegation, etc, then that'll do.
I do believe that ALK have learnt a lot on the job though and although I do not like/agree with the model in it's entirety, I think they're a lot more switched on/savvy than a damn site number of the boards in English football.
This user liked this post: CoolClaret
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
A technical point but they have changed how wages and salaries are accounted for. Previously loan fees and contributions to wages for players we had out on loan were offset against wages. Now they are reported separately with wages also being grossed up by a similar amount.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 12:15 pmI am surprised at the £93m wage bill.
It’s the record in our history and surpasses the previous highest under Dyche (though from memory that previous figure was for an extended financial year period as we changed the year end)
The trajectory of the wage bill under Dyche was also a symptom of a very different model where we had a number of experienced players who had been at the club for a few years and after a sustained period in the EPL we ended up extending contracts to the likes of Wood, Tarks, Mee, McNeil, Westwood, Barnes, Pope. We also had the likes of Wout, Collins, Cornet on the books who we know were on decent wages.
The £93m in the last accounts reflects the biggest squad we have ever had and when you spent as much in the transfer market we did then these players are not joining us on low wages. We also had many of the players left at the club who we signed in the first season under VK and I’d imagine most if not all of these had automatic increases in their salary built in after promotion. We have since got a rid of a lot of this squad and guess the wage bill this season was back nearer to a £50m to £60m type figure but as we return to the EPL we have the bonuses to pay, the increase in salaries of existing players, whatever the agreed salary is of the loan players we are signing permanently (undoubtedly more than we paid them this season) and any new players we sign from here on in.
Reality maybe now that is it does not take much to take that salary bill back up to the £90m plus type figures and this is the levels the current owners are happy to work within as long as we continue to make decent profit on player sales each season.
Under the old method wages and salaries would have been £5.5m lower. Still pretty chunky at £88m though.
But yes, can't imagine wages will be small next season. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few experienced players coming in with the wages associated with that. Hopefully we'll continue to trim the squad though.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It's still there. They talk about distributions rather than dividends which is slightly broader (and includes dividends) but probably just a change in stock wording.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:31 pmOn the face of it this is indeed a positive
worth noting that there is no longer a statement that the outstanding £97.6m that Velocity owe can be met by dividends - though the reserves they would have come from have been significantly diminished
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Conjecture surely?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 12:39 pmJust to be clear - bonuses are paid for promotion or staying up - if we had stayed up the bonuses would have taken the wages some way north of £100m
The bulk of those players weren’t here long enough to have benefited from a bonus for staying up.
That has to be guesswork.
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I will add that it was probable that there were also additional transfer payments contingent on staying up (so not paid) - it is not unreasonable to believe that if the club had been successful in staying up, the booked £10m operational profit (before player sales) would have actually been transformed into an operational loss of several £m. I say this because there is no declared early enforced repayment of loans following the relegation.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 12:39 pmJust to be clear - bonuses are paid for promotion or staying up - if we had stayed up the bonuses would have taken the wages some way north of £100m
It would have been interesting to see how such a financial picture would have been managed last summer.
Also worth noting that the profit of £15m from trading of intangible assets includes the £10m we (allegedly) received for Vincent Kompany.
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
based on the precedent of our previous Premier League stays (including under the current ownership, and the conventions of practice seen in the Premier League
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
2020 was the 13 months accounting period with staff costs of 100,094.
For what it's worth, the Wage:Turnover ratio (season) was down in 2024. From Key performance indicators of the annual reports.
2023/24: 69.94% (Relegated)
2022/23: 88.68% (Promoted)
2021/22: 74.53 (Relegated)
2020/21: 74.66% (Behind closed doors)
2019/20: 70.20% (Covid)
2018/19: 62.86%
For what it's worth, the Wage:Turnover ratio (season) was down in 2024. From Key performance indicators of the annual reports.
2023/24: 69.94% (Relegated)
2022/23: 88.68% (Promoted)
2021/22: 74.53 (Relegated)
2020/21: 74.66% (Behind closed doors)
2019/20: 70.20% (Covid)
2018/19: 62.86%
-
- Posts: 34432
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12536 times
- Has Liked: 6263 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
just in case this hasn't been posted, EFL change in PSR rules
https://www.efl.com/news/2025/april/30/ ... ed-at-egm/
https://www.efl.com/news/2025/april/30/ ... ed-at-egm/
-
- Posts: 17427
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3926 times
- Has Liked: 4893 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Presumably if we had stayed up we would also have had higher revenues from placement money?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 1:39 pmI will add that it was probable that there were also additional transfer payments contingent on staying up (so not paid) - it is not unreasonable to believe that if the club had been successful in staying up, the booked £10m operational profit (before player sales) would have actually been transformed into an operational loss of several £m. I say this because there is no declared early enforced repayment of loans following the relegation.
It would have been interesting to see how such a financial picture would have been managed last summer.
Also worth noting that the profit of £15m from trading of intangible assets includes the £10m we (allegedly) received for Vincent Kompany.
Also, does player trading come under the intangible assets line? If not, is the £15m not the full Kompany compensation?
-
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1460 times
- Has Liked: 358 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Sounds a pretty reasonable assumption to me given the level of contingent liabilities we are reporting.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 1:39 pmI will add that it was probable that there were also additional transfer payments contingent on staying up (so not paid) - it is not unreasonable to believe that if the club had been successful in staying up, the booked £10m operational profit (before player sales) would have actually been transformed into an operational loss of several £m. I say this because there is no declared early enforced repayment of loans following the relegation.
It would have been interesting to see how such a financial picture would have been managed last summer.
Also worth noting that the profit of £15m from trading of intangible assets includes the £10m we (allegedly) received for Vincent Kompany.
-
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3296 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
around £2.9m per place so almost £6m if we had stayed up assuming a 17th place finish
coaches and backroom staff like players are intangible assets - particularly if we have paid another club compensation in recruiting them or indeed received compensation for their being taken from us while under contract - so if any had followed Kompany out of the club to Bayern then that would be added to the balance.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Noticeable that previously it was profit on disposal of player registrations, this year it was profit on disposal of player/staff registrations
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
There's been another change in that previously it said the reserves were sufficient to settle the balance whereas now it says they're sufficient to enable a significant reduction in the balance.
-
- Posts: 17427
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3926 times
- Has Liked: 4893 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Thanks. If Bayern agreed to pay £10m over 3 years is it all booked this year or £3.3m each year?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 2:39 pmaround £2.9m per place so almost £6m if we had stayed up assuming a 17th place finish
coaches and backroom staff like players are intangible assets - particularly if we have paid another club compensation in recruiting them or indeed received compensation for their being taken from us while under contract - so if any had followed Kompany out of the club to Bayern then that would be added to the balance.
£15m seems low for Kompany and the players sold prior to 31st July.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2024 3:54 pm
- Been Liked: 10 times
- Has Liked: 35 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
True but what an awful blow that would be.agreenwood wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:49 pmYou’d imagine selling Trafford and/or Esteve this summer, in addition to the £88m of player sales in the current year and PL money, should see us on the right side of the line regrading PSR.
-
- Posts: 17427
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3926 times
- Has Liked: 4893 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I don’t think that’s going to be necessary but we might have to remain creative with the signings (loans with options if we stay up, etc).
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2024 3:54 pm
- Been Liked: 10 times
- Has Liked: 35 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Please excuse me being an accountancy simpleton but since the takeover are we paying off the debt, is it increasing or do we simply not know? If the greater minds could answer that it would be really appreciated.
This user liked this post: Spike
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Whoever we sign in summer makes no difference to the 2024-25 profit and loss. All the cost will be in 2025-26 and later.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Even if we sign them before 31 July the vast majority of the cost would be in future years. Say it's a 4 year contract with a £10m fee, that would be £2.5m per year in the accounts, so if signed on 1 July there would be an associated cost of ~ £200k in the accounts (plus a month's wages).
-
- Posts: 10172
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2411 times
- Has Liked: 3315 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It's pretty unusual for another club to buy out the contract of a manager of a club that has just been relegated. Of course, the "player/staff" description is accurate in this situation.
-
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 3668 times
-
- Posts: 10172
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2411 times
- Has Liked: 3315 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Burnley are doing a lot more player trading than the club has ever done before. Most/all of this is being financed with borrowings either from banks/other financial institutions or by credit agreed with the selling club. When ALK acquired BFCHL they took out a loan of £65 million from MSD. This loan has been repaid by new borrowings a few times since then. ALK also borrowed money from BFCHL/BFACL. The total amount was £124 million at 31st July-2023. The amount has reduced to £97.5 million in the latest set of accounts to 31st July 2024.CalamityClaret wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:38 pmPlease excuse me being an accountancy simpleton but since the takeover are we paying off the debt, is it increasing or do we simply not know? If the greater minds could answer that it would be really appreciated.
On the other hand, the accounts also show that Bank loans and other loans total £112 million at 31st July 2023 compared with £100.9 million a year earlier.
Note 8. Interest payable and similar expenses breaks down the £19.0 million amount as: bank loan interest payable £11.1m, other interest payable £2.1m, finance expenses on player trading creditors £5.8m and a small amount on interest payable on finance leases and hire purchase contracts.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
and no peas!