ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

So Dyche was talking bullsh*t when he says he was refused funds? As are posters on here, more in the know than I am say the same?

Given the way Dyche used to talk with apparent knowledgeability of Burnley FC finances I was shocked how he now claims to have known so little about the situation at Everton when he joined them - it either throws his claims about Burnley into question and under scrutiny or says he was totally negligent in his due diligence about his next employer, because the information about Everton was widely and easily available - neither is a good look

[boyyanno]

So Dyche was talking bullsh*t when he says he was refused funds? As are posters on here, more in the know than I am say the same?

You literally just said the previous owners would have seen us worse off than PNE or Bastards, yes that is bullsh*t.

The previous owners oversaw the most successful period of our recent history and left those clubs you've mentioned by the wayside. It's not even up for debate it's a proven fact.

You've tried to shift your argument to make it about funds, The club certainly didn't want to invest at that stage, A: as they felt the wage budget was getting beyond what the club could afford, B: because they wanted to build up funds to enable a better sale.

None of that suggests they wouldn't have ever made funds available if the club didn't sell and we went down- where are your facts for that?

Your whole statement is an amalgamation of ifs and whataboutery- that's how you know its bullsh*t- it's stinking the thread out.

[ClaretTony]

So players refusing to play in the Championship is the clubs fault,
Should we just have kept them and not play them?
Of course we all know the model, just that more had to be sold last summer because of the players, not the club.
Turned out ok though, didn't it?

I'm afraid that's not the case - and if any were sold because they wanted to go, it allowed us to keep others who would have gone.

[Row x]

Given the way Dyche used to talk with apparent knowledgeability of Burnley FC finances I was shocked how he now claims to have known so little about the situation at Everton when he joined them - it either throws his claims about Burnley into question and under scrutiny or says he was totally negligent in his due diligence about his next employer, because the information about Everton was widely and easily available - neither is a good look

The thing is, the actions of the previous owners, over several transfer windows back up his claims

His comments on the Everton situation are very weird,agreed

[Row x]

I'm afraid that's not the case - and if any were sold because they wanted to go, it allowed us to keep others who would have gone.

It seems common knowledge that several were sold because they wanted out
I've no knowledge what would have happened had they stayed

[ClaretTony]

It seems common knowledge that several were sold because they wanted out
I've no knowledge what would have happened had they stayed

Of course we all know some wanted out, but rest assured others would have gone otherwise.

[Row x]

You literally just said the previous owners would have seen us worse off than PNE or Bastards, yes that is bullsh*t.

The previous owners oversaw the most successful period of our recent history and left those clubs you've mentioned by the wayside. It's not even up for debate it's a proven fact.

You've tried to shift your argument to make it about funds, The club certainly didn't want to invest at that stage, A: as they felt the wage budget was getting beyond what the club could afford, B: because they wanted to build up funds to enable a better sale.

None of that suggests they wouldn't have ever made funds available if the club didn't sell and we went down- where are your facts for that?

Your whole statement is an amalgamation of ifs and whataboutery- that's how you know its bullsh*t- it's stinking the thread out.

A lot of the posts on here are if, buts, maybes and perhaps,
but if they don't agree with you it stinks the thread out?

Ok I'll leave it, and you can play along with your mates

[ClaretPete001]

Times have changed
Even Kompany stated it, I'm not signing for you because I think you'll get relegated........

Buying from the Championship has become more expensive, these clubs want the money, so we are shopping abroad.

Not helped by Ipswich blowing money at it and Brentford surviving these seasons

I think we will be more careful this time not having the Kompany wide spend which was never ever going to be cheap.

With all due respect, I see your argument as one where a climate activist is suggesting that sea levels are falling and a climate denier suggests a potential solution is that the climate activist could p*ss in it to raise the seas level. Ultimately who can deny that p*ssing in the sea would raise the level of the sea but it's not grappling with the hugeness of the problem.

We have over £240 million worth of creditors, against the fact that the whole turnover of the average Championship club is less than £20 million. Subsequent to these accounts we have had a year in the Championship and now we have to fund another PL campaign.

It's hard to look at the hugeness of this and say anything other than the viability of the club is dependent upon a sustained period in the PL or an immediate return to the PL if we get relegated.

[ClaretPete001]

Given the way Dyche used to talk with apparent knowledgeability of Burnley FC finances I was shocked how he now claims to have known so little about the situation at Everton when he joined them - it either throws his claims about Burnley into question and under scrutiny or says he was totally negligent in his due diligence about his next employer, because the information about Everton was widely and easily available - neither is a good look

I watched the show with Neville, Carragher, Ian Wright etc. and I was somewhat taken aback by the fact that the did not seem to be able to coherently grapple with the finances or the structural problems facing the club.

On the other hand, he seemed quite honest about the fact that he had gone as far as he could in terms of performances on the pitch.

[ClaretPete001]

A lot of the posts on here are if, buts, maybes and perhaps,
but if they don't agree with you it stinks the thread out?

Ok I'll leave it, and you can play along with your mates

No ifs, buts and maybes. Most relegated clubs have to sell. Alan Pace stated that we had to sell and the accounts had a material uncertainty placed on them about the clubs ability to continue on an ongoing basis if it did not meet its player trading targets.

These facts are only ifs, buts and maybes when posters on here gaslight facts to the point where no one believes anything.

[boyyanno]

We sold that many last summer because the players wanted out. The club didn't sell anyone who didn't want to go
Many fans are happy with the current ownership, because without it, we would be like Preston, Blackburn or many others, probably even worse if the previous owners had stayed

This statement should be stuck to the top of the board as a reminder of how ridiculous football fans can be.

The previous ownership that cleared all debts, oversaw massive success both as a football club and as a buisness (who else could say that)- would have been worse than Venkys.

You think you've seen it all on here you really do.

[boyyanno]

A lot of the posts on here are if, buts, maybes and perhaps,
but if they don't agree with you it stinks the thread out?

Ok I'll leave it, and you can play along with your mates

What you've said about the previous owners mate is embarrassing.

I don't like how Garlick sold the club but to pretend he'd have been worse than the Venkys just to try and give credit to your "I love alk" stand point is just ridiculous.

[Big Vinny K]

We sold that many last summer because the players wanted out. The club didn't sell anyone who didn't want to go
Many fans are happy with the current ownership, because without it, we would be like Preston, Blackburn or many others, probably even worse if the previous owners had stayed

Sorry but you have literally just made that up. If I said that not one player wanted to leave and we sold them against their wishes I’m pretty sure I would be called out like you have.

On the other points you raised afterwards Dyche was denied funds in the last year of his tenure - I don’t think anybody is disputing that. We know now the reasons for this that building up our bank balances and reserves was part of the takeover structure. But our wage bill was also at the highest level it had ever been in our history so even if Garlick was not selling the club how much do you think Dyche would have been given ? It can’t have been that much given we know that MG did not subsidise any losses or ever get the club into debt. And Dyche knew this stance better than any of us.

I already said that we have enjoyed a fantastic time under both owners in the last 15 years. It’s been incredible. But anybody who does not believe that we are not in a more precarious financial position under the new owners simply does not understand our finances.

[Chester Perry]

1). Are the current club debts still entirely made up of the orignal loans ALK used to buy the previous shareholders shares or have they now become mixed with loans taken out to fund player transfers and operating costs etc?

It is now a mixed situation
- by late August 2022 the £65m debt taken out to fund the takeover had its balance halved - though by mid November of that same year it was replaced by a loan for £39.7m which appears to have rolled up early redemption penalties (for the previous loan ) and possibly fees for the set-up of the new loan.
- now we can possibly say that any debt that is over £39.7m is tied to player recruitment and operational costs (including investment in infrastructure (of which there has been some - but not a large amount). there have been a further 3 refinances since November 2022 though so it is difficult to say what is left of the original debt.

2). Is there any evidence at all of any monies coming from Velocity into the football club from any of the ownership structure at any point since ALK bought the original shares?

the last accounts clearly state that Velocity repaid £26.519m of the loans it had taken from the club

What is not stated is why this payment was made - there were obvious cash flow pressures, but what most do not realise is that while there are allowable losses under PL and EFL rules, a very significant proportion of them have to be made up from cash injections from ownership groups - that is what these monies may actually be for, though it is not certain.

It also remains open at some future date for Velocity to loan this money back from the club again, if they find a need to enable their other activities

3). I assume that ALK/Velocity will at some point, when they beleive the time is right, sell their shares in the club to another entity and given that I don't beleive that they have put any significant monies into the club themselves this might not be at a point when we are successfully avoiding relegation from the EPL but could also be if we fail to gain promotion back there and finanically in real trouble. If its the latter as long as they make a small profit on any monies put into the club themselves and they have enough to repay any other parties such as JJ Watt they can walk away leaving the club with their debts, parachute payments and TV monies possibly factored and with obligations to pay transfer fees for players without any come back on themselves, is that correct? Is there anything that means that ALK/Velocity must clear any of these debts before selling up?

I would argue - following the above discussed repayment - that Velocity as an ownership group have now contributed circa £100m to the acquisition of their share holding. Of that the original ALK group (which are part of and in absolute control of Velocity) may have contributed just £10m plus initial arrangement and advice fees (that possibly amounted to as much as £5m). There appears to have been a flip of shares to Vlad Torgovnick (that at purchase price value is in excess of £10m - these were part of the remaining shares Garlick and Banaszkiewicz disposed of in November 2022 for a nominal token fee) though as far as I am aware there is no record of ALK/Velocity ever owning those shares on the members register - and it is not known if those monies went to ALK or Velocity - if it is the former then when the management fees they charge the club are added, they are already in profit.

The club can be sold with all its operational and trade debts in place, and even at the level were the debts to the club remain in place Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd. So to take a profit Velocity would require in excess of £100m in cash and for the new owner to take responsibility for liabilities of Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd

[Conroy92]

We sold that many last summer because the players wanted out. The club didn't sell anyone who didn't want to go
Many fans are happy with the current ownership, because without it, we would be like Preston, Blackburn or many others, probably even worse if the previous owners had stayed

your either fishing or poorly.
The previous owners have already done what the new owners have done for us, starting from a position behind where our new owners started from.
So it's absolute claptrap really isn't it. Our prior ownership is the reason we are where we are.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul

I think it was Wittgenstein who said that language is understood in the context it is used and everyone on here knows what is meant by firesale.

Hi Pete, did you notice that there are 3 other posts on this page of this thread where the posters have said many of the posters on here who use the term "firesale" don't know what "firesale" means and, therefore, misuse the term?

What is your definition of the term?

[Conroy92]

I think the bit that people can't get there head round is flogging assets at a significantly reduced cost is different to flogging your assets.

[dsr]

Hi Pete, did you notice that there are 3 other posts on this page of this thread where the posters have said many of the posters on here who use the term "firesale" don't know what "firesale" means and, therefore, misuse the term?

What is your definition of the term?

If it helps, when it's used in football terms it means a situation where a football club has to sell quite a lot of players, players that they would rather keep, because they can't afford them for some reason. It might be brought about by relegation, or the collapse of ITV digital (though that wasn't quite so dramatic), or by any other reason why income drops.

Its original meaning was probably the discounted sale of damaged stock and/or stock that has nowhere to be stored because of a fire. But its language has evolved, as the English language always does.

[Conroy92]

If it helps, when it's used in football terms it means a situation where a football club has to sell quite a lot of players, players that they would rather keep, because they can't afford them for some reason. It might be brought about by relegation, or the collapse of ITV digital (though that wasn't quite so dramatic), or by any other reason why income drops.

Its original meaning was probably the discounted sale of damaged stock and/or stock that has nowhere to be stored because of a fire. But its language has evolved, as the English language always does.

You see, I'm not in total agreement.
The summer wasn't a fire sale.
Yes lots of players moved on.
But we received significant fees for some and definitely value for others.

A good number of our business moved at the time there stock was at its highest. That's good business and not a firesale.

[Orangebernard]

It is now a mixed situation
- by late August 2022 the £65m debt taken out to fund the takeover had its balance halved - though by mid November of that same year it was replaced by a loan for £39.7m which appears to have rolled up early redemption penalties (for the previous loan ) and possibly fees for the set-up of the new loan.
- now we can possibly say that any debt that is over £39.7m is tied to player recruitment and operational costs (including investment in infrastructure (of which there has been some - but not a large amount). there have been a further 3 refinances since November 2022 though so it is difficult to say what is left of the original debt.



the last accounts clearly state that Velocity repaid £26.519m of the loans it had taken from the club

What is not stated is why this payment was made - there were obvious cash flow pressures, but what most do not realise is that while there are allowable losses under PL and EFL rules, a very significant proportion of them have to be made up from cash injections from ownership groups - that is what these monies may actually be for, though it is not certain.

It also remains open at some future date for Velocity to loan this money back from the club again, if they find a need to enable their other activities



I would argue - following the above discussed repayment - that Velocity as an ownership group have now contributed circa £100m to the acquisition of their share holding. Of that the original ALK group (which are part of and in absolute control of Velocity) may have contributed just £10m plus initial arrangement and advice fees (that possibly amounted to as much as £5m). There appears to have been a flip of shares to Vlad Torgovnick (that at purchase price value is in excess of £10m - these were part of the remaining shares Garlick and Banaszkiewicz disposed of in November 2022 for a nominal token fee) though as far as I am aware there is no record of ALK/Velocity ever owning those shares on the members register - and it is not known if those monies went to ALK or Velocity - if it is the former then when the management fees they charge the club are added, they are already in profit.

The club can be sold with all its operational and trade debts in place, and even at the level were the debts to the club remain in place Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd. So to take a profit Velocity would require in excess of £100m in cash and for the new owner to take responsibility for liabilities of Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd

Thanks for the clear explanation CP, so if i'm reading this correctly ALK could already be in profit and as long as they can find a buyer willing to take on the debts and pay £100m they can walk away at any point having made a profit with very little risk to themselves, nice work if you can get it! On a different note, I really fail to understand why some fans are desperate to defend Velocity's actions and the huge financial risk and burden they have placed on our club. Regardless of whether you think they are doing a great job, a passable job or are the worse thing that has ever happened to our club surely we can all agree ALK/Velocity are only interested in making money for themselves and the investors in Velocity. If they have fun and enjoy some games during that time, good for them, but they are really ONLY interested in the profit for themselves and we now know that we don't have to be successful on the pitch for them to achieve that goal. They could walk away with a tidy profit and leave us on a spiral into the lower leagues and it will be us the fans that have to pick up the pieces.

[NewClaret]

If it helps, when it's used in football terms it means a situation where a football club has to sell quite a lot of players, players that they would rather keep, because they can't afford them for some reason. It might be brought about by relegation, or the collapse of ITV digital (though that wasn't quite so dramatic), or by any other reason why income drops.

Its original meaning was probably the discounted sale of damaged stock and/or stock that has nowhere to be stored because of a fire. But its language has evolved, as the English language always does.

In hindsight, I don’t think our summer business was a fire sale. I think a lot of players just wanted to move on after relegation, the pay cuts, and the manager that recruited them leaving (some of whom had been treated badly by that manager).

I’m sure some funds had to be raised, as they will by every relegated team that splashed the cash to try and stay up (Ipswich will do the same this summer), but I think a fair amount of the business driven by individual vs. financial motivations.

[Wokingclaret]

With all due respect, I see your argument as one where a climate activist is suggesting that sea levels are falling and a climate denier suggests a potential solution is that the climate activist could p*ss in it to raise the seas level. Ultimately who can deny that p*ssing in the sea would raise the level of the sea but it's not grappling with the hugeness of the problem.

We have over £240 million worth of creditors, against the fact that the whole turnover of the average Championship club is less than £20 million. Subsequent to these accounts we have had a year in the Championship and now we have to fund another PL campaign.

It's hard to look at the hugeness of this and say anything other than the viability of the club is dependent upon a sustained period in the PL or an immediate return to the PL if we get relegated.

Well it will only get worse when Parry gets his way and reduces/stops parachute payments. Champ will become even, but the 3 clubs going up will come back down.

Yes it my well end in tears........

Talking of sea levels, if you take all the tonnage weight of ships out if the seas, surely the level will drop

[Row x]

your either fishing or poorly.
The previous owners have already done what the new owners have done for us, starting from a position behind where our new owners started from.
So it's absolute claptrap really isn't it. Our prior ownership is the reason we are where we are.

I don't think I've said that the previous owners didn't do an amazing job, other than their last few years

The question was asked by another poster how can anyone be happy with the current regime

I answered that they were happy, because had the lack of investment in the team continued the club was only going one way, either agree or disagree, like most posts on this thread it's guess work, and that is my guess how it would have gone.

Others have put words in my mouth, such as I think our previous owners were as bad as the venkys, it's a shame they have to make things up to try and make their point.

[Conroy92]

I don't think I've said that the previous owners didn't do an amazing job, other than their last few years

The question was asked by another poster how can anyone be happy with the current regime

I answered that they were happy, because had the lack of investment in the team continued the club was only going one way, either agree or disagree, like most posts on this thread it's guess work, and that is my guess how it would have gone.

Others have put words in my mouth, such as I think our previous owners were as bad as the venkys, it's a shame they have to make things up to try and make their point.

It's sort of the point the Row x. Your backing your claim over the business done when the club was seeking a sale. Had the club not been seeking a sale there was already numerous seasons of investment from them as evidence against the fact that they would not have continued to invest. Alongside that, the club actually had the money at bank to invest. People could argue they did invest. In the sale of the club rather than on the field. So arguments of they couldn't have afforded to continue to invest are also slightly egged. The club was in an extremely healthy position under the previous board and it'll be a hell of a long time until our new owners have the club in as good as a position, if ever.

[Big Vinny K]

For those still posting and liking comments about fire sale I think you are missing the point.

The term is used by football fans across the country when their club loses a number of players often after relegation and a big drop in revenues.

Why those players left is irrelevant as is the technical definition of the word in other financial scenarios.

It’s simply become a term used by fans as a criticism of their club when they sell a lot of players in a short space of time.

[RVclaret]

There has obviously not been a fire sale at Burnley and highly unlikely would have been one if we didn’t go up. It’s that simple.

[Chester Perry]

Thanks for the clear explanation CP, so if i'm reading this correctly ALK could already be in profit and as long as they can find a buyer willing to take on the debts and pay £100m they can walk away at any point having made a profit with very little risk to themselves, nice work if you can get it! On a different note, I really fail to understand why some fans are desperate to defend Velocity's actions and the huge financial risk and burden they have placed on our club. Regardless of whether you think they are doing a great job, a passable job or are the worse thing that has ever happened to our club surely we can all agree ALK/Velocity are only interested in making money for themselves and the investors in Velocity. If they have fun and enjoy some games during that time, good for them, but they are really ONLY interested in the profit for themselves and we now know that we don't have to be successful on the pitch for them to achieve that goal. They could walk away with a tidy profit and leave us on a spiral into the lower leagues and it will be us the fans that have to pick up the pieces.

I think most forget that ALK/Velocity borrowed the clubs money and the monies they got the club to borrow on their behalf free of interest and commercial set-up fees, Meanwhile the club has spent tens of £m's to facilitate it all not via interest payments, penalty payments on early redemptions and set-up costs. Then there are the additional sums the club has had to borrow to support its operational and transfer activity because those monies that the club had were instead used to also buy shares in the club.

The case for Velocity is made easier because the club has never publicly quantified those costs or presented its accounts in such a way that an informed observer could make a reasonably accurate calculation - all of which is their legal right, apart from never posting accounts for Kettering Capital Limited, Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd.

[NewClaret]

For those still posting and liking comments about fire sale I think you are missing the point.

The term is used by football fans across the country when their club loses a number of players often after relegation and a big drop in revenues.

Why those players left is irrelevant as is the technical definition of the word in other financial scenarios.

It’s simply become a term used by fans as a criticism of their club when they sell a lot of players in a short space of time.

Fair enough, to be honest, I wasn’t aware of a specific interpretation of the term for football. My understanding of the term is that it describes assets sold at knock down prices due to financial distress.

Using that definition, I suppose you can look at relegation as a financial distress one way or other for every team bar those with rich owners willing to fund the shortfall.

So there’s a fair argument using that definition that every player sale in a relegation scenario constitutes a “fire sale”. My point was that I think some were forced due to a very acute change in financial circumstances and others appeared more driven by player demands.

In any event, we’ll never know the extent to which the outgoings were forced and circumstantial, and what alternative scenarios may have played out if everyone wanted to stay, anyway.

[ClaretPete001]

I generally find that when folks have no arguments to make they generally start arguing semantics.

Almost everyone in football accepts the club sold a lot of players in the summer. It has been argued all season as one of the reasons Scott Parker can be regarded as having an outstanding season. And the club would have had to do so again had we not gone up because we would have lost another chunk of parachute money.

Making statements based upon semantics or making them with no substantive points to back up the assertion speaks for itself.

The interest payments alone are likely as much as we would make in the Championship without parachute money.

[RVclaret]

I generally find that when folks have no arguments to make they generally start arguing semantics.

Almost everyone in football accepts the club sold a lot of players in the summer. It has been argued all season as one of the reasons Scott Parker can be regarded as having an outstanding season. And the club would have had to do so again had we not gone up because we would have lost another chunk of parachute money.

Making statements based upon semantics or making them with no substantive points to back up the assertion speaks for itself.

The interest payments alone are likely as much as we would make in the Championship without parachute money.

Apples to oranges. We were in the PL. We had £135m revenue. Interest rates that year were at their highest levels since the 80s. The club showed ambition to stay up and took a risk backing a manager who is now at Bayern Munich. Between them, they got it wrong. Since then it’s been managed appropriately, debt refinanced including a significant reduction, and £100m of player sales to reduce what we owe to other clubs, while building a team to get us back to the PL again. Lessons learned all round, I imagine.

[NewClaret]

So do we think some of the debt was paid off with that £88m /£80m deposited in the parent companies?

[aggi]

There's two elements to a firesale, the volume of sales and the deep discount.

Volume as an absolute was a bit higher than average but given how big our squad was it wasn't crazy.

I wouldn't say there was any element of discount, never mind deep discount. They seemed pretty fair prices, not desperation.

The thing is the same people who complained about us selling lots of players would have also complained about a hefty wage bill in the championship. You either sell players to cut the wage bill or because they don't want the pay cut or you end up with a £90m wage bill in the championship.

Clubs like Leicester or Leeds can carry that but we really don't want to.

[Big Vinny K]

Fair enough, to be honest, I wasn’t aware of a specific interpretation of the term for football. My understanding of the term is that it describes assets sold at knock down prices due to financial distress.

Using that definition, I suppose you can look at relegation as a financial distress one way or other for every team bar those with rich owners willing to fund the shortfall.

So there’s a fair argument using that definition that every player sale in a relegation scenario constitutes a “fire sale”. My point was that I think some were forced due to a very acute change in financial circumstances and others appeared more driven by player demands.

In any event, we’ll never know the extent to which the outgoings were forced and circumstantial, and what alternative scenarios may have played out if everyone wanted to stay, anyway.

Over complicating things a little - it’s simply a term that football fans have come to use for when their club sells lots of players.

There’s no rationale, context, accuracy or knowledge of why players are being sold….and it’s of course not literal either

as said it’s just people using an exaggerated term for something that they don’t like happening at their club.

[ClaretPete001]

Apples to oranges. We were in the PL. We had £135m revenue. Interest rates that year were at their highest levels since the 80s. The club showed ambition to stay up and took a risk backing a manager who is now at Bayern Munich. Between them, they got it wrong. Since then it’s been managed appropriately, debt refinanced including a significant reduction, and £100m of player sales to reduce what we owe to other clubs, while building a team to get us back to the PL again. Lessons learned all round, I imagine.

This is all conjecture. Nobody knows what has happened since the July 24 accounts.

[ClaretPete001]

So do we think some of the debt was paid off with that £88m /£80m deposited in the parent companies?

It's difficult to follow all the arguments particularly when some want to argue semantics etc and employ conjecture to such a level that it's hard to really know the truth of things.

It doesn't look to me as if any debt has been paid off. No criticism of CP, but he sometimes seems to me to refer to bank loans as 'the debt' but once you are in the PL you can play around with broadcast revenue and other ways of creating debt.....

If you can cite from the July 24 accounts what debt you feel has been paid off then it's possible to conjecture whether the £88 million may have been used for it but I don't think anyone really knows.

[BleedingClaret]

This statement should be stuck to the top of the board as a reminder of how ridiculous football fans can be.

The previous ownership that cleared all debts, oversaw massive success both as a football club and as a buisness (who else could say that)- would have been worse than Venkys.

You think you've seen it all on here you really do.

[BleedingClaret]

This statement should be stuck to the top of the board as a reminder of how ridiculous football fans can be.

The previous ownership that cleared all debts, oversaw massive success both as a football club and as a buisness (who else could say that)- would have been worse than Venkys.

You think you've seen it all on here you really do.

I’ve been convinced for a while that Row x has a vested interest in all of this
On here just to undermine and ridicule anyone who questions the financial running of the club

[boyyanno]

I’ve been convinced for a while that Row x has a vested interest in all of this
On here just to undermine and ridicule anyone who questions the financial running of the club

I think you're giving him too much credit. I think he's a troll best to be ignored (I'll try and take my own advice next time lol) I suspect he's Nori by another username, most of his comments just seem to be as inflammatory as possible.

[BleedingClaret]

I think you're giving him too much credit. I think he's a troll best to be ignored (I'll try and take my own advice next time lol) I suspect he's Nori by another username, most of his comments just seem to be as inflammatory as possible.

Not sure Pal but there’s a lot of dollars moving around and controlling the rhetoric helps blur the facts and the fear of ridicule stops many from daring to contribute on this subject at all

[Chester Perry]

So do we think some of the debt was paid off with that £88m /£80m deposited in the parent companies?

It is likely that the repayments to the club came from the £79,253,574.49 (which had been added to the initial share capital of £10) invested in Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd on October 6 2023

It would appear that the £88m of share capital that was invested into Calder Vale Holdings Limited on September 21 2023 was no more than a long overdue paper exercise dating back to December 30 2020. You may remember it was on that date Kettering Capital used £10m of its £98m Share Capital to invest in Calder Vale Holdings yet Calder Vale Holdings was the the purchaser of all the £98m of shares in the down payment. Even the club reported for a number of years that debts to it were the responsibility of CVHL even though filings at Companies House indicated that the funds had gone to KCL only.

and for people that are interested - I know it is not many

CVHL 2025 05.jpg (116.67 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

KCL 2025 05.jpg (115.62 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

VCUKHL 2025 05.jpg (118.2 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

[dsr]

I presume filing the accounts is a long overdue paper exercise as well. You'd think the directors would have been struck off and the companies wound up by now. Do they still claim it's an administrative error that the accounts haven't been filed?

[Wokingclaret]

Well whatever

But Jim'll fix it cost cutting with players tickets and bonuses don't work, players are fickle, Ratcliffe out of his depth

[aggi]

It is likely that the repayments to the club came from the £79,253,574.49 (which had been added to the initial share capital of £10) invested in Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd on October 6 2023

It would appear that the £88m of share capital that was invested into Calder Vale Holdings Limited on September 21 2023 was no more than a long overdue paper exercise dating back to December 30 2020. You may remember it was on that date Kettering Capital used £10m of its £98m Share Capital to invest in Calder Vale Holdings yet Calder Vale Holdings was the the purchaser of all the £98m of shares in the down payment. Even the club reported for a number of years that debts to it were the responsibility of CVHL even though filings at Companies House indicated that the funds had gone to KCL only.

and for people that are interested - I know it is not many


CVHL 2025 05.jpg


KCL 2025 05.jpg


VCUKHL 2025 05.jpg

Looks like the liquidation is in progress for all of these with Liquidators' statements about to be published on companies house.

[Chester Perry]

Looks like the liquidation is in progress for all of these with Liquidators' statements about to be published on companies house.

documents now available to view - there remains no indication that these entities will ever produce accounts, even as the confirmation of their Liquidation is imminent , a policy which appears to have been adopted by Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd,

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

a minor and somewhat familiar note re CVHL, but still worth recording - the continuing disregard for the law by these directors and their agents - is the fact that CVHL declared solvency with an incorrectly declared capital of 1p should have been £1 when there were overdue sums to be paid to HMRC - so a false declaration on 2 counts.

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

[aggi]

Those 200 shares are still sitting unsold on Asset Match at £400 each. A little surprised ALK haven't done a deal for them.

[Chester Perry]

Those 200 shares are still sitting unsold on Asset Match at £400 each. A little surprised ALK haven't done a deal for them.

me too - £80k seems a snip to ALK's valuation of the group