What they have put in and then some more. Particularly American investors.Shore claret wrote:I never understand investment, why would someone just give you money surely they want something back?
The question is what do they want back
£180 million. BFC
-
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
- Been Liked: 428 times
- Has Liked: 1460 times
- Location: Leicestershire
- Contact:
Re: £180 million. BFC
-
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
- Been Liked: 428 times
- Has Liked: 1460 times
- Location: Leicestershire
- Contact:
Re: £180 million. BFC
Leicester is a city with 3 times the population of Burnley with a much larger catchment area. They have billionaire owners and got lucky. Sorry but that is absolute tosh akin to saying the bloke in the next street won Euromillions, so can I.ontario claret wrote:All I can say is, if Leicester can do it, so can we.
Re: £180 million. BFC
As long as we're running one of the lowest wages budget in the PL, we'll always be one of the favourites to be relegated.
If outside investment allows us to change that, I'm all for it.
If outside investment allows us to change that, I'm all for it.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Most of the clubs in the Premier League at the moment are roughly breaking even without outside investment. What the deeper pockets means is that you don't have to stockpile cash in case of relegation (which we appear to be doing at the moment) as the richer owners can keep them afloat for a few years.
The longer we're in the premier league the less we'll have to hold back for this contingency fund and the more can be invested in the team, I can't see outside investment making that much of a difference unless it is someone with serious money (and I can't see them wanting Burnley).
The longer we're in the premier league the less we'll have to hold back for this contingency fund and the more can be invested in the team, I can't see outside investment making that much of a difference unless it is someone with serious money (and I can't see them wanting Burnley).
-
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:37 pm
- Been Liked: 182 times
- Has Liked: 156 times
- Location: sat-at-my-computer
Re: £180 million. BFC
the club is possibly at its' highest ever profile and in the most marketable position that it has ever been in. mega-wealthy foreign investors are absolutely bound to have noticed us now and they'll be taking an interest.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Personally I just can’t see the commercial viability of someone paying £200m for Burnley FC.
The risks are massive :
1) we get relegated - our value could easily fall to nearer to £50m and lower the longer we don’t get promotion.
2) we lose Dyche
3) the sky TV bubble bursts - it can’t go on increasing and this round of last rights bids did not go as well as many financial forecasters thought it would.
All 3 of above could happen - none of the above fall into category of “long shot”. If anything the chance of at least one happening is probably odds on.
In terms of upsides and potential returns for anyone taking over then are we ever going to be worth more then £180m / £200m ? We have a ceiling on our potential crowds of maybe 25k and a ceiling on things like sponsorship / non TV commercial income. Why would we attract much bigger sponsorship deals than we do now ?
All that said a deal of nearer to £100m could be attractive / less risky and may still be enough to tempt our big shareholders.
The risks are massive :
1) we get relegated - our value could easily fall to nearer to £50m and lower the longer we don’t get promotion.
2) we lose Dyche
3) the sky TV bubble bursts - it can’t go on increasing and this round of last rights bids did not go as well as many financial forecasters thought it would.
All 3 of above could happen - none of the above fall into category of “long shot”. If anything the chance of at least one happening is probably odds on.
In terms of upsides and potential returns for anyone taking over then are we ever going to be worth more then £180m / £200m ? We have a ceiling on our potential crowds of maybe 25k and a ceiling on things like sponsorship / non TV commercial income. Why would we attract much bigger sponsorship deals than we do now ?
All that said a deal of nearer to £100m could be attractive / less risky and may still be enough to tempt our big shareholders.
-
- Posts: 5500
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2317 times
- Has Liked: 1399 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Why are people presuming investors are looking to profit from bfc solely? Im sure the worldwide branding exposure bfc could offer an investor with being in the premier league would have an impact on all his or her financial interests commercially. Yes it does come with risks but just thinking about bfc is a little bit short sighted.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Give me an example of when being an owner of a Premier League football club has “improved your brand”.gandhisflipflop wrote:Why are people presuming investors are looking to profit from bfc solely? Im sure the worldwide branding exposure bfc could offer an investor with being in the premier league would have an impact on all his or her financial interests commercially. Yes it does come with risks but just thinking about bfc is a little bit short sighted.
Quite a few examples of when it has made it worse.
The only possible exception is Man City but the Saudis were never in it to improve their brand - when you have several billions to play about with and effectively write off you are not in it to improve the brand or make any money.
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 189 times
- Has Liked: 689 times
- Location: Nottingham
Re: £180 million. BFC
Last time I looked I think - but forgive me if I'm out, here - there were (roughly) 130,000 shares and assuming every one is worth what the current going rate for them is i.e. £200 per share, that gives a market cap of £26m. An offer of £180m (if it's forthcoming) is almost 7 times current price.
I suspect that an offer of that magnitude would give the Board something to think about..........
I suspect that an offer of that magnitude would give the Board something to think about..........
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
King Power with LeicesterTVC15 wrote:Give me an example of when being an owner of a Premier League football club has “improved your brand”.
Quite a few examples of when it has made it worse.
The only possible exception is Man City but the Saudis were never in it to improve their brand - when you have several billions to play about with and effectively write off you are not in it to improve the brand or make any money.
Emirates with Arsenal
Etihad with City
Sharp and Vodafone with Utd
Carlsberg with Liverpool
Sports Direct with Newcastle
Celtic and Rangers almost always have the same sponsor and kit supplier such is the exposure they get.
From marketing alone they were hugely successful links. There is a reason huge companies have huge marketing budgets. And its not because they are ******* money away for the sake of it.
Re: £180 million. BFC
He said “owners” - how many of them are owners - Sports Direct are the only ones I think and their brand has probably got worse because of his association with Newcastle.cricketfieldclarets wrote:King Power with Leicester
Emirates with Arsenal
Etihad with City
Sharp and Vodafone with Utd
Carlsberg with Liverpool
Sports Direct with Newcastle
Celtic and Rangers almost always have the same sponsor and kit supplier such is the exposure they get.
From marketing alone they were hugely successful links. There is a reason huge companies have huge marketing budgets. And its not because they are ******* money away for the sake of it.
All the others are just sponsors - very big sponsors who would probably not sponsor burnley - but not relevant to the ownership brand point
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
Repeating The Times report, plus a few of my personnal comments:IAmAClaret wrote:Full article from the times:
Burnley are the subject of a £180 million takeover attempt from rival American and Middle Eastern investors. The Times has learnt that the club have signed a non-disclosure agreement with a US media company and prepared a prospectus for several other groups, including one from the Middle East.
Negotiations are at a very early stage and Burnley have yet to identify a preferred bidder, but their valuation is seen as attractive by investors as the club’s Premier League status is not threatened this season and, with the next domestic television deal largely agreed, most of the club’s revenue streams are secure for the next four years. Burnley are the only Premier League club with majority British owners as well as an English manager in Sean Dyche, but are open to capitalising on their best season for decades by seeking fresh investment.
Any sale would be complicated by the club’s ownership structure, with the chairman Mike Garlick, the majority shareholder, having 49.3 per cent, the former chairman John Banaszkiewicz having a 27.5 per cent stake and the rest owned by small shareholders. Burnley officials insisted last night that they are not actively looking to sell the club.
If there is some truth in the report......
1) It is for BFC shareholders to decide if they want to sell. The Directors are the largest shareholders, so up to MG and JB in particular.
2) If new investors buy MG and JB shares, then the new investors will decide who will be on the board. It would not be unusual for all the existing board to leave when any sale is complete.
3) Sean Dyche has recentry signed a 4.5 year contract. Is this just about team management and the playing staff? Or does tying SD into a long term contract support the market value of BFC? (Pure speculation, does SD contract include extra reward if directors achieve successful share sale?)
4) Value of BFC will take into account balance of assets and liabilities - and ability to generate free cash flow from BFC. (It's not about how much player X or Y is worth, unless they are surplus to the team's needs. Don't forget the players get paid - and all their contracts have end dates).
5) Free cash flow comes from excess of income over expenses. So, Premier League and TV money are the key.
6) Report mentions US media company, plus other interested parties, including middle east entity. Maybe a media company sees value in the exposure that they can get through ownership of a Premier League club.
7) There are only 20 Premier League clubs - and 3 get relegated at the end of every season. Was it last summer that Chinese entities bought Wolves and other midlands club - who aren't in PL - bur have ambitions to get promoted.
8) Synergies between the potential buyer's existing business activities, plus the number of potential buyers can be the only reason that would support £180 million valuation. (Let's not talk this value down, if MG and JB can achieve this for their shares good luck to them).
9) Yes, it will be a change in prospects for BFC if the club is "under new ownership." I can share the concern at prospect of change, but, I'm sure with most Clarets fans, we can delight in the success that's been achieved over the past few seasons and can look forward to the future whatever happens.
UTC
Re: £180 million. BFC
As our TV profile is miniscule, the investment is limited to assets and projected income.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Just like to add that I hope this does not happen. If I was offered the chance for the Sheikh who owns Manchester City to do the same for Burnley I would turn it down. I not only support Burnley I really like Burnley, and the way we have gone about getting our success makes me really proud. We have done it without losing our soul to the Premier League sleaze. If it comes to it, I would rather play League 1 football than win the Premier League in the way that City have.
These 2 users liked this post: Dark Cloud walter the softy
-
- Posts: 4178
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2307 times
- Has Liked: 2691 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: £180 million. BFC
gandhisflipflop wrote:Why are people presuming investors are looking to profit from bfc solely? Im sure the worldwide branding exposure bfc could offer an investor with being in the premier league would have an impact on all his or her financial interests commercially. Yes it does come with risks but just thinking about bfc is a little bit short sighted.
just substitute "venkys" for "investors"
and put an r after the b in "bfc"
then read it again.
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:26 pm
- Been Liked: 14 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
After the experiences of Blackburn Rovers, Coventry City, Charlton Athletic I would be very sceptical of the kind of takeover raised in The Times piece.
Burnley cannot be scaled up any further - we are a town club who cannot be taken to the next level. At 7th in the Premier League this will be as good as it gets and what has been achieved in the past few years by the board and team management is unique, humbling and a credit to the old fashioned values of a proper football club. Burnley should steer clear of those who would use our club as a plaything destroying what Barry Kilby, Mike Garlick and Sean Dyche have created. If we eventually go down to the Championship so what? I remember when we were losing 6-1 at home to Hereford. Let's not try to fly too close to the sun, instead let's cherish what we have got and are building - all on our own.
Burnley cannot be scaled up any further - we are a town club who cannot be taken to the next level. At 7th in the Premier League this will be as good as it gets and what has been achieved in the past few years by the board and team management is unique, humbling and a credit to the old fashioned values of a proper football club. Burnley should steer clear of those who would use our club as a plaything destroying what Barry Kilby, Mike Garlick and Sean Dyche have created. If we eventually go down to the Championship so what? I remember when we were losing 6-1 at home to Hereford. Let's not try to fly too close to the sun, instead let's cherish what we have got and are building - all on our own.
This user liked this post: Taffy on the wing
Re: £180 million. BFC
but investors aren't owners?TVC15 wrote:He said “owners” - how many of them are owners - Sports Direct are the only ones I think and their brand has probably got worse because of his association with Newcastle.
All the others are just sponsors - very big sponsors who would probably not sponsor burnley - but not relevant to the ownership brand point
Re: £180 million. BFC
Not true, those fellas at City or Abramovic at Chelsea could take Accy Stanley to the Champions League if they really wanted to.BurnleyBob wrote:After the experiences of Blackburn Rovers, Coventry City, Charlton Athletic I would be very sceptical of the kind of takeover raised in The Times piece.
Burnley cannot be scaled up any further - we are a town club who cannot be taken to the next level. At 7th in the Premier League this will be as good as it gets and what has been achieved in the past few years by the board and team management is unique, humbling and a credit to the old fashioned values of a proper football club. Burnley should steer clear of those who would use our club as a plaything destroying what Barry Kilby, Mike Garlick and Sean Dyche have created. If we eventually go down to the Championship so what? I remember when we were losing 6-1 at home to Hereford. Let's not try to fly too close to the sun, instead let's cherish what we have got and are building - all on our own.
Re: £180 million. BFC
They are if they buy shares - which is what an investor normally does.KRBFC wrote:but investors aren't owners?
The point he made was that an owner (somebody buying the club) would do it for more than just making a return on his investment - either by value of club (or shares) increasing or by the profits the club makes - his point was that they may buy a club to improve the brand of their company.
My argument was that i’m not sure buying a football club has improved the brand of the owners and in many examples like United, Liverpool, Newcastle it can damage the brand. The likes of the Glazers bought United purely to make money.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Not too well. It was 0-6.BurnleyBob wrote:I remember when we were losing 6-1 at home to Hereford.
This user liked this post: TVC15
-
- Posts: 5660
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2801 times
- Has Liked: 138 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
If someone with some sort of connection with the club or town and who has the long term interests of the club at heart and wants to get involved, then that might be advantageous to the club if it means that we have more private backing that might potentially support us if and when we go down.
But that's a fairly remote scenario, and I'm deeply suspicious of any other type of takeover. It seems to me to me there's far more risk of it going badly wrong than going spectacularly right. But one of the vaguely concerning side effects of our recent success is it means that the value placed on the club by existing shareholders (reasonably) is likely to be well in excess of what any plausible investor with links to Burnley can afford. I don't think anyone of the local boys made good who have invested in the club over the last 20 years would be able to afford to do so at even a conservative valuation of Burnley as a Premier League club with a 100m+ turnover. That must mean that chances of us falling into "outside" hands has increased as a result of our success as and when Garlick chooses to call it a day.
The most significant shareholder to any potential takehover may not actually be Garlick, it may be John B. Garlick doesn't actually control 50% of the club on his own - he's interestingly (and probably not coincidentally) just short. If someone came in waiving big cash at all shareholders and Garlick wanted to sell, he would probably be able to convince the odd other investor to sell. But I'd hope Burnley's constitution is written in a way that makes a minority stake of more than 25% a significant blocker. John B plus the likes of Kilby probably actually control about 30%, which might be enough to protect against the worst that a misguided or megalomaniac might do, although plenty of damage has still been done to clubs by investors who are majority, rather than absolute owners.
But that's a fairly remote scenario, and I'm deeply suspicious of any other type of takeover. It seems to me to me there's far more risk of it going badly wrong than going spectacularly right. But one of the vaguely concerning side effects of our recent success is it means that the value placed on the club by existing shareholders (reasonably) is likely to be well in excess of what any plausible investor with links to Burnley can afford. I don't think anyone of the local boys made good who have invested in the club over the last 20 years would be able to afford to do so at even a conservative valuation of Burnley as a Premier League club with a 100m+ turnover. That must mean that chances of us falling into "outside" hands has increased as a result of our success as and when Garlick chooses to call it a day.
The most significant shareholder to any potential takehover may not actually be Garlick, it may be John B. Garlick doesn't actually control 50% of the club on his own - he's interestingly (and probably not coincidentally) just short. If someone came in waiving big cash at all shareholders and Garlick wanted to sell, he would probably be able to convince the odd other investor to sell. But I'd hope Burnley's constitution is written in a way that makes a minority stake of more than 25% a significant blocker. John B plus the likes of Kilby probably actually control about 30%, which might be enough to protect against the worst that a misguided or megalomaniac might do, although plenty of damage has still been done to clubs by investors who are majority, rather than absolute owners.
This user liked this post: Dark Cloud
-
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 690 times
- Has Liked: 172 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
Investing in a club, buying shares in a club & buying shares and promising to invest in a club are three totally different scenarios.
Only a fool would invest as they have no control over anything.
Buying shares is relatively easy, just offer an existing shareholder a price they can't turn down.
Buying some shares and promising to invest is complicated. They would need a controlling interest or a water tight agreement with other shareholders to ensure their investment gets invested. Blackpool is probably the best example of where it can go wrong.
A controlling investment can go drastically wrong as demonstrated by WBA.
Only a fool would invest as they have no control over anything.
Buying shares is relatively easy, just offer an existing shareholder a price they can't turn down.
Buying some shares and promising to invest is complicated. They would need a controlling interest or a water tight agreement with other shareholders to ensure their investment gets invested. Blackpool is probably the best example of where it can go wrong.
A controlling investment can go drastically wrong as demonstrated by WBA.
-
- Posts: 6586
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 1981 times
- Has Liked: 3299 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
[quote="claretspice
It seems to me to me there's far more risk of it going badly wrong than going spectacularly right.
[/quote]
The experiences of other clubs mean Claretspice is absolutely spot on here!
It seems to me to me there's far more risk of it going badly wrong than going spectacularly right.
[/quote]
The experiences of other clubs mean Claretspice is absolutely spot on here!
Re: £180 million. BFC
Foreign owners probably think we could win world cup either that or they just want to be owners of Proudsville!
-
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:47 pm
- Been Liked: 315 times
- Has Liked: 41 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
We were 4th in December!BurnleyBob wrote: At 7th in the Premier League this will be as good as it gets
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
Ssshhhh this is a local club...Man of Kent wrote:We were 4th in December!
This user liked this post: Man of Kent
Re: £180 million. BFC
There's nothing special in our Articles in terms of what you can do in terms of shares. Minority interest shareholders have some rights but nothing beyond any other company.claretspice wrote:But I'd hope Burnley's constitution is written in a way that makes a minority stake of more than 25% a significant blocker. John B plus the likes of Kilby probably actually control about 30%, which might be enough to protect against the worst that a misguided or megalomaniac might do, although plenty of damage has still been done to clubs by investors who are majority, rather than absolute owners.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Do we really want to be a club that changes managers every season, like Swansea for example?
-
- Posts: 15478
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3547 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: Oxfordshire
Re: £180 million. BFC
We only need to change manager when the football being served up is dross and not producing wins, that's what I can gather from the whiners.Spijed wrote:Do we really want to be a club that changes managers every season, like Swansea for example?
Re: £180 million. BFC
You mean like the run we've just had?Sidney1st wrote:We only need to change manager when the football being served up is dross and not producing wins, that's what I can gather from the whiners.
This user liked this post: Sidney1st
Re: £180 million. BFC
>Give me an example of when being an owner of a Premier League football club has “improved your brand”.
Give me a list of the top 10 chicken suppliers in the world. See if you can get past 1 without googling it.
The kind of brand awareness that owning a Premier League club brings is much cheaper (and easier) than trying to do the same thing via traditional channels. Even if you're f**kwitts.
Give me a list of the top 10 chicken suppliers in the world. See if you can get past 1 without googling it.
The kind of brand awareness that owning a Premier League club brings is much cheaper (and easier) than trying to do the same thing via traditional channels. Even if you're f**kwitts.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets
Re: £180 million. BFC
I don’t buy that any of this was a deliberate strategy from the Venkys. To run a club with the incompetence they have and lose the best part of £150m and counting with no hope of getting this back....and then think this has been a genius way of improving the brand feels a bit far fetched to me.Sproggy wrote:>Give me an example of when being an owner of a Premier League football club has “improved your brand”.
Give me a list of the top 10 chicken suppliers in the world. See if you can get past 1 without googling it.
The kind of brand awareness that owning a Premier League club brings is much cheaper (and easier) than trying to do the same thing via traditional channels. Even if you're f**kwitts.
I agree that there is much more awareness of Venkys (in this country) but I would be amazed if this has led to an improvement in their sales / profits which is anywhere near the cash they have put in.
Aside from Blackburn how many of us even know the name of the business behind the majority of owners in Premier League ? And that includes our own club !
-
- Posts: 15478
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3547 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: Oxfordshire
Re: £180 million. BFC
Incompetent or was the club in a far greater mess than anyone realised?
Look at Bolton, they've been in a mess since Eddie sold them and 'wiped' the debt and that's partly due to the financial issues that caused the debts, pretty much like Blackburn.
I know some people on here aren't arsed about clubs racking up debts and relying on owners to finance those debts but as it's been proven time and again, it's all well and good wiping out existing debt, but it's the causes of the debts that catch people out.
Usually that's a wage bill and contracts that are running for 3-4 years without relegation clauses etc.
Coupled with drops in revenue and it all becomes a mess.
Look at Bolton, they've been in a mess since Eddie sold them and 'wiped' the debt and that's partly due to the financial issues that caused the debts, pretty much like Blackburn.
I know some people on here aren't arsed about clubs racking up debts and relying on owners to finance those debts but as it's been proven time and again, it's all well and good wiping out existing debt, but it's the causes of the debts that catch people out.
Usually that's a wage bill and contracts that are running for 3-4 years without relegation clauses etc.
Coupled with drops in revenue and it all becomes a mess.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Yep incompetence - how many managers have they sacked / had to pay off ?
They have seen crowds tumble
Their fans have been in a permanent state of protest against the owners
They have not been visible to the fans or the town.
They have sank a lot more money into the club than they ever intended - did they not once say they would jog put more than £20m into the club ?
I’d say they had no idea how to run a football club.
Of course for us it’s all good news !
They have seen crowds tumble
Their fans have been in a permanent state of protest against the owners
They have not been visible to the fans or the town.
They have sank a lot more money into the club than they ever intended - did they not once say they would jog put more than £20m into the club ?
I’d say they had no idea how to run a football club.
Of course for us it’s all good news !
-
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:29 am
- Been Liked: 990 times
- Has Liked: 3266 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: £180 million. BFC
Does crowd capacity really make much difference to the profit we make?I would say it is peanuts in the Premier league compared with the vast sums we get from sky and the premier league.....keep the ground capacity to around 25 K but update and modernise what we have.....Invest in the team and make sure we stay in the Prem.
-
- Posts: 15478
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3547 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: Oxfordshire
Re: £180 million. BFC
I agree they didn't have a clue, BUT they were sold a sinking ship so to speak, same with Bolton and their new owners.
The club had £100 million written off by the Trust a few years prior to being sold and had generated a further £20 million of new debt at point of sale.
The fans protested because they bizarrely expected Venky's to propel them back to the top end of the PL
They've spent a generation in or around the top flight and they didn't want anything else.
They've also gotten used to someone else putting their hand in their pockets to keep the club ticking over whilst keeping ticket prices low.
Venky's have tried a couple of different approaches to keep the club higher up the leagues but they've had a combination of crap managers and crap players coupled with a toxic atmosphere, such is the luck of the draw.
If they cut funding tomorrow, the club would go into administration pretty quickly, probably within a day or so, which would be points deduction and staying in league 1 with the embargo etc.
The club had £100 million written off by the Trust a few years prior to being sold and had generated a further £20 million of new debt at point of sale.
The fans protested because they bizarrely expected Venky's to propel them back to the top end of the PL
They've spent a generation in or around the top flight and they didn't want anything else.
They've also gotten used to someone else putting their hand in their pockets to keep the club ticking over whilst keeping ticket prices low.
Venky's have tried a couple of different approaches to keep the club higher up the leagues but they've had a combination of crap managers and crap players coupled with a toxic atmosphere, such is the luck of the draw.
If they cut funding tomorrow, the club would go into administration pretty quickly, probably within a day or so, which would be points deduction and staying in league 1 with the embargo etc.
Re: £180 million. BFC
Not for us I don’t think as we probably have a ceiling of 25k fans so no point building a new stadium. For other clubs like West Ham, Spurs, Arsenal, City, United, Liverpool etc the increased capacity is big bucks....£20m a year and then some with all the increased merchandise / match day add ons.
For us after we fill in the 2 corners at one end i’d like to replace the Cricket Field stand and increase the capacity to 25k. It would still bring in increased revenue of a couple a million a year, would make the ground look better, improve facilities for home and away fans and we should also be able to build much better changing rooms.
I think the days of poor changing rooms and making this a horrible place to come for opposing teams and superstars players are now drawing to a close. We are moving on as a club on and off the field and there is nothing wrong in investing a bit of our wealth on improving facilities.
For us after we fill in the 2 corners at one end i’d like to replace the Cricket Field stand and increase the capacity to 25k. It would still bring in increased revenue of a couple a million a year, would make the ground look better, improve facilities for home and away fans and we should also be able to build much better changing rooms.
I think the days of poor changing rooms and making this a horrible place to come for opposing teams and superstars players are now drawing to a close. We are moving on as a club on and off the field and there is nothing wrong in investing a bit of our wealth on improving facilities.
Re: £180 million. BFC
They were not “sold” a sinking ship. They “bought” a sinking ship. Anyone who buys a club without completing thorough due diligence are incompetent. To then not have any kind of exit strategy is just more incompetence.Sidney1st wrote:I agree they didn't have a clue, BUT they were sold a sinking ship so to speak, same with Bolton and their new owners.
The club had £100 million written off by the Trust a few years prior to being sold and had generated a further £20 million of new debt at point of sale.
The fans protested because they bizarrely expected Venky's to propel them back to the top end of the PL
They've spent a generation in or around the top flight and they didn't want anything else.
They've also gotten used to someone else putting their hand in their pockets to keep the club ticking over whilst keeping ticket prices low.
Venky's have tried a couple of different approaches to keep the club higher up the leagues but they've had a combination of crap managers and crap players coupled with a toxic atmosphere, such is the luck of the draw.
If they cut funding tomorrow, the club would go into administration pretty quickly, probably within a day or so, which would be points deduction and staying in league 1 with the embargo etc.
The succession of crap managers is also down to them.
Bolton is a bit different - the consortium who took over Bolton never had any money. Dean Holdsworth was just a face they used to front the takeover. The previous owner wrote off his debt (which does bring him tax benefits btw). The new owners cannot afford to run the club...administration is an inevitable outcome. Again incompetence but there are a lot of stupid people out there with massive egos - being associated with owning a football club is a big power trip for them until the reality hits home. Look at that idiot who took Leeds over.
Unfortunately the football authorities are almost incompetent as some of these guys - the “fit and proper person” test is an absolute joke....so much so that you would suspect corruption. Look at what has happened at Orient, Leeds, Bolton and many others - at least Venkys had the resources to lose £150m !!
-
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
- Been Liked: 428 times
- Has Liked: 1460 times
- Location: Leicestershire
- Contact:
Re: £180 million. BFC
My thoughts
- I don't want the club sold to foreign owners. they are only interested in the tv money;
- £180 million is not enough, assuming we end up 7th or so our tv money will be about £150 million;
- Dyche hasn't taken us as far as we can go, each season under Dyche the squad has been improved:
- we can stay top half and win one of the cups:
- we can enjoy a tilt at the Europa League;
- we have become a unique successful locally owned club under Garlick and Dyche but we cannot compete with the big six in spending nor should we try.
What could be better?
- I don't want the club sold to foreign owners. they are only interested in the tv money;
- £180 million is not enough, assuming we end up 7th or so our tv money will be about £150 million;
- Dyche hasn't taken us as far as we can go, each season under Dyche the squad has been improved:
- we can stay top half and win one of the cups:
- we can enjoy a tilt at the Europa League;
- we have become a unique successful locally owned club under Garlick and Dyche but we cannot compete with the big six in spending nor should we try.
What could be better?
This user liked this post: Carnsmerry12
-
- Posts: 8922
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 1983 times
- Has Liked: 2872 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
Foreign owners means huge investment in chasing glory to build the brand internationally. International sponsors will be attracted and we'd get a full on 24/7 TV channel. The ground will be expanded to accommodate the every growing number of fans traveling in to watch the "franchise" and in a few years Burnley FC ceases to exist because someone with a calculator has decided there is better pickings moving the franchise South.... MK Clarets.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
The most obvious places for a franchise club are Belfast, Dublin and Glasgow and while all are outside England - 2 are in the united Kingdom and being outside England has not affected Swansea or Cardiff who like us are in the league as of right.
Glasgow is already heavy with big clubs so the Irish would be seen as more favourable and we have a long and good history with the north and South over there
Glasgow is already heavy with big clubs so the Irish would be seen as more favourable and we have a long and good history with the north and South over there
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
One of the most remarkable features of our rise from the bottom of the football pyramid, is that we've done it without a sheikh, a millionaire yank or a tax avoiding sugar daddy. We haven't bought success. Weve earned it.
If it's not broke keep it local.
If it's not broke keep it local.
These 2 users liked this post: The Enclosure Dazzler
Re: £180 million. BFC
What posts like this fail to realise is one fundamental difference. Bastards had to sell to any investor they could before they went broke. They selected the first chicken farmers that turned up.fatboy47 wrote:just substitute "venkys" for "investors"
and put an r after the b in "bfc"
then read it again.
We on the other hand have no need to sell, but know that external investment could bring us further security in the league without tying up all our cash to pay for lean years down the road. It would also allow us to compete with ever escalating player wage demands.
Whilst we may be in 7th, if we had been on our run of form from the start of this season, we would have been fighting around the bottom 3 now.
-
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:13 pm
- Been Liked: 187 times
- Has Liked: 135 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
Are you "in the know" Paul? Is that a subtle hint the potential buyers are Chinese?Paul Waine wrote: 3) Sean Dyche has recentry signed a 4.5 year contract.
These 2 users liked this post: Dazzler The Enclosure
-
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:29 am
- Been Liked: 990 times
- Has Liked: 3266 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: £180 million. BFC
Ahhhh so.ClaretCliff wrote:Are you "in the know" Paul? Is that a subtle hint the potential buyers are Chinese?
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 308 times
- Has Liked: 350 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
The shares are irrelevant, you have to factor in EBITDA, assets, debt, and exsisting Corp. deals to arrive at a very rough value figure. Add to that a ‘value tax’ because you don’t need to sell and you’ve a good business and I think BFC won’t go for less than 300million if at all.Goddy wrote:Last time I looked I think - but forgive me if I'm out, here - there were (roughly) 130,000 shares and assuming every one is worth what the current going rate for them is i.e. £200 per share, that gives a market cap of £26m. An offer of £180m (if it's forthcoming) is almost 7 times current price.
I suspect that an offer of that magnitude would give the Board something to think about..........
Investment will come, but I don’t think it’ll be a full ownership deal.
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:44 pm
- Been Liked: 63 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
I will agree with this, they BRFC are on a good run of results, and they do seem to be up for the challenge, but the debt of more than £106m, seems to be overlooked, horrendous situation with average attendancies 12,000, how do they pull that debt back.ElectroClaret wrote:Just have a look down the motorway to see how it can all turn
out if poorly handled.
Not for me.
Re: £180 million. BFC
And if we had carried on our form from the start of the season we could have been fighting for a top four spot.Steddyman wrote:Whilst we may be in 7th, if we had been on our run of form from the start of this season, we would have been fighting around the bottom 3 now.
Most teams have a blip during the season and that's why we are in 7th. Your statement is completely irrelevant.
This user liked this post: JohnMac
Re: £180 million. BFC
Football clubs are not valued in the same way as normal businesses.Danieljwaterhouse wrote:The shares are irrelevant, you have to factor in EBITDA, assets, debt, and exsisting Corp. deals to arrive at a very rough value figure. Add to that a ‘value tax’ because you don’t need to sell and you’ve a good business and I think BFC won’t go for less than 300million if at all.
Investment will come, but I don’t think it’ll be a full ownership deal.
EBITDA would be rarely used given how most clubs do not make much / if any profit.
As for your minimum £300m valuation - sorry but that sounds ridiculous. How have you arrived at that ?
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: £180 million. BFC
Hi Cliff, no, I'm not "in the know." Just trying to look for anything that might suggest there is some truth in The Times report. Plus my own speculation.ClaretCliff wrote:Are you "in the know" Paul? Is that a subtle hint the potential buyers are Chinese?
Times refers to US Media company signing NDA, and other potentially parties including Middle East entity.
My comment re Chinese buying midlands clubs is just in relation to evidence that there is overseas demand to buy clubs, even those in Championship, because of desirability of owning a Premier League club.
We shouldn't overlook the overseas exposure of Premier League clubs - and that some owners are looking to promote their brands in their "home" markets, and are otherwise very small names/brands in UK.
Again, looking for insights (and nothing more) most Burnley fans are aware that there have been some very favourable reports on the club’s development in the US media. Why, for example, would The Washington Post write a report on Burnley FC. I guess we all know they aren't writing just so the Burnley ex-pats living in N.America can keep in touch.
Whatever happens......
UTC