ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[OffTheBar]

Given Farnell's past link, I am going to assume we will be signing Cristiano Ronaldo in January.

Anything less and I will be ripping up my season ticket.

[JohnDearyMe]

Chaps do you honestly think for one second if this man was a reputable businessman or backed by the state as some of you discuss, that he/they would be working with a lawyer who has just failed the fit and proper persons test and who has his offices broken into by Charlton fans just two months ago to confront him.

Exactly my thoughts

[TVC15]

I will after this coz I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. When you look at a profit & loss statement, it covers the specific accounting year the statement refers to - in this case June 2019. Sales of players in previous years may have had a historic influence on cash in the bank, but have nothing to do with last year's profit. May I respectfully suggest that it you don't have a basic understanding of accounts you don't pick such arguments?

You can ‘respectfully’ suggest what you want. You are completely wrong but hey ho i’m sure in your own mind you are more qualified on this subject than me.
I’ll be a little less respectful though - as banging your head on that brick wall seems to have made you a bit angry so I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are mentally concussed.

Rather than going off on one if you actually read my posts I did not say anything about the 2019 accounts in relation to the player sales of Keane and Gray. I said that the sale of these players inflated the bottom line profit in the previous years when we reporting profit of nearer to £30m - that is simply a fact.

As for your comment on ‘looking at profit and loss statement bla bla bla” that actually made me laugh - do you work for Deloitte by any chance ? In all my years working in the industry I never realised that the P & L statement you were looking actually covers the ‘specific accounting year the statement refers to’.......I always thought it covered 10 years before that. You learn something new every day on this board

[NewClaret]

Of course that is possible. I’ve never said we did not try and bring players in.
Personally I think we have cut around £8m to £10m off our wage bill which I think would have peaked at around £90m (for a 12 month period)

Do you not believe our total revenue has reduced during the last 12 months by at least £10m ?
And more importantly than historical information which lets face it is pretty irrelevant (especially from 14 months ago) what do you think our chairman is forecasting in terms of the 2021 accounts in terms of falls in revenue / income ? And beyond that he has to also factor in the general consensus that the next TV deals are going to be lower.

If the reported salary information is correct, I calculated salary reduction at £8m. That excludes any contribution towards Gibson’s salary, so it will be slightly less than £8m.

I’m also unsure if the reported salary figures are inclusive of incentives. I assume exclusive, but hard to know if the incentives would’ve been paid to the players that left given their minimal appearances.

[NewClaret]

The CEO said he would speak to fans and stakeholders when there was anything to say. The club have opted not to comment which therefore suggests that there is nothing confirmed to say.

Perhaps. But in that scenario I can’t see an issue with denying a SPA has been signed?

Why would BF want the world to think a deal had been signed with a couple of dodgy individuals that failed to buy Charlton if it hadn’t? Despite the obvious embarrassment factor, it may also deter other potential investors if they think contracts are exchanged (not least ALK).

[Vegas Claret]

Chaps do you honestly think for one second if this man was a reputable businessman or backed by the state as some of you discuss, that he/they would be working with a lawyer who has just failed the fit and proper persons test and who has his offices broken into by Charlton fans just two months ago to confront him.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100%

[ClaretTony]

Is there anything we can do as fans to put our two penneth in

Things are being done via Burnley FC Supporters Groups. We are currently speaking to a number of people on all sides who can advise and help us. Obviously I can't tell you anything as yet but when we can then we will, that's a promise.

[ClaretTony]

it may also deter other potential investors if they think contracts are exchanged (not least ALK).

From the information I've been able to gather there is nothing signed

[Steddyman]

Chaps do you honestly think for one second if this man was a reputable businessman or backed by the state as some of you discuss, that he/they would be working with a lawyer who has just failed the fit and proper persons test and who has his offices broken into by Charlton fans just two months ago to confront him.

He hasn't just failed it. He has just been cleared of failing it.

[NewClaret]

From the information I've been able to gather there is nothing signed

Bloody good news!!

[Bosscat]

Apologies if this has already been posted ... but it doesn't make pleasant reading.

https://theefl.co.uk/chris-farnell

[Steddyman]

Bloody good news!!

BTW this is the view of Alex James of Lancs Live this morning on the live Q&A session he did:

[Tall Paul]

Completely wrong. The bottom line profit of £4.5m includes just +£7m profit on player sales and -£37m of amortisation of contracts - which is essentially the depreciation of transfer fees paid in previous periods. That is purely an accounting number and is pretty meaningless in cash terms as it assumes every player we've bought will end up leaving for nothing, which is generally something we try to avoid. In cash terms (a cashflow statement would be nice!) the operating profit is a better reflection of the position.

Also, Keane was sold in the summer of 2017 and Gray some time before that, so they have nothing to do with last year's numbers.

If only the publicly available accounts included such a cashflow statement...

[TVC15]

If the reported salary information is correct, I calculated salary reduction at £8m. That excludes any contribution towards Gibson’s salary, so it will be slightly less than £8m.

I’m also unsure if the reported salary figures are inclusive of incentives. I assume exclusive, but hard to know if the incentives would’ve been paid to the players that left given their minimal appearances.

Yep £8m to £10m is probably a reasonable estimate. I was counting a couple a million a season on Gibson’s wages for the higher number.
Our total salary figures the way we report them do include the bonuses.
I seem to remember Dyche once saying that our basic salary level without the bonuses was around £58m. I might be wrong with that figure and I think it was at least a couple of years ago....plus he may also have been talking about just the playing staff and excluding non playing wages.

Whatever way you look at it I think the club has deliberately reduced its wage bill and done this to reflect the reduction in revenues since March but also with an eye on this years impact of the pandemic and potentially reductions in the future TV deals.

[Cubanclaret]

From the information I've been able to gather there is nothing signed

So the Mirror Sport is fake news. Or just that somebody has horribly jumped the gun.

[Chester Perry]

Is there anything we can do as fans to put our two penneth in. Is there a contact address or phone number for Mike Garlic, not wanting to hound him obviously, but someway we can let the people involved know, that the due diligence into the backgrounds of these people needs to be trawled with a fine toothcomb. Maybe even ringing the club line and leaving messages.
These people fill me with fear for our future, and I don't think the Prem will give a rats arse if Burnley go under.

we could all start by spelling his name right - nothing more off-putting than people repeatedly getting your name wrong - I speak from real life experience

Mike Garlick

[scouseclaret]

If only the publicly available accounts included such a cashflow statement...

That was my point - they don't!

[BenWickes]

I did some digging on the Egypt connection a number of weeks back. It's not Egypt funded in terms of finances as that's too volatile a state on it's own. The Dubai links are very much more credible. Which I stand by from the point that there were definitely talks away from the confines of Barnfield or Turf Moor from interested parties. Be they brokers or intermediaries or whomever for either party.
The £200 million seems a number plucked from thin air as the valuation and offer tabled originally was considerably more I understand.
Now, that may have been restructured due to Covid and may explain a delay, along with the rival bid. As has been posted by DJW and Chester amongst others. It seems there may have been two bids all along. Which would explain a lot, the leak and also a lot of the mixed messages. That in itself would have slowed proceedings down a while.
I was not aware of the lawyer mentioned being involved but I think people need to look past that. I really would not read much into who as much as what and when. That said. This lawyer chap even raised my eyebrows last night when I read he was 'involved'.
This should have been completed weeks ago.
I think SD is aware of what both investors want from the club. He intimated as much in his presser today. Albeit he didn't give much away and I guess he's right. It really is out of his hands.

[Chester Perry]

Chaps do you honestly think for one second if this man was a reputable businessman or backed by the state as some of you discuss, that he/they would be working with a lawyer who has just failed the fit and proper persons test and who has his offices broken into by Charlton fans just two months ago to confront him.

I would absolutely agree with this, but then remember that the Saudi bid for Newcastle was fronted by Amanda Staveley - anyone who has followed her activities and recent court appearance will know that these people can make odd choices.

I am not saying it is a State backed bid, there are patterns that may or may not have substance, though it is difficult to understand the motives of secretive individuals (whatever region they come from)

Back to the hope of Premier League blocking the bid
I was saying that the Premier League have a recent history of wanting to be absolutely clear who the real decision maker is in the deal - they have been caught short once over Manchester City, many suspect Mansour is a proxy for his brother and therefore the state of Abu Dhabi. It is why they went so hard with the Saudi PIF.

[BenWickes]

So the Mirror Sport is fake news. Or just that somebody has horribly jumped the gun.

Put 2 and 2 together and came up with 200,000,000

[Newcastleclaret93]

I did some digging on the Egypt connection a number of weeks back. It's not Egypt funded in terms of finances as that's too volatile a state on it's own. The Dubai links are very much more credible. Which I stand by from the point that there were definitely talks away from the confines of Barnfield or Turf Moor from interested parties. Be they brokers or intermediaries or whomever for either party.
The £200 million seems a number plucked from thin air as the valuation and offer tabled originally was considerably more I understand.
Now, that may have been restructured due to Covid and may explain a delay, along with the rival bid. As has been posted by DJW and Chester amongst others. It seems there may have been two bids all along. Which would explain a lot, the leak and also a lot of the mixed messages. That in itself would have slowed proceedings down a while.
I was not aware of the lawyer mentioned being involved but I think people need to look past that. I really would not read much into who as much as what and when. That said. This lawyer chap even raised my eyebrows last night when I read he was 'involved'.
This should have been completed weeks ago.
I think SD is aware of what both investors want from the club. He intimated as much in his presser today. Albeit he didn't give much away and I guess he's right. It really is out of his hands.
[/quote

Finally a level headed look at things

[mybloodisclaret]

Interesting that nothing is signed as yet. I wonder who is leaking info that it is and why?

[Tall Paul]

That was my point - they don't!

I'm pretty sure they do.

[ClaretTony]

So the Mirror Sport is fake news. Or just that somebody has horribly jumped the gun.

That's the info I've been given so I would suggest the Mirror have at the very least jumped the gun.

[TVC15]

That was my point - they don't!

What’s all those cashflow statement numbers on page 14 of the last accounts and in note 28 then ?

I’ve only got a basic understanding and looks like a load of mumbo jumbo to me.... it’s making me a bit dizzy

[ClaretTony]

we could all start by spelling his name right - nothing more off-putting than people repeatedly getting your name wrong - I speak from real life experience

Mike Garlick

You wouldn't believe the spellings and pronunciations I used to get for my surname. Then, somewhat magically, in the 1990s it all changed. I think it had something to do with a bloke who had ginger hair and played a bit of football. I should thank him.

[TVC15]

You wouldn't believe the spellings and pronunciations I used to get for my surname. Then, somewhat magically, in the 1990s it all changed. I think it had something to do with a bloke who had ginger hair and played a bit of football. I should thank him.

Are you referring to Paul Shalls Tony ?!!!

[BenWickes]

You wouldn't believe the spellings and pronunciations I used to get for my surname. Then, somewhat magically, in the 1990s it all changed. I think it had something to do with a bloke who had ginger hair and played a bit of football. I should thank him.

Sean Scholes? Tony Dyche?

[Bosscat]

You wouldn't believe the spellings and pronunciations I used to get for my surname. Then, somewhat magically, in the 1990s it all changed. I think it had something to do with a bloke who had ginger hair and played a bit of football. I should thank him.

Why would Sean Dyche being a footballer make people think about spelling your name correctly Tony .....


Sorry couldn't resist I know what you mean though

[scouseclaret]

What’s all those cashflow statement numbers on page 14 of the last accounts and in note 28 then ?

I’ve only got a basic understanding and looks like a load of mumbo jumbo to me.... it’s making me a bit dizzy

Not in the version I'm looking at...

https://tinyurl.com/yy9lmo4n

[Swizzlestick]

Not in the version I'm looking at...

https://tinyurl.com/yy9lmo4n

Burnley FC Holdings Limited.

[TVC15]

Not in the version I'm looking at...

https://tinyurl.com/yy9lmo4n

Invalid link

But here are the official public records available to everyone

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

[Paul Waine]

That was my point - they don't!

Hi scouse, try page 14, Burnley FC Holdings Limited - Group Statement of Cash Flows.

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

UTC

EDIT: OK, I'm joining this little statement very late. Two or three others have also provided this info.

[NewClaret]

BTW this is the view of Alex James of Lancs Live this morning on the live Q&A session he did:

Hope he’s right.

At the moment, ALK sound the better of the two options, but since we have no idea where their money is coming from (or if they have any), it hard to say.

I won’t lie, the Dubai link intrigues me. If it were Dubai state funding without this dodgy-sounding Egyptian and proven dodgy Farnell, I’d likely favour that. Given how they invest over there!!

But seems like we have the choice of Americans with no obvious source of funding, or a dodgy-sounding Egyptian who may be fronting it for someone very wealthy but we have no idea. Not a great set of options.

So I hope Alex James is right and there are some further “twists and turns” - namely new entrants to the bidding war with legitimate access to the required funds!!

[dsr]

You wouldn't believe the spellings and pronunciations I used to get for my surname. Then, somewhat magically, in the 1990s it all changed. I think it had something to do with a bloke who had ginger hair and played a bit of football. I should thank him.

I didn't know the Stoke City chief executive had red hair and played football.

[scouseclaret]

Hi scouse, try page 14, Burnley FC Holdings Limited - Group Statement of Cash Flows.

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

UTC

EDIT: OK, I'm joining this little statement very late. Two or three others have also provided this info.

I was looking at the Football Club accounts rather than the Holding Company, but the point still stands. We made a cash profit of about £35m - the difference is player amortisation.

[Billy Balfour]

It's so depressing to see our club hawked around like this. I'll leave it at that. I don't think I can add anything more without going on a full scale rant.

[TVC15]

I was looking at the Football Club accounts rather than the Holding Company, but the point still stands. We made a cash profit of about £35m - the difference is player amortisation.

What point still stands ?

[Paul Waine]

I was looking at the Football Club accounts rather than the Holding Company, but the point still stands. We made a cash profit of about £35m - the difference is player amortisation.

OK, but the club spent your "cash profit" on player transfers - that's what the cash flow statement tells us.

Accounting standard doesn't require a subsidiary company to publish cash flow statement if it is reported in the consolidated group accounts of the holding company. That's why you couldn't find it in the subsids accounts.

[IanMcL]

From the information I've been able to gather there is nothing signed

It may be that they have signed them but Burnley owners have not.

[IanMcL]

All in all, they look dodgy to say the least.

[scouseclaret]

OK, but the club spent your "cash profit" on player transfers - that's what the cash flow statement tells us.

Accounting standard doesn't require a subsidiary company to publish cash flow statement if it is reported in the consolidated group accounts of the holding company. That's why you couldn't find it in the subsids accounts.

Agreed, but that’s very different from saying we only made a profit due to player sales, which is what TCV was saying.

[Vegas Claret]

snippet from Simon Jordan
https://twitter.com/talkSPORT/status/13 ... 56930?s=20

[TVC15]

Agreed, but that’s very different from saying we only made a profit due to player sales, which is what TCV was saying.

I didn’t say that but you carry on making sh-it up to suit yourself.

Just to repeat it once more I said that we made the £30m plus bottom line profit in the year I was referencing largely due to the sale of Keane and Gray. The chairman said it in himself in his statement.

I never talked about operating profit (or cash profit as you incorrectly like to call it) - you started talking about that as you waded in without reading the thread properly

[Nonayforever]

It could be that the Egyptian front man has been "advised" by Chris Farnell to "borrow" his Middle Eastern contacts bank account statement ( for a juicy fee ) to prove that funds exist.
That proof, with some bullsh8t from CF to hurry a sale through ( at an improved sale price ) could lead to a purchase agreement being signed, when it all goes sour, CF & the Egyptian sue Burnley for breach of contract.
A nice earner for a con man who knows the ropes.

[scouseclaret]

I never mentioned operating profit....dsr brought that into the debate.

I was talking about our bottom line profit - the one that is the most commonly reported one.
We did only make this level of profit because of player sales.
Even the accounts mention our bottom line profit was as such because of the player sales of Keane and Gray.

Given what most of the debate has been on this board during the transfer window around our finances not really sure why all of a sudden operating profit is a better indication of our finances than bottom line profit.

But since we are now debating the state of our operating position if we are in the healthy state dsr referenced why would the chairman be trying to reduce our wage bill by so much ?

This really is my last word on this, because it’s really off topic, but I refer you to para 2, line 2. I’m also aware that cash profit and operating profit are not the same, but other than a small (non player) depreciation charge, there really isn’t a lot of difference in this instance.

[Paul Waine]

Re: "proof of funds" - it's a little more sophisticated than you imagine, nnf, particularly if you are speaking about "significant" sums of money.

[Nonayforever]

Re: "proof of funds" - it's a little more sophisticated than you imagine, nnf, particularly if you are speaking about "significant" sums of money.

Yes, I understand it's a tad more involved than showing MG a photocopy of a bank statement.

A well planned out sting ( by a dodgy lawyer ) can take the best part of a year to come together but can, and does, result in a nice pay day for those involved.

[Paul Waine]

I have a policy of avoiding posting anything derogatory, including not copy/pasting another's posts - just in case it's not true. Someone with knowledge of the law should be able to advise better than I can.

[TVC15]

This really is my last word on this, because it’s really off topic, but I refer you to para 2, line 2. I’m also aware that cash profit and operating profit are not the same, but other than a small (non player) depreciation charge, there really isn’t a lot of difference in this instance.

Oh right - so you think that I was referring to “cash profit” even though it’s not even a thing.
Right ok - stick to your word and don’t bother replying in future - at least not until you have done some kind of basic book keeping course.