It is known as the "Owners and Directors Test" which basically explains that to you. Anyone directly involved at director level will need to pass the test, proof of funding will be required, including where from, which brings in the investors. The Premier League test is very robust.Father Jack wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:49 amIf Pace has passed the directors test, do ALK go through the owners test?
And as a company rather than an individual who & what is being tested?
Will ALK have had to declare where their money is coming from?
Or just to show proof of funding is in place?
ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 67429
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32241 times
- Has Liked: 5255 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 187 times
- Has Liked: 4 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If and when its done this friday will they let us know what plans they have in store for the club.
-
- Posts: 67429
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32241 times
- Has Liked: 5255 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
You would hope so. You would hope they are more forthcoming with information than we've seen in the recent past.holycustard wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:20 amIf and when its done this friday will they let us know what plans they have in store for the club.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 672 times
- Has Liked: 244 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Should this not be done today? 48 hours from this time yesterday so looking like it could be sometime today, no?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
As long as the ALK investment plans include the signing of one £25 million ‘quality range’ player every year for the next 5 years then I will approve the take over when the shareholders are asked to vote.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Not taken a penny in return? Does the £100m capital gain not count as a return on his investment? It's the portrayal of him as a generous benefactor who is beyond reproach or criticism that I am objecting to when he is being rewarded so handsomely.
Interestingly, plenty of posters see it as MG's right without acknowledging ALK's need to make a return on their investment.
These 2 users liked this post: Boss Hogg BOYSIE31
-
- Posts: 2596
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 857 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I hope it's more robust than when they allowed somebody who it was subsequently found "probably didn't exist" to buy Portsmouth!ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:19 amIt is known as the "Owners and Directors Test" which basically explains that to you. Anyone directly involved at director level will need to pass the test, proof of funding will be required, including where from, which brings in the investors. The Premier League test is very robust.
-
- Posts: 3554
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
- Been Liked: 1047 times
- Has Liked: 1187 times
- Location: Reading
-
- Posts: 5758
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1747 times
- Has Liked: 345 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
BBC having a bit of fun on Facebook
Last edited by claptrappers_union on Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 67429
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32241 times
- Has Liked: 5255 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Portsmouth have been out of the Premier League for almost 11 years and I think it is fair to say things have moved on a lot since then. I do think the Portsmouth situation prompted a lot of tightening up. I don't know how many purchases they've blocked. I do know about Hull & Newcastle, and those who tried to buy Hull then went and bought a Football League club but, rest assured, everything I'm told says they are unbelievably thorough and robust.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:31 amI hope it's more robust than when they allowed somebody who it was subsequently found "probably didn't exist" to buy Portsmouth!
-
- Posts: 67429
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32241 times
- Has Liked: 5255 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I'm busy, moderating on my own, can't see everything. I rely on people reporting such so I can act. Responding and linking the post makes it doubly difficult.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:33 amI thought abuse of other posters wasnt being allowed any more ? The attacks on anyone who dares question Mr Garlick are becoming hysterical.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
In what way?
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6902 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Mike Garlick has not taken a penny in return for the countless hours of work he has done for the club.Duffer_ wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:28 amNot taken a penny in return? Does the £100m capital gain not count as a return on his investment? It's the portrayal of him as a generous benefactor who is beyond reproach or criticism that I am objecting to when he is being rewarded so handsomely.
Interestingly, plenty of posters see it as MG's right without acknowledging ALK's need to make a return on their investment.
Due to the incredible success that we’ve enjoyed under his tenure he is in a fortunate position where the value of his shares has increased significantly. He will therefore benefit from this, in the same way that John B and Barry Kilby will if they sell their shares.
Garlick could quite easily be in a position now where the value of his shares is lower than when he purchased them and he could be making a loss. If that was the case I’m sure we’d have a lot more to moan about.
Nobody is saying that Garlick is beyond reproach, or criticism, but some folk seem incredibly bitter that he is going to profit from selling his shares. If you can’t acknowledge the fantastic success that Garlick has been a major part of then more fool you.
-
- Posts: 5758
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1747 times
- Has Liked: 345 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I’ve posted it on the January transfer window thread instead, the image wouldn’t show and I couldn’t edit my post due to thread by locked
It was basically a photoshopped image of Diego Costa wearing a Burnley shirt
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6902 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
He spent a penny to purchase a controlling stake in the club. That penny was out of his own pocket. He has since run the club as a profitable business. I think that is generally considered to be good practice.
-
- Posts: 2596
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 857 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Poor man’s Ashley Barnes - don’t need him.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:48 amI’ve posted it on the January transfer window thread instead, the image wouldn’t show and I couldn’t edit my post due to thread by locked
It was basically a photoshopped image of Diego Costa wearing a Burnley shirt
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 1219 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Totally agree, if Garlick chose to leave his money with the club and not accept the new value of his shares the only people who that would benefit is alk. If he had taken a wage he would have been taking money out of the club, by selling up at the going rate he most certainly is not.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:36 amMike Garlick has not taken a penny in return for the countless hours of work he has done for the club.
Due to the incredible success that we’ve enjoyed under his tenure he is in a fortunate position where the value of his shares has increased significantly. He will therefore benefit from this, in the same way that John B and Barry Kilby will if they sell their shares.
Garlick could quite easily be in a position now where the value of his shares is lower than when he purchased them and he could be making a loss. If that was the case I’m sure we’d have a lot more to moan about.
Nobody is saying that Garlick is beyond reproach, or criticism, but some folk seem incredibly bitter that he is going to profit from selling his shares. If you can’t acknowledge the fantastic success that Garlick has been a major part of then more fool you.
I don’t understand how people don’t get that? Maybe they don’t want to get it and are blinded by their dislike of Garlick.
-
- Posts: 3554
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
- Been Liked: 1047 times
- Has Liked: 1187 times
- Location: Reading
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I agree as someone who works in financial services.
The emoji should have given you a clue I was taking the Pee
-
- Posts: 67429
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32241 times
- Has Liked: 5255 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It's a difficult one for some to get their heads round given it hasn't really ever happened like this at Burnley. Previously major shareholders have sold their shares to existing directors as was the case, as an example, when Bob Lord was on his way out, for very different reasons of course.PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:51 amTotally agree, if Garlick chose to leave his money with the club and not accept the new value of his shares the only people who that would benefit is alk. If he had taken a wage he would have been taking money out of the club, by selling up at the going rate he most certainly is not.
I don’t understand how people don’t get that? Maybe they don’t want to get it and are blinded by their dislike of Garlick.
I think the way he's run the club, in a financial sense, has been absolutely right for us, but things have deteriorated since he appointed himself as the executive chairman (does that bring with it a salary?, I don't know). There has been a souring of relationships between him and other personnel.
These 2 users liked this post: PaintYorkClaretnBlue Foshiznik
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6902 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I know dp, sorry. This wasn’t a dig at you. Just trying to point out how silly people sound who call Garlick tight - like he should be throwing his own cash around to buy players.dpinsussex wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:53 amI agree as someone who works in financial services.
The emoji should have given you a clue I was taking the Pee
-
- Posts: 11410
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3170 times
- Has Liked: 1848 times
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Sure I heard/read something yesterday that there has already been a pre-record done by the chairman for when the deal confirmed
(Not sure if it’s from the one going out or the one coming in though)
(Not sure if it’s from the one going out or the one coming in though)
-
- Posts: 6880
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2742 times
- Has Liked: 4314 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Chris Boden mentioned the incoming Chairman will have one on club channels befiore the Fulham game.
-
- Posts: 11410
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3170 times
- Has Liked: 1848 times
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Thanks.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:59 amChris Boden mentioned the incoming Chairman will have one on club channels befiore the Fulham game.
Knew I’d seen something last night just couldn’t recall where
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It’s nothing to do with not giving them a chance. It’s thinking longer term and what that may or may not bring.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:16 amBloody hell, give them a chance, they haven't even bought the club yet.
As I said in my earlier post, I hope to see long term thinking that will benefit the club for many years to come.
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 1219 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Agreed, you just have to compare it with buying and selling shares on the stock market to know how the notion of him not taking the current share value is just plain daft.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:55 amIt's a difficult one for some to get their heads round given it hasn't really ever happened like this at Burnley. Previously major shareholders have sold their shares to existing directors as was the case, as an example, when Bob Lord was on his way out, for very different reasons of course.
I think the way he's run the club, in a financial sense, has been absolutely right for us, but things have deteriorated since he appointed himself as the executive chairman (does that bring with it a salary?, I don't know). There has been a souring of relationships between him and other personnel.
I’m not saying that Garlick has been perfect, far from it when you look at his relationship with Dyche but for people to say that he has only been interested in taking money from the club is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
From the accounts in 2017 (which showed the promotion cost from 2016 as the previous year).
Which would suggest that nobody took a promotion bonus other than the team.accounts 2017 wrote: The directors of Burnley FC Holdings Limited are considered to be the key management personnel of
the group. None of the directors received remuneration from the group during the current or previous
year.
-
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 148 times
- Has Liked: 23 times
- Location: Leyland
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Anyone directly involved at director level will need to pass the test....agree this point is clear.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:19 amIt is known as the "Owners and Directors Test" which basically explains that to you. Anyone directly involved at director level will need to pass the test, proof of funding will be required, including where from, which brings in the investors. The Premier League test is very robust.
Proof of funding will be required including where from....I anticipated both these points.
But beyond them what else can you test the prospective owners on when the owners will be a company not an individual person.
Feels like the owners test will be abit nebulous in that regard. I can only think of a check that the company doesn’t own a stake in a competing club which would be a conflict of interest.
Also in the Tifo football video it explained that the owners would have to present a business plan for the next 3 years.
But the big part will have been satisfying the PL that it’s not dodgy money. So they will know the detail of where ALK’s funding is coming from. Wonder if we’ll ever get to know given there’s not obligation to share in the public domain.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I’ll forever thank Mr Garlick for his early tenure and for appointing Mr Dyche in the first instance, but I still think his leadership has been a shambles for the last 18 months or so. For that, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how the new chairman operates.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how the new chairman operates.
These 2 users liked this post: mill hill claret Somethingfishy
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I don't dislike MG and I have repeatedly recognised his part in our rise. I wrote this back in Sep and nothing has changed in my mind, except it now looks almost certain he will walk with £100m:
This is my last post on this topic due to the levels of abuse. Thank you to those that have engaged sensibly and at least allowed the expression of an alternative opinion, even when they strongly disagreed with it.
In the same way that PYCB can't understand why people don't see the distinction between salary and capital gains, I cannot understand why people regard ALK's purchase price as being irrelevant. The increase in the value of BFC over the years is linked, at least in part, to the value of our players on the pitch. Which is easier for an investor in the event that things don't go as well as we all hope on the pitch: to increase the revenue, or to sell the crown jewels?Duffer_ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:53 pmHow does Garlick "get out", assuming he wants to? What is a fair price? How much has he invested? I doubt he thought that BFC was going to be a goldmine when he started on this journey but it is a real issue now.
I assume he considers himself a custodian of the Club but he wouldn't want to sell at a discounted price to then see someone else profiteer by selling at market rate. So, what are we worth in the open market? Historic valuations of £350m look off the mark given the uncertainty and likely sustained decline in revenue. We have over £150m in assets (players) so our valuation is probably between £150m and £250m. Our success has made it difficult to maintain the model of custodianship because very few, if any, genuine Burnley fans can afford to own us. How do you feel about a supposed custodian pocketing over £100m from his involvement with the Club? I am not having a dig at him btw but we are a very different proposition to the one he inherited and helped develop.
This is my last post on this topic due to the levels of abuse. Thank you to those that have engaged sensibly and at least allowed the expression of an alternative opinion, even when they strongly disagreed with it.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I might be very much mistaken but was their not a healthy profit made when the ground was sold back to the club, or was that a different dynasty?
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 1219 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
In that case surely if Garlick wanted to increase the clubs value for personal wealth he would have been better spending the clubs money and invested in the team??Duffer_ wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:36 pmI don't dislike MG and I have repeatedly recognised his part in our rise. I wrote this back in Sep and nothing has changed in my mind, except it now looks almost certain he will walk with £100m:
In the same way that PYCB can't understand why people don't see the distinction between salary and capital gains, I cannot understand why people regard ALK's purchase price as being irrelevant. The increase in the value of BFC over the years is linked, at least in part, to the value of our players on the pitch. Which is easier for an investor in the event that things don't go as well as we all hope on the pitch: to increase the revenue, or to sell the crown jewels?
This is my last post on this topic due to the levels of abuse. Thank you to those that have engaged sensibly and at least allowed the expression of an alternative opinion, even when they strongly disagreed with it.
This user liked this post: BertiesBeehole
-
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 1516 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I'm not sure it leaves a bitter taste. It's quite evident the current board just don't have the skills required to move Burnley forward (although lets not think the new board automatically come with those skills...we don't know that yet). That's not something that leaves a bitter taste. In fact I find it quite admirable that they haven't just clung onto power for as long as possible but have actually looked to actively sell the club to the right people for quite a while now. I don't agree with the lack of spending on the playing front and that I will hold this current board to account for.BurnleyFC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:32 pmI’ll forever thank Mr Garlick for his early tenure and for appointing Mr Dyche in the first instance, but I still think his leadership has been a shambles for the last 18 months or so. For that, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how the new chairman operates.
This user liked this post: bfcmik
-
- Posts: 2506
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 714 times
- Has Liked: 1998 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If ALK turn out to be anything but a charlatan outfit like those who have taken over at Charlton, Portsmouth, Leeds, Blackburn, Bolton, Bury, Notts County or Leyton Orient in the last 10 or so years, then Mike Garlick deserves all the credit, profit and bonuses he wants.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Duffer_ wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:36 pmI don't dislike MG and I have repeatedly recognised his part in our rise. I wrote this back in Sep and nothing has changed in my mind, except it now looks almost certain he will walk with £100m:
Minus a hefty capital gains tax bill unless he has wangled something, so could be 20% tax hit on any profit
Any wangles known to posters?
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3116 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Didn't he put himself in that role when Dave Baldwin announced he was leaving - the appointment of Neil Hart was swift (maybe too swift, though there were other issues going on for Hart having accepted a post elsewhere) - for all the board like Hart he had zero experience in running a Premier League Club - the move to Executive Chairman was actually a sound one in those circumstances, to support Hart (whatever hindsight tells us).ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:55 amIt's a difficult one for some to get their heads round given it hasn't really ever happened like this at Burnley. Previously major shareholders have sold their shares to existing directors as was the case, as an example, when Bob Lord was on his way out, for very different reasons of course.
I think the way he's run the club, in a financial sense, has been absolutely right for us, but things have deteriorated since he appointed himself as the executive chairman (does that bring with it a salary?, I don't know). There has been a souring of relationships between him and other personnel.
We all did not want to lose Baldwin, it seems that much of the executive cohesion between boardroom and football staff went with him.
-
- Posts: 3516
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2568 times
- Has Liked: 300 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I disagree with the current board "Not having the skill". I still think if you drew up a league table of the 92 clubs in the league, and gave points for right decisions taken, I still suspect Burnley would be in the top 6 in the whole country.bf2k wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:43 pmI'm not sure it leaves a bitter taste. It's quite evident the current board just don't have the skills required to move Burnley forward (although lets not think the new board automatically come with those skills...we don't know that yet). That's not something that leaves a bitter taste. In fact I find it quite admirable that they haven't just clung onto power for as long as possible but have actually looked to actively sell the club to the right people for quite a while now. I don't agree with the lack of spending on the playing front and that I will hold this current board to account for.
Logic behind this
1) Most clubs spend beyond their means, and end up needing bailing out. Burnley were bailed out by this current group of directors more than once, and they appear to have learnt from those lessons to not risk the clubs longevity again.
2) Many clubs do not develop the footballing infrastructure when they have chance. This board have done that, giving an academy that will hopefully sustain the club in future. They have also presided over a state of the art training ground being built, and foundations in scouting networks - which take time to flourish.
3) Many clubs don't really care for the fans. Spiralling ticket prices, and baffling sackings of managers are fairly common place. This board have frozen season ticket prices for many years haven't they? Is this where their lack of skill comes in? Have they not put up ticket prices enough? Possibly.
They make mistakes. All businesses do. And in Football, most businesses make many mistakes, layered on with illogical changes, which add more mistakes, and make the situation fairly terminal, or lock the club into a position broadly at their level. This board, this club, for the last 10 years have made fewer of those wrong decisions, causing this club to perform way above it's natural level. We are surrounded by badly managed clubs, of a similar size, and from similar sized populations. For the former think Bolton, Blackburn, Preston, Wigan. For the latter think Rochdale, Oldham, Bury, Blackpool. We are the only well run club in the whole of Lancashire. And when you look further afield at the likes of Sunderland, Derby, Sheff Weds, Forest - and many more - it's not hard to see how well the business that this board oversees has done. I think they've focused on improving key elements, and worked hard to do it right. I think many businesses struggle because they try to do too many things, and end up doing them just ok, therefore not really adding the value of it.
I suspect that their perceived lack of skill may be that they've not monetised the club's success enough. I think there's an expectation that monetising it means with bigger sponsors (Many of the Sponsors they have sought out have been criticised by a proportion of fans), but the reality for Burnley is I suspect monetising it from fans and from corporate hospitality. I'd ask you a question.... how would you feel if the new owners said, we're going to sign a £20m player, but we need £2m a year in wages, so we're adding £100 a year to season tickets / ticket prices? Realistically, that probably wouldn't be too far off a 5% per year increment for each season in the Premier League, rather than freezing prices. Would YOU be ok with that price increase next season?
These 6 users liked this post: Rileybobs PaintYorkClaretnBlue jrtod61 GaryClaret Paul Waine BertiesBeehole
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Given that it wasn't disclosed there would be a lot wrong with it. It must have either been a fraudulent transaction to hide it from the auditors (so probably tax avoidance too) or the auditors were in on it as well which would probably end up with the Institute striking some people off. Either way Garlick would probably be banned as a director at the least.
Given the above implications I assume you do have some actual evidence beyond a bloke in the pub told me ...
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I suspect change will follow swiftly.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I think they've demonstrated over the past few years that they certainly have the skills. What they don't have is the financial backing.bf2k wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:43 pmI'm not sure it leaves a bitter taste. It's quite evident the current board just don't have the skills required to move Burnley forward (although lets not think the new board automatically come with those skills...we don't know that yet). That's not something that leaves a bitter taste. In fact I find it quite admirable that they haven't just clung onto power for as long as possible but have actually looked to actively sell the club to the right people for quite a while now. I don't agree with the lack of spending on the playing front and that I will hold this current board to account for.
The current owners/directors don't have the pockets to bail the club out if things go wrong and football isn't an industry where it's particularly easy to get significant lines of credit.
Arguably the infrastructure improvements could have been debt funded to leave more funds for the squad but that carries its own risks.
There aren't that many options for a club like us.
These 4 users liked this post: dandeclaret PaintYorkClaretnBlue jrtod61 Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:03 pm
- Been Liked: 719 times
- Has Liked: 510 times
- Location: Padiham
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
ONE decision has enabled Mike Garlick to walk away from the club with a big fat cheque. The appointment of Sean Dyche as manager. He has generally done his best to hinder and tie Dyches hands but Dyche still gives him the reward of TV money every season.
The training ground improvements are largely down to Dyches prompting and the dire necessity with the condition it was in. If we hadn't been in the Prem (down to Dyche) would we have improved it? Would Garlick have invested or taken the step? I very much doubt it.
It is quite a sad indictement that he treats Dyche like he does..even though it is likely it isn't all one way.
If Garlick did any good work at the start of his reign he has rapidly dismantled it in the latter part with the frugality and his ability to alienate not only the manager but several other key people within the club.
The training ground improvements are largely down to Dyches prompting and the dire necessity with the condition it was in. If we hadn't been in the Prem (down to Dyche) would we have improved it? Would Garlick have invested or taken the step? I very much doubt it.
It is quite a sad indictement that he treats Dyche like he does..even though it is likely it isn't all one way.
If Garlick did any good work at the start of his reign he has rapidly dismantled it in the latter part with the frugality and his ability to alienate not only the manager but several other key people within the club.
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6902 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
There’s nothing like having the grace to give credit where it’s due.Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:28 pmONE decision has enabled Mike Garlick to walk away from the club with a big fat cheque. The appointment of Sean Dyche as manager. He has generally done his best to hinder and tie Dyches hands but Dyche still gives him the reward of TV money every season.
The training ground improvements are largely down to Dyches prompting and the dire necessity with the condition it was in. If we hadn't been in the Prem (down to Dyche) would we have improved it? Would Garlick have invested or taken the step? I very much doubt it.
It is quite a sad indictement that he treats Dyche like he does..even though it is likely it isn't all one way.
If Garlick did any good work at the start of his reign he has rapidly dismantled it in the latter part with the frugality and his ability to alienate not only the manager but several other key people within the club.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
From what I've heard it's akin to the KYC that you get in accountancy, banking, solicitors, etcFather Jack wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:49 amIf Pace has passed the directors test, do ALK go through the owners test?
And as a company rather than an individual who & what is being tested?
Will ALK have had to declare where their money is coming from?
Or just to show proof of funding is in place?
You have to show where the funds come from, not just that you have them. For those with significant shares you'll need to know who is behind them and where they came from.
-
- Posts: 3516
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2568 times
- Has Liked: 300 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
One man's tied hands and frugality is another mans sunstainability and strong financial management.Somethingfishy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:28 pmONE decision has enabled Mike Garlick to walk away from the club with a big fat cheque. The appointment of Sean Dyche as manager. He has generally done his best to hinder and tie Dyches hands but Dyche still gives him the reward of TV money every season.
The training ground improvements are largely down to Dyches prompting and the dire necessity with the condition it was in. If we hadn't been in the Prem (down to Dyche) would we have improved it? Would Garlick have invested or taken the step? I very much doubt it.
It is quite a sad indictement that he treats Dyche like he does..even though it is likely it isn't all one way.
If Garlick did any good work at the start of his reign he has rapidly dismantled it in the latter part with the frugality and his ability to alienate not only the manager but several other key people within the club.
This user liked this post: bfcmik