ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 3233
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:36 am
- Been Liked: 1768 times
- Has Liked: 41 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
No head in the sand from me just an observation about an article that lacks substance.
Had the Athletic printed “ALK deny Burnley are buying £30m winger, but our mate says it’s true” the majority of the folk taking this as read would be saying the opposite and referring to there being no quotes or no names sources”.
It’s praying in people’s insecurity.
Had the Athletic printed “ALK deny Burnley are buying £30m winger, but our mate says it’s true” the majority of the folk taking this as read would be saying the opposite and referring to there being no quotes or no names sources”.
It’s praying in people’s insecurity.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I’m not sure that people are taking it as read, simply that it raises questions and some concerns.
-
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:29 am
- Been Liked: 990 times
- Has Liked: 3266 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Look on the bright side....we may have a new cricketfield stand when we return plus warm air from the hand dryers
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Alan Pace responding to the headline on Twitter:
‘Disappointing to read this headline, having responded that the financial details are inaccurate. This loan is absolutely reasonable and sustainable. We are committed to continuing the club's growth and demonstrating financial stability. We're here for the long-haul.‘
‘Disappointing to read this headline, having responded that the financial details are inaccurate. This loan is absolutely reasonable and sustainable. We are committed to continuing the club's growth and demonstrating financial stability. We're here for the long-haul.‘
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
But we haven't added an extension. We have added nothing.
Before the takeover, Burnley FC had a squad of players, £50m in the bank, no loan creditors.
If we are to believe the Athletic we now have the same squad of players, nothing in the bank, and we owe £80m.
What have we got for that £130m? A new board of directors.
Am I misreading it?
What I don't know is where Garlick has got his £150m from. ALK have agreed to pay £150m to Garlick. Has he got the cash? Where is the cash coming from?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Did they ask him how Burnley FC have benefitted from this loan?RVclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:08 amAlan Pace responding to the headline on Twitter:
‘Disappointing to read this headline, having responded that the financial details are inaccurate. This loan is absolutely reasonable and sustainable. We are committed to continuing the club's growth and demonstrating financial stability. We're here for the long-haul.‘
-
- Posts: 7138
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3596 times
- Has Liked: 1028 times
- Location: Chesterfield
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I have just seen this - the obvious way for Alan Pace to counter the article would be for the club to transparently reveal the financial details of the takeover and end the rumour, concern and false articles like this from The Athletic if it is entirely wrong.RVclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:08 amAlan Pace responding to the headline on Twitter:
‘Disappointing to read this headline, having responded that the financial details are inaccurate. This loan is absolutely reasonable and sustainable. We are committed to continuing the club's growth and demonstrating financial stability. We're here for the long-haul.‘
-
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1571 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I might be wrong but I am assuming the idea is very similar to property development.
You purchase a property with a deposit and loan.
Then you have separate funds to do the development you envisage.
In this circumstance the club have taken out a manageable loan (as Alan has made clear) to purchase the club. Then there is a separate fund available for the development of the club on and off the pitch, with the long term vision to dramatically increase the commercial performance of the club.
-
- Posts: 3591
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2596 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The Glazers loan is reasonable and sustainable at Man Utd. They've still taken vast sums out of a previously debt free club over the last 15 years.
Is the model that ALK are using much different?
Is the model that ALK are using much different?
-
- Posts: 4751
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 238 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Reading between the lines, it looks like garlick and John B are selling there shares in stages, if we are relegated, then they retain there shares.
-
- Posts: 3916
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 833 times
- Has Liked: 1324 times
- Location: burnley
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes.NewClaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:56 amExactly, FF.
I swore blind in summer that some/all of the £42m would still exist and could possibly have grown. I also argued that there would be institutions willing to lend if we felt that necessary short-term. Got shot to pieces by some.
Turns out, if this story is to be believed, that not only had our £42m grown, not reduced, that the club was capable of securing £80m in financing, which would mean that SD was absolutely correct when he said that the club is in a very health position financially and you could completely understand his frustrations at not being given any cash to spend on strengthening the squad.
I agreed and still do with letting Lennon, Hart and Hendrick go because no one knew how long football would be off. However, once the season was completed, the rebate deal done and the new season started, it was madness not to replace Lennon and bring in proper cb cover. The latter was the craziest football decision by BFC since appointing Laws.
Last edited by summitclaret on Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I can't see us signing a sponsorship deal with The Athletic any time soon!
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
A few random thoughts:
- I note this wasn't written by Burnley's regular correspondent. It was by the vastly more experienced Matt Slater.
- It seems surprising that we had £50m in the bank as the takeover went through. We hadn't had any substantial player sales and there were the covid costs, it just doesn't seem in line with expectations. Similarly it seems unlikely that they entirely cleared out the cash reserves with the ongoing difficulties.
- The interest on the MSD loan seems in line with expectations.
- The basics of the story, the structure of the takeover, are almost certainly correct. The only real debate is what level of debt, equity, etc there was. What level would be acceptable to people?
- It isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the new owners do grow revenue more than additional costs we may still be in a stronger position. Realistically relegation was always going to give us problems if we didn't bounce back up in a couple of seasons, whoever was in charge.
This user liked this post: JohnMcGreal
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Perhaps those who told us we would like what the Americans were bringing could explain further?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
But in what way is Burnley FC better off?Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:22 amI might be wrong but I am assuming the idea is very similar to property development.
You purchase a property with a deposit and loan.
Then you have separate funds to do the development you envisage.
In this circumstance the club have taken out a manageable loan (as Alan has made clear) to purchase the club. Then there is a separate fund available for the development of the club on and off the pitch, with the long term vision to dramatically increase the commercial performance of the club.
On 31st December we had £50m in the bank and no debt.
Now we have nothing in the bank and £80m debt.
Allegedly.
What have Burnley FC gained in exchange for that £130m cost?
-
- Posts: 16727
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
- Been Liked: 3766 times
- Has Liked: 7557 times
- Location: Derbyshire
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Who'd have thought it.
Using our own famous Dry Powder store to help buy us.
Using our own famous Dry Powder store to help buy us.
This user liked this post: NewClaret
-
- Posts: 4751
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 238 times
-
- Posts: 6901
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2758 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Are Messrs Garlick and Banaskiewicz allowed to speak on the matter ? Be interesting to hear their take on things.
-
- Posts: 13444
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 3808 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Do you know where it is? I'm not on twitter, but I have checked AP's account and also the replies to the Athletic story and can't see anything?jedi_master wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:20 amI have just seen this - the obvious way for Alan Pace to counter the article would be for the club to transparently reveal the financial details of the takeover and end the rumour, concern and false articles like this from The Athletic if it is entirely wrong.
-
- 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
claretandy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:36 amBloomberg article
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true
Not seen that mentioned anywhere before. Interesting if true.The American owners of Burnley have agreed to hand the club back to its previous shareholders, including outgoing majority investor Mike Garlick, if they fail to make three deferred payments, people familiar with the matter said.
-
- Posts: 6680
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1697 times
- Has Liked: 789 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
No wonder they are so keen on keeping Dyche. They know full well if he left we would be certs to go down. If anyone saw WBA being whipped by Arsenal the other night-they were appalling. I remember thinking during that game "yes we would be like that with our current threadbare team, if SD left"
It appears now relegation is not an option
It appears now relegation is not an option
-
- Posts: 13444
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 3808 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They've barely spoken in years, so I'm not sure why that would change with one foot out of the door.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:37 amAre Messrs Garlick and Banaskiewicz allowed to speak on the matter ? Be interesting to hear their take on things.
-
- Posts: 13444
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 3808 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Very interesting. I didn't expect us to be taken over with a full payment up front, not in the current uncertain environment, but it's interesting that they may regain control if payments aren't made.FactualFrank wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:44 amNot seen that mentioned anywhere before. Interesting if true.
What is also surprising is that The Athletic say the loan is for £80m and Bloomberg say £60m. In which case, AP is correct that the Athletic article is untrue. But Bloomberg says the additional balance paid is £42m - exactly what we had in the bank last year!
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2320 times
- Has Liked: 2696 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Dyche 25/1 to be next Prem manager to leave post.
Worth a small punt if this window doesn't progress well?
Not predicting this will happen, but 25s looks a decent price.
Worth a small punt if this window doesn't progress well?
Not predicting this will happen, but 25s looks a decent price.
-
- Posts: 5529
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2334 times
- Has Liked: 1401 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Wait until the businuss plan has had time to implement and then ask the same question. The guys barely have a foot through the door!
-
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1571 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The finances, expertise and possibility to grow?
We have taken an 80m loan which will now allow the club to invest heavily elsewhere to grow the business.
Either way if the club was to move forward it would have to heavily invest in the business. So whether it be a loan to purchase the club or a loan to invest in the development. Finances on that scale would need to be loaned.
This isn’t a bad thing it is just the natural progression of the club.
-
- Posts: 5333
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1644 times
- Has Liked: 400 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
A few thoughts from me on this story:
1. I have been suggesting for months and years that the amount of “dry powder” in the club should be many tens of millions. That tallies with this story.
2. I was also nervous that the money built up would eventually go to the old owners, one way or another, instead of being kept for a rainy day and eventually spent on the team which was the reasoning we were given. That seems to be the case (legitimately, to be clear) in the form of a sale agreement and now there is a huge debt sat on the balance sheet instead, without a tangible benefit (yet) to team or fans. Put it this way - if I were Dyche I’d have been furious for some time, if the rumours are right he has been.
3. The bit about having to meet deferred payments to retain ownership suggests that things will be tight for some time, it is hard to see how this improves our prospects, every debit has a credit so if the new owners only put in ‘x’ and the old owners walk away with “y”, the difference is what the club are notionally worse off by in the short term. Not as simple as that but you get my drift.
4. I stick to my prediction the other day that administration within 10 years is likely.
5. HOWEVER (a huge one) the new owners are highly experienced on Wall Street and going into debt can be a route to success if done correctly, the old approach, even if the “dry powder” was given to Dyche, would eventually have seen our luck run out.
6. I also like what the new owners say. I’m prepared to give them time, and the benefit of the doubt, and see what happens.
Ultimately, this deal is between ALK and the old owners, nothing to do with us. We are just customers of the business. The added emotional “pull” of being a football fan doesn’t change this painful fact. Football owners are in a strange position of having to treat customers almost like staff or shareholders are looked after in other sectors, rather than just treating us as paying customers, but this has limits.
1. I have been suggesting for months and years that the amount of “dry powder” in the club should be many tens of millions. That tallies with this story.
2. I was also nervous that the money built up would eventually go to the old owners, one way or another, instead of being kept for a rainy day and eventually spent on the team which was the reasoning we were given. That seems to be the case (legitimately, to be clear) in the form of a sale agreement and now there is a huge debt sat on the balance sheet instead, without a tangible benefit (yet) to team or fans. Put it this way - if I were Dyche I’d have been furious for some time, if the rumours are right he has been.
3. The bit about having to meet deferred payments to retain ownership suggests that things will be tight for some time, it is hard to see how this improves our prospects, every debit has a credit so if the new owners only put in ‘x’ and the old owners walk away with “y”, the difference is what the club are notionally worse off by in the short term. Not as simple as that but you get my drift.
4. I stick to my prediction the other day that administration within 10 years is likely.
5. HOWEVER (a huge one) the new owners are highly experienced on Wall Street and going into debt can be a route to success if done correctly, the old approach, even if the “dry powder” was given to Dyche, would eventually have seen our luck run out.
6. I also like what the new owners say. I’m prepared to give them time, and the benefit of the doubt, and see what happens.
Ultimately, this deal is between ALK and the old owners, nothing to do with us. We are just customers of the business. The added emotional “pull” of being a football fan doesn’t change this painful fact. Football owners are in a strange position of having to treat customers almost like staff or shareholders are looked after in other sectors, rather than just treating us as paying customers, but this has limits.
These 2 users liked this post: JohnMcGreal NewClaret
-
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3154 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
well this has all moved on since last night's discussion - I cannot say I am too surprised but I return to my initial thoughts of disappointment when we first heard of MSD's involvement.aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:32 amA few random thoughts:
- I note this wasn't written by Burnley's regular correspondent. It was by the vastly more experienced Matt Slater.
- It seems surprising that we had £50m in the bank as the takeover went through. We hadn't had any substantial player sales and there were the covid costs, it just doesn't seem in line with expectations. Similarly it seems unlikely that they entirely cleared out the cash reserves with the ongoing difficulties.
- The interest on the MSD loan seems in line with expectations.
- The basics of the story, the structure of the takeover, are almost certainly correct. The only real debate is what level of debt, equity, etc there was. What level would be acceptable to people?
- It isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the new owners do grow revenue more than additional costs we may still be in a stronger position. Realistically relegation was always going to give us problems if we didn't bounce back up in a couple of seasons, whoever was in charge.
aggi
- I agree, this kind of thing is what Matt Slater has built his excellent reputation on over a number of years, he is not known for putting stories out where he has a source in which he is not extremely confident
- not surprised by the cash in the bank - I expected us to get through the summer on existing cash and suggested we night have made a bit of an it does follow the narrative of what we know/expected on the sale structure operating profit last season. The biggest Premier League cash payment comes in the summer and we have probably cut our spend to around £6m p/m
- I was lambasted for suggesting these rates but as you say - not unexpected (unlike the actual loan sum quoted and it's purpose)
- it means we have to grow revenues substantially to help Sean with team building, because debt servicing is likely to be greater than the operating profits we have been generating up to now.
- as you say
EDIT if the loan sum was smaller the club could switch to more favourable terms (ALK certainly couldn't), but I fear this is just too much at this time for that to happen
-
- Posts: 6901
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2758 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So, just to clarify...where exactly has the £50m or so " in the bank " ended up ?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:22 amwell this has all moved on since last night's discussion - I cannot say I am too surprised but I return to my initial thoughts of disappointment when we first heard of MSD's involvement.
aggi
- I agree, this kind of thing is what Matt Slater has built his excellent reputation on over a number of years, he is not known for putting stories out where he has a source in which he is not extremely confident
- not surprised by the cash in the bank - I expected us to get through the summer on existing cash and suggested we night have made a bit of an it does follow the narrative of what we know/expected on the sale structure operating profit last season. The biggest Premier League cash payment comes in the summer and we have probably cut our spend to around £6m p/m
- I was lambasted for suggesting these rates but as you say - not unexpected (unlike the actual loan sum quoted and it's purpose)
- it means we have to grow revenues substantially to help Sean with team building, because debt servicing is likely to be greater than the operating profits we have been generating up to now.
- as you say
EDIT if the loan sum was smaller the club could switch to more favourable terms (ALK certainly couldn't), but I fear this is just too much at this time for that to happen
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
A further thought. I can't see the loan security being worth anywhere near £80m (the ground and the training ground mainly). That suggests to me either a compelling business plan to service the loan or a smaller loan.
EDIT - the security is more wide ranging than this.
EDIT - the security is more wide ranging than this.
Last edited by aggi on Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: Chester Perry
-
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3154 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
great question - one interpretation would be that it has gone to the former shareholders, and that the excess on the loan is now being used for operational cashflow, certainly until the next Premier League central payment in February - it would mean that any incoming players are bought on the tick as wellrandomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:26 amSo, just to clarify...where exactly has the £50m or so " in the bank " ended up ?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
How will it? The Athletic article says that that £80m loan has been used to pay Garlick. The club hasn't got the cash, Garlick has it. The cash has been given to ALK to pay their debt to Garlick.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:08 amThe finances, expertise and possibility to grow?
We have taken an 80m loan which will now allow the club to invest heavily elsewhere to grow the business.
Either way if the club was to move forward it would have to heavily invest in the business. So whether it be a loan to purchase the club or a loan to invest in the development. Finances on that scale would need to be loaned.
This isn’t a bad thing it is just the natural progression of the club.
-
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3154 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
it is an odd one - I wonder if ALK have secured other assets too - they are certainly making use of their Mormon network to get such high leverage on our club, you get the feeling that they have bet the ranch
This user liked this post: BertiesBeehole
-
- Posts: 13444
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 3808 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Agree with the majority of your points, but these in particular.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:12 amA few thoughts from me on this story:
1. I have been suggesting for months and years that the amount of “dry powder” in the club should be many tens of millions. That tallies with this story.
2. I was also nervous that the money built up would eventually go to the old owners, one way or another, instead of being kept for a rainy day and eventually spent on the team which was the reasoning we were given. That seems to be the case (legitimately, to be clear) in the form of a sale agreement and now there is a huge debt sat on the balance sheet instead, without a tangible benefit (yet) to team or fans. Put it this way - if I were Dyche I’d have been furious for some time, if the rumours are right he has been.
Very, very easy to understand now why SD became frustrated at lack of transfer funds when you consider there's £50m allegedly in the bank he was not able to spend because it was being earmarked to support a future takeover.
That said, I really like what I hear from AP. Almost everything I've heard makes me think he's got his head firmly screwed on. Last night he tweeted good luck to our esports team - and it's things like this (and the women's game) that I think will become increasingly prominent in developing the "story" around the club. I do sense he and his team have ideas that can take us to the next level. It's whether they can deliver those ideas.
Given the leaks of this story, I would like to see some openness from AP/MG/JB about how the deal works. Appreciating it's commercially sensitive. They've committed to being transparent, so some transparency around an issue that will otherwise dominate the headlines would be a good start.
This user liked this post: CrosspoolClarets
-
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3154 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
mix the Athletic and Bloomberg articles together and there is around £20 - £30m left at this juncture, as I have suggested that is now the clubs operational cash flow
-
- Posts: 6901
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2758 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The refusal to spend on strengthening the squad all starting to make " sense"Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:32 amgreat question - one interpretation would be that it has gone to the former shareholders, and that the excess on the loan is now being used for operational cashflow, certainly until the next Premier League central payment in February - it would mean that any incoming players are bought on the tick as well
This user liked this post: NewClaret
-
- Posts: 13444
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 3808 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If you took the Bloomberg story as true, it sounds like MG/JB have raided the bank account and ALK have given them another £60m from MSD on top - i.e. they've bagged a £102m guaranteed!Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:32 amgreat question - one interpretation would be that it has gone to the former shareholders, and that the excess on the loan is now being used for operational cashflow, certainly until the next Premier League central payment in February - it would mean that any incoming players are bought on the tick as well
I can't see that, personally.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They do, I missed it when I skimmed through but the security is much more wide ranging. It includes trading receivables and other monies owed (so potentially TV money) and Equipment (not sure if this would be players) amongst other things.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:35 amit is an odd one - I wonder if ALK have secured other assets too - they are certainly making use of their Mormon network to get such high leverage on our club, you get the feeling that they have bet the ranch
-
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1571 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I am viewing it as two separate funds. They have taken a loan to buy the club which the club can comfortably afford.
They have a separate fun of money to invest into the development of the club. Dyche even said yesterday that there were finances to buy players. Hence showing that there must be a secondary fund.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
#BestInterestsOfTheClubAtHeartrandomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:38 amThe refusal to spend on strengthening the squad all starting to make " sense"
-
- Posts: 5333
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1644 times
- Has Liked: 400 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The other thing is that I wonder if Dyche has accidentally let the rabbit out of the hat by mentioning “new stands” as a passing comment in his interview yesterday (Burnley Express article). It was a throw away comment not a direct suggestion it will happen, but I wondered if that discussion had come up internally.
I bet the business plan involves the cricket club and new stand adjacent, potentially a hotel. Wouldn’t surprise me. I’m speculating of course. Money talks.
I bet the business plan involves the cricket club and new stand adjacent, potentially a hotel. Wouldn’t surprise me. I’m speculating of course. Money talks.
-
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3154 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I am still unconvinced it was a refusal, more a ceiling of spend - just because we had the cash pile, it does not mean that it should be spent on players if we could not service the cost of those players from operational cashflow.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:38 amThe refusal to spend on strengthening the squad all starting to make " sense"
It is also likely that those funds were building for an infrastructure spend, there had been growing murmurs from the club about needing to do that
I will say that I am surprised that I am surprised by it's use from the new owners
-
- Posts: 5333
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1644 times
- Has Liked: 400 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Totally agree with every word of this.NewClaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:35 amAgree with the majority of your points, but these in particular.
Very, very easy to understand now why SD became frustrated at lack of transfer funds when you consider there's £50m allegedly in the bank he was not able to spend because it was being earmarked to support a future takeover.
That said, I really like what I hear from AP. Almost everything I've heard makes me think he's got his head firmly screwed on. Last night he tweeted good luck to our esports team - and it's things like this (and the women's game) that I think will become increasingly prominent in developing the "story" around the club. I do sense he and his team have ideas that can take us to the next level. It's whether they can deliver those ideas.
Given the leaks of this story, I would like to see some openness from AP/MG/JB about how the deal works. Appreciating it's commercially sensitive. They've committed to being transparent, so some transparency around an issue that will otherwise dominate the headlines would be a good start.
-
- Posts: 6901
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2758 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Where has it ultimately ended up CP ?
-
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3154 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I get that, just do not think that was the original purpose
-
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:41 pm
- Been Liked: 468 times
- Has Liked: 333 times
- Location: Malabo, EG/Chester
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I wonder if there is a market for my modest shareholding and if so how can I go about offloading them? Tips/advice anyone?
-
- Posts: 6901
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2758 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
That being the case, is it too late for either MG or JB to funnel some of it back into the club ?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:46 amI get that, just do not think that was the original purpose
-
- Posts: 3552
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2595 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Could have ended up paying a bridging loan. Ultimately when the previous incumbents sold the assets of the club, its up to the new incumbents on how they use it.