ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
fatboy47
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
Been Liked: 2311 times
Has Liked: 2692 times
Location: Isles of Scilly

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by fatboy47 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:13 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:47 am
The only thing you've missed is that at no point did Mr BurnleyFC pay Mr Garlick for living in his house. Thus, if he had, those life savings would have been significantly lower.
Hmmm.... And maybe he missed out that Mr Garlick hadn't fixed the roof or the dry rot in the floorboards...and that's why he had such impressive life savings.

NewClaret
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:26 pm

dsr wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:30 am
Correct.

Last month, subject to variation in figures, Burnley FC had £50m in the bank and no debt. Now we have nothing in the bank and £50m expensive loans. I don't see how that can be good.
We don't know that is true though, do we? I really can't see that MG/JB have run off with the entire cash reserves of the club? And if they have, they deserve a public lynching!

I'm not sugar coating the situation. I'm very ant-debt personally and over the last few years have taken great pride in the way our club has been run - locally owned, debt free, cash reserves and a Board that don't take from the club. But when debating this, you need to apply some context:

1. The current situation wasn't sustainable. Mainly because the relationship between the Chairman and the Manager had broken down. It's perhaps becoming more obvious why now, but to me losing SD was inevitable if things had stayed the same and that would have been far more damaging than this club taking on some debt. This takeover gives an opportunity for a fresh start and hopefully an alignment of visions to move the club forward.

2. The major shareholders wanted out. That's been known for many years. I don't blame them, they most likely felt they've taken us as far as they could and getting us here must have taken a monumental level of effort and energy. So, those guys remaining in place was never an option.

3. Probably due to the above, they'd stopped investing in the club. There had been some great investment, like Barnfield and the Academy, but since 2018 player recruitment has dried up and other areas of the club - ground, matchday experience, ecommerce, etc - are woefully behind where a PL should be. They appeared to have no plans to take the club forward, which would eventually have involved us going backwards.

I'm not complaining - they've done a great job and should be recognised and appreciated for doing so. But if the status quo wasn't sustainable, then there's no point in evaluating the new situation against the past - just the alternatives. Which, by the wounds of it, was a deal with an Egyptian and a dodgy lawyer! I know which I'd prefer.

We might have hoped for a super-rich individual but I'd bet even if a Matthew Moulding or similar were to buy BFC, it'd involve some debt since they tend to be asset rich. Only an Oligarch or Sheikh could afford an outright purchase, and I'm not sure I fancy BFC being a state plaything either.

What I like about AP so far is that he appears ambitious, has a vision (even if it's not shared yet), seems willing to invest, but also understands how important the club is to the community. He also seems a good communicator (congratulating Chorley, wishing MK Dons well, are things he didn't have to do and suggest he's genuine) and appears to be taking a modern approach (use of twitter, recognising the importance of eSports, etc).

All businesses have costs, be they taxes for profitable businesses, dividends to shareholders or interest on debt. A better discussion for this thread would be what value ALK can add?? Keep in mind that Dave Checketts did a deal with Real Madrid, built Salt Lake and it's stadium from scratch and has played major roles in other US sports/franchises/TV deals, so I'd be fairly confident that they can add more value than whatever the debt/they take out... hopefully delivering an ambitious plan in the process.

And finally, I do trust that the previous owners/Board would not have done anything that would put the club in jeopardy. That's why, like Paul, I think it's exciting times.
This user liked this post: Stalbansclaret

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Take over

Post by aggi » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:42 pm

claretandy wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:10 pm
Do you think Tarky and pope are valued in the accounts the same as what we payed for them ? of course they aren't.
Yes (taking into account contract length and amortisation).

dandeclaret
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: Take over

Post by dandeclaret » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:54 pm

claretandy wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:10 pm
Do you think Tarky and pope are valued in the accounts the same as what we payed for them ? of course they aren't.
Yes they absolutely are, less depreciation over the life of their contract. In the same way a business values raw materials at purchase price, not at expected realisable value. There may have been an expected market valuation of them included in the price that ALK paid over and above the net book value of the assets. Similarly, they may have deducted the loss on Gibson’s expected market value in that good will calculation.

dandeclaret
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dandeclaret » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:57 pm

fatboy47 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:13 pm
Hmmm.... And maybe he missed out that Mr Garlick hadn't fixed the roof or the dry rot in the floorboards...and that's why he had such impressive life savings.
Except that they had. They just hadn’t put in the hot tub and jacuzzi bath and chandeliers that some wanted. The life savings were there in case the roof leaked or dry rot set in.... AKA relegation. You can see a high level view of the calcs on the last page.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5229
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:37 pm

Ultimately, we have to accept that we could potentially benefit from rich people becoming richer (old or new owners alike) because it is sometimes thought of as a bad thing but the knock on effect can benefit many other people too.

As NewClaret has explained above, debt isn't always a bad thing and the status quo wouldn’t have worked for long. We need to relax and hope that our rich new owners become much richer - because that will surely mean a great few upcoming years for the club.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Devils_Advocate » Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:39 pm

Is it ALK or AKA cos im getting confused now 😕

brunlea99
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 129 times
Has Liked: 314 times
Location: Dorset

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by brunlea99 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:36 pm

An outside view on the takeover:

https://twohundredpercent.net/burnley-americans/

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: Take over

Post by joey13 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:53 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:42 am
If the Football Club had invested some of it's cash asset, into player assets, the value of the club wouldn't have changed, as the total assets remain the same - the directors leaving would have been paid broadly the same amount - assuming the purchasers thought it was a similarly strong investment to the value of cash. So they haven't "Pocketed the cash".

The reality is (as I've posted a few times through this thread)

Assumed cash balance £55m (Probably high)

Wage bill of £87m (accounts 2018/2019)
Assumed Wage cut (agressive) at 25% - Wage Bill becomes £66m

Income (excluding Broadcasting) £22.8m -assumed cut of 35% - 14m

Shortfall of £52m

Offset by Parachute payments of £42m and £35m

Leaves a £10m shortfall year 1, £17m in year 2 and £52m in year 3 (And this excludes likely £2 - £4m pa increase in costs for the academy)

All of a sudden, that £55m doesn't look too big. If all of a sudden, you invest in a couple of players, you're likely to see a further £30m of that disappear over 3 years, and if you sign players and they don't work out, and you get relegated, it's fairly easy to see how things can turn bad quickly.

Player recruitment at Burnley has been prudent, and allowed for 2 top 10 finishes in the last 3 years. It has been mainly unexciting, but effective.
They haven’t pocketed the cash , they’ve sold shares !

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by joey13 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:57 pm

If the “Athlete” article is a lie , why aren’t ALK taking legal action ?

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10085
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4161 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Take over

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:15 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:42 am
If the Football Club had invested some of it's cash asset, into player assets, the value of the club wouldn't have changed, as the total assets remain the same - the directors leaving would have been paid broadly the same amount - assuming the purchasers thought it was a similarly strong investment to the value of cash. So they haven't "Pocketed the cash".

The reality is (as I've posted a few times through this thread)

Assumed cash balance £55m (Probably high)

Wage bill of £87m (accounts 2018/2019)
Assumed Wage cut (agressive) at 25% - Wage Bill becomes £66m

Income (excluding Broadcasting) £22.8m -assumed cut of 35% - 14m

Shortfall of £52m

Offset by Parachute payments of £42m and £35m

Leaves a £10m shortfall year 1, £17m in year 2 and £52m in year 3 (And this excludes likely £2 - £4m pa increase in costs for the academy)

All of a sudden, that £55m doesn't look too big. If all of a sudden, you invest in a couple of players, you're likely to see a further £30m of that disappear over 3 years, and if you sign players and they don't work out, and you get relegated, it's fairly easy to see how things can turn bad quickly.

Player recruitment at Burnley has been prudent, and allowed for 2 top 10 finishes in the last 3 years. It has been mainly unexciting, but effective.

Certainly going to be interesting where we start finishing in the league, with a board who wouldn't spend, only thought of themselves and poor recruitment we have finished in the top 10 twice in 3 year.

Now we have an ambitious owner and we are going to be so much more better and progressive in the transfer market (although no signings as yet despite Phil Jones being 100% done ages ago) surely top 6 awaits now we are no longer stuck with a hindering owner.
This user liked this post: claret54

Royboyclaret
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1273 times
Has Liked: 680 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Royboyclaret » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:20 pm

brunlea99 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:36 pm
An outside view on the takeover:

https://twohundredpercent.net/burnley-americans/
Essential reading for every single Burnley fan.

We are Burnley not Manchester United.

Very, very apprehensive.
This user liked this post: gawthorpe_view

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Tall Paul » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:38 pm

joey13 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:57 pm
If the “Athlete” article is a lie , why aren’t ALK taking legal action ?
Because it uses the get out clause, "according to sources", which means they can then write all sorts of speculation and present it as fact.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:24 pm

Royboyclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:20 pm
Essential reading for every single Burnley fan.

We are Burnley not Manchester United.

Very, very apprehensive.
glad to have you back Roy -have been missing your input these last few weeks

This article on TwoHundredPercent.com is generally in line with my thinking - there is the obvious (and oft repeated) mistake of Garlick's "could" lose £50m not "would".

Also I would not get carried away about he failsafe of passing the club back to Mike and John (in the sense that all would be well) if those additional payments are not made, and not just for the look on Dyche's face to find Garlick is back in charge - the loans as taken out by ALK are likely to have to be serviced by the club, and at the moment they smell like interest only and I suspect the there is a roll up on at least the first year of Interest possibly more years (the kind you usually see in PiK loans that we first heard of at Manchester United)

@KieranMaguire has been talking about the takeover again today on the Price of Football Podcast

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... Q&hl=en-GB
Last edited by Chester Perry on Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FactualFrank
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

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:28 pm

Royboyclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:20 pm
Essential reading for every single Burnley fan.

We are Burnley not Manchester United.

Very, very apprehensive.
As above, very nice to see you back.

Reading bits of the above, it doesn't sound like you're a fan of the takeover?

Is there any way this could turn out to be an overall positive for us fans?
Last edited by FactualFrank on Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Spijed » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:30 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:24 pm
glad to have you back Roy -have been missing your input these last few weeks

This article on TwoHundredPercent.com is generally in line with my thinking - there is the obvious (and oft repeated) mistake of Garlick's "could" lose £50m not "would".

Also I would not get carried away about he failsafe of passing the club back to Mike and John (in the sense that all would be well) if those additional payments are not made, and not just for the look on Dyche's face to fine Garlick is back in charge - the loans as taken out by ALK are likely to have to be serviced by the club, and at the moment they smell like interest only and I suspect the thee is a roll up on at least the first year of Interest possibly more years (the kind you usually see in PiK loans that we first heard of at Manchester United)

@KieranMaguire has been talking about the takeover again today on the Price of Football Podcast

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... Q&hl=en-GB
Therein lies the big question. How on earth can we service the debt once the parachute payments finish following relegation?

FactualFrank
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

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:33 pm

Spijed wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:30 pm
Therein lies the big question. How on earth can we service the debt once the parachute payments finish following relegation?
Surely there is the confidence we won't go down, hence the need to keep hold of Dyche?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:40 pm

FactualFrank wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:33 pm
Surely there is the confidence we won't go down, hence the need to keep hold of Dyche?
It is all built on keeping Dyche - which is in itself a bit strange - and not just from being Britain's favourite underdog - many people hate the football we play and him, believing he is a whinger

There has to be a huge upsurge in income to keep Dyche happy - that means playing squad investment and currently I am struggling to see just how that is going to manifest itself - the income upsurge from the current tv deal has been lost in rebates. match day is down, commercial income is challenged by rebates, lack of visibility and general economic woe, positive thoughts about the next TV cycle only seem to lie with American Investors not Industry insiders

FactualFrank
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

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:45 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:40 pm
It is all built on keeping Dyche - which is in itself a bit strange - and not just from being Britain's favourite underdog - many people hate the football we play and him, believing he is a whinger

There has to be a huge upsurge in income to keep Dyche happy - that means playing squad investment and currently I am struggling to see just how that is going to manifest itself - the income upsurge from the current tv deal has been lost in rebates. match day is down, commercial income is challenged by rebates, lack of visibility and general economic woe, positive thoughts about the next TV cycle only seem to lie with American Investors not Industry insiders
Not so strange if they spoke with Dyche beforehand - I bet they did, he would just never admit it.

Dyche has no cemented offer if he left. He has absolutely no guarantee of being in management in 3 years time if he left. Does he stay? He knows he has the job for as long as he wants it.

He has to be happy.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boatshed bill » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:46 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:40 pm
It is all built on keeping Dyche - which is in itself a bit strange - and not just from being Britain's favourite underdog - many people hate the football we play and him, believing he is a whinger

There has to be a huge upsurge in income to keep Dyche happy - that means playing squad investment and currently I am struggling to see just how that is going to manifest itself - the income upsurge from the current tv deal has been lost in rebates. match day is down, commercial income is challenged by rebates, lack of visibility and general economic woe, positive thoughts about the next TV cycle only seem to lie with American Investors not Industry insiders
Have ALK "borrowed" from the club, and if so how will they pay it back?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:48 pm

Royboyclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:20 pm
Essential reading for every single Burnley fan.

We are Burnley not Manchester United.

Very, very apprehensive.
Hi Royboy, I don't think we need to be too concerned at what 200% write, their article is full of inconsistencies.

Taking the ManU stuff first: they talk of all the money leaving the club for financing, debt interest, debt repayments and shareholders' dividends - but, they don't talk about the money ManU has earned to be able to pay the interest, repay debt and pay dividends. Yes, yes, I know that the debt was raised against ManU's balance sheet and the Glazers spent a lot of that debt in buying the club, which now pays the shareholders dividends - and, I'd guess, directors' fees. None of us are expecting ManU to turn up tomorrow evening with half a team, missing a few "top internationals." Whatever is happening at Old Trafford under Glazer ownership, they aren't doing too badly.

Then, re Burnley, 200% write that 84% of the shares have been bought for £150 million and say ALK have put in £15m, borrowed £60m (or was it £80m?) and used the club's own cash to pay the balance. Elsewhere in the article they write that not all the £150m has been paid and there are 3 instalments remaining. Separately, Bloomberg wrote that £102m had been paid - with the balance owed to Mike G and John B - and they take back ownership of the club if they don't receive these payments when due.

Burnley Football Club isn't as highly leveraged as 200% write. I'm not sure why they say "what do the fans get out of it?" We get a football club that the new owners say that the immediate aim is to keep in the Premier League and they will back the manager in the January window to do that. Then, Alan Pace speaks of his aims for the longer term, including keeping Sean Dyche as manager. Isn't that all we want as fans?

Yes, there's risk with Alan Pace's plans. How often have we read on here a wish that the club "speculates to accumulate?" No one, so far as I'm aware, has ever posted that they themselves were ready to spend their money helping the club "speculate to accumulate," so, I assume we are all ok that the club's owners are the ones who will find that money and spend it...

I'm keen to see what happens over the next few weeks. I don't see any reason to be any more concerned than the day in May 2009 when many of us came away from Wembley after a brilliant play-off victory and then we started hearing rumours that Owen Coyle may be leaving us.

I'm picking that day because in August we faced ManU in our first Premier League game at Turf Moor - and we all were thrilled to win the game, 1-0.

Tomorrow evening the club is under new ownership and we have our first Premier League game at Turf Moor - and it's ManU once more.

Exciting times.

UTC

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:54 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:46 pm
Have ALK "borrowed" from the club, and if so how will they pay it back?
ALK have borrowed using the club's assets as security, I expect that they will transfer the loan over to the club now they own it - they may even replace the loan with one at a better rate now that they own the club and that would likely be a loan directly taken out by the club.

Alan Pace has not specifically denied that the club's own reserves have been used to purchase some of the shares, there is not charge against:

Velocity Sports Partners ltd
Calder Vale Holdings Ltd
Kettering Capital Ltd

that suggests they have borrowed money from the club to pay for shares. Then again that would not make sense to the owners, it is more beneficial to ALK to just spend it in that way, rather than loan it from the club.

FactualFrank
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

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:55 pm

I will only be worried when Paul Waine isn't excited.
These 2 users liked this post: Paul Waine Dark Cloud

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:59 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:48 pm
Hi Royboy, I don't think we need to be too concerned at what 200% write, their article is full of inconsistencies.

Taking the ManU stuff first: they talk of all the money leaving the club for financing, debt interest, debt repayments and shareholders' dividends - but, they don't talk about the money ManU has earned to be able to pay the interest, repay debt and pay dividends. Yes, yes, I know that the debt was raised against ManU's balance sheet and the Glazers spent a lot of that debt in buying the club, which now pays the shareholders dividends - and, I'd guess, directors' fees. None of us are expecting ManU to turn up tomorrow evening with half a team, missing a few "top internationals." Whatever is happening at Old Trafford under Glazer ownership, they aren't doing too badly.

Then, re Burnley, 200% write that 84% of the shares have been bought for £150 million and say ALK have put in £15m, borrowed £60m (or was it £80m?) and used the club's own cash to pay the balance. Elsewhere in the article they write that not all the £150m has been paid and there are 3 instalments remaining. Separately, Bloomberg wrote that £102m had been paid - with the balance owed to Mike G and John B - and they take back ownership of the club if they don't receive these payments when due.

Burnley Football Club isn't as highly leveraged as 200% write. I'm not sure why they say "what do the fans get out of it?" We get a football club that the new owners say that the immediate aim is to keep in the Premier League and they will back the manager in the January window to do that. Then, Alan Pace speaks of his aims for the longer term, including keeping Sean Dyche as manager. Isn't that all we want as fans?

Yes, there's risk with Alan Pace's plans. How often have we read on here a wish that the club "speculates to accumulate?" No one, so far as I'm aware, has ever posted that they themselves were ready to spend their money helping the club "speculate to accumulate," so, I assume we are all ok that the club's owners are the ones who will find that money and spend it...

I'm keen to see what happens over the next few weeks. I don't see any reason to be any more concerned than the day in May 2009 when many of us came away from Wembley after a brilliant play-off victory and then we started hearing rumours that Owen Coyle may be leaving us.

I'm picking that day because in August we faced ManU in our first Premier League game at Turf Moor - and we all were thrilled to win the game, 1-0.

Tomorrow evening the club is under new ownership and we have our first Premier League game at Turf Moor - and it's ManU once more.

Exciting times.

UTC
Paul the 200% article also doesn't say that none of the original £500m + borrowed has ever been repaid, or that the Glazers never intend to repay the loan, similarly there is no mention of the dilapidated state Old Trafford is in now in or how the £1billion + taken out to service loans, lenders, dividends and consultancy fees would have given them a shiny new stadium that would generate even greater levels of income

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boatshed bill » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:02 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:54 pm
ALK have borrowed using the club's assets as security, I expect that they will transfer the loan over to the club now they own it - they may even replace the loan with one at a better rate now that they own the club and that would likely be a loan directly taken out by the club.

Alan Pace has not specifically denied that the club's own reserves have been used to purchase some of the shares, there is not charge against:

Velocity Sports Partners ltd
Calder Vale Holdings Ltd
Kettering Capital Ltd

that suggests they have borrowed money from the club to pay for shares. Then again that would not make sense to the owners, it is more beneficial to ALK to just spend it in that way, rather than loan it from the club.
Thanks for answering. As usual when it comes to football club finance, I didn't understand a word of it :D
So,for a simpleton like me, has the club's bank account diminished by a sum believed to be aroundv £55million or not? :D

Wile E Coyote
Posts: 8507
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
Been Liked: 2887 times
Has Liked: 1760 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Wile E Coyote » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:09 pm

its simpler to understand all this complex financial stuff if its put like this.
Imagine a pie being shared between 20.000 people, first you have to pay for the ingredients. if you check the foreign trade markets for meat and potatoes and the stuff they make the crust from, then find the best deals are home based, then you secure a lease on the warehousing at say 13% annually. then you divide the initial outlay by the import tariff rates pre brexit. the overall figure should average out at 0.0098% each tax year pro rata. once this calculation has been factored in to the net equation, baking can begin. my estimate is each fan can expect a slice of pie one billionth of a micron in width just prior to kick off in the 2022/23 season. ...its just basic maths really.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:10 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:59 pm
Paul the 200% article also doesn't say that none of the original £500m + borrowed has ever been repaid, or that the Glazers never intend to repay the loan, similarly there is no mention of the dilapidated state Old Trafford is in now in or how the £1billion + taken out to service loans, lenders, dividends and consultancy fees would have given them a shiny new stadium that would generate even greater levels of income
Hi CP, hmm, I know it must be so frustrating for the ManU fans that Old Trafford is still just Old Trafford and they haven't got a new shiny stadium like their "noisy neighbours." How much do they spend on their transfers? How much do they spend on wages? I'd not noticed that ManU are struggling to keep spending in a way that very few football clubs can.

As always, I'm looking forward to the game tomorrow night.

Exciting times.

UTC

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:15 pm

I think the mistake that many are making, in part prompted by some of the posters on this board, is that American private equity buys a football club for any reason other than to make a profit.

I said somewhere way back when that Burnley FC and American private equity make strange bedfellows but I think a lot of people were blinded by the purported spat between Garlick and Dyche, the risk of Farnell being involved in a takeover, the lack of transfer spending and endorsements from some posters and pictured ALK as being far more benevolent than you would expect.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:17 pm

FactualFrank wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:55 pm
I will only be worried when Paul Waine isn't excited.
Hi Frank, I'm planning on being excited all the way through the end of this season.

Somewhere along that football timeline I'm hoping to get my two shots of the covid-19 vaccine. I'll be happy if my first shot is early March and my 2nd will be 12 weeks later. (What else is there to do, right now)!

Then, maybe around July/August we will be in the summer transfer window and preparing for a new season in the Premier League. With vaccines in my arm, I'll be excited again and hoping that I get to go to a game.

Exciting times.

UTC

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:22 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:17 pm
Hi Frank, I'm planning on being excited all the way through the end of this season.

Somewhere along that football timeline I'm hoping to get my two shots of the covid-19 vaccine. I'll be happy if my first shot is early March and my 2nd will be 12 weeks later. (What else is there to do, right now)!

Then, maybe around July/August we will be in the summer transfer window and preparing for a new season in the Premier League. With vaccines in my arm, I'll be excited again and hoping that I get to go to a game.

Exciting times.

UTC
is this a special diet regime to keep the metabolism high
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Tall Paul » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:25 pm

aggi wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:15 pm
I think the mistake that many are making, in part prompted by some of the posters on this board, is that American private equity buys a football club for any reason other than to make a profit.
Of course they want to make a profit, but to do that they need to increase the value of their asset, which won't happen if we're relegated.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:25 pm

aggi wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:15 pm
I think the mistake that many are making, in part prompted by some of the posters on this board, is that American private equity buys a football club for any reason other than to make a profit.

I said somewhere way back when that Burnley FC and American private equity make strange bedfellows but I think a lot of people were blinded by the purported spat between Garlick and Dyche, the risk of Farnell being involved in a takeover, the lack of transfer spending and endorsements from some posters and pictured ALK as being far more benevolent than you would expect.
Hi aggi, yes, interesting. I'd argue that everyone, yes, everyone that buys and owns a football club does it to make a profit. I'd also argue that every fan wants their club to make a profit. Where there may be differences of opinion is who that profit belongs to and how that profit benefits the "ordinary fan." Of course, in all situations any profit belongs to the owners/shareholders. The profit the owners make for themselves benefits the fans because profit reflects the footballing success of the club - and all fans want footballing success.

Part of the source of the confusion is that many owners make mistakes, their club is not successful and they lose money rather than make profits.

Another source of the confusion is that clubs spend a vast amount of money on buying players and rewarding them with massive, massive wages... but, this expenditure doesn't guarantee that the footballers are a success and leads to disappointment of the fans.

Exciting times.

UTC

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:26 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:22 pm
is this a special diet regime to keep the metabolism high
Hi CP, of course it is! ;) :D

Exciting times.

UTC

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Duffer_ » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:37 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:02 pm
Thanks for answering. As usual when it comes to football club finance, I didn't understand a word of it :D
So,for a simpleton like me, has the club's bank account diminished by a sum believed to be aroundv £55million or not? :D
The simple answer to your question is that we, or I at least, don't know.

The cash reserves, whatever they stand at right now, can't be directly used as part of the consideration. The cash could be extracted by way of dividend, with ALK receiving 84% of the total distribution (before tax) and the remainder going to the other shareholders. ALK could then use that cash to pay MG or reduce their debt.

A dividend hasn't been paid to all shareholders, hence there was some speculation earlier in the thread about whether the cash could have been loaned from the club to ALK by way of an intercompany (related party) loan. The issue here is that it could be deemed to be a dividend/distribution for tax purposes, and also possibly opens a can of worms in terms of ALK not acting in the interest of all shareholders.

I would think it is more likely that ALK will use any cash surplus as working capital, or to fund player purchases.

Happy to be corrected but that is my understanding of the position.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:42 pm

Duffer_ wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:37 pm
The simple answer to your question is that we, or I at least, don't know.

The cash reserves, whatever they stand at right now, can't be directly used as part of the consideration. The cash could be extracted by way of dividend, with ALK receiving 84% of the total distribution (before tax) and the remainder going to the other shareholders. ALK could then use that cash to pay MG or reduce their debt.

A dividend hasn't been paid to all shareholders, hence there was some speculation earlier in the thread about whether the cash could have been loaned from the club to ALK by way of an intercompany (related party) loan. The issue here is that it could be deemed to be a dividend/distribution for tax purposes, and also possibly opens a can of worms in terms of ALK not acting in the interest of all shareholders.

I would think it is more likely that ALK will use any cash surplus as working capital, or to fund player purchases.

Happy to be corrected but that is my understanding of the position.
I suspect the cash withdrawal has been matched by an interest-free loan from the club to the holding company. It won't be a deemed distribution for tax purposes because it is within a group of companies.

I don't think there is a cash surplus at the club, or if there is ti will be earmarked to pay the rest of ALK's debts. If Sean Dyche wants to buy new players it will be by way of further loans.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:44 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:25 pm
Of course they want to make a profit, but to do that they need to increase the value of their asset, which won't happen if we're relegated.
They don't actually. All they need to do is pay themselves £20m, whether by dividends, interest, salaries, or whatever, and they are in profit. They can then declare bankruptcy with no comebacks - that's the point, and the easy abuse, of limited liability.

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Duffer_ » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:50 pm

dsr wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:42 pm
I suspect the cash withdrawal has been matched by an interest-free loan from the club to the holding company. It won't be a deemed distribution for tax purposes because it is within a group of companies.

I don't think there is a cash surplus at the club, or if there is ti will be earmarked to pay the rest of ALK's debts. If Sean Dyche wants to buy new players it will be by way of further loans.
Thanks for the info dsr. Ouch - that's even more depressing than I thought! Any views on the position of minority shareholders with reference to unfair prejudice?

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:00 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:25 pm
Of course they want to make a profit, but to do that they need to increase the value of their asset, which won't happen if we're relegated.
Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:25 pm
Hi aggi, yes, interesting. I'd argue that everyone, yes, everyone that buys and owns a football club does it to make a profit. I'd also argue that every fan wants their club to make a profit. Where there may be differences of opinion is who that profit belongs to and how that profit benefits the "ordinary fan." Of course, in all situations any profit belongs to the owners/shareholders. The profit the owners make for themselves benefits the fans because profit reflects the footballing success of the club - and all fans want footballing success.

Part of the source of the confusion is that many owners make mistakes, their club is not successful and they lose money rather than make profits.

Another source of the confusion is that clubs spend a vast amount of money on buying players and rewarding them with massive, massive wages... but, this expenditure doesn't guarantee that the footballers are a success and leads to disappointment of the fans.

Exciting times.

UTC
I'm not saying that there aren't occasions when the goals will align. Many complained that Garlick ran the club as too much of a businessman and not enough as a fan and that worked out very well.

I'm sure that most want to make a profit but for many that isn't the primary reason for buying a club (Gibson at Boro for example or, closer to home, Barry Kilby).

However, people shouldn't be surprised when we are bought to make a profit and then avenues are taken to maximise that profit.

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nonayforever » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:07 pm

dsr wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:42 pm
I suspect the cash withdrawal has been matched by an interest-free loan from the club to the holding company. It won't be a deemed distribution for tax purposes because it is within a group of companies.

I don't think there is a cash surplus at the club, or if there is ti will be earmarked to pay the rest of ALK's debts. If Sean Dyche wants to buy new players it will be by way of further loans.
Or by selling players.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5058
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by BurnleyFC » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:57 pm

God, this is now even more of a depressing read than it was when we were waiting for the takeover to actually happen.
These 2 users liked this post: FactualFrank Turfytop

arise_sir_charge
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

Post by arise_sir_charge » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:55 pm

BurnleyFC wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:57 pm
God, this is now even more of a depressing read than it was when we were waiting for the takeover to actually happen.
Yes and thus far it’s all based on hear say and supposition with little to no substance or fact.

Sad really that so many seem so keen to rain on the parade so soon.

Local club for local people has never felt so apt reading this thread.
These 5 users liked this post: mill hill claret Burnley1989 Steve-Harpers-perm THEWELLERNUT70 Turfytop

Burnley1989
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
Been Liked: 2274 times
Has Liked: 2153 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Burnley1989 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:34 pm

arise_sir_charge wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Yes and thus far it’s all based on hear say and supposition with little to no substance or fact.

Sad really that so many seem so keen to rain on the parade so soon.

Local club for local people has never felt so apt reading this thread.
Like I’ve said before, the type you avoid in a pub :lol:

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by joey13 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:39 pm

arise_sir_charge wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Yes and thus far it’s all based on hear say and supposition with little to no substance or fact.

Sad really that so many seem so keen to rain on the parade so soon.

Local club for local people has never felt so apt reading this thread.
You do know the sale of the club has gone through , don’t you ?with 55 million of the total , money from the club coffers
Or you just ignoring it ? Or you think it’s a good thing ?

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:03 pm

joey13 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:39 pm
You do know the sale of the club has gone through , don’t you ?with 55 million of the total , money from the club coffers
Or you just ignoring it ? Or you think it’s a good thing ?
If true why would the great local custodians agree to it?

arise_sir_charge
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

Post by arise_sir_charge » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:45 pm

joey13 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:39 pm
You do know the sale of the club has gone through , don’t you ?with 55 million of the total , money from the club coffers
Or you just ignoring it ? Or you think it’s a good thing ?
I know that the sale has gone through yes.

Where is the evidence to suggest there was £55m in the club coffers? Everyone in the summer was saying it would be much less due to Covid.

Notwithstanding that, where is the evidence it’s been taken to fund the sale?

Finally, most importantly, why don’t we wait to see what happens before deciding whether the ALK plans are good bad or indifferent?
This user liked this post: mill hill claret

scouseclaret
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

Post by scouseclaret » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:26 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:48 pm
Hi Royboy, I don't think we need to be too concerned at what 200% write, their article is full of inconsistencies.

Taking the ManU stuff first: they talk of all the money leaving the club for financing, debt interest, debt repayments and shareholders' dividends - but, they don't talk about the money ManU has earned to be able to pay the interest, repay debt and pay dividends. Yes, yes, I know that the debt was raised against ManU's balance sheet and the Glazers spent a lot of that debt in buying the club, which now pays the shareholders dividends - and, I'd guess, directors' fees. None of us are expecting ManU to turn up tomorrow evening with half a team, missing a few "top internationals." Whatever is happening at Old Trafford under Glazer ownership, they aren't doing too badly.

Then, re Burnley, 200% write that 84% of the shares have been bought for £150 million and say ALK have put in £15m, borrowed £60m (or was it £80m?) and used the club's own cash to pay the balance. Elsewhere in the article they write that not all the £150m has been paid and there are 3 instalments remaining. Separately, Bloomberg wrote that £102m had been paid - with the balance owed to Mike G and John B - and they take back ownership of the club if they don't receive these payments when due.

Burnley Football Club isn't as highly leveraged as 200% write. I'm not sure why they say "what do the fans get out of it?" We get a football club that the new owners say that the immediate aim is to keep in the Premier League and they will back the manager in the January window to do that. Then, Alan Pace speaks of his aims for the longer term, including keeping Sean Dyche as manager. Isn't that all we want as fans?

Yes, there's risk with Alan Pace's plans. How often have we read on here a wish that the club "speculates to accumulate?" No one, so far as I'm aware, has ever posted that they themselves were ready to spend their money helping the club "speculate to accumulate," so, I assume we are all ok that the club's owners are the ones who will find that money and spend it...

I'm keen to see what happens over the next few weeks. I don't see any reason to be any more concerned than the day in May 2009 when many of us came away from Wembley after a brilliant play-off victory and then we started hearing rumours that Owen Coyle may be leaving us.

I'm picking that day because in August we faced ManU in our first Premier League game at Turf Moor - and we all were thrilled to win the game, 1-0.

Tomorrow evening the club is under new ownership and we have our first Premier League game at Turf Moor - and it's ManU once more.

Exciting times.

UTC

THEWELLERNUT70
Posts: 3382
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:13 pm
Been Liked: 997 times
Has Liked: 2007 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by THEWELLERNUT70 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:54 pm

arise_sir_charge wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Yes and thus far it’s all based on hear say and supposition with little to no substance or fact.

Sad really that so many seem so keen to rain on the parade so soon.

Local club for local people has never felt so apt reading this thread.
Its mostly the usual suspects too, find fault with everything, if they had 6 nostrils they'd want a 7th types

dandeclaret
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dandeclaret » Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:44 am

If I had 6 nostrils.... I’d want fewer, not more. Probably 4 fewer. And it would be easy to find fault in that situation, as the problem would be clear.

In a world that lacks critical thinking, survives on sound bites and lurches from issue to issue, it’s good to have a conversation with an exchange of views where people can learn from each other, opinions can be shared at a decent level of detail with logic and reason behind it.... until somdbody equates the conversation bizarrely to being surprised that people would complain if the problem was as obvious as having 3 noses on your face.
This user liked this post: fatboy47

winsomeyen
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:29 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 404 times
Location: brittany France

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by winsomeyen » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:01 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:03 pm
If true why would the great local custodians agree to it?
Its called money, lots of it. :o

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by joey13 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:28 am

arise_sir_charge wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:45 pm
I know that the sale has gone through yes.

Where is the evidence to suggest there was £55m in the club coffers? Everyone in the summer was saying it would be much less due to Covid.

Notwithstanding that, where is the evidence it’s been taken to fund the sale?

Finally, most importantly, why don’t we wait to see what happens before deciding whether the ALK plans are good bad or indifferent?
Ah , the head in the sand approach, that always goes well .

What’s wrong with asking questions instead of blindly believing what you are told .

Post Reply