Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:37 pm
http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49975
If you read my posts I don’t think I could be more in the middle if I tried.aggi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:34 amNeither side has provided evidence (and what evidence is in the public domain supports the Matt Slater story) but you only seem willing to give the benefit of the doubt to one side.
I agree that a lot seem to struggle with a middle ground but you seem to be as guilty of that yourself.
Got you. So basically so long as accounts were signed prior to 31st Dec and they were waiting to file them in March, we won’t know any more until March 22?dsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:50 amYou can sign the day after the year end in theory, though in practice you would never get an auditor to sign his bit. But the accounts can be signed as soon as they are ready. But the accounts do need to refer to anything major that has happened between year end date and signature date.
The filing date is independent of the date of signature. The filing date is 9 months after year end. It doesn't matter if the factory has blown up and the boss's wife has run off with the insurance money, those accounts won't alter for anything that happens after the date of signature, even if you have sat on them for 6 months.
No figures mentioned there. The figures are uncertain. What is virtually certain is that Burnley had a big balance and now we haven't, and what is absolutely certain is that Burnley didn't have a loan creditor and didn't have to pay any interest, and now we do.
Hmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?
Thanks, CP. A lot of interesting stuff in Soton's financials. It's interesting that Soton retained their 3-Jun year end and so 6 of their games in the 2019/20 season aren't included in the accounts for that year. However, they provide a lot of information reconciling the impact of the covid-19 lockdown and the delayed completion of the 2019/20 season. If I was an "equity analyst" (I'm not) I'd be busy preparing forecasts on the financial positions of the other Premier League clubs based on Soton's figures - and, of course, all the other club specific info. Interesting, also, to see the cashflow value of the VAT deferral scheme for Soton. Then, do we know who the player is that Soton wrote off £10m against as an impaired charge?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:34 pmSouthampton posted their results last night and announced it as a post balance sheet event
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&start=6059
Charge was registered in July at companies house - I posted it at the time on the MMT threadPaul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pmThanks, CP. A lot of interesting stuff in Soton's financials. It's interesting that Soton retained their 3-Jun year end and so 6 of their games in the 2019/20 season aren't included in the accounts for that year. However, they provide a lot of information reconciling the impact of the covid-19 lockdown and the delayed completion of the 2019/20 season. If I was an "equity analyst" (I'm not) I'd be busy preparing forecasts on the financial positions of the other Premier League clubs based on Soton's figures - and, of course, all the other club specific info. Interesting, also, to see the cashflow value of the VAT deferral scheme for Soton. Then, do we know who the player is that Soton wrote off £10m against as an impaired charge?
One thing, Soton report £78m term loan at 9.14%. They don't name MSD as the provider of the loan. It also appears that this was not a "post balance sheet event" - the loan is already included in the y/end figures at 30-Jun-2020. Or, is there something I've missed in my quick read of Soton's accounts?
Exciting times.
UTC
Thanks, CP. Debenture and Supplemental Security Deed dated 29th June and 30th June, respectively. MSD UK Holdings Limited, "as the security trustee for itself and the other Secured Parties (the "Security Agent").Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:32 pmCharge was registered in July at companies house - I posted it at the time on the MMT thread
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Hi CP, you may already be aware of this Chronicle article from 3-Jul-2020. I guess there's a good chance it is already posted on the MMT thread.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:32 pmCharge was registered in July at companies house - I posted it at the time on the MMT thread
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:13 pmHi CP, you may already be aware of this Chronicle article from 3-Jul-2020. I guess there's a good chance it is already posted on the MMT thread.
Of course, the report has a lot of comments that may be interesting with respect to ALK's use of funds from MSD.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... y-18537244
Exciting times.
UTC
But don't you think that it's easier to spend money when you have got some to spend? We went into this transfer window, or should have, with a large bank balance and no debt. Now we have no money and a lot of debt. How are we going to spend money?Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pmHmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?
It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.
I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.
But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.
It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.
That's how it should be.
Exciting times.
UTC
I'm sure ALK have some sort of a plan but if it was possible for the club to increase it's revenue substantially then why did Garlick not peruse this avenue instead of selling the club, that's the thing I can't understand.dsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:39 pmBut don't you think that it's easier to spend money when you have got some to spend? We went into this transfer window, or should have, with a large bank balance and no debt. Now we have no money and a lot of debt. How are we going to spend money?
The excitement so far is that Burnley FC appear to have spent of the order of £100m. You are right in a sense that "we" don't own the club, ALK do, and by that token I suppose you are right that ALK have the right to run off with the cash and bankrupt the club if that's what they want to do. It's exciting, I suppose, if you like white knuckle rides with no safety features.
Over the next few years, we owe large amounts of money in loan capital and interest. There are four places we can get the cash from. 1 - Premier League TV money, using it to repay the loan instead of using it to sign players or pay their wages. 2 - taking out a new loan to replace the old one and getting further into Dickie's Meadow. 3 - the owners, ALK, who don't have any money; they owe us £100m or so but they haven't got it and won't get it unless they sell the club at a profit, or find some other way to squeeze it out of Burnley FC. 4 - new income streams. I hope you have great faith in the new director's business acumen, because if they can find £100m to replace what has been lost from new income streams, they're doing well.
Sorry Paul, but “we” have lifetimes of emotional and cultural investment in this Club which isn’t shared by a bunch of financiers who arrived a couple of weeks ago. I think “we” have the right to be concerned that the new owners have taken control of our club using very little of their own money and a whole lot of financial engineering.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pmHmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?
It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.
I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.
But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.
It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.
That's how it should be.
Exciting times.
UTC
Hi boatshed, thanks for asking the question. One or two others have asked the same. I don't find it "impolite."boatshed bill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:27 pmPaul,
i've seen you post "exciting times" on several occasions.
not intending to be impolite, but what are you finding exciting about our current situation, because everything I read makes me think we're in trouble with this lot?
Hi scouse, yes, I said "I get it" about the "emotional and cultural investments" but, that's a different relationship from owning the club. We've always had owners who are owners, while we are the club's fans. As I've posted in response to boatshed bill, it's the new owners taking on the challenge of solving the puzzle "how can we keep Burnley in the Premier League" that I find exciting.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:14 pmSorry Paul, but “we” have lifetimes of emotional and cultural investment in this Club which isn’t shared by a bunch of financiers who arrived a couple of weeks ago. I think “we” have the right to be concerned that the new owners have taken control of our club using very little of their own money and a whole lot of financial engineering.
Hi dsr, as I've posted above, I will find it exciting to see how Alan Pace and ALK will tackle these financial challenges - along with the footballing challenge of keeping BFC successful.dsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:39 pmBut don't you think that it's easier to spend money when you have got some to spend? We went into this transfer window, or should have, with a large bank balance and no debt. Now we have no money and a lot of debt. How are we going to spend money?
The excitement so far is that Burnley FC appear to have spent of the order of £100m. You are right in a sense that "we" don't own the club, ALK do, and by that token I suppose you are right that ALK have the right to run off with the cash and bankrupt the club if that's what they want to do. It's exciting, I suppose, if you like white knuckle rides with no safety features.
Over the next few years, we owe large amounts of money in loan capital and interest. There are four places we can get the cash from. 1 - Premier League TV money, using it to repay the loan instead of using it to sign players or pay their wages. 2 - taking out a new loan to replace the old one and getting further into Dickie's Meadow. 3 - the owners, ALK, who don't have any money; they owe us £100m or so but they haven't got it and won't get it unless they sell the club at a profit, or find some other way to squeeze it out of Burnley FC. 4 - new income streams. I hope you have great faith in the new director's business acumen, because if they can find £100m to replace what has been lost from new income streams, they're doing well.
Paul,Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pmHmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?
It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.
I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.
But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.
It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.
That's how it should be.
Exciting times.
UTC
Whilst I do see and appreciate the point that Paul was making, what Nonayforever says is very true and it's also true to add that if and when the owners (any owners) decide they've had enough and sail away, we will still be here because we are the "fans" and we will ALWAYS be here and making the best of it (and it COULD be a right dogs breakfast!)Nonayforever wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:58 pmPaul,
I have bitten my tongue long enough now with your exciting times. I think that you have now completely overstepped the mark with that post.
Football, as Burnley fans perceive it, is a local brew. It is WE. It's The Turf. It's the Longside. It's us against the big six or who ever is above us. It's the small dog with the biggest heart. It's about a special local rivalry with our near neighbours not AC Milan. A manager has to earn the right to be included in OUR Claret & Blue army chant. Certain individuals will be forever remembered as Clarets.
If you or a bunch of financial savvy Americans think the line ends where the money begins, you and they are completely wrong.
There is another financial tragedy unfolding at Derby at this very moment - owned by a billionaire who has used every trick in the book to dodge FFP (having written about 3/4 of it) and consistently failing to win promotion - he has had enough and seems to be refusing to put more money in - has agreed a sale to another billionaire (who is notorious for saying he wants to buy a club and then not stumping up the money) - the money for the takeover has supposedly been in transit for 3 weeks (must be coming by camel) but has yet to arrive at the lawyers - meanwhile players are going unpaid and the club is desperately trying to raise loans but have no assets to secure them against, mainly as a result of the actions of the current owner during his tenure.Dark Cloud wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:05 pmWhilst I do see and appreciate the point that Paul was making, what Nonayforever says is very true and it's also true to add that if and when the owners (any owners) decide they've had enough and sail away, we will still be here because we are the "fans" and we will ALWAYS be here and making the best of it (and it COULD be a right dogs breakfast!)
So sounds like Elkashashy and Muttley (Farnell) are back then and have moved on from Burnley to Derby!!!Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:15 pmThere is another financial tragedy unfolding at Derby at this very moment - owned by a billionaire who has used every trick in the book to dodge FFP (having written about 3/4 of it) and consistently failing to win promotion - he has had enough and seems to be refusing to put more money in - has agreed a sale to another billionaire (who is notorious for saying he wants to buy a club and then not stumping up the money) - the money for the takeover has supposedly been in transit for 3 weeks (must be coming by camel) but has yet to arrive at the lawyers - meanwhile players are going unpaid and the club is desperately trying to raise loans but have no assets to secure them against, mainly as a result of the actions of the current owner during his tenure.
no he is a Qatari - has previously tried Liverpool and NewcastleDark Cloud wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:18 pmSo sounds like Elkashashy and Muttley (Farnell) are back then and have moved on from Burnley to Derby!!!
I think Pace being an experienced football man is somewhat over-egged. In a long career he's spent 18 months over a dozen years ago at a nascent MLS team with a turnover of £5m, that's a world away from a premier league team.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:43 pmHi boatshed, thanks for asking the question. One or two others have asked the same. I don't find it "impolite."
...
I remain...
Exciting times
UTC
Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:43 pmHi boatshed, thanks for asking the question. One or two others have asked the same. I don't find it "impolite."
So, I start from understanding that Mike Garlick and the other directors did not feel that they had the money (or appetite) to invest further in the club and that they'd decided they needed to sell. From what we've seen, the plan to sell started at least 3 years back - that's when we first started seeing US media taking an interest in Burnley Football Club. More recently, one or two of our posters have stated that a prospectus to promote the club for sale was first prepared in 2018.
I think there's a lot who post on here who agreed with MG's desire to sell. Of course, there are many, and I've been one of them, that have posted about the challenges for Burnley FC competing with the finances of the "big city" clubs - "small town..." etc.. etc... and not the most wealthy of areas.
So, for me, there were two possible outcomes, (1) MG sells to a new owner or (2) no new owner is found and the decline of BFC begins, maybe to follow the fates of Wigan, Bolton (remember when they were both Premier League clubs) and there's a worse fate which is Bury. (I was a young lad when Accrington Stanley folded in 1962).
Then we reach Sept last year and the first news of ALK emerges. That for me is exciting. Then we learn of the El Kashashy/Farnell competing interest - but, the Farnell connection doesn't look promising. So, a little bit of excitement, the competing interests are resolved in favour of Alan Pace and ALK.
Then we move to December, the transfer window is approaching - not forgetting in Nov the club had confirmed takeover discussion - and we all wait to learn if ALK will complete the deal. Big excitement, the deal is concluded right before the end of the year.
Of course, we were left with the question, "who are ALK?" and "where is their money?" and "how will they make this work?" For me, it's exciting to have a number of "unknowns." It's a bit like have a large number of presents, all nicely wrapped. You don't know what's in the parcels. You know that some may not be great, maybe one is just a set of hankies or a pair of socks, but others may be a Burnley shirt or season ticket or the "round the world" holiday that you've always wanted. For me, the "unknowns" are exciting, and watching and seeking to piece the clues together are all exciting.
I see nothing to fear in Alan Pace and ALK. Alan Pace has got a football background. He's been involved in a successful football team in Salt Lake City in the US. He's got connections to the UK both through his work in London and - and I was ignorant of this - through his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which also gives him strong links to Lancashire. Who'd have thought a few months back that our new owners would have a "local" connection? That's exciting. Alan Pace also understands that we like our owners to be closely involved and he's moving to live in the area. We can be excited and welcome people moving to Lancashire. (The club, also, needs good footballers to be keen to move to north east Lancs to join the club).
Then, there is some stuff which some will think a little "geeky." I like puzzling out financial structures, reading loan debenture documents, accounting statements and more. There can be "clever ways" that people do things. I'm retired now, but I spent some of my career aiming to do these things - though in very different context than football clubs. So, for me, again, it's more "exciting times" and "what's not to likes."
I've thrown in the "what's not to like" as I think that's an "Americanism." I spent a lot of my working life alongside Americans. I've always loved their "can do" attitude - even though, I recognise there are people who I've worked with who were all "can do" but really should have been "we need to stop them doing anything..." I don't see Alan Pace as in the latter category, though, hey, I haven't met him and I could be wrong.
Does that help?
I remain...
Exciting times
UTC
History suggests that the previous board were not going to use those funds for squad building either, as to what they were going to do with the money that remains unknown but is subject to a wide range of theories - and they are only theories not truth whatever people want to believe.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:47 pmThanks, Paul
I wish I could share your optimism.
where has our club's profit gone? That's a worry to me, the fact that some company our individual could buy the club with our capital, money that could have been used to strengthen the squad and has now vanished.
This is a point of view and I actually think it's helpful in understanding where you're coming from - illuminating even. However, it's not a point of view that I share. Football clubs are not simply assets. They are not cars, teapots, widgets, they are not even equivalent to standard businesses whether that be corner shops or multinationals. They are community institutions, social entities, organisations with hopes, dreams and community fabric writ through them. I do not believe they should be treated as investment opportunities alone, nor that the only stakeholders with any power over them should be those who happen to pay the bills and own the shares.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pmHmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?
It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.
I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.
But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.
It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.
That's how it should be.
Exciting times.
UTC
Where did ALK confirm this? Where’s the proof this is factual? Or are we continuing to argue toss with incorrect information?boatshed bill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:47 pmThanks, Paul
I wish I could share your optimism.
where has our club's profit gone? That's a worry to me, the fact that some company our individual could buy the club with our capital, money that could have been used to strengthen the squad and has now vanished.
I’d like to know where the journalist from The Athletic got his information from about the alleged borrowing of club funds to complete the takeover. A now former disgruntled director perhaps?
Matt Slater hasn’t. But his trusted ‘sources’ have?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:08 pmThe point he is making is that we don't know - and he is right - it should also be stressed that at no point has Matt Slater said all Burnley's cash-holding has been used to buy shares
The club has been sold
Hi Jacko, I hope you don't mind if I quote you, but also intend my response to nonay and others who have expressed why the club is "we" to the fans. I'm also a fan and the club is also "we" for me for the same reasons you are all describing.Jacko wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:12 pmThis is a point of view and I actually think it's helpful in understanding where you're coming from - illuminating even. However, it's not a point of view that I share. Football clubs are not simply assets. They are not cars, teapots, widgets, they are not even equivalent to standard businesses whether that be corner shops or multinationals. They are community institutions, social entities, organisations with hopes, dreams and community fabric writ through them. I do not believe they should be treated as investment opportunities alone, nor that the only stakeholders with any power over them should be those who happen to pay the bills and own the shares.
A football club is something different. Forgive me if I simplify it, but your view seems to be that those who pay the bills should be able to do whatever they want with it. I do not agree. Owners should be thought of merely as custodians, with a responsibility beyond the balance sheet. Given that, fans have every right to be worried, ask questions, protest, etc. It is for this reason that I also believe governments shouldn't just interest themselves in what happens with football clubs but should take a much firmer legislative role in ownership and the running of the game.
The article is awkward in this specific area - it says it has used £55m of Burnley's own cash reserves yet that doesn't add up (even using the lower parameters of the figures offer by the media for borrowings and up front stake) £102m initial payment less £10m upfront and approx £60m from MSD suggests no more than £35m from club cash and substantially less if the other figures are low - the article should have probably said accessed the clubs £55m of cash.
Denied with nothing to back it upSteve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:31 pmThat wasn’t your point though was it. You are believing a report on how the takeover was funded which has already been denied by our new chairman.
Hi aggi, OK, I meant "experienced football man" relative to all the other new club owners around the Premier League and the Championship. How may of the others have run a football (or soccer) club before?aggi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:29 pmI think Pace being an experienced football man is somewhat over-egged. In a long career he's spent 18 months over a dozen years ago at a nascent MLS team with a turnover of £5m, that's a world away from a premier league team.
For what it's worth I don't disagree with exciting times. Whether it is good exciting or bad exciting we shall have to see.
Thanks for sharing. And if you use the higher parameters or any combination of high/low there’s still not a scenario in which £55m may have been used?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pmThe article is awkward in this specific area - it says it has used £55m of Burnley's own cash reserves yet that doesn't add up (even using the lower parameters of the figures offer by the media for borrowings and up front stake) £102m initial payment less £10m upfront and approx £60m from MSD suggests no more than £35m from club cash and substantially less if the other figures are low - the article should have probably said accessed the clubs £55m of cash.
Hi CP, you and I, I believe, have both taken a look at Southampton's latest financial report. You are also knowledgeable about the timing of distribution of tv money to the clubs. Are there any clues in the Soton figures that can help us prepare decent estimates for BFC, not just of the club's p&l for the 13 months to 31-July-2020, but also the cash balances at the end of December. If the largest part of the Premier League tv money is paid to the clubs at the start of the season (?) and further payments are rec'd sometime in 2021 (are there one or two more payments due? when are the final position payments paid? etc)? What do we estimate are the monthly cash wages to the players and other staff - remembering that PAYE and NIC are deducted and paid to HMRC later (do we know if this is monthly or quarterly? or is a deferral scheme running, as it is with VAT)?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pmThe article is awkward in this specific area - it says it has used £55m of Burnley's own cash reserves yet that doesn't add up (even using the lower parameters of the figures offer by the media for borrowings and up front stake) £102m initial payment less £10m upfront and approx £60m from MSD suggests no more than £35m from club cash and substantially less if the other figures are low - the article should have probably said accessed the clubs £55m of cash.