Alan Pace Interview

[Stevie Morgan]

And none of it would have happened if Pace hadn’t purchased the club using it’s cash reserves. Keep going, by all means…

Garlick was the effective owner, he was the one in a position of power in the situation, regardless of what Pace wanted to do. Not sure why this is difficult to understand for you.

[clarethomer]

Everyday is like…..

21F00E9D-4AD5-40DE-AC03-BA360759CF58.jpeg (219.7 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

[Rileybobs]

Garlick was the effective owner, he was the one in a position of power in the situation, regardless of what Pace wanted to do. Not sure why this is difficult to understand for you.

If you can’t see how both parties are equally culpable for a deal which they both agreed to then we’re both equally responsible for wasting each other’s time.

[Stevie Morgan]

If you can’t see how both parties are equally culpable for a deal which they both agreed to then we’re both equally responsible for wasting each other’s time.

I think the point I am making is that Pace wouldn't have been interested in any deal had Garlick not run the club in his own interests in the first place, as there would not have been anything to leverage. So for me, he is more culpable, particularly as a "fan". Anyway, like you said that'll probably do for tonight.

[FeedTheArf]

It isn’t quite rightly though, is it? I’ve never known a fan base to be so obsessive with debt. Why don’t you give him a chance to pay the debt back?

Don’t get me wrong, if he manages to get another investor and repays the debts that’s a different matter.

I get that debt is a part of modern football clubs, but it shouldn’t be. We got lucky with SD and the first promotion under him allowed us to be run in a sustainable way. There was never a need to change that for me. Garlick got greedy and to be fair to Pace, he’s done a good deal for ALK and himself by leveraging the deal and minimising his financial exposure. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I actually like Pace’s approach to progressing transfers and broadening the horizons. I think Kompany is a good appointment on paper and the deals for him and Cornet in particular show he’s a good negotiator.

I want BFC to be around for my son and future generations. That has never been at risk in my 30 years of supporting and I’m not being dramatic and saying the bailiffs are at the door, but we are at more risk than we have been in decades. It’s not because we’ve lived beyond our means and splurged millions on transfers and wages, it’s not because we’ve heavily invested in infrastructure and built a new stadium, it’s because Garlick and Co got greedy and Pace saw an opportunity.

That’s what sticks in the throat.

[AwayClaret]

Fackin 'ell boys have a week off. Christ.

[rob63]

Some people on here are only happy when they're miserable.

It's the Burnley way!

[Les Lawrence]

Wasn't we about to go into administration if we hadn't won play off final in 2009?More at risk than we have been in decades? Don't think so.

[FeedTheArf]

Wasn't we about to go into administration if we hadn't won play off final in 2009?More at risk than we have been in decades? Don't think so.

Fair point, I’d forgotten about that. However I doubt our debts then were no more than £10m at the most. Not £65m plus.

Listen, I hope everything works out, we get back to the prem and everything is rosey. I’m actually an optimist but I’ll never make my peace with the way the deal was done. I should also say that Garlick is equally if not more culpable for our situation, it’s not all on Pace.

[Nonayforever]

I'm with RV Claret on the Pace issue.

Clubs are run in various ways. Baubles ( Man City) money laundering ( Ch#!$@a) nice earners (Man Utd) etc.

In order to achieve highly ambitious plans there's no doubt large amounts of money are required plus well laid plans in every case.
We have the plan, we have the foundations (academy) we may have the personnel ( Pace & Kompany) and with MSD as a partner we have the money.
I'm all for change and forward thinking.
I actually think we could now go places.

[beeholeclaret]

I may be wrong on this but I thought Garlick decided to sell as he was not able to keep up with the other big international multi billionaires. He and Dyche had done a brilliant job building the club and team. Think the wheels seemed to fall off after signing Gibson and injuries to players like Brady then later Defour Vokes etc. we failed to continue what had been working so well. Not sure whether Garlick’s trust in Dyche (and vice versa) diminished but that was the start of the slide for me? The dry powder store was not spent on further players and was used as an enticement for a purchaser such as ALK and Pace. They use the money markets to switch funds and companies around to their own advantage. Although we worry about it Pace and co are probably less concerned.

[joey13]

Burnley fans seem more concerned about the club finances than their own. It’s not our money I don’t get the obsession with it. It’s the modern game.

A leveraged buyout is not the modern game , and likely to be outlawed soon .

[Nori1958]

Correct, the modern game is getting lots of money from countries, that shall we say, are not that good at human rights, woman's rights, gay rights... Shall I go on

[dsr]

I may be wrong on this but I thought Garlick decided to sell as he was not able to keep up with the other big international multi billionaires. He and Dyche had done a brilliant job building the club and team. Think the wheels seemed to fall off after signing Gibson and injuries to players like Brady then later Defour Vokes etc. we failed to continue what had been working so well. Not sure whether Garlick’s trust in Dyche (and vice versa) diminished but that was the start of the slide for me? The dry powder store was not spent on further players and was used as an enticement for a purchaser such as ALK and Pace. They use the money markets to switch funds and companies around to their own advantage. Although we worry about it Pace and co are probably less concerned.

You are wrong on this. It may be that that has been said to be the reason, or it may even be that Garlick has said or hinted that that was the reason, but it isn't true.

The point is that if Garlick felt we needed an owner who could put money into the club, he would not have sold to an owner who not only could not put money in, but in fact (as Garlick knew) was intending to take money out.