ALK’s Strategy: Are We Witnessing A Failing Experiment?

[Casper2]

I can't be the only person sick of seeing your bile every week.

Most people come here for a debate, you come on here to try and "Bully" other posters.

I've never seen you respond to a debate, you just constantly "play the man"- which by the way shows your own lack of intelligence.

You are not the only person, I’ve pointed it out on numerous occasions, seems he’s allowed to get away with being a bully .

[Vegas Claret]

That’s absolutely disgusting.

Embarrassing fee paid and embarrassing wages being paid to a League One standard keeper.

Humiliating.

it's a bit mental if it's correct

[Westleigh]

I’ll assume you comparing playing Arsenal and Palace to Championship sides is a joke

It really doesn’t matter if we’re playing Arsenal ,or Accrington Stanley the effort you put in should always be the same ,your implying that if the half hearted effort we put in last Saturday was in the championship it would be acceptable.

[dsr]

Whatever the reasons and sources of the cash, we do know that up to July 2022 the owners had taken £115m out of the club by way of interest-free loan and that the club had had to pay many millions in interest to service it. The loan and the interest paid could have been used for other purposes, eg. buying players, paying wages, building new stands; it was instead effectively given to ALK.

[IanMcL]

Whatever the reasons and sources of the cash, we do know that up to July 2022 the owners had taken £115m out of the club by way of interest-free loan and that the club had had to pay many millions in interest to service it. The loan and the interest paid could have been used for other purposes, eg. buying players, paying wages, building new stands; it was instead effectively given to ALK.

Exactly like ManU and we know how their educated fans reacted to that! We appear to swallow it all.

[Big Vinny K]

Exactly like ManU and we know how their educated fans reacted to that! We appear to swallow it all.

How did their “educated fans” react to it ?
They haven’t stayed away exactly despite season tickets going up massively in price under the Glazers.
They haven’t given up their corporate hospitality - 15,000 corporates every home game spend stupid amounts

The value of the club has increased ten fold under the Glazers.

The club might be doing bang average on the pitch compared to their usual standards under SAF but as much as some fans would like to point the finger at the Glazers they have the highest wage bill in the PL and other than maybe Chelsea they have spent more on transfer fees than any other club in the world. It’s hardly the Glazers fault that successive manages decide to buy dross like Martial, Antony etc

I can’t stand the Glazers - they’ve taken a billion pounds in interest payments out of Man United but not sure you can argue that what they set out to do hasn’t worked for them or for the club.
And as is the case with ourselves let’s not forget that the previous owners are the ones who decided to cash in and sell it to Americans knowing it would burden the respective clubs with significant debt.

[Colburn_Claret]

All the talk of debt is distorting the argument.
I'm like McCawber, I don't like it at all. That said in the business world debt is common, and what matters is is the debt serviceable. After 3 years of complaints, there's still no evidence that ALK aren't in control of the finances.
If the possibility of relegation has been fectored in, as another post suggests, then I can't see what the panic is.
Have a go at them for what they do, but not for what you think they might be doing.

[Big Vinny K]

All the talk of debt is distorting the argument.
I'm like McCawber, I don't like it at all. That said in the business world debt is common, and what matters is is the debt serviceable. After 3 years of complaints, there's still no evidence that ALK aren't in control of the finances.
If the possibility of relegation has been fectored in, as another post suggests, then I can't see what the panic is.
Have a go at them for what they do, but not for what you think they might be doing.

I agree with this to a degree and you are correct about debt being common place.
From the other point or view people can also see this in very much a black and white way without the intricacies of debt and ownership structure, leveraging buyouts etc.
Previously the club had no debt
Now we do.
It’s inevitable that a lot of people thinks this puts the club in a riskier position - because the simple fact it is it does.

[JohnMcGreal]

After 3 years of complaints, there's still no evidence that ALK aren't in control of the finances.

Between the repeatedly late filings and the general lack of transparency there's not much evidence of anything.

[Colburn_Claret]

I agree with this to a degree and you are correct about debt being common place.
From the other point or view people can also see this in very much a black and white way without the intricacies of debt and ownership structure, leveraging buyouts etc.
Previously the club had no debt
Now we do.
It’s inevitable that a lot of people thinks this puts the club in a riskier position - because the simple fact it is it does.

I agree with all of that, and I do understand why people feel like that, but the time to criticise is when it goes pear shape, not now.

[CoolClaret]

I agree with all of that, and I do understand why people feel like that, but the time to criticise is when it goes pear shape, not now.

I think healthy skepticism is the best approach. Would be nice for at least a little bit more transparency from ALK on these sorts of issues - heck, even filing the accounts on time would be a start.

[Chester Perry]

I think healthy skepticism is the best approach. Would be nice for at least a little bit more transparency from ALK on these sorts of issues - heck, even filing the accounts on time would be a start.

ALK/VSL have been late with filing club accounts once - and that was to the EFL last season - the punishment was a little bit of well managed negative publicity and a transfer ban of no consequence.

Club filings of accounts at Companies House have not been late - to the wire but not late

The next important filing date for the club is this Friday March 1st 2024 when the fully audited accounts have to be presented to the Premier League.

It is the other ALK/VSL vehicles in registered in the UK that have repeated filing issues, with it seems little consequence from either Companies House or the Premier League/EFL. For the football authorities this is because of the group level that the club reports at - Burnley FC Holdings Limited. It is a obvious and probably deliberate weakness in the rules of these bodies, given it is the clubs that approve them. For Companies House we do not know the reasons things have not been taken further.

Healthy scepticism here, is important because I have yet to come across anyone who thinks that Pace, Smith and Hunt are inept, incompetent or incapable, most would argue the opposite. That brings into question whether these late/non filing actions, given how often they are repeated, are deliberate choices and if that is the case the question has to be, Why?

[Boss Hogg]

If we don’t get back up after 3 years ( more than possible) how is the debt then serviced and will the asset sales cover this ? Then what are we left with ?

[randomclaret2]

If we don’t get back up after 3 years ( more than possible) how is the debt then serviced and will the asset sales cover this ? Then what are we left with ?

Our parachute payments will run out after 2 years this time, as we will only have been in the Premier League for 1 season after promotion.

[Orangebernard]

The reason I stated the ownership and the strategies of the club feels like an experiment is because of the lack of transparency and the obvious attempts to obfuscate the off-field business of the club plus the completely baffling transfer window of last summer amongst other more minor things such as the need to search males over 18 without any explanation against Arsenal, for example. As i said earlier i don't like the LBO as the way I see it is that a few individuals now have their names on share certificates that have been bought and are apparently still being paid for by others, that immediately says to me that you will take more risks with that asset than you would if the money used to pay for it was from your own wallet. However, the LBO, I get. It is what it is. The ownership structure as detailed by CP is complicated but not as much as some i've seen and the lack of filings or late filings doesn't sit well unless you are deliberately trying to cloud the view of those looking in. I'm not suggesting for one minute that there is anything underhand happening and i've reconciled this to myself that it is partly an attempt to protect the smaller investors and the details of their investments as much as anything else but their need to do this is puzzling.

As for the transfer window and the recruitment of players for this season, well that does feel like an experiment when you are sitting there watching no doubt talented footballers who have been thrust into the toughest league in the world looking like a poor League Two team having their day in the sun in the third round of the cup, but on a weekly basis. I cannot understand whether those responsible for recruitment have got it very badly wrong or the strategy was to recruit last summer for next season (24/25) or whether we are experimenting with buying in bulk and hoping a few come good. Whatever it is it doesn't sit well with me as i want to see my team win football matches.

As for not criticising until it goes pear shaped, i'd suggest that when its gone pear shaped its too late. I'm trying not to criticise ALK or VK now but i am trying to voice my concerns because i listen to podcasts around sports and finance and the one common factor when i listen to tales of woe from supporters of other clubs is that once it becomes obvious the experiment has gone pear-shaped its usually the 11th hour and its usually the fans that are left to clean up the mess, just ask fans of Bury, Bolton, Scunthorpe, Wigan, Portsmouth, Derby etc.

[CoolClaret]

If we don’t get back up after 3 years ( more than possible) how is the debt then serviced and will the asset sales cover this ? Then what are we left with ?

The million dollar question!

I don't think anybody truly knows the amount of debt/number of loans etc that we currently have - I'd also like to know how they have financed them and what if any assets have been used as collateral. I'm sure CP and PaulWaine know more on this; though it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

[Chester Perry]

The million dollar question!

I don't think anybody truly knows the amount of debt/number of loans etc that we currently have - I'd also like to know how they have financed them and what if any assets have been used as collateral. I'm sure CP and PaulWaine know more on this; though it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

The debt is not the only mystery that I am currently investigating

[forzagranata]

The million dollar question!

I don't think anybody truly knows the amount of debt/number of loans etc that we currently have - I'd also like to know how they have financed them and what if any assets have been used as collateral. I'm sure CP and PaulWaine know more on this; though it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

We know that the stadium and training ground (and I think another property) have been used as security against the loans right?

[CoolClaret]

We know that the stadium and training ground (and I think another property) have been used as security against the loans right?

I am honestly not sure but wouldn't be surprised.

The bit that gets to me the most on this sort of thing is I just know that ALK will probably never have the club operating without some sort of debt; anytime something is paid off/amortised they will be looking at other ways to 'push the envelope' in securing some other sort of deal to try and maximise some other investments.

More than happy to be wrong here - I'd absolutely love it if we got back to a point of zero debt but I just can't see it.

It's all well and good for United or another giant club but it only takes a few bad years with us and we're truly knackered.

[Sleeping Cat]

We know that the stadium and training ground (and I think another property) have been used as security against the loans right?

And here in lies the concern. All the risk for the ALK strategy is on Burnley FC, not on ALK themselves. If they fault on the debt they can walk away with small losses & bruised egos whilst BFC searches for a way out of a financial hole.

[Sleeping Cat]

I am honestly not sure but wouldn't be surprised.

The bit that gets to me the most on this sort of thing is I just know that ALK will probably never have the club operating without some sort of debt; anytime something is paid off/amortised they will be looking at other ways to 'push the envelope' in securing some other sort of deal to try and maximise some other investments.

More than happy to be wrong here - I'd absolutely love it if we got back to a point of zero debt but I just can't see it.

It's all well and good for United or another giant club but it only takes a few bad years with us and we're truly knackered.

Yes, conversely to the point the debt and therefore the risk is on BFC, with no liability on ALK. Whilst the debt is serviceable they can continue to push the envelope in the hope of landing some successes, raising the value of the club and potentially sell the club to make themselves a tidy profit.

[CoolClaret]

Yes, conversely to the point the debt and therefore the risk is on BFC, with no liability on ALK. Whilst the debt is serviceable they can continue to push the envelope in the hope of landing some successes, raising the value of the club and potentially sell the club to make themselves a tidy profit.

Which is exactly what finance guys (and why I generally despise them) are masters at doing; using other people's money to make money for themselves without really any of the risk attached.

It's a bit bonkers when you really think about it.

[Chester Perry]

We know that the stadium and training ground (and I think another property) have been used as security against the loans right?

from what I remember it is Turf Moor and Gawthorpe, but I believe it includes Turf Moor Gym and the car park on Harry Potts Way

It is worth noting that:
Turf Moor
Turf Moor Gym (now the Fanzone)
The Car Park between Burnley Cricket Club and Harry Potts Way
Gawthorpe and
the land off Mollywood Lane all carry separate title deeds and will/should be listed separately on a schedule within a registered Charge is they have been defined as assets for that purpose.

there is also the issue that fragmentary areas abutting Turf Moor (thereby extending its exercised footprint have been acquired down the years and can carry separate title deeds.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Whatever the reasons and sources of the cash, we do know that up to July 2022 the owners had taken £115m out of the club by way of interest-free loan and that the club had had to pay many millions in interest to service it. The loan and the interest paid could have been used for other purposes, eg. buying players, paying wages, building new stands; it was instead effectively given to ALK.

That is as may be, but we as fans don’t have a financial stake (on the whole) but we do have an emotional one.

What we have to ask is whether more or less money has been spent on the things that feed that emotional stake, before or after the takeover. The answer is of course more, a lot more. I wish some of that was on facilities, but it is what it is.

I get the risk of course, and the risk that future emotional stake is affected by the finances blowing up, but I do feel we benefit more from those dopamine fuelling highs like last season than for example what Everton fans have, ploughing around the lower PL for decades. We already have a lot to thank ALK for.

[Chester Perry]

Yes, conversely to the point the debt and therefore the risk is on BFC, with no liability on ALK. Whilst the debt is serviceable they can continue to push the envelope in the hope of landing some successes, raising the value of the club and potentially sell the club to make themselves a tidy profit.

technically ALK/VSL owe the club £114.8m and because it is not carrying interest it can be called in at any time - even the accounts note this.

We do not know, if that debt was transferred to Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd from Calder Vale Holdings Limited when the controlling shareholding in the club was passed the same way last year

[ClaretPete001]

All the talk of debt is distorting the argument.
I'm like McCawber, I don't like it at all. That said in the business world debt is common, and what matters is is the debt serviceable. After 3 years of complaints, there's still no evidence that ALK aren't in control of the finances.
If the possibility of relegation has been fectored in, as another post suggests, then I can't see what the panic is.
Have a go at them for what they do, but not for what you think they might be doing.

I'm sorry Colburn but this is just profoundly wrong in every way.

Debt is common because cash is a resource and can be used to grow the business.

Dent incurred buying shares is not a resource. When it's the Glazers buying United it's manageable risk - when it's ALK buying Burnley it's a totally different ball game.

The debt has gone from zero to who knows but it must be tens of millions.

The turnover of the club is around £135 million of which nigh on £120 million is TV Broadcast revenue.

So, in plain terms we are a business that risks losing £120 million out of a turnover of £135 million in 3 years. Managing that kind of decline is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

You can't factor in that kind of debt into a business plan other than covering the debt with playing assets. ALK are investors they are not business people and operate on totally different risk variables to most business owners.

In the end, if they can get their seed money back from the business and sell a League 1 club for £10 million then that is doubling their money and a good outcome for an investor. It's a pile of sh*t for the fans but for an investor it's the worst outcome measured against the best outcome, which is getting a club for virtually nothing and selling it for £300 million.

They will have huge spreadsheet full of risk analysis all pointing to the fact that they are likely to make lots of money whether it goes sh*t faced or otherwise.

If we had the cajones we would all do it because what's to lose other than some sh*tty football club, in a sh*tty part of a country thousands of miles from home. Forget the BS - That's how investors look at things....!

The problem for us is - it's our sh*t and we love it. It's who we are....!

[Clovius Boofus]

And what about the former custodians - did they serve us well accepting a leverage buyout?

[CoolClaret]

And what about 'custodians' - did they serve us well accepting a leverage buyout?

I'd say no - though we're only in the condition that we're in because laws/legislation allows it to be this way.

But as long as the clubs that hold all the power continue to profit and do well nothing will change.

[Clovius Boofus]

I'd say no - though we're only in the condition that we're in because laws/legislation allows it to be this way.

I agree. The law needs changing in regard to 'community assets' like football clubs etc.

[forzagranata]

I agree. The law needs changing in regard to 'community assets' like football clubs etc.

The PL rules have already been changed. It's no longer possible to buy a club in the way that ALK gained control of Burnley.

We are the last club that will ever be subject to this kind of leveraged purchase.

People can draw their own conclusions over whether the fact that ALK style takeovers are now banned is a good sign or not.

[Stantheman]

The experiment has failed drastically.we should have targeted some proper experienced defenders first then 2 or 3 wide men with potential not 6 or 7.it was so lopsided it was ridiculous.the goalkeeping situation is an absolute joke surely we could have got a decent one for 10m who could command his box pass a ball and catch a ball!! To sum it all up how are we 7 points behind Luton when we finished 21 points about them spent 100m and they spent 10-20 m?

[Chester Perry]

And what about the former custodians - did they serve us well accepting a leverage buyout?

It would be better to demark 'Custodians' as a notionary title rather than a fact, it is difficult to determine the last time football, let alone a club had a true custodian in charge.

I would say that the majority of the original sellers were not very happy about the takeover, but felt compelled to sell (Barry Kilby was actually compelled to sell by a prior legal arrangement with Mike Garlick), The takeover deal was primarily negotiated by and on behalf of Mike Garlick, even John Banaszkiewicz was brought in late from what I have heard - though he was happy with his return as he needed it for his other investments.

[Chester Perry]

The PL rules have already been changed. It's no longer possible to buy a club in the way that ALK gained control of Burnley.

We are the last club that will ever be subject to this kind of leveraged purchase.

People can draw their own conclusions over whether the fact that ALK style takeovers are now banned is a good sign or not.

that is how the media presented it but it is not true, there is a threshold as to how much leverage can be used, but the ALK deal as it has been exercised, could be repeated today in the same financial circumstances.

[forzagranata]

that is how the media presented it but it is not true, there is a threshold as to how much leverage can be used, but the ALK deal as it has been exercised, could be repeated today in the same financial circumstances.

I read reports that leveraged takeovers would be capped at 65% of a club's value. Was the ALK takeover inside that limit?

[aggi]

I agree with all of that, and I do understand why people feel like that, but the time to criticise is when it goes pear shape, not now.

Although arguably when it goes pear shaped is too late.

It's failing at the moment but we are quite a way from it being failed.

Go down and learn some lessons about what went wrong, put them into action and we could be looking at a decent position in two seasons time. Persist with what we are doing now and a change will be needed sooner rather than later.

A lot of people had a bit of a rosy view of what it meant being taken over by private equity (possibly due to concerns over the other bid) and then obviously the great season we had last year meant concerns were pushed into the corner (there are plenty of comments on the main ALK thread about why does this matter when we are doing so well).

But, in many ways the desires align. Everyone wants Burnley to be in the Premier League, everyone likes to see the club bring through exciting talent, for that talent to be sold for big money the club needs to be successful on the pitch, etc.

[Vegas Claret]

the question has to be, Why?

any thoughts as to why ?

[Chester Perry]

I read reports that leveraged takeovers would be capped at 65% of a club's value. Was the ALK takeover inside that limit?

The takeover valued the club at £202m - there was £65m borrowed from MSD and in this equation we have to ignore what was borrowed from the club.

[Chester Perry]

any thoughts as to why ?

not really

[Jamesy]

Although arguably when it goes pear shaped is too late.

It's failing at the moment but we are quite a way from it being failed.

Go down and learn some lessons about what went wrong, put them into action and we could be looking at a decent position in two seasons time. Persist with what we are doing now and a change will be needed sooner rather than later.

A lot of people had a bit of a rosy view of what it meant being taken over by private equity (possibly due to concerns over the other bid) and then obviously the great season we had last year meant concerns were pushed into the corner (there are plenty of comments on the main ALK thread about why does this matter when we are doing so well).

But, in many ways the desires align. Everyone wants Burnley to be in the Premier League, everyone likes to see the club bring through exciting talent, for that talent to be sold for big money the club needs to be successful on the pitch, etc.

I’m not desperate for Burnley to be in the Premier League. I would be quite content if we were a stable Championship club like we were for many seasons.

[randomclaret2]

I’m not desperate for Burnley to be in the Premier League. I would be quite content if we were a stable Championship club like we were for many seasons.

Which seasons are you thinking of ?

[Big Vinny K]

I like the championship too - but only when we are doing well.
And by well that’s not finishing 8th or 9th - it’s getting promoted. And we know where we end up when we get promoted.

Not so sure bobbing along mid table in the championship is going to leave many content supporters in reality. 2 or 3 years of mediocrity is likely to mean going back to attendances of around 13k.

With the financial situation under the new owners unfortunately mid table championship mediocrity is not something I can envisage. If we don’t get promoted back to PL in the first 2 years after relegation things are going to get a lot worse before they get better….and the definition of better could well be getting back to the championship.

This potential journey is not the stuff of make believe - it’s a journey many far bigger clubs than Burnley have had to go through.

[Chester Perry]

that is how the media presented it but it is not true, there is a threshold as to how much leverage can be used, but the ALK deal as it has been exercised, could be repeated today in the same financial circumstances.

This is how I reacted at the time on the MMT

this looks like big news but I am not sure it is

As part of the League’s ongoing review of the Owners’ and Directors’ Test, clubs unanimously agreed to amend the test to prohibit fully-leveraged buyouts.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/3537138

from what I see the takeover of our club and Manchester United by the Glazers would still be allowed - only the Gillett and Hicks takeover at Liverpool would be banned

[Colburn_Claret]

I'm sorry Colburn but this is just profoundly wrong in every way.

Debt is common because cash is a resource and can be used to grow the business.

Dent incurred buying shares is not a resource. When it's the Glazers buying United it's manageable risk - when it's ALK buying Burnley it's a totally different ball game.

The debt has gone from zero to who knows but it must be tens of millions.

The turnover of the club is around £135 million of which nigh on £120 million is TV Broadcast revenue.

So, in plain terms we are a business that risks losing £120 million out of a turnover of £135 million in 3 years. Managing that kind of decline is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

You can't factor in that kind of debt into a business plan other than covering the debt with playing assets. ALK are investors they are not business people and operate on totally different risk variables to most business owners.

In the end, if they can get their seed money back from the business and sell a League 1 club for £10 million then that is doubling their money and a good outcome for an investor. It's a pile of sh*t for the fans but for an investor it's the worst outcome measured against the best outcome, which is getting a club for virtually nothing and selling it for £300 million.

They will have huge spreadsheet full of risk analysis all pointing to the fact that they are likely to make lots of money whether it goes sh*t faced or otherwise.

If we had the cajones we would all do it because what's to lose other than some sh*tty football club, in a sh*tty part of a country thousands of miles from home. Forget the BS - That's how investors look at things....!

The problem for us is - it's our sh*t and we love it. It's who we are....!

You're missing the point.
Your argument is based on a lot of presumptions and possibilities. I don't like the way the club was bought either.
At the end of the day your fears might well come true, and I'm not knocking anyone for having doubts and fears. I just think the board shouldn't be slagged off, and be accused of things that may or may not happen. It just doesn't sit right.

[aggi]

technically ALK/VSL owe the club £114.8m and because it is not carrying interest it can be called in at any time - even the accounts note this.

We do not know, if that debt was transferred to Velocity Capital (UK) Holdings Ltd from Calder Vale Holdings Limited when the controlling shareholding in the club was passed the same way last year

Just to be clear, it not carrying interest and the fact it can be called in at any time are unrelated.

The only likely time it would be called in against ALK's wishes are if the club went into administration (and I would be surprised if much cash came out of that).

[aggi]

If we don’t get back up after 3 years ( more than possible) how is the debt then serviced and will the asset sales cover this ? Then what are we left with ?

I’m not desperate for Burnley to be in the Premier League. I would be quite content if we were a stable Championship club like we were for many seasons.

I said this on another thread but probably worth repeating here:

The Championship, with or without loans, is unsustainable as it stands at the moment.

Look at Preston for instance, they're not a club you associate with big spending but they've been making horrendous losses year on year for the past decade. Same with Millwall or Bristol City (they've been running up some massive losses on the quiet).

[Chester Perry]

Just to be clear, it not carrying interest and the fact it can be called in at any time are unrelated.

The only likely time it would be called in against ALK's wishes are if the club went into administration (and I would be surprised if much cash came out of that).

as always thank you for the clarification, I think that I (we) have learnt more from you about the technicalities than from any other poster, it is great to have you here.

[ClaretPete001]

You're missing the point.
Your argument is based on a lot of presumptions and possibilities. I don't like the way the club was bought either.
At the end of the day your fears might well come true, and I'm not knocking anyone for having doubts and fears. I just think the board shouldn't be slagged off, and be accused of things that may or may not happen. It just doesn't sit right.

That's just a bizarre point Colburn. What are you going to do live in a world where the future doesn't exist?

I've given you a load of facts, if you think they are sh@te just make a counter argument - that's how football debate works.

[Paul Waine]

Undoubtedly. But to say we "didn't have any money" is pure fabrication.

Equally, missing saying that most of that money was already committed to pay wages doesn't "fabricate" a strong argument that it was all borrowed by new owners to but the club.

UTC

[IanMcL]

And what about the former custodians - did they serve us well accepting a leverage buyout?

Garlick

[boyyanno]

Equally, missing saying that most of that money was already committed to pay wages doesn't "fabricate" a strong argument that it was all borrowed by new owners to but the club.

UTC

I think you've misunderstood here- that's not my argument nor my point, I responded to someone saying that we had 0 money at the end of Garlicks tenure. I've quite rightly pointed out that the accounts show we did have some money, some of which was committed to wages, but certainly not 100 percent of it. There's no argument beyond that, I was just pointing out that the accounts seemed to suggest that we could have bought another player or two under Garlick so the suggestion we had no money is false.

I've literally no idea why you dragged the new owners in to it?