ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[MACCA]

Page 95

Woohoo

A very bad year was 95, let's get off it asap

[Hedontplayforyou]

Yeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa

[Zlatan]

Page 95

Woohoo

A very bad year was 95, let's get off it asap

I’ll do my bit...

[dpinsussex]

95

[dpinsussex]

Come in lets move it to 96

[FactualFrank]

Page 95

Woohoo

A very bad year was 95, let's get off it asap

96 was much better - left a shithole of a high school.

[Devils_Advocate]

He might have also let us know just how long McNeil and Tarky were at the Leicester traing ground in the last window too.....

Aye he was a top poster only bettered by Jeremy Bentham

[MACCA]

I’ll do my bit...

Good man

[MACCA]

Yeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa

Easy cowboy, hold your horses.

[gawthorpe_view]

Come in lets move it to 96

Hannover?

[bfcwest]

You are making assumptions.

1. If they are buying all the shares to own 100% of the club, I know a lot of shareholders who have not been contacted.
2. Are they buying the club or are they buying shares from two directors?
3. Not sure but I think the £200m value might have been touted by Farnell's people.
4. Contacted Garlick? No, should I be doing?

1. They don’t have to contact the smaller shareholders because they don’t need your approval. Garlick plus one other gets to over 50%, and at that point he can do what he wants.
2. They might be only buying just MG and JB, but if they are serious about thinking they can increase the clubs value then you’d expect them to take everyone out. There are often rules that mean you’d all have to get the deal anyway. From a future admin perspective it’s easier just to buy 100% of shares and be done.
3. I’ve no idea on the value, but the lower the better if you want to get your money out, as it means it’s easier and more worth their while just buying you all out. (Obviously you’ll get less, but even £100 million for all shares gets you a few quid, assuming you’d prefer that to still being part of it, not that you’ll get the choice. Sorry to be so blunt, I do appreciate this is personal to you).
4. The reason I ask if you’ve contacted Garlick is because if the smaller shareholders do want to get some money out now, then Garlick should be told so he knows he’ll get some bad publicity if he just sells his portion and leaves you on a rocky ship you wanted to get off. There is always the risk of a share re-issue that leaves you holding shares that are massively devalued, and if that is what Garlick is allowing to happen then I think you should find out and let him know that it is poor form. Whilst he seems a thick skinned character, I’m sure he doesn’t want to leave with his reputation completely tarnished, especially if he is as big a Burnley fan as he makes out. You have the power to make this happen if it did turn out badly for small shareholders.

[Nonayforever]

I just knew CT should have locked the thread at page 78 !

[ClaretTony]

1. They don’t have to contact the smaller shareholders because they don’t need your approval. Garlick plus one other gets to over 50%, and at that point he can do what he wants.
2. They might be only buying just MG and JB, but if they are serious about thinking they can increase the clubs value then you’d expect them to take everyone out. There are often rules that mean you’d all have to get the deal anyway. From a future admin perspective it’s easier just to buy 100% of shares and be done.
3. I’ve no idea on the value, but the lower the better if you want to get your money out, as it means it’s easier and more worth their while just buying you all out. (Obviously you’ll get less, but even £100 million for all shares gets you a few quid, assuming you’d prefer that to still being part of it, not that you’ll get the choice. Sorry to be so blunt, I do appreciate this is personal to you).
4. The reason I ask if you’ve contacted Garlick is because if the smaller shareholders do want to get some money out now, then Garlick should be told so he knows he’ll get some bad publicity if he just sells his portion and leaves you on a rocky ship you wanted to get off. There is always the risk of a share re-issue that leaves you holding shares that are massively devalued, and if that is what Garlick is allowing to happen then I think you should find out and let him know that it is poor form. Whilst he seems a thick skinned character, I’m sure he doesn’t want to leave with his reputation completely tarnished, especially if he is as big a Burnley fan as he makes out. You have the power to make this happen if it did turn out badly for small shareholders.

You seem to have totally misunderstand me.

I've got some shares and to be honest I've no real interest in what happens to them. I won't be speaking to Garlick, my shares have already been devalued on at least two occasions with new share offers in 1985 and 1999. My only interest is Burnley Football Club and it being the best it can be. If my shares are taken off me for nothing then I'm not bothered.

[bfcwest]

You seem to have totally misunderstand me.

I've got some shares and to be honest I've no real interest in what happens to them. I won't be speaking to Garlick, my shares have already been devalued on at least two occasions with new share offers in 1985 and 1999. My only interest is Burnley Football Club and it being the best it can be. If my shares are taken off me for nothing then I'm not bothered.

Sorry Tony, I guess I have. Fair play to you for having that attitude. I thought some shareholders had paid quite a bit of cash to get shares in the past and wouldn’t appreciate getting shafted by an outgoing Garlick.

Fingers crossed it all works out for everyone and we get a Burnley better placed to cope with being in the Prem and able to develop and thrive for decades to come. Up the Clarets!

[NewClaret]

Nothing imminent - into next week now and a few more pages on this thread I assume.

Goodness me. We really need to crack on with this!

[NewClaret]

If my shares are taken off me for nothing then I'm not bothered.

Can I be the first to offer to take your shares off you Tony?

If you could meet me tomorrow at Townley with your share certificate, I’ll buy you a takeaway coffee and we can sort that out

[Steddyman]

I really don't understand the obsession with posting the current page number. How does that do anything other than bloat the thread?

[MRG]

I really don't understand the obsession with posting the current page number. How does that do anything other than bloat the thread?

Apparently it’s hilarious

[FactualFrank]

Page 96 next... could be a good one.

[scouseclaret]

Sorry Tony, I guess I have. Fair play to you for having that attitude. I thought some shareholders had paid quite a bit of cash to get shares in the past and wouldn’t appreciate getting shafted by an outgoing Garlick.

Fingers crossed it all works out for everyone and we get a Burnley better placed to cope with being in the Prem and able to develop and thrive for decades to come. Up the Clarets!

There are 77419 shares in issue, so the value of the shares is simply the value paid for the equity divided by that. So, if they are paying £200m for the equity (highly unlikely) the value per share will be about £2,600 if I’ve got my noughts right.

However, it won’t be that simple. The takeover value will likely be split between what the buyers are paying to buy the shares and the capital they are committing to inject into the company. So the £200m might be split, say, £125m to buy out the shareholders and £75m into the company.

I think this is an important point that many of us (me included) have not really appreciated when wondering how much will be available for investment in the team if they spend £200m on the shares.

For Tony, the ideal would be for them to spend nothing on the shares and put £200m in the club. I doubt Mike Garlick will see it that way!...

[Tribesmen]

So when will we hit the 100 I say ................................. Sunday

[ClaretTony]

[*]

Sorry Tony, I guess I have. Fair play to you for having that attitude. I thought some shareholders had paid quite a bit of cash to get shares in the past and wouldn’t appreciate getting shafted by an outgoing Garlick.

Fingers crossed it all works out for everyone and we get a Burnley better placed to cope with being in the Prem and able to develop and thrive for decades to come. Up the Clarets!

I bought my shares a long time ago. They cost me £1,500 at the time. I don’t have them all now, in fact most have gone for one reason or another, but I didn’t buy them to make money out of it.

I bought them to help the club and it’s still the case that I want what is best for the club which is why I had serious problems with the appearance of Farnell. If the club benefits from the sale then that’s enough for me.

[dpinsussex]

Page 96 next... could be a good one.

The best so far

[ClaretTony]

For Tony, the ideal would be for them to spend nothing on the shares and put £200m in the club. I doubt Mike Garlick will see it that way!...

Ive been amused that some people think the club is suddenly going to be £200m better off. That’s not the case. They will be paying some existing shareholders to purchase their shares.

What I, and I’m sure everyone else, would like to know is the rest. For example, who are the investors, what effect financially does this have on our club and what are the plans going forward, short, medium and long term?

There are things our club do well and there are other things that leave much to be desired, that’s my view of course, and I would very much like to know where our club is going.

[FactualFrank]

Ive been amused that some people think the club is suddenly going to be £200m better off. That’s not the case. They will be paying some existing shareholders to purchase their shares.

What I, and I’m sure everyone else, would like to know is the rest. For example, who are the investors, what effect financially does this have on our club and what are the plans going forward, short, medium and long term?

There are things our club do well and there are other things that leave much to be desired, that’s my view of course, and I would very much like to know where our club is going.

I've read a lot and chatted to a lot of people who know a bit about how this could work, and of course the 2-3 people on here.

So isn't there the realistic case that as fans we really are no better off? That the money made to buy the club is through loans and investments and so there isn't actually any pot of money to buy players in January?

[scouseclaret]

No, that’s what I was saying before. Some of the money will go to buy out the shareholders but a chunk will be invested in the club. Exactly how much the investment will be and how it will be split we don’t know, but the assumption must be that there will be some money to spend.

[AfloatinClaret]

No...the assumption must be that there will be some money to spend.

Any basis for that assumption, or is it just a 'hope'?

[bfcjg]

We need to be grounded, these people want a return on their money why else invest ?.

[bfcwest]

There are 77419 shares in issue, so the value of the shares is simply the value paid for the equity divided by that. So, if they are paying £200m for the equity (highly unlikely) the value per share will be about £2,600 if I’ve got my noughts right.

However, it won’t be that simple. The takeover value will likely be split between what the buyers are paying to buy the shares and the capital they are committing to inject into the company. So the £200m might be split, say, £125m to buy out the shareholders and £75m into the company.

I think this is an important point that many of us (me included) have not really appreciated when wondering how much will be available for investment in the team if they spend £200m on the shares.

For Tony, the ideal would be for them to spend nothing on the shares and put £200m in the club. I doubt Mike Garlick will see it that way!...

They are buying the club. I’d be surprised if there is any requirement to commit to future investment. If you buy a house you don’t have to say how much you’ll spend on renovation.

[Rileybobs]

No, that’s what I was saying before. Some of the money will go to buy out the shareholders but a chunk will be invested in the club. Exactly how much the investment will be and how it will be split we don’t know, but the assumption must be that there will be some money to spend.

The reported £200m is to buy out MG and JB’s shares. This has no bearing on how much will he invested into the running of the club.

[Wokingclaret]

The reported £200m is to buy out MG and JB’s shares. This has no bearing on how much will he invested into the running of the club.

If its just their shares, that's a hell of a profit for them two

[Steddyman]

They are buying the club. I’d be surprised if there is any requirement to commit to future investment. If you buy a house you don’t have to say how much you’ll spend on renovation.

Groundhog day. If only there was a thread with nearly 100 pages of discussions on the pro and cons of a takeover.

Nobody has any information on the business plan for ALK so it is pointless speculating.

[ClaretTony]

If its just their shares, that's a hell of a profit for them two

Happy to announced I'm a good friend of one of them then

[Rileybobs]

If its just their shares, that's a hell of a profit for them two

Even if it’s for all of the shares then it’s a great profit for them two. But a deserved one nonetheless.

I think some people are confusing investing with buying though. The club is being bought out, which is an investment for the buyers. But we have no idea whether that will lead to an increased budget for player recruitment, although you would expect it to in order for the investment to be viable.

[scouseclaret]

They are buying the club. I’d be surprised if there is any requirement to commit to future investment. If you buy a house you don’t have to say how much you’ll spend on renovation.

No but they’re not buying a house, they’re buying a football club. If MG is the good steward of the club that people say he is, he will be ensuring such commitments, and the buyers will be well aware of the need to pump capital into the Club if they are to make a success of it.

And Riley, I don’t believe it’s been written anywhere that £200m is just to buy the shares, only that that’s the rumoured size of the deal. I doubt it will be that high anyway, but it won’t all be going on buying the equity.

[arise_sir_charge]

It would actually be poor form by our faultless leaders if they did a deal that didn’t benefit all shareholders.

I’m sure they won’t though. Burnley fans will look after Burnley fans, no doubt.

[Rileybobs]

No but they’re not buying a house, they’re buying a football club. If MG is the good steward of the club that people say he is, he will be ensuring such commitments, and the buyers will be well aware of the need to pump capital into the Club if they are to make a success of it.

And Riley, I don’t believe it’s been written anywhere that £200m is just to buy the shares, only that that’s the rumoured size of the deal. I doubt it will be that high anyway, but it won’t all be going on buying the equity.

If it isn’t just going on the equity then where is it going? If they purchase the shares of MG and JB they’re free to run the club how they please.

[Paul Waine]

On Thursday The Times reported on ALK Capital's imminent acquisition of Burnley. Posted somewhere above (now several pages back).

A google just now - ALK Capital Burnley is my search term - brings up a report from TalkSport. This is a little more recent than The Times report, including update on Friday morning. I'm unsure whether TalkSport gives any new material. They quote The Times saying ALK Capital are the favourites. Maybe the bit about El Kaskashy/Farnell not having heard back about their ODT is new info - or maybe this is just TS understanding of situation. Maybe it is new that ALK Capital made a "fresh bid" - which resulted in the originally reported £180m being increased to match the £200m that it was reported ElK/F had bid.

The terms "£200m acquisition" and "£200m deal" tend to support the view that it will be £200m to buy the club (MG and JB shares and, by inference, all other shares).

TS mentions the January transfer window and a "timely boost for Clarets boss Sean Dyche." I read this to indicate that funds will be available to spend in Jan - but the report says nothing about the amount that might be spent then, or in summer and future transfer windows.

EXCITING Burnley takeover ‘imminent’ as £200million acquisition by American company ALK Capital edges closer
By Jake Bacon
3rd December 2020, 5:46 pm Updated: 4th December 2020, 8:33 am

Burnley are on the verge of being taken over by an American sports investment company in a £200million deal, according to reports.

ALK Capital, fronted by former president of MLS club Real Salt Lake Alan Pace, have been competing with Egyptian businessman Mohamed El Kashashy and sports lawyer Chris Farnell to buy the Clarets.

And The Times claim ALK Capital are the favourites to complete the takeover ‘imminently’.

Kashashy and Farnell had appeared to be the frontrunners to purchase Burnley after signing a sale and purchase agreement, along with providing proof of funds. However, they are yet to hear back from their owners’ and directors’ test.

The Premier League has been slow to get back to the pair due to ALK Capital’s fresh bid.

A deal with ALK is expected to be completed prior to the January transfer window, which would be a timely boost for Clarets boss Sean Dyche.

Burnley are second from bottom in the Premier League table having one just one of their opening nine matches this season. Last month, Dyche remained coy over takeover rumours involving Burnley.

He said: “I am just working diligently as manager of the club.

“I have done that for eight years and continue to do that. These decisions are nothing to do with me, they are to do with the chairman and the board.

“You [the media] would like a resolution but I am concentrating on the team, getting them right and working hard to get results.”

***********

Exciting times.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

It would actually be poor form by our faultless leaders if they did a deal that didn’t benefit all shareholders.

I’m sure they won’t though. Burnley fans will look after Burnley fans, no doubt.

If MG and JB do a deal to sell their own shares then it also sets the value for all other shares in the club. I don't know if the other shareholders can legally require ALK Capital to also buy their shares at the same price. I think that rule may apply. Equally, I'm not sure why ALK Capital would want the hassle of minority shareholders. It's more likely that they will want to buy all the shares and own 100% of the club.

UTC

[Quickenthetempo]

I hope all the shares are bought and it's a nice little boost for people who need it in these uncertain times.

I know some might want the novelty of a share but with no AGM anymore it's not really beneficial.

Plus more outside money coming into the town can only be good news.

[Top Claret]

Plenty of talk on this thread but little noise or action coming from Burnley FC

It would not surprise me if we are no nearer a takeover come February, with the transfer window shut and no new signings

[nyclaret]

Plenty of talk on this thread but little noise or action coming from Burnley FC

It would not surprise me if we are no nearer a takeover come February, with the transfer window shut and no new signings

That wouldn’t be very Christmassy.

[MRG]

Maybe it is new that ALK Capital made a "fresh bid" - which resulted in the originally reported £180m being increased to match the £200m that it was reported ElK/F had bid.

Interesting that the difference in offers has finally come to light. This is the first time I’ve seen this formally mentioned however I alluded to it a few pages ago. I believe that ALK increasing their bid to match Farnell’s offer is a significant point in this process.

I raised the question with somebody within the club around why we would be entertaining Farnell and the answer was that his offer was significantly more than what ALK were willing to offer. At that point I thought ALK were probably out of the running

[MACCA]

It would actually be poor form by our faultless leaders if they did a deal that didn’t benefit all shareholders.

I’m sure they won’t though. Burnley fans will look after Burnley fans, no doubt.

You'd like to think so, but what about those who are businessmen first and foremost.

There's no sentiment in business, many suggest MG didnt look out for any fans whilst here, what makes you think he will when he's riding off into the sunset and Burnley is a distant memory?

[Boss Hogg]

It’s all about the money. Businessman first and Burnley fan second. For many fans the club is first. I think he has lost interest and the communication with fans generally is abysmal.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

To be fair theres not much he’s legally allowed to communicate in the middle of a takeover.

[joey13]

The utter banality of this messageboard, where you can’t express an opinion or make a political comment, but you can post tripe about how many pages on a thread .

[gandhisflipflop]

The utter banality of this messageboard, where you can’t express an opinion or make a political comment, but you can post tripe about how many pages on a thread .

I understand the ban on political discussion. It’s a football message board at the end of the day and while I have made one or two very small contributions personally to politics threads in the past, you get the same posters arguing with each other who despite what must be endless hours of in my opinion wasted hours, they’re fully entrenched in their camps and it does become boring because it’s the same on every thread. At one point in lockdown I must have counted 15 political threads on the first page alone and people who don’t have accounts but like to read this board must have been turned off by it.

[Boss Hogg]

I understand the ban on political discussion. It’s a football message board at the end of the day and while I have made one or two very small contributions personally to politics threads in the past, you get the same posters arguing with each other who despite what must be endless hours of in my opinion wasted hours, they’re fully entrenched in their camps and it does become boring because it’s the same on every thread. At one point in lockdown I must have counted 15 political threads on the first page alone and people who don’t have accounts but like to read this board must have been turned off by it.

Far less traffic because of it. There was a non football thread the other day where different posters with very different opinions agreed to differ and it was fine.

[Boss Hogg]

To be fair theres not much he’s legally allowed to communicate in the middle of a takeover.

Agree about the deal but general communication and about the general future outlook of the club has been completely lacking for a multi million pound business.