ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[KRBFC]

The difference is that according to the Athletic, Burnley FC haven't borrowed money to improve the value of the club, they have taken out a loan to pass on to ALK so that ALK can pay its debt to Garlick. BFC get no apparent benefit from this loan.

Well the problem is you’re taking any old newspaper article as factual which is always a huge mistake. Pace said the figures are inaccurate but you’re still banging on about an £80M loan.

[KRBFC]

The alarm bells are ringing, it's whether we want to hear them.

The new owners appear to have taken the cash out of the club and also piled on £ms in debt. To fnd their own interests. No amount of media presentation will change the fundamental truth of that. They may put money in later, or they may raise more elsewhere, but they have not done yet. What they have done is buy the club largely using the value of the club.

I mean did you expect them to turn up to Garlick door with £150M in wheelbarrows?

You’re also making claims without knowing any facts about future plans and the actual details of the loan.

[KRBFC]

The million dollar question has always been where is the money coming from? Still we don’t know, non of the public names involved have the wealth required. Are we just pay day lending our way through and hoping it works?

[Newcastleclaret93]

I don’t think there is to much wrong with this method from what I have read.

But interesting that the owner of Helsingborg and Dundalk has come out an criticised the way the club has been took over.

[KateR]

Well the problem is you’re taking any old newspaper article as factual which is always a huge mistake. Pace said the figures are inaccurate but you’re still banging on about an £80M loan.

the problem is you're focusing on the amount and not what it means regardless of size, whether it 10MM 40MM etc. the principal point he makes is correct, the loan is to buy the club and it benefits the previous majority shareholders the most, plus facilitates ALK to move into a position of ownership. The ownership is based on them making some radical changes to benefit the club in the future but the loan, regardless of size, in no way helps BFC today or in the past 2 weeks and it is extremely doubtful it will in the first half of 2021. The only way this changes, is if in fact the loan is larger than that needed to execute the buyout, meaning there is some cash that the new owners can use to make meaningful changes that benefit BFC.

[Jacko]

I mean did you expect them to turn up to Garlick door with £150M in wheelbarrows?

You’re also making claims without knowing any facts about future plans and the actual details of the loan.

I appreciate your point about there being much unknown - that is fair - but my view is about the principle.

I think, given the history of some other purchases, and given the import of football clubs, that purchasers should be able to fund the purchase without piling the cost onto the asset. I don't think the Glazers should have been able to do what they've done with Man Utd, I don't think the purchasers of Sunderland should have been able to do what they did and I don't think "investors" should be able to do similar with Burnley.

The model they appear to be using allow them to extract value from the club which was earned elsewhere - partly through our years of support. They haven't yet done that - and they may not - but they've certainly taken initial steps towards it, if it is the plan.

[Devils_Advocate]

This thread needs a song to capture the mood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ94HBQ ... rThanBombs

[Marney&Mee]

"Classic Private Equity deal, it seems. It's like Garlick has remortgaged the club to realise it's value, but without having to hang around to manage the consequences. Reminds me of Jeremy Peace, who ran WBA in a similar way to Garlick for a decade, before selling out to the Chinese"

Whatsapp message from a friend you spent his career at KPMG in the City

[Cirrus_Minor]

I have kept out of this for the most part, but always been wary to join the ‘exciting times’ vibe of many on here.

The way the club had been run til now has been to run a tight ship, not spending more than we make whilst keeping money in the bank in case of relegation to insure against times when money will be more scarce. It was not exciting, but with a successful manager who bought into the plan, it worked. Maybe the model had gone as far as it can and was looking vulnerable during the CV pandemic. But any change would be risky for a club of our size.

So it looks like we have been bought out by loans part of which is to be paid back by funds the club had saved in the bank. So the only way the club can go forward is more loans, selling players and/or increased season ticket prices. Unless there are some ‘sugar daddies’ hidden away in the background of the ALK group we can now look to more and more loans to finance their plans.

Exciting times indeed.

[Duffer_]

Strikes me that a lot of people were so concerned with what 'type of money' (remuneration, or dividends or capital gains; debt or equity) that they missed the trick, so to speak.

[Marvins Van]

Reported article 'speculation' very close to the reality.
However, lots of very successful football clubs are run using this sort of model.
I guess its just not the way we are used to, fan owners etc.

As many on here have said, nothing we can do about it let's see what Alan & Co do with 'our' beloved Club..

[randomclaret2]

I have kept out of this for the most part, but always been wary to join the ‘exciting times’ vibe of many on here.

The way the club had been run til now has been to run a tight ship, not spending more than we make whilst keeping money in the bank in case of relegation to insure against times when money will be more scarce. It was not exciting, but with a successful manager who bought into the plan, it worked. Maybe the model had gone as far as it can and was looking vulnerable during the CV pandemic. But any change would be risky for a club of our size.

So it looks like we have been bought out by loans part of which is to be paid back by funds the club had saved in the bank. So the only way the club can go forward is more loans, selling players and/or increased season ticket prices. Unless there are some ‘sugar daddies’ hidden away in the background of the ALK group we can now look to more and more loans to finance their plans.

Exciting times indeed.

And yet those who ran the " tight ship " have sanctioned and profited from this deal

[JR1882]

Alan certainly says all the right things and we need to give them chance to work their model, they no doubt have many many ideas to improve the running of the club and generate more revenue.

I disagree with Alan’s comment in his presser the other day when he said our PL Status isn’t essential - looking the finance I would say it absolutely is.

If that’s true about the payments to Garlick coming from the club and ALK borrowing to fund it, that leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth. I’ve been a massive supporter of how Garlick has run the club but he has basically gambled our PL status this season, potentially could have lost us our manager and all to ensure he lines his own pockets with the money? Correct me if I’m wrong? No wonder Dyche was going mental.

[dsr]

Alan certainly says all the right things and we need to give them chance to work their model, they no doubt have many many ideas to improve the running of the club and generate more revenue.

Since their first action appears to have been to take north of £100,000,000 out of the club, their second and third actions had better be pretty good. There's a lot of ground to make up.

[Cirrus_Minor]

And yet those who ran the " tight ship " have sanctioned and profited from this deal

Since they had already purchased the shares in the first place did you expect them to give them away?

[arise_sir_charge]

As with all things time will tell.

Alan seems happy, Mike and John were happy and we know nothing about any of the detail.

I don’t see any point in being worried about it. It’s nothing more than speculation, speculation that has been said to be incorrect and ultimately at some point we simply would have to carry some debt of some sort......as we have done for large periods in the past.

[KateR]

And yet those who ran the " tight ship " have sanctioned and profited from this deal

what we need to remember is those who did sanction it and profited from it will actually have insight to ALK plans and business model for generating more funds than the loan actually requires in repayment. So you can ask yourself if you think they would sell the club out for the profit regardless or would they look at it and see that some people have ideas that they can put in place and make work to improve the club in the long run. Plans, which would be beyond the MG & Co's ability to put in place and maximize that would give some belief in that they were doing the right thing for the club, to be able to take it beyond where we were stagnating.

For me I will believe the latter, that belief and the belief that people lending the funds will have done a due diligence and asked many of the same questions we all want to know the answer to gives me some comfort. My outside view is no real change regarding Jan window and they get a pass until the end of the summer window, even then we will need to look at the present outside influences all businesses are facing, particularly will games go into another lockdown, will the club owe the PL/Sky etc. more than the business plan outlined, so many unknowns for us mere mortals, the fans.

[scouseclaret]

Alan certainly says all the right things and we need to give them chance to work their model, they no doubt have many many ideas to improve the running of the club and generate more revenue.

I disagree with Alan’s comment in his presser the other day when he said our PL Status isn’t essential - looking the finance I would say it absolutely is.

If that’s true about the payments to Garlick coming from the club and ALK borrowing to fund it, that leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth. I’ve been a massive supporter of how Garlick has run the club but he has basically gambled our PL status this season, potentially could have lost us our manager and all to ensure he lines his own pockets with the money? Correct me if I’m wrong? No wonder Dyche was going mental.

However you cut it, the fact is that MG has been paid handsomely for his shares and the clubs’s cash has been used to part fund that. Whether or not he was hoarding club funds with a view to such an exit is a matter of speculation.

This article, if anything like true, scares me to death. There was always going to be an element of debt but the extent of it is way beyond what I expected. The only thing I take some succour from is that, if MG and JB simply wanted to take their money and run regardless of the consequences, they would have done just that. The fact that they are staying around on the board, even for a short while, suggests they see sense in the business plan.

[claretandy]

Since they had already purchased the shares in the first place did you expect them to give them away?

No, but I didn't expect them to hoard cash at the expense of the playing squad in order to sell up and use the cash to pay them out.

[NewClaret]

No, but I didn't expect them to hoard cash at the expense of the playing squad in order to sell up and use the cash to pay them out.

Tbh, don’t know if this story is true, but if it is it reflects very badly on MG/JB - under invest in the team for 2/3 years and then run off with the £55m cash reserves!

[Boban]

However you cut it, the fact is that MG has been paid handsomely for his shares and the clubs’s cash has been used to part fund that. Whether or not he was hoarding club funds with a view to such an exit is a matter of speculation.

This article, if anything like true, scares me to death. There was always going to be an element of debt but the extent of it is way beyond what I expected. The only thing I take some succour from is that, if MG and JB simply wanted to take their money and run regardless of the consequences, they would have done just that. The fact that they are staying around on the board, even for a short while, suggests they see sense in the business plan.

Could well be a double bluff by the old directors, pocket the cash be hard faced in the guise of supporting the transitional period and my bet is once Checketts comes on board and the outcome of the season known run for the hills and enjoy their spoils in a post COVID world. I’ll give them till the summer.

[joey13]

Tbh, don’t know if this story is true, but if it is it reflects very badly on MG/JB - under invest in the team for 2/3 years and then run off with the £55m cash reserves!

I’m surprised, people are surprised by this , the sycophants no doubt will still not have a word said against them though.

[Claretforever]

The fact that they are staying around on the board, even for a short while, suggests they see sense in the business plan.

It’s normal in any business takeover to have those benefitting from a sale to remain on board in order to ensure a smooth transition and to be paid in increments after an initial up front figure. I’d imagine MG and JB can walk out at any time, but would forfeit the remaining money owed, or a chunk of it.

[BurnleyFC]

So fat Mike and John ‘I’ll buy you a pint’ Whatshisname have been fattening the goose all along, so to speak.

Hardly surprising, is it?

No wonder Dyche wanted to chin them.

[MACCA]

No, but I didn't expect them to hoard cash at the expense of the playing squad in order to sell up and use the cash to pay them out.

Ssshhh, there's still people that dont like hearing what they have been upto for nearly 2 years now.

A blind man in a galloping horse could see why they were "keeping reserves" yet telling all and sundry how well ran and profitable our club was.
arguably regularly neglecting the playing squad whilst Mr Dyche worked the miracles needed to keep it going.

No wonder he was getting fed up, he was the one getting the brunt of the backlash when things were bleak, playing styles questioned etc by trying to do his job with 1 hand tied behind his back.

[MACCA]

So fat Mike and John ‘I’ll buy you a pint’ Whatshisname have been fattening the goose all along, so to speak.

Hardly surprising, is it?

No wonder Dyche wanted to chin them.

A few saw what was happening 2 years ago, more saw it later in the party, however most staggering of all is still some cant see it.

But since weve enjoyed a great 7 or so years with Mr Dyche doing his stuff, that means they ( MG ) can pass his work off as their own for some.

He had a plan, took sole charge at the right time and has hit the jackpot.
Good business men make crucial decisions at the right time to maximise finances.

[Father Jack]

Saw this posted online - thought it was an interesting angle on things:

[Nonayforever]

So much for the PL fit & proper test.

If ( big if ) SD stays, we may well see the first PL team go bust whilst still in the PL.

[randomclaret2]

So much for the PL fit & proper test.

If ( big if ) SD stays, we may well see the first PL team go bust whilst still in the PL.

Really ?

[Tall Paul]

Saw this posted online - thought it was an interesting angle on things:

Those figures fall down when you think about how the value of the club gets from £150m to £300m in each scenario. You can't just ignore the cash taken out, loan repayments and interest as they all reduce the value of the club.

[Chester Perry]

Saw this posted online - thought it was an interesting angle on things:

That was the comments section to the Athletic article this morning, interesting bit is that for ALK Capital to look good to investors in future projects they need the leveraged approach as that provides a greater return

[Father Jack]

I read it that ALK think they can debt finance the clubs existence in the Prem for long enough they think there will be an increase in the next cycle of TV money, thus increasing the value of the club to £300m despite its attached debt and lower cash on hand reserves.
The numbers are fictional but illustrate the point of how ALK could in theory walk away with a handsome profit despite having put in very very little of their own money along the way.

[joey13]

The cracks start to open within a week , even Sunderland fans are feeling sorry for us .

[Chester Perry]

I read it that ALK think they can debt finance the clubs existence in the Prem for long enough they think there will be an increase in the next cycle of TV money, thus increasing the value of the club to £300m despite its attached debt and lower cash on hand reserves.
The numbers are fictional but illustrate the point of how ALK could in theory walk away with a handsome profit despite having put in very very little of their own money along the way.

that as well - Americans have a hugely optimistic view of the next TV cycle that is not shared by Europeans 0 you see it in another Athletic article from today

https://theathletic.com/2297120/2021/01 ... dailyemail

[Top Claret]

We are no Manchester United. If the TV monies dried up through relegation we would be in trouble as we don't have alternative revenue streams large enough to service the debt, this is when the investors would say enough is enough and no doubt pull the plug.

This deal was a good one for the former directors but not necessarily for Burnley FC, time will tell

[Father Jack]

The ultimate doomsday

[Tall Paul]

I read it that ALK think they can debt finance the clubs existence in the Prem for long enough they think there will be an increase in the next cycle of TV money, thus increasing the value of the club to £300m despite its attached debt and lower cash on hand reserves.
The numbers are fictional but illustrate the point of how ALK could in theory walk away with a handsome profit despite having put in very very little of their own money along the way.

Either way, to double the value of the club in 5 years will have meant a successful 5 years on the pitch.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

The cracks start to open within a week , even Sunderland fans are feeling sorry for us .

League 1 Sunderland?

[Father Jack]

Either way, to double the value of the club in 5 years will have meant a successful 5 years on the pitch.

Yes this is the good scenario & the one we’ve got to cross our fingers & hope for.
Win win for club & investor.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Probably best we give the new owners more than a week before criticising. Let’s not forget the much lauded (by many on here) Garlick is a. Still on the board and b. Was quite happy to sell to this investment group.

[Paul Waine]

Typed all this post earlier - somewhere around 6pm - then found I'd got "502 Bad Gateway" when I hit "submit."

***********************************

Interesting read - I was surprised to see how many pages had been added to this thread since yesterday.

Athletic report adjusts downwards the price paid for 84% of the club to £150 million. That has the sense of reasonableness about it. Wasn't £180m the figure first reported in Sept when we first heard the name ALK Capital? Then £180m became £200m, when El Kashashy was reported. Maybe ALK didn't need to increase their valuation by £20m to "out bid" El K/Farnell.

We've seen the MSD charge registered over BFC assets - but, there's no value reported in the Companies House filings. I don't find it unreasonable that the Athletic puts this at £80m. However, note that Alan Pace says Athletics article is inaccurate. We also know that Alan Pace has said that "a mortgage" has been taken out.

Bloomberg reports that £102m cash has been paid as part of the purchase of 84% of the club's shares. The balance to be paid over 3 instalments. Dates and size of these instalments aren't reported. Note, however, that Bloomberg also state that MG and JB will get their shares back if they don't receive these instalments. Remember, also that MG and JB have both retained, as we understand it, 4,000 shares and are both continuing as directors. We've assumed that this is part of the transition to new ownership. I still think this is the right way to think about it. However, it may also be linked to the further payment of the 3 instalments.

Vendor financing of the sale of a business is far from unusual. (The guys selling lending money to the guys buying, in case anyone wondering how "vendor financing" fits in). I remember mentioning it as a possibility somewhere much earlier on this thread. Playing around with the numbers (and nothing more) it is conceivable that £102m is 2/3rd of the purchase price, with the balance payable equally over 3 instalments. Or, the three instalments may be in different proportions and may be performance based. As there are 3 instalments, maybe each instalment becomes due when BFC have retained Premier League status at the end of this season and the following two seasons.

If Alan Pace and ALK Capital have done the deal on the basis that there are 3 outstanding instalments that are earned on the Clarets remaining in the Premier League for the seasons, 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24, then I think this fits with what Alan Pace has said "the fans will like the way the deal has been done...." (Of course, not an exact quote. I think AP is quoted somewhere earlier on this thread).

When we know more, it will be easier to judge everything.

Don't overlook that the Premier League required to approve the ALK Capital - Owners and Directors Test.

Exciting times.

UTC

[Father Jack]

Paul. If I read correctly your hypothesising a scenario that ALK will only fully own the club after 3 more years of prem football have been secured.
With the impact that a relegation would mean that the club gets handed back to Garlick & John B?

[Cubanclaret]

Leading on from that thinking Paul, I wondered if the size of deferred payments might link to future ‘goodwill of the business’ which are faced with great uncertainties in terms of broadcast money (hard to imagine increases here) and also Covid (not to mention relegation). Alan Pace’s comments alluded to a very good level of understanding with the outgoing directors which I think we should hopefully take some comfort from.

[Paul Waine]

Just thought I'd post a few words about cash flow.

A number of posters have commented on the £42 million cash at bank that BFC reported in their accounts for the year ended 30-June-2019. These are the latest set of accounts in the public domain. We all got access to them in early April 2020.

Based on the media reports, BFC has something around £60 million in cash at the time of acquisition by ALK. Some say that this cash, along with a loan from MSD have been used to pay Mike Garlick, John B and the other directors. Bloomberg reports, however, that they've only been paid £102m and that 3 further instalments are due - and, if not paid when due, MG and JB will get back the shares they have sold...

So, let's think a little about the club's cash situation, starting with £42m on 30-June-2019.

That summer (2019) transfer window we added Jay Rod, so cash paid out to WBA, let's assume spread over 3 payments and make the numbers simple £4m on signing, £3m on 1st July 2020 and £3m on 1st July 2021. In addition the club pays Jay Rods wages. Let's say £30k per week, plus end of season bonus £15k per week, because we remain in Premier League plus ERS NIC (13.8% to gov't). Again, simplified numbers: 50 weeks x £30k = £1.5m + £0.75m + £0.3m = £2.55m for 2019/20 season. Then, a further 6 months wages to Dec'2020 = £0.9m (no bonus, yet as season hasn't finished).

So, using assumed figures, the club will have paid out £4m + £3m + £2.5m + £0.9m = £10.4m to sign Jay Rod and pay his wages over the past 18 months - and has a further £3m to pay to WBA in 6 months time.

We can build a similar "model" for Danny Drinkwater (5 months loan) and another for Josh Brownhill.

We can repeat for Joe Hart, wages/bonus/ERS NIC paid out in 2019/20 - same for Arron Lennon - same for Jeff Hendrick. And, for each of these the wages stop last summer when their contracts weren't renewed.

The club added other staff through the summer of 2019 and since - someone will have an idea of the numbers - mostly coaching, analytics and commercial roles.

Most of the club's outgoings are paid monthly, on the whole this is staff wages, the biggest part, of course, being the playing staff. The club is required to deduct PAYE and EES NIC for the wages - and in normal times will pay these to HMRC either a month in arrears (or is it a quarter in arrears?). I'm not sure whether the Premier League has got some relief from the gov't on pay these taxes to HMRC - I recall football has asked for this relief.

Whereas, most of the outgoings are monthly, most of the revenue comes from TV deals and is paid less frequently. So, any time that the TV has just been paid the money in the bank will "spike upwards" and then reduce again as the monthly wages etc are paid out.

I'd assume that the commercial sponsors moneys are paid less frequently, also. Maybe they will be paid over 3 amounts across a season - assuming this because sponsors usually run for a season at a time.

What are my conclusions from above:

1) I don't have the information required to have a good feel for where the cash balance of the club was at 31st Dec 2020. I don't think any of us do - unless we have access to the club's management accounts.

2) The cash balance on it's own is meaningless. We also need to know what needs to be paid out from that cash balance, when those outflows are required to be made and when the next cash inflows are due. Beyond monthly wages, what are the creditors that the club is due to settle? Similarly, what debtors are due to pay the club? If there is payment due in from a debtor that can be just as valuable as any cash in the bank.

Of course, Alan Pace and ALK will know all these things, just as Mike Garlick and John B will know them. Between them, they've struck a deal where the ownership of 84% of the club transfer to ALK and the payment for that transfer is paid in 4 instalments, the first has already been paid. The other 3 are due at future dates - unknown to us.

We also know that ALK have taken a loan from MSD and which is secured against the club's assets. We will know that MSD will also have studied BFC accounts and done all their due diligence to satisfy themselves that they are making a credible decision in lending money to ALK with the security they have taken on BFC's assets. There's always risk in lending - and the interest rate and fees always reflect the risk - it's good news that ALK can borrow money as part of their plans for BFC, it means their plans are seen to be good by people who are in the business of lending money to sports teams.

Exciting times.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

Paul. If I read correctly your hypothesising a scenario that ALK will only fully own the club after 3 more years of prem football have been secured.
With the impact that a relegation would mean that the club gets handed back to Garlick & John B?

Hi Father Jack, not quite. I'm sure that ALK own 84% of the club - because that's the deal that has been announced. At some time, there will be a new filing at Companies House showing the new shareholdings. It should show Mike Garlick and John B each with 4,000 shares, the other directors will NIL shares, ALK with 84% and the balance the many small shareholders.

I think Bloomberg report that ALK have paid £102million and have got 3 further instalments to make. Let's say this is £48m and is due at £16m at the end of this season and the following two seasons. So, Mike G and John B have between them provided £48m vendor financing: they have lent this money to ALK with the security that if ALK don't make the payments when they are due the shares ALK have bought are returned to Mike G and John B.

The only reason I speculate that the £48m will be payable at the end of the seasons is linking the price to Burnley remaining in the Premier League. Remaining in the Premier League brings in the most revenue, we can assume it's important for the plans that Alan Pace has (started to) describe to us and is, most certainly, the best performance metric that would justify a high price to buy the club. AP has said the way the deal has been done is unique and the fans will like it.

It's possible that ALK will still make the payments when they are due, even if the club has been relegated. I'm sure ALK will not have given up this option and would not want to lose the club that they will have invested in. The club returning to MG and JB is the security to them that they will get paid the full amount for their shares - or they will once more own the club.

Exciting times.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

Leading on from that thinking Paul, I wondered if the size of deferred payments might link to future ‘goodwill of the business’ which are faced with great uncertainties in terms of broadcast money (hard to imagine increases here) and also Covid (not to mention relegation). Alan Pace’s comments alluded to a very good level of understanding with the outgoing directors which I think we should hopefully take some comfort from.

Hi Cuban, I agree, there are a lot of "known uncertainties" - meaning those that are in the public domain and we can all know, not just those inside the club and ALK. The risk of relegation and the covid situation as it affects the club's finances are the big ones. I think the deal structure comes down to "squaring the circle" between Alan Pace/ALK and Mike G and John B. The sellers would always like the higher price. The buyers would always prefer something lower. The big "what if the club is relegated...?" suggest to me that the deferred payments may be linked to Premier League status being maintained. I'd guess that Mike G and John B would be happy to have some of their payment contingent on this. Similarly, Alan Pace/ALK would be pleased to have the risk of relegation mitigated. But, you don't lend someone £48 million unless you have some security that you will get paid - hence the return of the shares....

Exciting times.

UTC

[NewClaret]

Couple of interesting things I’ve just found on Twitter. Looks like MSD raised £52m from the Guernsey stock exchange (at 9%) and a further £15m (at 7.75%) on 8th October (presumably exactly when ALK will have had to provide proof of funds)?

Maybe the £52m is what’s secured against the club, and the £15m was a personal loan to the ALK guys? Would make part of the Bloomberg story and part of the Athletic story correct.

[scouseclaret]

However you look at this,Paul, it’s difficult to understand how the club is in a better place now than it was a week or so ago. Whatever the details are, it is a fact that the previous owners are being paid from a combination of cash belonging to the Club (and therefore a direct extraction of value from the Club) and money borrowed at extremely high interest rates which represent a significant drain on future cash flows. Very little new equity - reportedly only about 10% of the total enterprise value - is being injected into the Club.

I fully understand why this is an attractive structure for the new owners. If successful, they stand to make many multiples of their relatively modest investment, but what’s in it for us?

Potentially more dynamic owners with new ideas? These guys may be marketing geniuses that can raise the profile of the Club and open up previously unconsidered new revenue streams. Or they could be a bunch of dreamers.

That’s the huge, potentially existential, risk we appear to have signed up for.

Exciting times? Maybe. Dangerous times? Certainly.

[Wile E Coyote]

little point in investing in the present climate unless the big plan is to back the club financially.
as fans we should hopefully see improvements which eluded us in recent seasons. we have the best manager around, we all know by now its a money go round. if that relationship is new and different, we may well see things at Burnley none of us expected. easy to stare at the stats and listen to the accountants on this board, but ultimately we dont have a choice. I am optimistic about this.

[Stevie Morgan]

Is it possible there is an agreement the 48 million goes back into the club coffers if ownership reverts to garlick and jb, in the event of relegation? Lots of ifs, might be nothing to do with relegation! Would this be unnecessarily convoluted?