ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[aggi]

Help me out here.

So in November, MSD repaid the money they had borrowed to give to us? Potentially pointing to MSD restructuring their affairs internally?

Then last Wednesday the charges on our debt are satisfied. Meaning either

1. we’ve repaid the debts somehow, or more likely,
2. refinanced with someone else - since a refi with MSD wouldn’t necessitate a charge to be changed.

And given we’re unlikely to get new lending without providing security, we’ll know more about 2 - to whom & how much - very quickly??

From what I remember that MSD stuff is mainly internal to allow the loans to be shifted between different MSD entities, they aren't offering them out externally.

[NewClaret]

From what I remember that MSD stuff is mainly internal to allow the loans to be shifted between different MSD entities, they aren't offering them out externally.

What I recall being said at the time is that MSD had repaid our loan. But that didn’t mean we had repaid MSD because the charges still existed.

So basically the November activity not relevant to us?

[Paul Waine]

Help me out here.

So in November, MSD repaid the money they had borrowed to give to us? Potentially pointing to MSD restructuring their affairs internally?

Then last Wednesday the charges on our debt are satisfied. Meaning either

1. we’ve repaid the debts somehow, or more likely,
2. refinanced with someone else - since a refi with MSD wouldn’t necessitate a charge to be changed.

And given we’re unlikely to get new lending without providing security, we’ll know more about 2 - to whom & how much - very quickly??

We need to wait and see. I think it would be standard procedure to record satisfaction of a charge before registering a new charge. This because the original charge has primary claim and control before it is has been satisfied, including being able to deny the right of a secondary charge to have any effect.

We've also got to take into account that Companies House is slow in processing documents. It's only today that we are seeing the Satisfaction of Charge filings from 8th Feb.

On the other hand, anyone lending with the security of a charge over assets will require their charge to be registered very quickly. So, we shouldn't have long to wait.

[NewClaret]

We need to wait and see. I think it would be standard procedure to record satisfaction of a charge before registering a new charge. This because the original charge has primary claim and control before it is has been satisfied, including being able to deny the right of a secondary charge to have any effect.

We've also got to take into account that Companies House is slow in processing documents. It's only today that we are seeing the Satisfaction of Charge filings from 8th Feb.

On the other hand, anyone lending with the security of a charge over assets will require their charge to be registered very quickly. So, we shouldn't have long to wait.

Thanks PW, makes sense.

[Paul Waine]

What makes you say it should follow, CP? Could it not just be that the charge will remain on one entity?

No. Kettering only has shares in Calder Vale. If Calder Vale has Satisfied, then Kettering will have also.

[NewClaret]

No. Kettering only has shares in Calder Vale. If Calder Vale has Satisfied, then Kettering will have also.

I see. So that does point to processing delays too. Next few days are going to be interesting.

[Chester Perry]

Potentially the most interesting development to happen today (actually in the last few months) is the fact that Kieran Maguire has not tweeted about the charges being satisfied - this follows his absolute silence in regards to the late filings at all the ALK associated entities. His reticence in our regard is very strange, anyone else even at National League level and he is all over it.

[HistoricalClaret]

Potentially the most interesting development to happen today (actually in the last few months) is the fact that Kieran Maguire has not tweeted about the charges being satisfied - this follows his absolute silence in regards to the late filings at all the ALK associated entities. His reticence in our regard is very strange, anyone else even at National League level and he is all over it.

Might be because of the massive fearmongering agenda he had in the summer and how a lot of people called him out on it

[Chester Perry]

There was this application to cancel it (we assume this was the BFC loan) back in November https://tisegroup.com/market/companies/8061 and there was a bit of speculation about this at the time.

Personally I'd assume refinancing (particularly given our transfer dealing in January). Can't imagine that a significant investment wouldn't have been publicised and, to be honest, I don't think a priority for investment would have been paying off the loan.

The only way new investment being used to pay off the loan at this point would make sense at this juncture is if there was a new majority owner, effectively a takeover, given the associated penalty charge for early repayment. Such a change would point to a replacement/reconfiguration of directors, as yet there is no indication of director changes at any organisation in the VSL hierarchy

[RVclaret]

Potentially the most interesting development to happen today (actually in the last few months) is the fact that Kieran Maguire has not tweeted about the charges being satisfied - this follows his absolute silence in regards to the late filings at all the ALK associated entities. His reticence in our regard is very strange, anyone else even at National League level and he is all over it.

Right on cue...

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... aNMpLy4x5A

[Ightenhill_Claret]

The only way new investment being used to pay off the loan at this point would make sense at this juncture is if there was a new majority owner, effectively a takeover, given the associated penalty charge for early repayment. Such a change would point to a replacement/reconfiguration of directors, as yet there is no indication of director changes at any organisation in the VSL hierarchy

Is this likely to be a refinance in that case? Perhaps switching lender or maybe a new charge (for more money) coming through from MSD?

Would it make sense to switch lender given the early repayment charge? (In your opinion obvs CP)

[NewClaret]

Right on cue...

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... aNMpLy4x5A

Seems Twitter is not being so circumspect in calling us debt free!!

[MancunianClaret]

Having read the last few pages of this thread and seeing the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire, I'm struggling to follow.

Can anyone offer an easy to understand summary for the layman of our current position? i.e.

* Are we still "in debt"?

If yes:

* By how much?
* To whom?

[NewClaret]

Having read the last few pages of this thread and seeing the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire, I'm struggling to follow.

Can anyone offer an easy to understand summary for the layman of our current position? i.e.

* Are we still "in debt"?

If yes:

* By how much?
* To whom?

Maybe, don’t know, don’t know.

We’ve repaid MSD, there’s a hypothesis on here that we did so by refinancing with someone else but nobody really knows.

[Ightenhill_Claret]

I think the answer is 'perhaps/maybe'. This charge has been 'satisfied' which means we no longer owe the money to MSD.

BUT

It depends how it has been paid off - have we borrowed the cash (and perhaps more) from another lender to pay it off = still in deby by £?m OR have we had inward investment which the club hasn't announced yet and the money has been paid off by a new investor?

(That's my understanding of it).

[aggi]

Having read the last few pages of this thread and seeing the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire, I'm struggling to follow.

Can anyone offer an easy to understand summary for the layman of our current position? i.e.

* Are we still "in debt"?

If yes:

* By how much?
* To whom?

Basically, we don't know.

I'd be very surprised if we were debt free but it is possible.

[Chester Perry]

Having read the last few pages of this thread and seeing the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire, I'm struggling to follow.

Can anyone offer an easy to understand summary for the layman of our current position? i.e.

* Are we still "in debt"?

If yes:

* By how much?
* To whom?

technically we are not now in debt but the expectation is one of a refinancing rather than a debt clearance

As to who has supplied the refinancing, if that is what it is, that will be made clear in the coming days with a new 'charge' on the club

The value of any new loan will likely remain unknown - particularly if it is a draw down facility - though the accounts may reveal it's maximum potential value when we see them in a couple of months

[Goalposts]

On the face of it , this looks very promising, but the devil is in the detail as they say

[gandhisflipflop]

I reckon a mystery billionaire investor

[NewClaret]

I reckon a mystery billionaire investor

I blooming hope you’re right gandhisflipflop!!!

[Chester Perry]

I reckon a mystery billionaire investor

I am sure that there are many who share your hope

just what has become of our game that this is what people are now wanting

[MancunianClaret]

Thanks to all who humored me with an answer! Fingers crossed one of the Dell brothers has seen the highlights from Saturday and decided to invest.

[gandhisflipflop]

I am sure that there are many who share your hope

just what has become of our game that this is what people are now wanting

I just want my team to win things and be successful. Ideally, it would be done through a miracle but this is what’s required nowadays. I’d rather it not be the case but there ya go.

[RVclaret]

I reckon a mystery billionaire investor

Ha - I actually saw a rumour of a 'silent Vietnamese billionaire investor'

[Chester Perry]

I just want my team to win things and be successful. Ideally, it would be done through a miracle but this is what’s required nowadays. I’d rather it not be the case but there ya go.

I understood all that from your original post

The 'Promotion' thread talks about wanting to win the league and then preferring to remain in it because of everything the top league is these days, It is a sad indictment of what the game has become. You are right that gone are the days when Burnley, Derby, Nottingham Forest and Ipswich gain promotion and immediately (if ever now) challenge for the title (even win it) with basically the same squad like they could once of a day.

[Vegas Claret]

I understood all that from your original post

The 'Promotion' thread talks about wanting to win the league and then preferring to remain in it because of everything the top league is these days, It is a sad indictment of what the game has become. You are right that gone are the days when Burnley, Derby, Nottingham Forest and Ipswich gain promotion and immediately (if ever now) challenge for the title (even win it) with basically the same squad like they could once of a day.

the "game" was sadly lost decades ago at professional level. Not sure what clubs like us do going forward without investment if they kill parachute payments - it will mean anyone who goes up wont spend and make the teams in the PL all but guaranteed to stay there.

[Chester Perry]

the "game" was sadly lost decades ago at professional level. Not sure what clubs like us do going forward without investment if they kill parachute payments - it will mean anyone who goes up wont spend and make the teams in the PL all but guaranteed to stay there.

I think it will be difficult for a regulator to remove parachutes once they understand the distortion in the Premier League that qualification to UEFA club competitions provides - parachutes (and even a core group of 26 or so clubs regularly involved in the Premier League are essential to it remaining a competitive spectacle - being part of that core group is what our owners, and those frantically chucking money at it in the EFL are wanting to achieve, particularly when you understand that the Premier League reducing to 18 clubs is inevitable.

Removing parachutes and imposing strict financial regulation effectively allows the greedy six to sail off over the financial and competitive horizon and it will be almost impossible to then reconfigure at a later date as we have seen with the current system.

[quoonbeatz]

Think we should go with the ALK takeover.

[aggi]

I am sure that there are many who share your hope

just what has become of our game that this is what people are now wanting

I think this has been something that people have wanted for many years, it's not a new thing.

Go back in this thread and you'll see plenty of people wanting us to be taken over by American private equity though ...

[Paul Waine]

technically we are not now in debt but the expectation is one of a refinancing rather than a debt clearance

As to who has supplied the refinancing, if that is what it is, that will be made clear in the coming days with a new 'charge' on the club

The value of any new loan will likely remain unknown - particularly if it is a draw down facility - though the accounts may reveal it's maximum potential value when we see them in a couple of months

Hi CP, we can't say "technically we are not now in debt" just because the original charge is recorded as Satisfied - and there's not as yet a new charge registered. if the club has borrowed new funds to satisfy the MSD loan then the club will be in debt to whoever has provided the new loan. All appropriate paper work, including any required charge will have been completed before the new money was advanced, if that is what has taken place. It's just Companies House isn't showing a new charge, as yet.

I doubt any new loan will be simply a drawdown/revolving credit facility. If the club has an element of drawdown it's most likely to be secondary to the principal debt finance. Drawdown/revolvers are working capital arrangements. Without new equity investment the club will still need debt as part of the club's capital employed.

At least, this is how I see it.

[CombatClaret]

I wonder if we've done some refinancing based on the high likelihood any new loans will be secured against Premier League income next season as opposed to parachute payments

[Chester Perry]

Hi CP, we can't say "technically we are not now in debt" just because the original charge is recorded as Satisfied - and there's not as yet a new charge registered. if the club has borrowed new funds to satisfy the MSD loan then the club will be in debt to whoever has provided the new loan. All appropriate paper work, including any required charge will have been completed before the new money was advanced, if that is what has taken place. It's just Companies House isn't showing a new charge, as yet.

I doubt any new loan will be simply a drawdown/revolving credit facility. If the club has an element of drawdown it's most likely to be secondary to the principal debt finance. Drawdown/revolvers are working capital arrangements. Without new equity investment the club will still need debt as part of the club's capital employed.

At least, this is how I see it.

Until we know for certain that it is a refinance and not a debt removal we (not the industry who will have their other sources of knowledge) can only go with what is at Companies House. I accept what you say about a refinance scenario in reality (this is your knowledge/experience base after all)

Interesting view on the draw down, which is becoming increasingly popular in the Premier League With West Ham, Everton and even Manchester United having opened sizeable facilities (all in excess of £100m) in the last two years. West Ham is the interesting one as they stated it was created with the intention of consolidating all their debt. Of course my labelling of the West Ham facility could be incorrect, but the use of it is intended to be similar in actual practice.

[Chester Perry]

I wonder if we've done some refinancing based on the high likelihood any new loans will be secured against Premier League income next season as opposed to parachute payments

almost certain to include both scenarios, I have never seen a 'charge' that didn't

[Vegas Claret]

particularly when you understand that the Premier League reducing to 18 clubs is inevitable.

i assume that is because of all the European and International competitions ?

[Chester Perry]

i assume that is because of all the European and International competitions ?

yep - FIFA and UEFA want it to be 16 but don't think they will be able to achieve it, this decade, they want 18 by 2025-26 though to work with the reforms in Uefa Club competitions - that being the Swiss Model

[Tricky Trevor]

yep - FIFA and UEFA want it to be 16 but don't think they will be able to achieve it, this decade, they want 18 by 2025-26 though to work with the reforms in Uefa Club competitions - that being the Swiss Model

Less national league more EUFA comps. Who needs a super league? The national leagues should tell them to do one but they won’t.

[Vegas Claret]

yep - FIFA and UEFA want it to be 16 but don't think they will be able to achieve it, this decade, they want 18 by 2025-26 though to work with the reforms in Uefa Club competitions - that being the Swiss Model

grim

[Spike]

I am surprised Alan Pace didn’t mention it during his meet the fans on Harry Potts Way!

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Quite amusing to see certain posters finding it impossible to give any sort of credit to Pace!

[Goalposts]

My understanding is that we have now paid the debt - whether by refinancing etc and moved the new debt abroad so it will not be subject to the challenges and issues we have had , but also is easier to attract supposedly new investors.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but interested to hear from those who deal in this world if this is likely

[Devils_Advocate]

I was told not to say anything but heard from a reliable source that there as been a takeover going on in the background for a couple of months. My source wouldn't divulge the persons name but gave me the following clue - "MG and well known to Burnley fans"

Im not good at cryptic clues but for those that are please feel free to give me some guesses.

[Paul Waine]

My understanding is that we have now paid the debt - whether by refinancing etc and moved the new debt abroad so it will not be subject to the challenges and issues we have had , but also is easier to attract supposedly new investors.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but interested to hear from those who deal in this world if this is likely

Hi Goalposts, MSD that lent the club £65 million is a US headquartered company. Macquarie that has lent money against the outgoing player transfers is an Australian headquartered business. Any new loans will also involve charges registered against BFC because that's how these things are done, regardless of where the lender is based.

No need for businesses that lend money to be located in the same country as any investors. Similarly, no need for all investors to be located/resident/domiciled in the same country.

[aggi]

My understanding is that we have now paid the debt - whether by refinancing etc and moved the new debt abroad so it will not be subject to the challenges and issues we have had , but also is easier to attract supposedly new investors.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but interested to hear from those who deal in this world if this is likely

I guess by "moving the debt abroad" it could be with the jersey or Delaware entities. Can't really see that being the case though.

[Spijed]

My understanding is that we have now paid the debt - whether by refinancing etc and moved the new debt abroad so it will not be subject to the challenges and issues we have had , but also is easier to attract supposedly new investors.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but interested to hear from those who deal in this world if this is likely

Without having any understanding, why does money get moved from place to place like this and why would moving money abroad make us more attractive to investors?

[bfcjg]

Without having any understanding, why does money get moved from place to place like this and why would moving money abroad make us more attractive to investors?

I think I can take that one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VajdHXR3VrM

[Jakubclaret]

Without having any understanding, why does money get moved from place to place like this and why would moving money abroad make us more attractive to investors?

Because depending where you are moving the money to you could effectively be putting distance & less traceability away from the taxman & making the lump larger than it ordinarily would be doing everything strictly kosher. I’ll have to start invoicing some of you on the laws of common sense & how life works.

[ClaretInLeeds]

Because depending where you are moving the money to you could effectively be putting distance & less traceability away from the taxman & making the lump larger than it ordinarily would be doing everything strictly kosher. I’ll have to start invoicing some of you on the laws of common sense & how life works.

A seemingly normal post ends up with you acting like the bellend we all know you are.

[Jakubclaret]

A seemingly normal post ends up with you acting like the bellend we all know you are.

Easier on CBeebies that’s my calling card, good day.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Because depending where you are moving the money to you could effectively be putting distance & less traceability away from the taxman & making the lump larger than it ordinarily would be doing everything strictly kosher. I’ll have to start invoicing some of you on the laws of common sense & how life works.

You'd go bust within a month

[NewClaret]

Would we all agree that any subsequent charges should show up today latest?