ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Thu May 25, 2023 2:38 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 1:07 pm
You still didn’t answer the question, do you think we would of been able to go rebuild the squad from the end of 19-20 and stay in the premier league whilst continuing to make a profit?
If you actually pay attention to what I wrote I did answer you and give you the reasons why it was possible

The questionable bit for 13/14 clubs in the Premier League is will it allow them to stay - that is never guaranteed no matter how much you spend or who you sign

the key about the summer of 2020 if Covid was not to happen is it would allow for a reset while still retaining a level of experience and knowhow in the Premier League - a look at the numbers shows that we had hit peak cost of football to revenue ratios - so many going out of contract and a single sale would have allowed for 5 strong signings that year and allow us to backfill for future sales of the next two years or so - the refresh we wanted all why meeting constraints of the budget.

as for your argument of the need to go into debt to do so - that is always a bad idea - and one neither Garlick or Pace are likely to entertain because they understand the very high risk that is associated with it. Both would rather sell existing players to fund new players than borrow money to do so

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:41 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:34 pm
I get your point Easy but let's unpack the big picture first.

Your premise is: we didn't have enough money in the bank so we sold it to people with no money who immediately took £50 million out of the bank to spend on shares? Can you see the problem?

In 21/22 we had enough money to spend on players but ALK spent it on shares.....! That's a fact..

The question then is: do we have a business model to sustain PL football in the longer term?

Possibly not, but the resolution to that is not selling it to people with no money who immediately take £50 million out of the bank to spend on shares.

And I suppose your final point is: did we have enough cash in the bank to fund a spend in 21/22 to stave off relegation and then replace the ten out of contract players at the start of 22/23.

That is a tough one because most of them had become surplus to requirements anyway so we may well have done.

The underlying problem is this: if we do not have a business model that generates enough surplus to fund the investment in a PL squad then ALK are exactly the wrong people to sell to because they have made the underlying problem much worse.

And the final question is - if you are correct and we needed to invest to replace the ten players then how would ALK have paid for it given they spent £50 million on shares in 21/22 and £25 million paying off MSD in 22/23.

And we could only afford that because we sold off the best part of our PL squad..

Who is going to lend the club £50 million to spend on intangible assets with no security so they must have had a plan to fund a spend out of cash and not from debt.

And this is a club with a matchday and commercial revenue of £20 million.

Can you see how absurd all this is...?
How do you know ‘In 21/22 we had enough money to spend on players but ALK spent it on shares.....! That's a fact..’ because you don’t know how much players and wages would of cost, just because we had money doesn’t mean we had enough at all

Again you seem to be trying to compare garlick and ALK into an argument, we didn’t have enough money to compete any any owner would of had to borrow simple as that

But we went down and we will never know, it’s my opinion, you don’t have to agree with it

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:43 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:38 pm
If you actually pay attention to what I wrote I did answer you and give you the reasons why it was possible

The questionable bit for 13/14 clubs in the Premier League is will it allow them to stay - that is never guaranteed no matter how much you spend or who you sign

the key about the summer of 2020 if Covid was not to happen is it would allow for a reset while still retaining a level of experience and knowhow in the Premier League - a look at the numbers shows that we had hit peak cost of football to revenue ratios - so many going out of contract and a single sale would have allowed for 5 strong signings that year and allow us to backfill for future sales of the next two years or so - the refresh we wanted all why meeting constraints of the budget.

as for your argument of the need to go into debt to do so - that is always a bad idea - and one neither Garlick or Pace are likely to entertain because they understand the very high risk that is associated with it. Both would rather sell existing players to fund new players than borrow money to do so
You are still waffling on instead of just giving a simple answer to a a simple question

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:45 pm

aggi wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:33 pm
Agreed that there are certainly gaps in knowledge and some take different leaps than others to fill them but I think everyone who understands anything can agree that the debt has solely been used to buy the shares off the old shareholders and not invested into the club. It is very clear that is the case.
So no money we spend on players this summer will come from money borrowed that will eventually need to be paid back?

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:47 pm

aggi wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:30 pm
What I first responded to was Without the debt we wouldn’t have been able to sign cornet of Collins and even that debt wasn’t enough. which is completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt was used for.

As for your new question, possibly.

Assuming we were following the route of selling to bring in fees and bringing in younger, unproven players then yes. Would that team stay in the Premier League, who knows? But Everton have spent hundreds of millions and are still at risk of going down. No-one can answer your straw-man question because no-one knows the answer.
I never said which debt was used, I’m saying that the club now being in debt allowed us to sign the likes of cornet and Collins

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Thu May 25, 2023 2:51 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:43 pm
You are still waffling on instead of just giving a simple answer to a a simple question
If you cannot appreciate that not only am I giving you a clear answer but also the justification and reasoning for that answer then that is your choice - but to me it means you are not willing to take on board a perspective that challenges yours with accumulated knowledge and understanding and that constitutes trolling. So on that basis I am out of any further discussion with you because you appear to neither understand or believe in the purpose of what discussion is for

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by RVclaret » Thu May 25, 2023 2:51 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:47 pm
I never said which debt was used, I’m saying that the club now being in debt allowed us to sign the likes of cornet and Collins
Why would the club being in debt allow us to sign them?

dsr
Posts: 15137
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Thu May 25, 2023 2:53 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:47 pm
I never said which debt was used, I’m saying that the club now being in debt allowed us to sign the likes of cornet and Collins
And everybody else is saying you're wrong. And I'm afraid in this case, you are positively not "the only one in step".

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:55 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:51 pm
If you cannot appreciate that not only am I giving you a clear answer but also the justification and reasoning for that answer then that is your choice - but to me it means you are not willing to take on board a perspective that challenges yours with accumulated knowledge and understanding and that constitutes trolling. So on that basis I am out of any further discussion with you because you appear to neither understand or believe in the purpose of what discussion is for
Because you just seem incapable of answering a question giving a simple opinion, still yet to know if you think we would have rebuilt a squad in the premier league and continued to make a profit, that’s all I wanted to get from you but instead you go around the question with paragraphs and paragraphs and still don’t answer

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:56 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:51 pm
Why would the club being in debt allow us to sign them?
Borrowing money to fund transfers to then pay back by staying in the premier league

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Thu May 25, 2023 2:57 pm

dsr wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:53 pm
And everybody else is saying you're wrong. And I'm afraid in this case, you are positively not "the only one in step".
never have the posters on this thread been more in agreement and united on a point than this
Last edited by Chester Perry on Thu May 25, 2023 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:58 pm

dsr wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:53 pm
And everybody else is saying you're wrong. And I'm afraid in this case, you are positively not "the only one in step".
Nobody is saying I’m wrong, you can’t be right and wrong when you are giving an opinion, you can agree and disagree and the whole thing I said was in my opinion whoever was in change we would of had to borrow or become a club in debt to push forward.

Don’t understand what is so wrong to give that opinion

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by RVclaret » Thu May 25, 2023 2:58 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:56 pm
Borrowing money to fund transfers to then pay back by staying in the premier league
The money wasn’t borrowed to fund transfers. The money was borrowed to fund the takeover and pay the previous owners. You are getting confused.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 2:59 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:57 pm
never have the posters on this thread been more in agreement and united on point than this
Again how can someone be wrong for given an opinion on what they think the club would of had to do to keep pushing, people are allowed to disagree with others opinions, without posters feeling the need to big themselves by saying ‘I’m right and you are wrong’

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:01 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:58 pm
The money wasn’t borrowed to fund transfers. The money was borrowed to fund the takeover and pay the previous owners. You are getting confused.
No you are confusing what I’m saying, the initial money borrowed was to pay off owners, but we have now taken out a new loan and will probably take out a new loan on our TV money due which will fund player purchases

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:02 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:58 pm
The money wasn’t borrowed to fund transfers. The money was borrowed to fund the takeover and pay the previous owners. You are getting confused.
Garlick would of had to borrow money via the same lenders other clubs use to be able to use the money to buy players

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Thu May 25, 2023 3:02 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:57 pm
never have the posters on this thread been more in agreement and united on a point than this
It is impressive. On a thread of many different opinions and interpretations everyone is at least united on them being completely wrong.

Anyway, I give up.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:04 pm

aggi wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:02 pm
It is impressive. On a thread of many different opinions and interpretations everyone is at least united on them being completely wrong.

Anyway, I give up.
Are you that insecure that you have to sit behind a phone or computer typing that you think your right and someone else wrong on a thread which is all about opinions

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu May 25, 2023 3:10 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:04 pm
Are you that insecure that you have to sit behind a phone or computer typing that you think your right and someone else wrong on a thread which is all about opinions
its not all about opinions though

The vast majority of the thread is someone who knows what they are talking about trying to explain to the likes of you and me about how the takeover has taken X from the club, and its been distributed into a lot of companies and not just straight into ALK capital

I barely understand even that, and I doubt I'm alone!

Unless I'm reading you wrong, you want a definite answer on whether we could survive if the takeover had never happened

Now that is something you could debate all day on here, and its probably worth a thread all on it own

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:14 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:10 pm
its not all about opinions though

The vast majority of the thread is someone who knows what they are talking about trying to explain to the likes of you and me about how the takeover has taken X from the club, and its been distributed into a lot of companies and not just straight into ALK capital

I barely understand even that, and I doubt I'm alone!

Unless I'm reading you wrong, you want a definite answer on whether we could survive if the takeover had never happened

Now that is something you could debate all day on here, and its probably worth a thread all on it own
I didn’t ask where X amount of money had gone to and who had received what and how much has this company got though

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:17 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:10 pm
its not all about opinions though

The vast majority of the thread is someone who knows what they are talking about trying to explain to the likes of you and me about how the takeover has taken X from the club, and its been distributed into a lot of companies and not just straight into ALK capital

I barely understand even that, and I doubt I'm alone!

Unless I'm reading you wrong, you want a definite answer on whether we could survive if the takeover had never happened

Now that is something you could debate all day on here, and its probably worth a thread all on it own
And no I didn’t ask if we could of survived without the takeover I asked if people think we could of signed enough players, still be in profit and Survived or in my opinion the old ownership would of needed loans and to borrow to fund the chance of survival

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu May 25, 2023 3:18 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:17 pm
And no I didn’t ask if we could of survived without the takeover I asked if people think we could of signed enough players, still be in profit and Survived or in my opinion the old ownership would of needed loans and to borrow to fund the chance of survival
Why did you ask that on this thread?

It is about the takeover and the structure of the takeover, and whether ALK has any money really

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:24 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:18 pm
Why did you ask that on this thread?

It is about the takeover and the structure of the takeover, and whether ALK has any money really
Because posters starting talking about us now being in debt now and mentioned that under the old board we went down under dyche and came back up without debt

And I said you can’t compare what happened in 15-16 to now and I felt that even under Garlick we would of had to go into some kind of debt to stay in the premier league due to the rebuild needed.

Is that alright with you?

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu May 25, 2023 3:32 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:24 pm
Because posters starting talking about us now being in debt now and mentioned that under the old board we went down under dyche and came back up without debt

And I said you can’t compare what happened in 15-16 to now and I felt that even under Garlick we would of had to go into some kind of debt to stay in the premier league due to the rebuild needed.

Is that alright with you?
You crack on!

If it helps, the idea of a club like ours staying in the prem under Garlick and SD with the amount of money that we'd have needed to replace an aging squad in a couple of transfer windows is pretty unlikely

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 3:33 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 3:32 pm
You crack on!

If it helps, the idea of a club like ours staying in the prem under Garlick and SD with the amount of money that we'd have needed to replace an aging squad in a couple of transfer windows is pretty unlikely
I echo your opinion on that

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu May 25, 2023 4:22 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:41 pm
How do you know ‘In 21/22 we had enough money to spend on players but ALK spent it on shares.....! That's a fact..’ because you don’t know how much players and wages would of cost, just because we had money doesn’t mean we had enough at all

Again you seem to be trying to compare garlick and ALK into an argument, we didn’t have enough money to compete any any owner would of had to borrow simple as that

But we went down and we will never know, it’s my opinion, you don’t have to agree with it
So, your point is £50 million was not enough to buy a player or two...?

ALK have replaced an ageing squad and do not have trading related debt. So, neither the former owners or the current ones have debt related to trading.

We may have had to sell Mc Neil and picked up some £3 to £4 million players, which is what ALK have done.

RVs question of whether the former owners could have done it is a good one as is the question of whether we will have a PL squad at the end of the summer.

At this point we do not have trading related debt.

TBH I get your point but it brings into the question of whether a club like Burnley generates enough surplus to fund debt to compete in the PL and that adds more complexity to the issue.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 4:31 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 4:22 pm
So, your point is £50 million was not enough to buy a player or two...?

ALK have replaced an ageing squad and do not have trading related debt. So, neither the former owners or the current ones have debt related to trading.

We may have had to sell Mc Neil and picked up some £3 to £4 million players, which is what ALK have done.

RVs question of whether the former owners could have done it is a good one as is the question of whether we will have a PL squad at the end of the summer.

At this point we do not have trading related debt.

TBH I get your point but it brings into the question of whether a club like Burnley generates enough surplus to fund debt to compete in the PL and that adds more complexity to the issue.
Again in my opinion we needed more then a player or 2 at the start of 21-22 and feel it would of cost more than 50mil and then money on renewing Pope, Tarky and Mee on long term contracts , I get we only went down on the final day of the season so an argument could be made that we were only one or two players light

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu May 25, 2023 4:53 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 4:31 pm
Again in my opinion we needed more then a player or 2 at the start of 21-22 and feel it would of cost more than 50mil and then money on renewing Pope, Tarky and Mee on long term contracts , I get we only went down on the final day of the season so an argument could be made that we were only one or two players light
You are conflating different issues - existing wages are accounted for whereas buying players is capital related. Paying players who have been added to the squad is an issue.

The wage bill was nearly a £100 million and renewing players contracts would not have been an issue indeed much less so once the 10 out of contract players left in 21/22.

I think it is reasonable to assume that we were only one or two players light in 20/21.

And in terms of 21/22 we could have done what we did in 17/18, which is sell players to fund new purchases.

Again I caveat with RVs point, which is that Garlick's desire to sell the club and the lack of investment led to a malaise that perhaps meant the old regime had to be replaced because they couldn't do what needed to be done...but that's a different argument

Foshiznik
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
Been Liked: 714 times
Has Liked: 1998 times
Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Foshiznik » Thu May 25, 2023 5:07 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:00 pm
I didn’t ever remember us picking up signings during the prem seasons for 1.5-3.5mil
No I meant that we don’t know if we wouldn’t have signed players of that value if during that time we weren’t owned by someone who wanted to sell (as in he cut investment on transfers significantly in the last two years).

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 5:34 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 4:53 pm
You are conflating different issues - existing wages are accounted for whereas buying players is capital related. Paying players who have been added to the squad is an issue.

The wage bill was nearly a £100 million and renewing players contracts would not have been an issue indeed much less so once the 10 out of contract players left in 21/22.

I think it is reasonable to assume that we were only one or two players light in 20/21.

And in terms of 21/22 we could have done what we did in 17/18, which is sell players to fund new purchases.

Again I caveat with RVs point, which is that Garlick's desire to sell the club and the lack of investment led to a malaise that perhaps meant the old regime had to be replaced because they couldn't do what needed to be done...but that's a different argument
Player wages is counted in the money the club has, if the club had 50mil in the bank and we renewed Pope, Tarky and Mees contract, we wouldn’t then still have 50mil to spend on players

But again you can’t compare 17/18 to 21/22. In 17-18 you had Keane who had become an England international and had age on his side and Andre gray who again had performed particularly well

Before the start of 21-22 season who did we have to sell? Pope? McNeil hadn’t exactly come of a good season before, then you had players with one year left on their deals who you wouldn’t get good fees for

The whole debate has got way out of hand I merely made a statement saying that I felt regardless of who owned the club I personally feel like we would of had to start borrowing

fatboy47
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
Been Liked: 2313 times
Has Liked: 2692 times
Location: Isles of Scilly

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by fatboy47 » Thu May 25, 2023 5:54 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:34 pm
regardless of who owned the club I personally feel like we would of had to start borrowing
We'd have to borrow a darn sight more if someone's walked away with everything we had in the bank.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 5:56 pm

fatboy47 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:54 pm
We'd have to borrow a darn sight more if someone's walked away with everything we had in the bank.
I agree, but borrowing is still borrowing regardless of how much it is

DCWat
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04 am
Been Liked: 4131 times
Has Liked: 3597 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by DCWat » Thu May 25, 2023 6:35 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:56 pm
I agree, but borrowing is still borrowing regardless of how much it is
I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here. Is it simply for someone, anyone, to agree with you that, hypothetically, we would have had to borrow x many millions to fund a squad overhaul?

Can anyone really answer what you’re asking? We had a very healthy bank balance and some saleable assets. Any purchases would have been spread over the life of the contract, we may have utilised the loan or out of contract market. We’d also have had PL money incoming, on top of those healthy reserves.

Some clubs move up to the Premier League without spending ridiculous sums and some of those (some very close to home) do that and maintain their place at the top table for more than the odd season.

We might have borrowed, we might not. The evidence suggests the latter with the tight ship that was run (and we were praised for).

It’s all a bit of a pointless discussion. The horse has now surely been flogged to death.
This user liked this post: FeedTheArf

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 7:35 pm

DCWat wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 6:35 pm
I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here. Is it simply for someone, anyone, to agree with you that, hypothetically, we would have had to borrow x many millions to fund a squad overhaul?

Can anyone really answer what you’re asking? We had a very healthy bank balance and some saleable assets. Any purchases would have been spread over the life of the contract, we may have utilised the loan or out of contract market. We’d also have had PL money incoming, on top of those healthy reserves.

Some clubs move up to the Premier League without spending ridiculous sums and some of those (some very close to home) do that and maintain their place at the top table for more than the odd season.

We might have borrowed, we might not. The evidence suggests the latter with the tight ship that was run (and we were praised for).

It’s all a bit of a pointless discussion. The horse has now surely been flogged to death.
I wasn’t trying to achieve anything, yesterday I merely made a comment saying in my opinion the club was always going have to borrow and for someone people starting throwing figures and trying to have a cock of saying ‘I’m right your wrong’

If you thought the horse had been flogged why did you feel the need to comment about it?

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu May 25, 2023 9:31 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:34 pm
Player wages is counted in the money the club has, if the club had 50mil in the bank and we renewed Pope, Tarky and Mees contract, we wouldn’t then still have 50mil to spend on players
If you have a phone paid for on a contract by direct debit going out of your bank every month and the same wages going in would you expect your bank balance to reduce after you renew?

There must be a point at which even the most ardent last wordist realises that the horse has been flogged.

In this case the horse is dead and the corpse is rotting..

But fair play you've given the thread a run for its money.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 9:37 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 9:31 pm
If you have a phone paid for on a contract by direct debit going out of your bank every month and the same wages going in would you expect your bank balance to reduce after you renew?

There must be a point at which even the most ardent last wordist realises that the horse has been flogged.

In this case the horse is dead and the corpse is rotting..

But fair play you've given the thread a run for its money.
You contract renewals wouldn’t be the same as the existing deals they would be improved wages surely

Again no winners and losers in a forum, but if feeling like your winning a discussion is how you get your kicks then so be it

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu May 25, 2023 9:42 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 9:37 pm
You contract renewals wouldn’t be the same as the existing deals they would be improved wages surely

Again no winners and losers in a forum, but if feeling like your winning a discussion is how you get your kicks then so be it
Not necessarily you could offer longer contracts and spread the cost or it might even be less for those at the end of their careers.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 9:47 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 9:42 pm
Not necessarily you could offer longer contracts and spread the cost or it might even be less for those at the end of their careers.
Yeah that could happen or they could sign longer contracts and more money that costs even more, so where I said factoring into the club money the fact new contracts for existing players wouldnt of been wrong then

In fact our wage bill went up in the last set of accounts, so using your phone contract analogy, the phones must of been costing more

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu May 25, 2023 9:57 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 9:47 pm
Yeah that could happen or they could sign longer contracts and more money that costs even more, so where I said factoring into the club money the fact new contracts for existing players wouldnt of been wrong then

In fact our wage bill went up in the last set of accounts, so using your phone contract analogy, the phones must of been costing more

I was just about to type: How much of the £80 million would renewing Ben Mee, Tarky and Pope's contracts have swallowed up would you say?

But no I'm defeated. I thought I was the most virulent anal pedant - last wordist on here but I take my hat off to you good sir.... I am bested there no rights and wrongs in the universe just opinions.

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Thu May 25, 2023 10:00 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 9:57 pm
I was just about to type: How much of the £80 million would renewing Ben Mee, Tarky and Pope's contracts have swallowed up would you say?

But no I'm defeated. I thought I was the most virulent anal pedant - last wordist on here but I take my hat off to you good sir.... I am bested there no rights and wrongs in the universe just opinions.
We will never know, we will never know if there was 80mil to spend and we will never know much more renewing contracts would cost, but we do know it would eat into the total money available.

Nothing like going to the extreme when someone doesn’t agree with you eh, not asking you to agree with me it’s not important

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nonayforever » Thu May 25, 2023 10:07 pm

Hi Easy,
If you type out what you want to hear then I will re-type it out for you.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Big Vinny K » Thu May 25, 2023 10:11 pm

Of and have
is there a right or wrong ?
Or is it just a matter have opinion ?
This user liked this post: Stalbansclaret

roperclaret
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 329 times
Has Liked: 37 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by roperclaret » Thu May 25, 2023 11:24 pm

So trying to unravel this:
ALK haven’t actually taken any money out of the club
But the money in the bank was used to give to Garlick et al
The club was used as a vehicle to borrow money (but on paper the debt actually sits with the owners who then borrowed that money from the club)
There is of course the interest repayments that the club will fund not the owners
They have completely revamped an old tired team with a new vibrant team, making a profit on player sales which funded the new players and reduced the wage bill by around £70 million? per year.
Have I missed anything?

ClaretTony
Posts: 67423
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5253 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretTony » Thu May 25, 2023 11:53 pm

123EasyasBFC wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 2:47 pm
I never said which debt was used, I’m saying that the club now being in debt allowed us to sign the likes of cornet and Collins
Trying to read and understand everything in this thread is not always easy for a layman like myself but a number of posters have been able to explain things really well. Unfortunately, I think the thread is suffering from yourself and some of your posts which, quite simply, shouldn't be on this thread at all. I've used this post to reply to because it really doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 26, 2023 12:48 am

roperclaret wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 11:24 pm
So trying to unravel this:
1. ALK haven’t actually taken any money out of the club
2. But the money in the bank was used to give to Garlick et al
3. The club was used as a vehicle to borrow money (but on paper the debt actually sits with the owners who then borrowed that money from the club)
4. There is of course the interest repayments that the club will fund not the owners
5. They have completely revamped an old tired team with a new vibrant team, making a profit on player sales which funded the new players and reduced the wage bill by around £70 million? per year.
Have I missed anything?
1. Have ALK actually taken money out of the club - Yes
a - the club has spent £46m in interest, repayments and penalties to both MSD and Macquarie to date, and they will continue to pay interest and probably the capital balance (£39.7m) in the future
b- the last accounts record a Management fee of £1.5m to an ALK group company (I actually don't have an issue with that - it is pretty obvious that a number of directors have been very active in managing affairs at the club)
c- the club now have a debt of £1m to ALK Capital LLC for an undeclared reason
d - there is an expectation that the £49.8m borrowed to pay for shares will not be materially returned

2. Some of the money in the bank (£49.8m see 1.d) was loaned to ALK who then gave it to Garlick and Co - btw the Co includes all those small shareholders that sold their shares to ALK business CVHL the rest has been used to cover 1.a to date

3. ALK borrowed the money from MSD in the week leading up to the takeover, they then immediately transferred the loan to the club when the takeover was completed, while keeping the money and giving the club an i.o.u. which few expect them to actually pay from their own monies. Last November the MSD loan was refinanced (by Macquarie according to the Athletic) at a lower rate of interest that is described in 1.a but you appear confused as to where the debt sits - it is the responsibility of the club to pay it, yes the Athletic states that it is the owners who have provided the assets and guarantees as security for the loan, but those people will not want/allow a default to occur that would actually see those pledges called in

4 yes again as detailed in 1.a

5 An old team has been revamped and still needs work even just to replace loanees and those who have not been retained, just how much experience and nous (that was heavily relied on last season) will be retained/replaced for next season back in the Premier League we still need to determine. The wage bill numbers will not be formally declared until the next accounts are published in a little under a years time - your £70m reduction would see them at a little under £22m which would put us close mid way in the championship wages table - which feels a stretch - personally I would not be surprised to see it at £40m or more with bonuses and management and consultation fees

123EasyasBFC
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 561 times
Has Liked: 160 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by 123EasyasBFC » Fri May 26, 2023 6:42 am

ClaretTony wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 11:53 pm
Trying to read and understand everything in this thread is not always easy for a layman like myself but a number of posters have been able to explain things really well. Unfortunately, I think the thread is suffering from yourself and some of your posts which, quite simply, shouldn't be on this thread at all. I've used this post to reply to because it really doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Happily remove my account then

FeedTheArf
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 343 times
Has Liked: 149 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by FeedTheArf » Fri May 26, 2023 7:27 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 12:48 am
1. Have ALK actually taken money out of the club - Yes
a - the club has spent £46m in interest, repayments and penalties to both MSD and Macquarie to date, and they will continue to pay interest and probably the capital balance (£39.7m) in the future
b- the last accounts record a Management fee of £1.5m to an ALK group company (I actually don't have an issue with that - it is pretty obvious that a number of directors have been very active in managing affairs at the club)
c- the club now have a debt of £1m to ALK Capital LLC for an undeclared reason
d - there is an expectation that the £49.8m borrowed to pay for shares will not be materially returned

2. Some of the money in the bank (£49.8m see 1.d) was loaned to ALK who then gave it to Garlick and Co - btw the Co includes all those small shareholders that sold their shares to ALK business CVHL the rest has been used to cover 1.a to date

3. ALK borrowed the money from MSD in the week leading up to the takeover, they then immediately transferred the loan to the club when the takeover was completed, while keeping the money and giving the club an i.o.u. which few expect them to actually pay from their own monies. Last November the MSD loan was refinanced (by Macquarie according to the Athletic) at a lower rate of interest that is described in 1.a but you appear confused as to where the debt sits - it is the responsibility of the club to pay it, yes the Athletic states that it is the owners who have provided the assets and guarantees as security for the loan, but those people will not want/allow a default to occur that would actually see those pledges called in

4 yes again as detailed in 1.a

5 An old team has been revamped and still needs work even just to replace loanees and those who have not been retained, just how much experience and nous (that was heavily relied on last season) will be retained/replaced for next season back in the Premier League we still need to determine. The wage bill numbers will not be formally declared until the next accounts are published in a little under a years time - your £70m reduction would see them at a little under £22m which would put us close mid way in the championship wages table - which feels a stretch - personally I would not be surprised to see it at £40m or more with bonuses and management and consultation fees
Brilliant post, CP, thank you!

I often liken this thread to high school French lessons. I understand about 20% of what is being said no matter how hard I concentrate, but your explanation above was really clear for financial novices like me!

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 30, 2023 1:24 pm

Mike Garlick's Clarets Go Large Ltd post accounts today for a dormant company - later than usual but on time
it appears there that he has been investing some of the proceeds of his sold shares in the club

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

you may remember that that his entity sold 30,603 of its shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited for the price of £1652.86 per share (or £50,582,474.58 in total) to Calder Vale Holdings Limited on December 30 2020

Calder Vale Holdings own a total of 106,107 shares of the 122,478 issued in the club's holding company and have a ringfence agreement over an additional 12,048, leaving just 4.323 shares outside it's sphere of influence. Of course, CVHL has still to release it's first set of accounts for the Period ending October 31 2021 - a report which will not record the share purchase from small shareholders that was due to complete in that period but ended up completing in March 2022.

If CVHL accounts are not published before Thursday this week will technically be 8 months late (having previously been granted an 3 month extension under Covid protocols).

A recent enquiry from a shareholder in Burnley FC Holdings Limited about why there appears to be no action being pursued with the directors of CVHL (and indeed KCL whose accounts were 7 months late as of last Friday) by the officers at Companies House was met with a response citing data protection as a reason for not disclosing information on the matter. It is worth noting that the failure to report on schedule by the directors of CVHL is a criminal offence punishable by Scale 5 fines which have no limit and that providing the general public with basic information in exchange for limited liability is the fundamental foundation of the incorporated limited liability system.

CVHL accounts for the period ending October 31 2022 are due on July 1 2023 just 33 days from now.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ClaretPete001 » Tue May 30, 2023 8:16 pm

What possible data protection issue could be raised by companies house explaining why a company hasn't managed to file accounts for 8 months?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:00 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 30, 2023 1:24 pm
...If CVHL accounts are not published before Thursday this week will technically be 8 months late (having previously been granted an 3 month extension under Covid protocols).

A recent enquiry from a shareholder in Burnley FC Holdings Limited about why there appears to be no action being pursued with the directors of CVHL (and indeed KCL whose accounts were 7 months late as of last Friday) by the officers at Companies House was met with a response citing data protection as a reason for not disclosing information on the matter. It is worth noting that the failure to report on schedule by the directors of CVHL is a criminal offence punishable by Scale 5 fines which have no limit and that providing the general public with basic information in exchange for limited liability is the fundamental foundation of the incorporated limited liability system.
Tick Tock - and there we have it

8 months late officially and 11 months late from the original due date

we are just 1 month away from the 2nd set of accounts for CVHL being due for filing at Companies House

we are now almost 7 months on from BDO being appointed as auditors and 6 months to the day this statement was given to LancsLive by an ALK Capital spokesman:

“This is an administrative error that has come to our attention and is being addressed and resolved with immediacy."
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-25646266

Post Reply