ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
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 » Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:17 pm

Here we go again.
It’s impossible or non sensical that a burnley fan could be an accountant ?
Or that he or she could have worked in commercial finance for 30 years including a number of years in the football sector ?

These experts who make a living out of it have got to support someone - does that mean they can’t objectively raise issues about their own teams finances but can about other teams finances ?

Maybe just for once use that preview button and read the nonsense that you post before hitting submit

elwaclaret
Posts: 8928
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2875 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by elwaclaret » Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:22 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:10 pm
It's nonsensical to suggest that non biased people aren't as informed as some of us especially the 1s who make a living day in & day out making it their business to know such information, & equally it's nonsensical to suggest that there aren't non biased people receiving & taking that said information onboard, I prefer listening & reading information about the club from non burnley sources but I'm probably biased myself it doesn't mean the information I'm receiving is biased. You get plain warts & all honesty from outside not on here.
I think that is disingenuous, of most at least. I find reading others concerns relevant, even if I disagree with them. As someone with dyscalculia I am not prepared to criticise those doing the sums on this, but think healthy scepticism is always a sound approach to research.

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 » Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:29 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:20 pm
There's plenty of people non biased who are more informed than people on here who just plainly see the facts as they see them, sports reporters &: people who engage on a professional basis reporting about the financial situations at clubs throughout the pyramid, biased or non biased people who wish to seek interest can then make their own minds up, if your are mind is already made up prior & stubbornly resistant to change or learning new information as it comes to light then there's no hope on here or anywhere.
It's like having a head full of sugar puffs...

It's simples Jakub: if there is someone out there who is unbiased and expert on the BFC takeover who will educate everyone and more importantly agree with you then cut and paste it onto here.

Darnhill Claret
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 498 times
Has Liked: 992 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Darnhill Claret » Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:21 pm

People are usually open-minded until they view some evidence.

Darnhill Claret
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 498 times
Has Liked: 992 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Darnhill Claret » Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:27 pm

It might then take some conflicting evidence to change that opinion.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:46 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:29 pm
It's like having a head full of sugar puffs...

It's simples Jakub: if there is someone out there who is unbiased and expert on the BFC takeover who will educate everyone and more importantly agree with you then cut and paste it onto here.
Does that person need to be an expert on BFC & all the intricate little details, or can this person just be extremely knowledgeable about football finances & leveraged takeovers just in general, what you are asking for only an handful of people will know Alan pace & the finance figures involved & they will be biased, you are asking for the impossible if that's what you are driving at.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Jun 09, 2023 4:27 pm

elwaclaret wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:22 pm
I think that is disingenuous, of most at least. I find reading others concerns relevant, even if I disagree with them. As someone with dyscalculia I am not prepared to criticise those doing the sums on this, but think healthy scepticism is always a sound approach to research.
It seems to me trying to be respectful that some of the bigwigs on here the ones that profess to know it all or speak like they do, don't want to admit out there the real possibility does exist that people not directly connected to the club know just as much as them if not more & have different opinions about the takeover, I've had this conversation before when I mentioned other people & it never ended well then l doubt it will now, I'm not saying blindly believe everything somebody independently says but you are guaranteed a non biased opinion which is based on honesty & more likely to be accurate.

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 » Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:13 pm

I can understand in some ways why people think Chester is a negative poster/anti the owners.

There hasn't really been that much in the way of positive financial news. There are obviously positives linked to what is happening on the pitch (promotion) but there's not been much of an uptick in other revenues and the other "positive" news such as paying down/refinancing some of the loan is still ultimately not particularly positive but just an improvement on the initial negative starting position of a leveraged buyout.
This user liked this post: FeedTheArf

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 » Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:10 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:46 pm
Does that person need to be an expert on BFC & all the intricate little details, or can this person just be extremely knowledgeable about football finances & leveraged takeovers just in general, what you are asking for only an handful of people will know Alan pace & the finance figures involved & they will be biased, you are asking for the impossible if that's what you are driving at.
No, what I am asking for that you follow the basic rules of debate:

1) Stick to the substance of the thread, which is the Burnley takeover.

2) Avoid Ad Hominem, which is making assumptions about the opinions and biases of individuals rather than challenge the facts and arguments they present

3) Avoid strawman arguments, which present other people's argument in a way that they clearly did not intend

4) Avoid gaslighting, which is questioning people's integrity and biases from a place of ignorance and with no facts.

I have already said that no one outside this thread who will know as much as this thread does that is why it is valuable to the forum and Burnley fans and why you shouldn't just gaslight it without making any contribution whatsoever.
This user liked this post: dsr

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 » Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:20 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:13 pm
I can understand in some ways why people think Chester is a negative poster/anti the owners.

There hasn't really been that much in the way of positive financial news. There are obviously positives linked to what is happening on the pitch (promotion) but there's not been much of an uptick in other revenues and the other "positive" news such as paying down/refinancing some of the loan is still ultimately not particularly positive but just an improvement on the initial negative starting position of a leveraged buyout.
The substance of the thread is not Chester's opinions... and people are allowed to have opinions an views.

What's not acceptable is someone deciding they don't like them and without an argument question the integrity and bias of others.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:25 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:10 pm
No, what I am asking for that you follow the basic rules of debate:

1) Stick to the substance of the thread, which is the Burnley takeover.

2) Avoid Ad Hominem, which is making assumptions about the opinions and biases of individuals rather than challenge the facts and arguments they present

3) Avoid strawman arguments, which present other people's argument in a way that they clearly did not intend

4) Avoid gaslighting, which is questioning people's integrity and biases from a place of ignorance and with no facts.

I have already said that no one outside this thread who will know as much as this thread does that is why it is valuable to the forum and Burnley fans and why you shouldn't just gaslight it without making any contribution whatsoever.
What I originally said is - for the benefit of people that are unsure & have doubts in order to obtain sound grounded opinion is to seek independent knowledge with no bias 1 way or the other, you can try to make something from that but that won't change, I think people that are unsure & have doubts about the integrity of the information that's been posted are wiser following that course of advice, it doesn't & shouldn't detract or diminish from whatever other people are posting. Do you fear people listening to outside views because that's what it's beginning to look like.

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 » Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:46 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:25 pm
What I originally said is - for the benefit of people that are unsure & have doubts in order to obtain sound grounded opinion is to seek independent knowledge with no bias 1 way or the other, you can try to make something from that but that won't change, I think people that are unsure & have doubts about the integrity of the information that's been posted are wiser following that course of advice, it doesn't & shouldn't detract or diminish from whatever other people are posting. Do you fear people listening to outside views because that's what it's beginning to look like.
Classic gaslighting: to quote....

It's at its highest advantage I think when you listen to people completely independent with no bias unlike people on this forum, try to find out what they think about the takeover, it's the only way you'll ever really learn what it's all about when people are talking honest with no axes to grind or agenda's.

You still haven't made a single contribution, intelligent or otherwise, to the subject of 'ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover'.

Yes, it is wise to seek a variety of view on this issue but you didn't say that you said: It's at its highest advantage I think when you listen to people completely independent with no bias unlike people on this forum because you don't understand it enough to know why people have the views they do so you just resort to gaslighting to disrupt the thread and to cast doubt on the opinions of those who can be bother contributing.

Anyway, it's so obvious it doesn't need me to point it out.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:55 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:46 pm
Classic gaslighting: to quote....

It's at its highest advantage I think when you listen to people completely independent with no bias unlike people on this forum, try to find out what they think about the takeover, it's the only way you'll ever really learn what it's all about when people are talking honest with no axes to grind or agenda's.

You still haven't made a single contribution, intelligent or otherwise, to the subject of 'ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover'.

Yes, it is wise to seek a variety of view on this issue but you didn't say that you said: It's at its highest advantage I think when you listen to people completely independent with no bias unlike people on this forum because you don't understand it enough to know why people have the views they do so you just resort to gaslighting to disrupt the thread and to cast doubt on the opinions of those who can be bother contributing.

Anyway, it's so obvious it doesn't need me to point it out.
Obviously people's opinions differ regarding the takeover, & for people that aren't sure 1 way or the other, perhaps they are better placed to learn more accurate information seeking independent knowledge with no bias 1 way or the other, you might not agree with that advice fair enough, I'm not disrupting anything you are by making a big deal from a simple sensible suggestion, probably because you want everybody listening to you.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 » Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:04 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:25 pm
What I originally said is - for the benefit of people that are unsure & have doubts in order to obtain sound grounded opinion is to seek independent knowledge with no bias 1 way or the other, you can try to make something from that but that won't change, I think people that are unsure & have doubts about the integrity of the information that's been posted are wiser following that course of advice, it doesn't & shouldn't detract or diminish from whatever other people are posting. Do you fear people listening to outside views because that's what it's beginning to look like.
As Pete says it is impossible for someone not to impart a modicum of bias even if that bias is not manifest to the person receiving the information, that includes 'independent experts' everyone is tainted with it - and that is not always a bad thing.

I agree it is utterly ridiculous to tale any one persons postings as a definitive presentation of the situation, and if we are talking about mine in this situation (I am still not sure if we are) then I would double down on that given my lack of specialist knowledge and experience.

The joy and benefit of debate and diverse opinion is that when it is observed as a whole it brings greater and deeper knowledge/understanding to those who care to take the trouble to listen/observe. Choosing to ignore input that is articulated with reason and supporting detail is the height of folly.

Wherever possible I seek to share the information I find via the source documentation, that allows others to validate/refute my interpretations - I especially welcome the latter, there have been a number of times when I have appealed for someone to demonstrate my interpretations (not opinions) are wrong and a few when that has been done so (to my relief).

Both the above scenario have developed my understanding of the situation and of the technical situations of accounting, finance and law that surround them

If we go back to the post that started this last page so of interaction
- it started with a fact, a link to the source of which I am unable to share at this time but to me is clearly valid - the specific date of BDO engagement with the club requires a level of trust but the general time period has been confirmed by the club via the transfer embargo statement and the name of BDO from the various recently published accounts.
- The dates of Accounts due for CVHL and KCL is also a matter of public record (as I have posted links to them number of times).
- Also the date and content of the statement from the spokesperson for ALK is a matter of public record, again links to which I have posed a number of times.
- the statement of Companies House response to enquiry about the process and current state of investigations against the late filings for CVHL and KCL is not mine to share but it would be easy for someone to verify by making the same enquiry themselves.

In all there was very little that qualified as opinion within it - it was, bar the final sarcasm a statement of facts, facts which for the most part the majority seem not to care one bit about but are still for the most part easily verifiable facts not opinions.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
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 » Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:07 pm

Why are you even on this thread JC ?
I cannot imagine for one second you have any understanding of the takeover or finances of the club.

As said above you have never provided one single contribution to the thread in terms of the subject matter but yet you still decide to try and derail it with your nonsense like you do with every other thread on this board.

Is there not somewhere else you can go play ?

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:00 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:04 pm
As Pete says it is impossible for someone not to impart a modicum of bias even if that bias is not manifest to the person receiving the information, that includes 'independent experts' everyone is tainted with it - and that is not always a bad thing.

I agree it is utterly ridiculous to tale any one persons postings as a definitive presentation of the situation, and if we are talking about mine in this situation (I am still not sure if we are) then I would double down on that given my lack of specialist knowledge and experience.

The joy and benefit of debate and diverse opinion is that when it is observed as a whole it brings greater and deeper knowledge/understanding to those who care to take the trouble to listen/observe. Choosing to ignore input that is articulated with reason and supporting detail is the height of folly.

Wherever possible I seek to share the information I find via the source documentation, that allows others to validate/refute my interpretations - I especially welcome the latter, there have been a number of times when I have appealed for someone to demonstrate my interpretations (not opinions) are wrong and a few when that has been done so (to my relief).

Both the above scenario have developed my understanding of the situation and of the technical situations of accounting, finance and law that surround them

If we go back to the post that started this last page so of interaction
- it started with a fact, a link to the source of which I am unable to share at this time but to me is clearly valid - the specific date of BDO engagement with the club requires a level of trust but the general time period has been confirmed by the club via the transfer embargo statement and the name of BDO from the various recently published accounts.
- The dates of Accounts due for CVHL and KCL is also a matter of public record (as I have posted links to them number of times).
- Also the date and content of the statement from the spokesperson for ALK is a matter of public record, again links to which I have posed a number of times.
- the statement of Companies House response to enquiry about the process and current state of investigations against the late filings for CVHL and KCL is not mine to share but it would be easy for someone to verify by making the same enquiry themselves.

In all there was very little that qualified as opinion within it - it was, bar the final sarcasm a statement of facts, facts which for the most part the majority seem not to care one bit about but are still for the most part easily verifiable facts not opinions.
I don't claim to know about the mechanics of the takeover or all the little intricate details, I know the basics & that's enough for me, when 2 people or more are in constant disagreement about certain parts of the takeover & if I wanted to learn more, I would personally be seeking independent knowledge to see if that said opinion supported what the other people were in disagreement about,.i haven't doubted anything you have posted I would be none no wiser if you did post something inaccurate that's where the benefit of somebody independent with minimal bias would be the crucial factor for me in determining & assessing accurate information backed up, instead of solely relying on information which is in dispute.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 » Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:00 pm

brought over from the transfer thread
Big Vinny K wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:39 am
Think that’s a pretty harsh and a bit of distorted view of the revenue position there CP.
How much impact does any business have in its first 12 months following a take over ?
We know that there has been massive changes to the staffing at the club and it takes time to bring in your own people and implement new strategies etc.
Things have been put in place to increase our match day revenue and this will undoubtedly show in the next set of accounts - we have new corporate facilities and our crowds including increased walk ons (at higher ticket prices) have all been very positive. You describe this as the “only” change in revenue so far - well it’s a pretty big change and if you are going to prioritise anything it’s the match day revenue and getting fans back to the ground that you would look to do as owners. Success on the pitch directly leads to other opportunities.

They have also at long last changed the catering contract and again we need to wait to see this have a commercial impact but I’m pretty confident it will (on the basis of how poor it was before !!)

We will have to wait and see re advertising and sponsorship income but not sure how you can put any reduction in this down to the new owners given the published accounts you are referring to give them no time to have any impact and there are so many other external global factors impacting sponsorship and advertising in sport as a whole.

What more do you think they could have done in such a short space of time between the takeover and the first set of accounts ?
And do you not think from what you can see that’s happened to the club the next set of accounts will show more improvement in revenue ? (Putting aside the sponsorship was always going to drop with relegation)
I don't see it as being harsh at all

these are the revenues that grew
Matchday - return from behind closed doors but a lower average attendance than the pre-covid season saw record revenues as a result of prices rises across the board, it was noticeable how empty the directors box and the 100 club was all that season

Catering - not quite as high as pre-covid but strong and moving that service in house in 2013 saw revenues from it triple

Retail - not quite record levels, but a disappointing season

TV - lower position but revenues up as a result of no Covid rebate contribution that had impacted the previous two sets of accounts

Commercial was markedly down - possibly because the shirt sponsorship deal included a bonus for retaining Premier League status - which was not activated. However we were told that it was effectively similar to the previous seasons deal of circa £7.5m. One of the first actions of the ALK/VSL reign was to demand full payment from sponsors and advertisers even though the club had previously agreed verbally to drop prices as Covid lockdowns continued. It cause bad feelings and saw around a quarter of the pitchside hoardings be replaced by ones advertising the club.

do I expect growth in the next accounts - yes particularly in those areas where the fans and local community are paying for the service. So

Matchday - I am expecting record figures -after the second year of price rises and maybe even break the £8m mark

Retail - a season like that will likely mean record sales (my nephew owns all three kits, also has a full Muric kit and various training gear - refuses to wear anything not linked to the club and is a season ticket holder and I know of lots like him

Catering - prices more than doubled for non matchday events I used to go to, so I am expecting record revenues

- This summer saw the third year of increases in tickets at the club (and the biggest single rise) - there is no doubt the costs of putting on a match have increased but this is a trend I do not see ending in the short term. Commercially we should see the benefit of the hoardings and a repairing of relationships with local businesses - there is much to be done on the wider sponsorship front though. Pre covid we had moved to the bottom of the middle bracket of revenue earners in the Premier League - There has been a huge leap since then and you now need revenues of £170m plus to get to that same position and probably more.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Vegas Claret » Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:53 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:29 pm
It's like having a head full of sugar puffs...
I'm stealing that one :lol: :lol: :lol:

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
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 » Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:12 pm

So things moving in the right direction then !!!

We still have some of the lowest season ticket prices in the Premier League - if not the lowest.
I didn’t see any real outrage at prices going up.
In terms of advertising the bad feeling started way before the new owners came. Prices had more than doubled in the last few years under MG.

Not going to go into your other stuff line by line other than to reiterate I don’t believe you are giving the owners anywhere near enough time to see the impact of the changes they have made.

And the one massive factor that you are not mentioning is that there are 2 sides to P & L account. If you have cut the main cost of any football club like ALK have - players wages - then anything else you do really is at the margins.

But as a general point I think we need to look at the impact of the changes they are implementing over at least a 3 year period - possibly longer. The financial model we have now is very different to any we have had previously at Burnley - in almost every aspect and I think this will include how we intend to buy and invest in the team in the Premier League.

AfloatinClaret
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 7:16 pm
Been Liked: 559 times
Has Liked: 1393 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by AfloatinClaret » Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:45 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:07 pm
Why are you even on this thread JC ?
.... try and derail it with your nonsense like you do with every other thread on this board.

Is there not somewhere else you can go play ?
Probably not, JC tends to get ignored everywhere else ;)

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jakubclaret » Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:26 pm

AfloatinClaret wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:45 pm
Probably not, JC tends to get ignored everywhere else ;)
Believe me it's a blessing & reciprocal ignorance is the nirvana.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 15, 2023 9:42 am

From the MMT but has its part to play on here too
Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:03 pm
this looks like big news but I am not sure it is

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

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

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

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:50 pm
The Telegraph with more detail on the Premier Leagues new rule about Leveraged takeovers - I still don't think it would stop our takeover given the original plan, even though ALK only fronted up less than 5% of the total club value given by that transaction

Premier League clubs vote to ban Glazer-style big-debt takeovers
Leveraged buyouts, such as the one that bought Manchester United in 2003, to be capped at around 65 per cent of a club’s value

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... keovers%2F
Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:35 am
I am still trying to work out if this article in the Times is saying for definite that owners can only borrow two thirds of a clubs total value or that this is what they have deduced from the explanation given and reported in the Telegraph

Either way I think they are wrong in saying the Burnley takeover would be banned now on the criteria they give - simply because as things currently stand less than that sum has been borrowed - and certainly that was the case when the initial transaction was made - it could pass the two thirds threshold if the outstanding stage payment and ring fenced shares were paid for by loans/

This raises the question of whether the new ruling could be applied retrospectively to the Burnley takeover should the such a situation arise

Premier League and Championship clubs can sign four overseas youngsters
Home Office approves rules that will allow clubs to sign up to four promising overseas players if they give enough playing time to English-qualified squad members

https://archive.is/imObZ
This is what the Times says

Meanwhile, the Premier League has agreed to ban full-leveraged takeovers of clubs — it means that owners can borrow a maximum of two thirds of the value of a club when buying it. Such a rule would have prevented the Glazers’ takeover of Manchester United in 2005 and Burnley’s takeover by ALK Capital in 2020.

The Premier League said in a statement: “As part of the League’s ongoing review of the owners’ and directors’ test, clubs unanimously agreed to amend the test to prohibit fully leveraged buyouts.”

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 Jun 15, 2023 10:31 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:42 am

Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:50 pm
The Telegraph with more detail on the Premier Leagues new rule about Leveraged takeovers - I still don't think it would stop our takeover given the original plan, even though ALK only fronted up less than 5% of the total club value given by that transaction

Premier League clubs vote to ban Glazer-style big-debt takeovers
Leveraged buyouts, such as the one that bought Manchester United in 2003, to be capped at around 65 per cent of a club’s value
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... keovers%2F
I suppose it depends upon the details of the proposed rule and whether related parties could contribute as well....

Otherwise, everyone will be able to bypass the rules by deferring payments over a period....

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 Jun 15, 2023 10:36 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:42 am
From the MMT but has its part to play on here too

... Leveraged buyout stuff
It's not really clear what the 65% represents. Just the debt or the inverse of the amount of owner's capital that is used or what.

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 Jun 15, 2023 11:39 am

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:20 pm
The substance of the thread is not Chester's opinions... and people are allowed to have opinions an views.

What's not acceptable is someone deciding they don't like them and without an argument question the integrity and bias of others.
Agreed, I was referring to Nori's post where he was suggesting that Chester was negative towards the ownership and I've had similar suggestions when posting financial stuff. There's ultimately just a limited amount of positive stuff given the starting position.

I've no idea what Jakubclaret is wittering about, there's a reason I have him blocked.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 15, 2023 1:07 pm

aggi wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:36 am
It's not really clear what the 65% represents. Just the debt or the inverse of the amount of owner's capital that is used or what.
If Kieran Maguire is right, the new ruling is a bit of a sham and explains why all 20 clubs voted it through

Premier League leveraged buyout rules appear to only impact the first year of ownership. So you can fully load up a club with debt after twelve months.

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... zMs6ouAAAA

Nori1958
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
Been Liked: 1112 times
Has Liked: 347 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nori1958 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:13 pm

aggi wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:39 am
Agreed, I was referring to Nori's post where he was suggesting that Chester was negative towards the ownership and I've had similar suggestions when posting financial stuff. There's ultimately just a limited amount of positive stuff given the starting position.

I've no idea what Jakubclaret is wittering about, there's a reason I have him blocked.
Bloomin heck...it's 7 days since I posted on here...don't bring me into it :lol:

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:29 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:42 am
This is what the Times says

Meanwhile, the Premier League has agreed to ban full-leveraged takeovers of clubs — it means that owners can borrow a maximum of two thirds of the value of a club when buying it. Such a rule would have prevented the Glazers’ takeover of Manchester United in 2005 and Burnley’s takeover by ALK Capital in 2020.

The Premier League said in a statement: “As part of the League’s ongoing review of the owners’ and directors’ test, clubs unanimously agreed to amend the test to prohibit fully leveraged buyouts.”
Value of Burnley at time ALK bought from previous directors (approx) £200 million. New rules would allow new owners to borrow two thirds, so roughly £135 million. If all the future payments promised by ALK to previous directors are included as "borrowings" ALK may not have been able to complete the deal the way they did. But, easy to comply with new rule by previous directors not selling all their shares, or easy to comply by agreed value of club being reduced, or easy to structure the purchase in a different way...

And, all of that without thinking about the new rule only applying for first year of new ownership.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 15, 2023 1:45 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:29 pm
Value of Burnley at time ALK bought from previous directors (approx) £200 million. New rules would allow new owners to borrow two thirds, so roughly £135 million. If all the future payments promised by ALK to previous directors are included as "borrowings" ALK may not have been able to complete the deal the way they did. But, easy to comply with new rule by previous directors not selling all their shares, or easy to comply by agreed value of club being reduced, or easy to structure the purchase in a different way...

And, all of that without thinking about the new rule only applying for first year of new ownership.
All of which is why I said it would not apply to the ALK/VSL takeover
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

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 Jun 15, 2023 1:49 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:07 pm
If Kieran Maguire is right, the new ruling is a bit of a sham and explains why all 20 clubs voted it through

Premier League leveraged buyout rules appear to only impact the first year of ownership. So you can fully load up a club with debt after twelve months.

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... zMs6ouAAAA
That's a big IF.

Ultimately, debt is debt and whether you get it from a VC or wherever it is still debt. The PL isn't going to stop VC companies buying clubs or funding purchases....!

The real issue in Burnley's case is the behaviour of Mike Garlick and the former owners as much as ALK. Burnley FC does not generate the kind of revenue that ends up with someone being able to spend £47 million of the clubs cash on shares without decisions being made in the boardroom to facilitate that happening.

Clearly, Mike Garlick might argue there were mitigating circumstances with regard to Covid and whether you accept that or not depends on your point of view.

Debt is not the issue all clubs are loaded with debt, however, the issue is the new owners could not afford to raise the capital themselves and the club/community had to meet the obligations of the debt and bear the risk had the club not been promoted back at the first time of asking.

In other words, the real issue is whether owners are sufficiently capitalised to meet the obligations of the debt at the point of purchase. I guess there maybe rules in place related to debt once a club has been purchased - I don't know...

Of course, I caveat all this by saying that the information available to us is limited.

Nori1958
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
Been Liked: 1112 times
Has Liked: 347 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nori1958 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:20 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:49 pm
That's a big IF.

Ultimately, debt is debt and whether you get it from a VC or wherever it is still debt. The PL isn't going to stop VC companies buying clubs or funding purchases....!

The real issue in Burnley's case is the behaviour of Mike Garlick and the former owners as much as ALK. Burnley FC does not generate the kind of revenue that ends up with someone being able to spend £47 million of the clubs cash on shares without decisions being made in the boardroom to facilitate that happening.

Clearly, Mike Garlick might argue there were mitigating circumstances with regard to Covid and whether you accept that or not depends on your point of view.

Debt is not the issue all clubs are loaded with debt, however, the issue is the new owners could not afford to raise the capital themselves and the club/community had to meet the obligations of the debt and bear the risk had the club not been promoted back at the first time of asking.

In other words, the real issue is whether owners are sufficiently capitalised to meet the obligations of the debt at the point of purchase. I guess there maybe rules in place related to debt once a club has been purchased - I don't know...

Of course, I caveat all this by saying that the information available to us is limited.
Was there any other option at the time of purchase though?

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 Jun 15, 2023 4:58 pm

Nori1958 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:20 pm
Was there any other option at the time of purchase though?
I don't know but I'll ask you a business question in return:

If you want to sell an asset at an over-inflated price with deferred payments paid back at high interest rates who do you sell to?

A) people who can both afford to buy the car and spend more on it to improve it?
B) People who can't afford to buy the car?

Nori1958
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
Been Liked: 1112 times
Has Liked: 347 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nori1958 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:20 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:58 pm
I don't know but I'll ask you a business question in return:

If you want to sell an asset at an over-inflated price with deferred payments paid back at high interest rates who do you sell to?

A) people who can both afford to buy the car and spend more on it to improve it?
B) People who can't afford to buy the car?
I'll take your first answer and ignore the irrelevant questions.....for what it's worth, I don't think anyone else was knocking on the door willing to do anything with our club.the then owners were desperate to sell, or run it into the ground....we are left with what we've got, but in reality there was no other option.

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 Jun 15, 2023 5:37 pm

Nori1958 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:20 pm
I'll take your first answer and ignore the irrelevant questions.....for what it's worth, I don't think anyone else was knocking on the door willing to do anything with our club.the then owners were desperate to sell, or run it into the ground....we are left with what we've got, but in reality there was no other option.
You'd have to assume that no one apart from people who had no money wanted a PL club with 6 or so seasons in the PL, £80 million in the bank, making a small profit and a £100 million pounds worth of assets on the pitch?

Why on earth would no one want a business like that....?

So, you need to explain why you think what you do. You just can't make the claim as though it's a fact because without a convincing argument it just seems silly.

At the very least you need to accept with some skepticism the claim that no one wanted it.

The club was a very attractive proposition...

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:40 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:37 pm
You'd have to assume that no one apart from people who had no money wanted a PL club with 6 or so seasons in the PL, £80 million in the bank, making a small profit and a £100 million pounds worth of assets on the pitch?

Why on earth would no one want a business like that....?

So, you need to explain why you think what you do. You just can't make the claim as though it's a fact because without a convincing argument it just seems silly.

The club was a very attractive proposition...
Name the other people queuing up to buy the club then.

Even Elkashashy has disappeared from the footballing scene, there's very little information out there about his wealth etc.

There weren't many options, because despite the list of good points you've made about the club, we only attracted serious attention from two parties.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Vegas Claret » Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:42 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:37 pm

The club was a very attractive proposition...
Pete, just out of interest, how much do you reckon (guesstimate) we will be spend this summer on players ? Given all the links there seems like there must be a reasonable kitty available especially by our standards

Nori1958
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
Been Liked: 1112 times
Has Liked: 347 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nori1958 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:42 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:37 pm
You'd have to assume that no one apart from people who had no money wanted a PL club with 6 or so seasons in the PL, £80 million in the bank, making a small profit and a £100 million pounds worth of assets on the pitch?

Why on earth would no one want a business like that....?

So, you need to explain why you think what you do. You just can't make the claim as though it's a fact because without a convincing argument it just seems silly.

The club was a very attractive proposition...
I can only go off what I've read both in the press, on here and other outlets, and apart from the Egyptian nobody wanted, I haven't heard of any other party being interested, attractive proposition or not....if you know different, or I've glaring missed something please enlighten me

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 Jun 15, 2023 5:44 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:40 pm
Name the other people queuing up to buy the club then.

Even Elkashashy has disappeared from the footballing scene, there's very little information out there about his wealth etc.

There weren't many options, because despite the list of good points you've made about the club, we only attracted serious attention from two parties.
Do we know this as a fact? Or do we know that we only had two serious buyers who wanted to do the deal on offer?

Presuming we trust the media

You don't know - I don't know...!

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 Jun 15, 2023 5:55 pm

Nori1958 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:42 pm
I can only go off what I've read both in the press, on here and other outlets, and apart from the Egyptian nobody wanted, I haven't heard of any other party being interested, attractive proposition or not....if you know different, or I've glaring missed something please enlighten me
The reality is it was probably priced at a place where people felt there was little intrinsic value in the business given the constraints of growing it organically and the only people who had an interest in it wanted to use the clubs cash to create value that wasn't intrinsically there as a business going forward...!

In other words, it's value as an investment vehicle was more than it's value as a business...

Nori1958
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
Been Liked: 1112 times
Has Liked: 347 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nori1958 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:01 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:55 pm
The reality is it was probably priced at a place where people felt there was little intrinsic value in the business given the constraints of growing it organically and the only people who had an interest in it wanted to use the clubs cash to create value that wasn't intrinsically there as a business going forward...!

In other words, it's value as an investment vehicle was more than it's value as a business...
So there wasn't anyone else banging the door down?...but Iam silly for suggesting that....have a lovely evening, iam off out

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 Jun 15, 2023 6:01 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:37 pm
You'd have to assume that no one apart from people who had no money wanted a PL club with 6 or so seasons in the PL, £80 million in the bank, making a small profit and a £100 million pounds worth of assets on the pitch?

Why on earth would no one want a business like that....?

So, you need to explain why you think what you do. You just can't make the claim as though it's a fact because without a convincing argument it just seems silly.

At the very least you need to accept with some skepticism the claim that no one wanted it.

The club was a very attractive proposition...
Not that simple. Don’t forget wages were around 90% of income. Add on operating costs. Then the risk of relegation and all of a sudden that £80 mill in the bank doesn’t go very far. And anyway that money was only there for a reason. It’s like me selling my house for £200k even though it’s only worth £120k because the buyer knows there’s £80k of ‘community money’ in the loft.

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 Jun 15, 2023 6:13 pm

roperclaret wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:01 pm
Not that simple. Don’t forget wages were around 90% of income. Add on operating costs. Then the risk of relegation and all of a sudden that £80 mill in the bank doesn’t go very far. And anyway that money was only there for a reason. It’s like me selling my house for £200k even though it’s only worth £120k because the buyer knows there’s £80k of ‘community money’ in the loft.
Ok but then you'd have to explain how ALK managed to spend nearly £50 million on shares shortly after purchase and the fact that by the 22 accounts we only had £12 million or working capital.

The point is illustrative anyway there was clearly cash and no debt.... but we are going around in circles.

The reality is that we only know what the media reported at the point of the sale with a seller who could get over £200 million from a leveraged buyout.... !

I'm not sure that is the point I was making anyway, which is that debt is not the issue it is the ability of the seller to have sufficient capitalisation to reduce the risk to the club.

If this rule was in place then Mr Garlick and co would have had to sell at a lower price or not sell....!

And my opinion is: the rule can only be a good thing for football...

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 Jun 15, 2023 6:18 pm

Relevant for this thread title…

‘A group including Egyptian businessman Mohamed Elkashashy and sports lawyer Chris Farnell are in talks to buy a minority stake in West Brom that could lead to a takeover.

The group has been speaking to the club for months and talks are advanced.’

This will be interesting to watch.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 15, 2023 6:19 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:13 pm
If this rule was in place then Mr Garlick and co would have had to sell at a lower price or not sell....!

And my opinion is: the rule can only be a good thing for football...
from what we know of the rule to date, it would not have prevented the sale to ALK in the format it has taken - there may be other detail which we are not yet party to that would have prevented it but we cannot say it would as of this moment

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 15, 2023 6:30 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:40 pm
Name the other people queuing up to buy the club then.

Even Elkashashy has disappeared from the footballing scene, there's very little information out there about his wealth etc.

There weren't many options, because despite the list of good points you've made about the club, we only attracted serious attention from two parties.
Elkashashy is currently being linked with West Bromwich Albion (possibly with Farnell)

West Brom: Group in advanced talks over investment in Championship club
https://archive.is/wPHvm

Kieran Maguire had this to say

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... jH6qouAAAA

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 Jun 15, 2023 6:42 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:19 pm
from what we know of the rule to date, it would not have prevented the sale to ALK in the format it has taken - there may be other detail which we are not yet party to that would have prevented it but we cannot say it would as of this moment
Indeed I said as much above but by the time you get through several iterations of ..all we know is that we only had two interested parties at the price on offer you start to just keep it simple to make the point you are trying to get across, which is that the rule is likely not trying to resolve the issue of debt but that of sufficient capitalisation.

If the rule works as intended then the former owners would have had to sell at a price someone was prepared to pay who could afford to buy the club from their own funds or by borrowing from third party sources, which in itself would give extra protection to the club.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Vegas Claret » Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:14 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:18 pm
Relevant for this thread title…

‘A group including Egyptian businessman Mohamed Elkashashy and sports lawyer Chris Farnell are in talks to buy a minority stake in West Brom that could lead to a takeover.

The group has been speaking to the club for months and talks are advanced.’

This will be interesting to watch.
they are getting plenty of people warning their fanbase on the socials about Farnell in particular

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 Jun 15, 2023 7:37 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:42 pm
Indeed I said as much above but by the time you get through several iterations of ..all we know is that we only had two interested parties at the price on offer you start to just keep it simple to make the point you are trying to get across, which is that the rule is likely not trying to resolve the issue of debt but that of sufficient capitalisation.

If the rule works as intended then the former owners would have had to sell at a price someone was prepared to pay who could afford to buy the club from their own funds or by borrowing from third party sources, which in itself would give extra protection to the club.
Of course. But then the former owners wouldn’t have been able to extract the money in the bank surreptitiously would they. Because that’s what happened.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
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 15, 2023 7:48 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:42 pm
If the rule works as intended then the former owners would have had to sell at a price someone was prepared to pay who could afford to buy the club from their own funds or by borrowing from third party sources, which in itself would give extra protection to the club.
Football club owners have never voted for a rule that makes it more difficult for them to sell their clubs, or indeed a rule that would restrict the price they may achieve from selling their club - we are told all 20 clubs voted this new rule through

your statement appears to carry an implicit assumption that this was done for the good of the game - more cynical observers would suggest that the Premier League is just using this as another message to the government that they are perfectly capable of managing the game on their own.

I take the rule to be one that helps sellers to ensure that anyone buying their asset has the means by which to ensure payment is made
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:11 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:44 pm
Do we know this as a fact? Or do we know that we only had two serious buyers who wanted to do the deal on offer?

Presuming we trust the media

You don't know - I don't know...!
To be fair to the media, in regards to football club sales, the prospective buyers are usually uncovered early on.

There wasn't a queue of buyers.

Elkashashy has only just resurfaced with Farnell, trying to buy part of WBA but Farnell is viewed as bad news so we did well not having them get their hooks into us

Post Reply