ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2596 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Even this season, if you reckon 'players had stopped playing for him and it had all gone a bit stale'.. he still had us exactly where our wage bill and expenditure suggests we should be. It's just that he'd set the bar ludicrously high.
This user liked this post: dandeclaret
-
- Posts: 67789
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32408 times
- Has Liked: 5273 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Not denying that but I’ve just asked that you remember what I said.bumba wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 5:27 pmOne day you'll realise it was his fault. The players stopped playing for him, it'd gone stale that's all on Dyche's head.
This isn't a go at his time here he took us places we could only dream of but he stayed a bit too long without changing himself and it cost us this season
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The suggestion is that his stubbornness potentially caught up with him and the players eventually stopped playing for him. Previous seasons followed a similar pattern but he did in the end find the changes which got the results, I.e. Heaton a few years back and ward coming in during our championship season. This year either through lack of options or not finding that formula, it has cost him.NottsClaret wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 5:43 pmEven this season, if you reckon 'players had stopped playing for him and it had all gone a bit stale'.. he still had us exactly where our wage bill and expenditure suggests we should be. It's just that he'd set the bar ludicrously high.
-
- Posts: 10899
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5553 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Arguably he did find the formula v Brighton and Spurs but then went and lost it again. Why he changed that winning team (or more specifically the midfield pairing) will always be baffling.Row Z wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:03 pmThe suggestion is that his stubbornness potentially caught up with him and the players eventually stopped playing for him. Previous seasons followed a similar pattern but he did in the end find the changes which got the results, I.e. Heaton a few years back and ward coming in during our championship season. This year either through lack of options or not finding that formula, it has cost him.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Agreed. We always knew he had a stubborn mentality for certain players returning to the side and retaining their places despite being out of form, but yes why he didn’t stick with it, and more specifically with Cork is anyones guess.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:48 pmArguably he did find the formula v Brighton and Spurs but then went and lost it again. Why he changed that winning team (or more specifically the midfield pairing) will always be baffling.
-
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:51 am
- Been Liked: 153 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
We seem to go over everything again and again! SD tried to compete with a limited (in skill and numbers) squad. He was never backed properly by the previous or the present board. As a squad aged and got less competitive 3-4 seasons ago, that’s when he should have been backed. AP promised players, a plan & the recourse for SD to compete. He didn’t. To blame SD for any of this mess we’re in now is a complete non footballing/ naive way to look at things.
We’re now in a state, thanks to Pace and his board where Stoke city/Bolton/Portsmouth/Coventry spring to mind. It might be different how we get there, but the outcome will be roughly the same.
I’ve been a Burnley fan for over 50yrs and apart from the itv debacle, this is the most worrying time in those 50yrs.
I definitely don’t want to go back to Div 1 or 2. I want my team back in the premiership, but I fear under the present regime that will never happen again. We’ll be stripped bare and have crowds of 4500.
Not Exciting Times
We’re now in a state, thanks to Pace and his board where Stoke city/Bolton/Portsmouth/Coventry spring to mind. It might be different how we get there, but the outcome will be roughly the same.
I’ve been a Burnley fan for over 50yrs and apart from the itv debacle, this is the most worrying time in those 50yrs.
I definitely don’t want to go back to Div 1 or 2. I want my team back in the premiership, but I fear under the present regime that will never happen again. We’ll be stripped bare and have crowds of 4500.
Not Exciting Times
-
- Posts: 2087
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 297 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, our best manager in my life time.......
But he'd lost it, burnt out if you like.
Part of the problem and one of the reasons we have gone down. He had become more stubborn in selection and also the players we needed in the transfer window. There had to be a midfielder or right winger out there that was better than we had that wouldn't have cost the earth.
However, I would have given him the chance to get us back up if he wanted to.
Michael Jackson did great but the Villa home game blew the game plan out of the window and we went too cautious after that game.
But he'd lost it, burnt out if you like.
Part of the problem and one of the reasons we have gone down. He had become more stubborn in selection and also the players we needed in the transfer window. There had to be a midfielder or right winger out there that was better than we had that wouldn't have cost the earth.
However, I would have given him the chance to get us back up if he wanted to.
Michael Jackson did great but the Villa home game blew the game plan out of the window and we went too cautious after that game.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Rovers fan in peace.
Firstly, commiserations on your relegation (genuinely). Whilst we're bitter rivals, and we'll always want to get one over each other, it's sad to see a fellow northern club from the local area out of the top flight, only to be replaced by the likes of Bournemouth or even Fulham. Perhaps that's a petty northern sentiment, but all the same, I think football has changed face somewhat, and it was some (small) consolation for me to see your lot bloody a few noses up there. I wish it was us doing that, mind.
Secondly, and in contrast to the above, I'm excited that we'll be having our local derby once more. Of course, we're still the underdogs, and I'm fully expecting a double-defeat in the coming season, but I suppose it hurts a bit less when you know what's coming. It'll add some excitement and anticipation to the season, which is what football should be all about.
With that out of the way, it's difficult to ignore what is going on at Burnley with the ownership. I'm not an expert by any means, and I only read what is publicly available, just like the rest of you. However, I think there can be no smoke without fire.
When I watched Pace's first interview, I was a little bit sceptical. I'm not really into the ever-growing culture of perpetual positivity in the workplace, but Pace's demeanour just smacked of this to me, and has done in subsequent interviews. Call me a cynic, but it just raises a suspicion (perhaps unfounded) that it's an act to cover up the reality of a situation. After all, I've had bosses that give pep talks, even asking me to jump on the office trampoline, only to bin off 50 people the next day. Of course, that might just be my experience, but Pace and all his talk about "community" and connecting with the town and so on just feel like a ruse to me. I know some of you seem to like him and what he has to say, but my "corporate bullsh*t" radar pings with him.
Regarding the debt to MSD, as I understand it, it's basically a loan to a third party, and it appears as though MSD has perhaps got the parachute payment as a part-guarantee upon relegation (£42m would fall under the phrase "significant proportion" of £65m). While that makes sense from MSD's point of view, it would appear to be a hindrance if you're looking for a quick return to the Premier League in the same way that your fellow relegated clubs are. What could save the day for you is that you've got some playing assets that could effectively bring in the money to balance things back out (Pope and McNeil spring to mind). But then other relegated clubs get their parachute payment PLUS player sales, so I suppose it is still a hindrance compared to other relegated clubs.
I still think, in spite of the focus on this debt, you'll be in a much stronger position than most other Championship clubs, and you'll still be able to mount a decent promotion challenge (perhaps play-offs would be realistic).
I suppose you'll get the measure of things in summer. The managerial appointment will be interesting, assuming you're looking at candidates more along the lines of Carvalhal or Farke, as opposed to Kompany. I think either would be good appointments, and perhaps about as good as can be hoped (I'd be delighted if Rovers appointed either of those, but I'm fully expecting a Simon Grayson or similar!). Stuart Pearce is a name that's popped up on both here and a Rovers forum, but I sincerely doubt he'd be appointed as a manager at either club. He's being touted as a potential Director of Football for us. Not sure how I feel about that! With our owners, it's impossible to tell if they're awake or not, and how far up their inbox we are, but I suppose we'll see.
Feel free to tell me where to go, but otherwise, stay safe, and see you next season.
Firstly, commiserations on your relegation (genuinely). Whilst we're bitter rivals, and we'll always want to get one over each other, it's sad to see a fellow northern club from the local area out of the top flight, only to be replaced by the likes of Bournemouth or even Fulham. Perhaps that's a petty northern sentiment, but all the same, I think football has changed face somewhat, and it was some (small) consolation for me to see your lot bloody a few noses up there. I wish it was us doing that, mind.
Secondly, and in contrast to the above, I'm excited that we'll be having our local derby once more. Of course, we're still the underdogs, and I'm fully expecting a double-defeat in the coming season, but I suppose it hurts a bit less when you know what's coming. It'll add some excitement and anticipation to the season, which is what football should be all about.
With that out of the way, it's difficult to ignore what is going on at Burnley with the ownership. I'm not an expert by any means, and I only read what is publicly available, just like the rest of you. However, I think there can be no smoke without fire.
When I watched Pace's first interview, I was a little bit sceptical. I'm not really into the ever-growing culture of perpetual positivity in the workplace, but Pace's demeanour just smacked of this to me, and has done in subsequent interviews. Call me a cynic, but it just raises a suspicion (perhaps unfounded) that it's an act to cover up the reality of a situation. After all, I've had bosses that give pep talks, even asking me to jump on the office trampoline, only to bin off 50 people the next day. Of course, that might just be my experience, but Pace and all his talk about "community" and connecting with the town and so on just feel like a ruse to me. I know some of you seem to like him and what he has to say, but my "corporate bullsh*t" radar pings with him.
Regarding the debt to MSD, as I understand it, it's basically a loan to a third party, and it appears as though MSD has perhaps got the parachute payment as a part-guarantee upon relegation (£42m would fall under the phrase "significant proportion" of £65m). While that makes sense from MSD's point of view, it would appear to be a hindrance if you're looking for a quick return to the Premier League in the same way that your fellow relegated clubs are. What could save the day for you is that you've got some playing assets that could effectively bring in the money to balance things back out (Pope and McNeil spring to mind). But then other relegated clubs get their parachute payment PLUS player sales, so I suppose it is still a hindrance compared to other relegated clubs.
I still think, in spite of the focus on this debt, you'll be in a much stronger position than most other Championship clubs, and you'll still be able to mount a decent promotion challenge (perhaps play-offs would be realistic).
I suppose you'll get the measure of things in summer. The managerial appointment will be interesting, assuming you're looking at candidates more along the lines of Carvalhal or Farke, as opposed to Kompany. I think either would be good appointments, and perhaps about as good as can be hoped (I'd be delighted if Rovers appointed either of those, but I'm fully expecting a Simon Grayson or similar!). Stuart Pearce is a name that's popped up on both here and a Rovers forum, but I sincerely doubt he'd be appointed as a manager at either club. He's being touted as a potential Director of Football for us. Not sure how I feel about that! With our owners, it's impossible to tell if they're awake or not, and how far up their inbox we are, but I suppose we'll see.
Feel free to tell me where to go, but otherwise, stay safe, and see you next season.
These 6 users liked this post: ClaretAL NewClaret dsr Sleeping Cat ClaretTony Quicknick
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The problem with players outgoing is we still owe Lyon and Stoke significant amounts for Collins and Cornet. Sure we don't need to pay those clubs in full immediately but it's just more debt owed and the longer we leave it, the harder it becomes to pay as our income significantly drops yearly.
It's also an incredible risk for any relegated club not to immediately get the books in order. At least we should be able to pay MSD off with what's available, even if it hampers the strength of the squad hugely and means we'll likely at best be 5th-10th next season.
Most fans are forgetting we still owe Garlick close to £60mish, due in instalments they recently couldn't pay so had to renegotiate deadlines. Chester said it's weeks away, where is that money coming from?
It's also an incredible risk for any relegated club not to immediately get the books in order. At least we should be able to pay MSD off with what's available, even if it hampers the strength of the squad hugely and means we'll likely at best be 5th-10th next season.
Most fans are forgetting we still owe Garlick close to £60mish, due in instalments they recently couldn't pay so had to renegotiate deadlines. Chester said it's weeks away, where is that money coming from?
-
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
- Been Liked: 1354 times
- Has Liked: 440 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Presumably the same principle applies to any players we sell over the summer. It seems quite common for transfer fees to be paid in installments over a few years, so it wouldn't be surprising if we're taking out more loans from the likes of Macquarie Bank in order to get an advance on the sale money, at a price, obviously.KRBFC wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 11:24 amThe problem with players outgoing is we still owe Lyon and Stoke significant amounts for Collins and Cornet. Sure we don't need to pay those clubs in full immediately but it's just more debt owed and the longer we leave it, the harder it becomes to pay as our income significantly drops yearly.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If you lot keep hold of Bradley Dack and Bereton(and they stay fit) I don't see any reason why you won't challenge again. What about Gareth Ainsworth? Blackburn lad isn't he?RumRogers wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 11:11 amRovers fan in peace.
Firstly, commiserations on your relegation (genuinely). Whilst we're bitter rivals, and we'll always want to get one over each other, it's sad to see a fellow northern club from the local area out of the top flight, only to be replaced by the likes of Bournemouth or even Fulham. Perhaps that's a petty northern sentiment, but all the same, I think football has changed face somewhat, and it was some (small) consolation for me to see your lot bloody a few noses up there. I wish it was us doing that, mind.
Secondly, and in contrast to the above, I'm excited that we'll be having our local derby once more. Of course, we're still the underdogs, and I'm fully expecting a double-defeat in the coming season, but I suppose it hurts a bit less when you know what's coming. It'll add some excitement and anticipation to the season, which is what football should be all about.
With that out of the way, it's difficult to ignore what is going on at Burnley with the ownership. I'm not an expert by any means, and I only read what is publicly available, just like the rest of you. However, I think there can be no smoke without fire.
When I watched Pace's first interview, I was a little bit sceptical. I'm not really into the ever-growing culture of perpetual positivity in the workplace, but Pace's demeanour just smacked of this to me, and has done in subsequent interviews. Call me a cynic, but it just raises a suspicion (perhaps unfounded) that it's an act to cover up the reality of a situation. After all, I've had bosses that give pep talks, even asking me to jump on the office trampoline, only to bin off 50 people the next day. Of course, that might just be my experience, but Pace and all his talk about "community" and connecting with the town and so on just feel like a ruse to me. I know some of you seem to like him and what he has to say, but my "corporate bullsh*t" radar pings with him.
Regarding the debt to MSD, as I understand it, it's basically a loan to a third party, and it appears as though MSD has perhaps got the parachute payment as a part-guarantee upon relegation (£42m would fall under the phrase "significant proportion" of £65m). While that makes sense from MSD's point of view, it would appear to be a hindrance if you're looking for a quick return to the Premier League in the same way that your fellow relegated clubs are. What could save the day for you is that you've got some playing assets that could effectively bring in the money to balance things back out (Pope and McNeil spring to mind). But then other relegated clubs get their parachute payment PLUS player sales, so I suppose it is still a hindrance compared to other relegated clubs.
I still think, in spite of the focus on this debt, you'll be in a much stronger position than most other Championship clubs, and you'll still be able to mount a decent promotion challenge (perhaps play-offs would be realistic).
I suppose you'll get the measure of things in summer. The managerial appointment will be interesting, assuming you're looking at candidates more along the lines of Carvalhal or Farke, as opposed to Kompany. I think either would be good appointments, and perhaps about as good as can be hoped (I'd be delighted if Rovers appointed either of those, but I'm fully expecting a Simon Grayson or similar!). Stuart Pearce is a name that's popped up on both here and a Rovers forum, but I sincerely doubt he'd be appointed as a manager at either club. He's being touted as a potential Director of Football for us. Not sure how I feel about that! With our owners, it's impossible to tell if they're awake or not, and how far up their inbox we are, but I suppose we'll see.
Feel free to tell me where to go, but otherwise, stay safe, and see you next season.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Don't think Dack will go. He had several cameo appearances since returning from his second ACL repair, but looks like he's lost a yard or two to me. He needs a pre-season under his belt, but it's anyone's guess as to how good he'll return next season.
Brereton will likely be off. He's had a contract offer on the table since beginning of the year, but not signed. Rovers have taken the one year option, but it'll be a similar scenario to Armstrong when he was sold to Southampton. The only question is if Venkys will allocate any of those funds to the new management.
Ainsworth was a youth player at Rovers back in 1992 or so (before Walker era, academy, and so on). He's not my first choice, but I think he'd be a shrewd appointment. Operating on a shoestring at Wycombe and has them punching above their weight. His personal style is also a bit of a talking point I'd be happy enough with him.
Sorry, going off topic. Back to ALK.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Looks like the outstanding money from the Pope transfer (paid in 4 instalments with 3) has also been assigned to Macquarie bank in the same way as the Wood transfer accelerating £7m (less fees I would assume) in receipts.
-
- Posts: 19376
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Ah yes, I tend to skip that most of the time as there is too much on it!
-
- Posts: 19376
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:17 pm
- Been Liked: 82 times
- Has Liked: 30 times
Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
No he isn’t coming back on loan but they are reporting we have took out a 10 million pound loan to cover the transfer fee we are set to receive in instalments from Newcastle.
Also said ALK have spent all our parachute payments on repaying an old loan they borrowed after the Chris Wood sale.
Doesn’t look good if we desperately need 10 million now ?!
Also said ALK have spent all our parachute payments on repaying an old loan they borrowed after the Chris Wood sale.
Doesn’t look good if we desperately need 10 million now ?!
-
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 608 times
- Has Liked: 310 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Why are Newcastle paying in instalments is the question I’d be asking?!
-
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:24 am
- Been Liked: 139 times
- Has Liked: 183 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Utter drivel
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
They wouldn’t have a clue how our parachute payments have or haven’t been spent unless they have specific access to our day to day finances, which I assume they don’t. Parachutes will be needed for the wage bill over the course of the season.
The Pope thing is debt factoring, quite a normal practice in business and now in football - Palace did it a few years back for the 50m sale of Wan Bissaka for example.
The Pope thing is debt factoring, quite a normal practice in business and now in football - Palace did it a few years back for the 50m sale of Wan Bissaka for example.
Last edited by RVclaret on Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 10164
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4185 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Well if talksport said so it must be true.
Which expert came out with this Jim White ? This the same station that claimed Brownhill could join West Ham on a free as he is out of contract
Which expert came out with this Jim White ? This the same station that claimed Brownhill could join West Ham on a free as he is out of contract
-
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:46 pm
- Been Liked: 175 times
- Has Liked: 322 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
How does anyone at TalkShite know how we've spent parachute payments?
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewt ... 8#p1865608
And the Pope debt factoring has already been discussed here
And the Pope debt factoring has already been discussed here
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:17 pm
- Been Liked: 82 times
- Has Liked: 30 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Paying it over 3 years.Winstonswhite wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:17 pmWhy are Newcastle paying in instalments is the question I’d be asking?!
We must be skint.
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Its always better for the buying club to pay like this. We do it with our new signings. Highly likely this was the very best deal on offer for us to take or leave. As it happens we needed the cash for our rebuilding spree shortly after.Winstonswhite wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:17 pmWhy are Newcastle paying in instalments is the question I’d be asking?!
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Alex Crook, the one who reported Brownhill was available on a free, last week also reported the Michael Jackson / Cornet "You are not alone" joke that did the rounds on Twitter a month ago as genuine transfer news live on TalkSport too.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:18 pmWell if talksport said so it must be true.
Which expert came out with this Jim White ? This the same station that claimed Brownhill could join West Ham on a free as he is out of contract
-
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 608 times
- Has Liked: 310 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
We are skint- I thought this was established when we were taken over in Jan 2020?! Why keep banging on about it.
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
Probably because it's standard practice for transfers.Winstonswhite wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:17 pmWhy are Newcastle paying in instalments is the question I’d be asking?!
-
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
- Been Liked: 1127 times
- Has Liked: 1238 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Went on to mention the leverage takeover and the way the previous owners shafted the club, not in as many words though buy I got the jist
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Has a further £5m been paid off the MSD Loan on 14th July or am I reading this wrong?
https://tisegroup.com/market/securities/12598
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
This doesn't make sense at all. The "loan" on the Chris Wood sale is based on Macquarie giving us money now and it will be paid off with the second instalment of the Wood fee.ArthurShelby wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:15 pmNo he isn’t coming back on loan but they are reporting we have took out a 10 million pound loan to cover the transfer fee we are set to receive in instalments from Newcastle.
Also said ALK have spent all our parachute payments on repaying an old loan they borrowed after the Chris Wood sale.
Doesn’t look good if we desperately need 10 million now ?!
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Talk Sport - Nick Pope Loan
So we've spent £40 million on repaying a loan we got just a few months ago?ArthurShelby wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:15 pmNo he isn’t coming back on loan but they are reporting we have took out a 10 million pound loan to cover the transfer fee we are set to receive in instalments from Newcastle.
Also said ALK have spent all our parachute payments on repaying an old loan they borrowed after the Chris Wood sale.
Doesn’t look good if we desperately need 10 million now ?!
So at no point during writing that did you think it was rubbish?
-
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2350 times
- Has Liked: 3178 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Good spot, Mattster. This does appear to indicate a further £5 million has been repaid of the original £65 million MSD loan. The listing, of course, isn't the loan to BFCHL, but the other side which provides the funding to MSD to provide the loan. Hence, the £45 million that remains listed earns interest of 8%, whereas BFCHL loan incurs interest of (3 month) Libor + 8%.Mattster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:48 pmHas a further £5m been paid off the MSD Loan on 14th July or am I reading this wrong?
https://tisegroup.com/market/securities/12598
My assumption is that the new Macquarie loan of £7 million - against instalments due on balance of Nick Pope's fee - have enable £5 million of MSD loan to be repaid.
Based on public domain information - Bournemouth annual report, who have disclosed data on their similar Macquarie transfer instalment loans - Macquarie loans cost around 4% - whereas MSD loan is currently costing BFCHL about 9.5%.
I think we'd all previously been assuming that the only loan reduction required on relegation was £15 million, and there was no option to repay more just a month later. Maybe there's more to this, either £15 million was the first instalment of loan reduction at the end of last season, and £5 million is the second one required, or ALK negotiated the option to make further repayments.
UTC
This user liked this post: Mattster
-
- Posts: 9297
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4094 times
- Has Liked: 6571 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Well it started badly, tailed off a little towards the middle, and the less said about the ending the better. Other than that…..utter dog toffeeclive40golf wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:28 pmWe seem to go over everything again and again! SD tried to compete with a limited (in skill and numbers) squad. He was never backed properly by the previous or the present board. As a squad aged and got less competitive 3-4 seasons ago, that’s when he should have been backed. AP promised players, a plan & the recourse for SD to compete. He didn’t. To blame SD for any of this mess we’re in now is a complete non footballing/ naive way to look at things.
We’re now in a state, thanks to Pace and his board where Stoke city/Bolton/Portsmouth/Coventry spring to mind. It might be different how we get there, but the outcome will be roughly the same.
I’ve been a Burnley fan for over 50yrs and apart from the itv debacle, this is the most worrying time in those 50yrs.
I definitely don’t want to go back to Div 1 or 2. I want my team back in the premiership, but I fear under the present regime that will never happen again. We’ll be stripped bare and have crowds of 4500.
Not Exciting Times
Garlick wanted out with as much money trousered as possible. Hence no support for Dyche. That’s not the fault of Pace.
Dyche repeatedly demonstrated during his time here that he had his favourites in the squad, and he got away with that stubbornness/arrogance for a very long time. And then he didn’t, and it cost us. That’s not the fault of Pace.
The message sent by the performances against Brighton and Spurs Stevie Wonder could’ve seen, and I think maybe SD could too, but his sheer bloody mindedness saw us relegated. That’s not the fault of Pace.
Pace did his best to get players in, but it was far too late for that. He even traveled to Croatia to try to secure the services of a player. There simply wasn’t enough time to reverse the trend, and not enough willingness by SD to acknowledge the “old way” wasn’t enough anymore.
To suggest SD is solely to blame is naive I’ll give you that, but to suggest as you have it’s nothing to do with SD and is the fault of others is equally naive.
Pace this and pace that, and all the while the real culprit is sunning himself somewhere watching and laughing whilst people blame his replacement for our current predicament.
Pace will be judged at some point, no doubt about it, but he should be judged on what happens during his full tenure, not what happened in the few weeks after he took over somebody else’s shitshow.
These 2 users liked this post: MeeActon1 tiger76
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
One of the prime ways to judge Pace will be whether he ever repays the £112m+ that he owes the club, on which he is paying zero interest.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Interesting - so now the balance is 45m. I take it the sales of Collins and Cornet (likely) we will do similar, though with those ones we also need to pay off Stoke / Lyon too. I’m purely speculating here but perhaps the ‘agreement’ that might be in place is that 50% of any transfer money received goes towards the balance.Mattster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:48 pmHas a further £5m been paid off the MSD Loan on 14th July or am I reading this wrong?
https://tisegroup.com/market/securities/12598
-
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2350 times
- Has Liked: 3178 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
ALK have already reduced the MSD £65 million to £45 million (if our reading of TISE listings are correct). On that basis your figure can be reduced to £92 million.
However, reality is, it doesn't matter: ALK bought the club, it's not just ALK who has "borrowed the money" it is also ALK who they've borrowed it from.
The bit they do need to repay is the money they've borrowed from MSD and any other 3rd party loans, if any, that arise further down the line.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I can't see where you are getting that from. Unless I've missed something there's nothing to suggest that ALK have reduced the loan rather than BFC Holdings (unless you are suggesting that it is all ALK as they are the parent entity).Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:12 pmALK have already reduced the MSD £65 million to £45 million (if our reading of TISE listings are correct). On that basis your figure can be reduced to £92 million.
However, reality is, it doesn't matter: ALK bought the club, it's not just ALK who has "borrowed the money" it is also ALK who they've borrowed it from.
The bit they do need to repay is the money they've borrowed from MSD and any other 3rd party loans, if any, that arise further down the line.
-
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2350 times
- Has Liked: 3178 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, ALK own the club. It's their club and all the assets and liabilities of the club are also theirs. Of course, if anyone has any doubts they should ask themselves who the club's chairman is and who all the members of the board of directors are.
EDIT: It's all their own money, maybe different pockets, but still all their own money.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Then the £20m reduction that you've suggested (£112m to £92m) makes no sense as you're saying the £112m doesn't exist (I'm assuming DSR has added the £10m in the post balance sheet events to the £102m to get the £112m).Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:34 pmYes, ALK own the club. It's their club and all the assets and liabilities of the club are also theirs. Of course, if anyone has any doubts they should ask themselves who the club's chairman is and who all the members of the board of directors are.
EDIT: It's all their own money, maybe different pockets, but still all their own money.
The issue is that it's very clear that £102m has come out of BFC Holdings to fund the purchase (and hence leave the group at some point, it's not all intercompany transactions). You can of course argue that ALK purchased the right to do that when they bought the club but, of course, what benefits ALK doesn't necessarily benefit the club and Pace can be judged on what happens with that money.
-
- Posts: 19376
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Given, how it has been reported that is a complicated and expensive process to pay down an MSD UK Holdings loan out of a borrowers own volition, a report that is backed up by publicly available documentation of general practice by MSD UK Holdings. It would seem appropriate to suggest that this additional sum is actually part of the negotiated reduction in overall balance as outlined in the clubs last accounts.Mattster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:48 pmHas a further £5m been paid off the MSD Loan on 14th July or am I reading this wrong?
https://tisegroup.com/market/securities/12598
That would require MSD to accept the staged payment scenario, but given that it required the sales of players to fund, that would make sense, given the provisions of the Charge against the club.
£20m would seem more in line with an appropriate loan value drop (though many of us entertained the possibility for a greater sum - which it may yet be), given that there is notice for a further repayment if we do not achieve promotion in the coming season.
What is still not known is if there has been a penalty payment in addition to these balance reductions - I know I am in a minority for believing they are such payments, but I am just acknowledging the intent described in the MSD UK Holdings business model as outlined in their first accounts dated December 31 2020
This user liked this post: NewClaret
-
- Posts: 19376
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
there are still other shareholders in the club, so technically it is not all their own money though they can act, are acting and have acted like it is.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:34 pmYes, ALK own the club. It's their club and all the assets and liabilities of the club are also theirs. Of course, if anyone has any doubts they should ask themselves who the club's chairman is and who all the members of the board of directors are.
EDIT: It's all their own money, maybe different pockets, but still all their own money.
-
- Posts: 13442
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 3808 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Agree with CP.
Good that it’s being paid down albeit a shame that is necessary.
Good that it’s being paid down albeit a shame that is necessary.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
By selling our best players?Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:12 pm
The bit they do need to repay is the money they've borrowed from MSD and any other 3rd party loans, if any, that arise further down the line.
Which other club in world football is selling their best players to pay for a new chairman? Why is the club paying for ALK's shares? it's insanity
-
- Posts: 4751
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 238 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It seems to defeat the object if you get penalised for making extra payments.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:07 pmGiven, how it has been reported that is a complicated and expensive process to pay down an MSD UK Holdings loan out of a borrowers own volition, a report that is backed up by publicly available documentation of general practice by MSD UK Holdings. It would seem appropriate to suggest that this additional sum is actually part of the negotiated reduction in overall balance as outlined in the clubs last accounts.
That would require MSD to accept the staged payment scenario, but given that it required the sales of players to fund, that would make sense, given the provisions of the Charge against the club.
£20m would seem more in line with an appropriate loan value drop (though many of us entertained the possibility for a greater sum - which it may yet be), given that there is notice for a further repayment if we do not achieve promotion in the coming season.
What is still not known is if there has been a penalty payment in addition to these balance reductions - I know I am in a minority for believing they are such payments, but I am just acknowledging the intent described in the MSD UK Holdings business model as outlined in their first accounts dated December 31 2020
-
- Posts: 30627
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11034 times
- Has Liked: 5645 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
pretty sure we would be doing that anyway, isn't that the model, buy cheap sell for a profit ?
-
- 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
Yes that's what most clubs aim to do where possibleVegas Claret wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:58 pmpretty sure we would be doing that anyway, isn't that the model, buy cheap sell for a profit ?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
You're definitely confusing two loans there, although the reason we had to borrow one was to pay the other.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:12 pmALK have already reduced the MSD £65 million to £45 million (if our reading of TISE listings are correct). On that basis your figure can be reduced to £92 million.
However, reality is, it doesn't matter: ALK bought the club, it's not just ALK who has "borrowed the money" it is also ALK who they've borrowed it from.
The bit they do need to repay is the money they've borrowed from MSD and any other 3rd party loans, if any, that arise further down the line.
Loan 1 - ALK (or other Pace company) owe £112m to Burnley FC as per the last set of accounts. It may be more now or it may be less, depending on what they have borrowed or repaid. They aren't paying interest.
Loan 2 - Burnley FC have borrowed £65m off MSD, at double figure rates of interest, so they could lend it to ALK (or other Pace company).
Repayment of one loan does not write down the other.
I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that "it doesn't matter" what the loan is. If ALK go belly up because they have liabilities and no assets, then Burnley FC's £112m goes belly up as well. But the amounts BFC still owe - they don't go belly up. I think what you mean is that it doesn't matter to ALK if they can't pay their loan to BFC because we can't force them to, and it doesn't matter to ALK if Burnley have to sell all their PL players to repay the MSD loan. But it matters to supporters of BFC, even if we don't have a financial interest in whether the club survives.
-
- Posts: 19376
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Maybe, but this is what I was referring to in the MSD UK Holdings December 31 2020 accountsclaretandy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:50 pmIt seems to defeat the object if you get penalised for making extra payments.
Notes to the Financial Statements,
2 Significant Accounting Policies
(d) Critical Accounting Judgements and Key Sources of Estimation Uncertainty
Critical Judgements in Applying the Company’s Accounting Policies
Business Model
Paragraph 3 “…Whilst there are early repayment penalties, the Directors consider the penalty to be materially equivalent to the lost interest that would have been received, but would highlight that this is an area of judgement.”
and yes this is only a guide to their practises and not our specific loan agreement, but it seems to be a pretty clear statement of intention, to me at least.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I thought it had been said that the 112m consisted of 65m (MSD) + 37m (deducted from cash balance) + 10m intercompany loan to holding company?dsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:04 pmYou're definitely confusing two loans there, although the reason we had to borrow one was to pay the other.
Loan 1 - ALK (or other Pace company) owe £112m to Burnley FC as per the last set of accounts. It may be more now or it may be less, depending on what they have borrowed or repaid. They aren't paying interest.
Loan 2 - Burnley FC have borrowed £65m off MSD, at double figure rates of interest, so they could lend it to ALK (or other Pace company).
Repayment of one loan does not write down the other.
I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that "it doesn't matter" what the loan is. If ALK go belly up because they have liabilities and no assets, then Burnley FC's £112m goes belly up as well. But the amounts BFC still owe - they don't go belly up. I think what you mean is that it doesn't matter to ALK if they can't pay their loan to BFC because we can't force them to, and it doesn't matter to ALK if Burnley have to sell all their PL players to repay the MSD loan. But it matters to supporters of BFC, even if we don't have a financial interest in whether the club survives.