The trouble was there wasn't a big queue of people wanting to buy the club....it was this way or no way.....or stick where we were, and in my opinion, football wise, we would not be in the position we are in now, lack of investment would have us in at least one league below..but hey, at least we'd have money in the bank.Foshiznik wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:41 amIt's like we can't enjoy the club on the pitch if we have fears off of it surrounding the club. It is absolutely fine to feel that way. Doesn't make the positives any less positive. I'm just a realist and won't act ignorant to the fact that leveraged buyouts that take a club who have been working in the green for a long time into heavy debt that if the proverbial hits the fan in future it will be us picking up the tab and cleaning up the mess and not ALK.
ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 19369
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
This is a particularly interesting question
If you want to view the overall success of an owner there are a number of measures that should be considered, may I suggest:
1 - overall performance in the league ladder during their tenure
2 - investment in club infrastructure
3 - increase in financially stability from the point they took control
4 - quality of the owner that the club is passed onto
1 - The Garlick years were the most successful in over 40 years and included a first European foray in 50 years - that is two generations at least and probably three
2 - The training ground is the obvious one here, but there was considerable infrastructure upgrade at Turf Moor also during his tenure - much on of it either for players or in the prime revenue producing areas of TV infrastructure and Corporate Hospitality - The money for recent North stand hospitality refresh was put aside by Garlick and the work would have occurred under his tenure but for Covid and project restart, Some will take issue with the lack of perceived improvements for the ordinary fan, but by not increasing prices he actually made their experience cheaper year on year when inflation is counted in. This is not to say all was well on that front, but given the policy of spending from own cash reserves rather than borrowing meant that time would be required to build up monies to do substantial works
3 - The club moved from its highest ever debt position when Garlick took charge to its highest ever cash in hand position as he left. He spent record amounts on infrastructure, transfers, wages and in the numbers of staff employed in the club. We were the only club in English football to meet the cost of Covid 19 impacts from its own resources - The club lost around £28m - £30m of revenues. Not knowing how things would develop saw tight purse strings, but it is obvious that financially the club has come out of Covid in a stronger position than its competitors - though weaker in its squad, which is what many hold him culpable for. It is worth reflecting that even as the takeover was completed the country was entering another lockdown period - there was no indication of when normality would return, even though vaccines where just starting to be delivered
4 - It is fair to say that the majority opinion is that the new owners are highly regarded and viewed as capable and overall as good for the club. There are those who have issues with the financing and put that squarely at the door of Mike Garlick. I would argue that Garlick is culpable for knowing about the MSD loan and that it was unlikely the club would ever see its money back in servicing that. It is much more difficult to argue Garlick is culpable to the club facilitating all the other loans with limited prospect of payback given the model he was told of, the level of financial input into SPAC's ($9billion+ in Jan/Feb 2021 alone) and sports owner groups and the like at the time
It is true to say that Mike Garlick ran the club as a business, many view him as dispassionate about the club and challenge any notion that he was a fan - a don't hold a view either way. I just know like him or loathe him, his tenure was a strong one, that most football club owners and indeed football club supporters would be happy to have experienced. I also know that most of what is pleasing fans about the new owners would not have been possible without the foundations he and his board laid - just as Garlick built on the Kilby years.
These 4 users liked this post: randomclaret2 GodIsADeeJay81 KateR HunterST_BFC
-
- Posts: 2538
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 722 times
- Has Liked: 2025 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
That's fair and just like i'm not going to ignore my concerns over the debt, i'm also not going to write off their good work and potential even better work moving forward. I really, really want my concerns to be proved wrong in the long term.Nori1958 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:53 amThe trouble was there wasn't a big queue of people wanting to buy the club....it was this way or no way.....or stick where we were, and in my opinion, football wise, we would not be in the position we are in now, lack of investment would have us in at least one league below..but hey, at least we'd have money in the bank.
-
- 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
No assets have been stripped from the club have they?Foshiznik wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:46 amYou do realise we are in debt because of the takeover and not poor financial decisions right? It's literal asset stripping. What's to say they don't sell all of our decent players, sell the training ground, sell the stadium, etc. and pocket the profit in their own accounts in future? Making a very promising start to their ownership doesn't make that less likely.
Personally, I will hold that fear until the debt is gone fully.
Players have been sold, which is perfectly normal, but there has also been an overhaul of the squad that has led to one of the best championship seasons many have seen.
The club now has a young, vibrant squad with a very good potential resale value.
The training ground and stadium still belong to the club, they're not having to be "sold" and then leased back to cover the bills etc.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
£114m in cash has been taken out of the club and replaced with a promise that ALK will repay that £114m at some point in some way (the most likely method probably being using the club's profits to pay it off).GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 10:47 amNo assets have been stripped from the club have they?
Players have been sold, which is perfectly normal, but there has also been an overhaul of the squad that has led to one of the best championship seasons many have seen.
The club now has a young, vibrant squad with a very good potential resale value.
The training ground and stadium still belong to the club, they're not having to be "sold" and then leased back to cover the bills etc.
In accounting terms one asset has been replaced with another (the cash has been replaced with ALK's promise to repay the cash) but some may not view the latter as strong an asset as the former.
These 2 users liked this post: Foshiznik levraiclaret
-
- Posts: 4189
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2320 times
- Has Liked: 2696 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Stop being so succinct and practical aggi.aggi wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 11:00 am£114m in cash has been taken out of the club and replaced with a promise that ALK will repay that £114m at some point in some way (the most likely method probably being using the club's profits to pay it off).
In accounting terms one asset has been replaced with another (the cash has been replaced with ALK's promise to repay the cash) but some may not view the latter as strong an asset as the former.
These 2 users liked this post: ClaretTony levraiclaret
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I didn't miss it I just think that the relationship between evidence and assumption becomes stretched in some of your theorising....Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 6:39 pmYou are correct in that there is no definitive source - as I keep saying I obtain my picture (and degree of clarity/certainty) by overlaying information to build a more comprehensive picture
this is who sold what from what entity
The takeover - who sold what.JPG
as for the £102m v £98m I went into that in some detail on the previous page - I think you missed the evidence of ALK/VSL contribution
I can see the logic. If you: (1) look at the shareholdings (2) take a pro rata (3) go to the available data (i.e GoClarets or Freight Investment Holdings) (4) then apply the same logic to the unavailable data (as far as In can see) like some of the other companies then (5) look at the size of the payments (if we assume they are indeed related to the deal) - it does suggest that a good proportion of all the funds had been received as early as May 21 (Go Large accounts). 5 months after the deal was struck.
As you allude to above, all that flies in the face of all the public utterances and the logic of a leveraged deal and scheduled payments. In addition to the fact that ALK appear not to have any means to be borrowing the best part of £60 million.
Perfectly happy to accept complexity and lack of data can lead to assumptions - I'm just a little more leery about how far you go with them....!
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I don't get the emojis. Only an idiot thinks it's better to spend £114 million on shares than on playing assets.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:51 am
So just so I understand your fears, while we have a debt you fear the owners could sell all the players, the training ground and the stadium and pocket the money, but once the debt has gone you don't have those fears ?
Four key players are on loan and now have to be replaced along with 3-4 of the PL squad that are now 34/35.
With the £50 million they spent on shares they could have bought those four loanees.
As it IS the PL differentials are such the club still had a huge budget advantage but it won't once we are in the PL.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
We wouldn’t have the loanees and success this season without the new owners so it’s a bit of a catch 22 isn’t itClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 11:57 amI don't get the emojis. Only an idiot thinks it's better to spend £114 million on shares than on playing assets.
Four key players are on loan and now have to be replaced along with 3-4 of the PL squad that are now 34/35.
With the £50 million they spent on shares they could have bought those four loanees.
As it IS the PL differentials are such the club still had a huge budget advantage but it won't once we are in the PL.
-
- Posts: 2538
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 722 times
- Has Liked: 2025 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If you think taking £114m out of the club is hilarious then that's more of a you issue then a me issue.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:51 am
So just so I understand your fears, while we have a debt you fear the owners could sell all the players, the training ground and the stadium and pocket the money, but once the debt has gone you don't have those fears ?
Right now, with using the clubs assets to buy the club and leaving it in a worse place financially than it was before they bought it doesn't give me the confidence that they are interested in anything other than their own pockets. If and when the debt is paid, it would be difficult to argue that same lack of confidence as they will have shown that the way the purchase was made was a short term hit for long term health of the club and themselves so such a concern as i currently have would then be irrational.
It really isn't that hard to understand fan's concerns about the debt if you aren't completely ignorant to it and/or naive to think that having a fantastic year doesn't mean the issues all disappear.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So you’ve never been in debt yourselfFoshiznik wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:46 amYou do realise we are in debt because of the takeover and not poor financial decisions right? It's literal asset stripping. What's to say they don't sell all of our decent players, sell the training ground, sell the stadium, etc. and pocket the profit in their own accounts in future? Making a very promising start to their ownership doesn't make that less likely.
Personally, I will hold that fear until the debt is gone fully.
-
- Posts: 19369
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
A couple of things I have always arguedFoshiznik wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 12:30 pmIf you think taking £114m out of the club is hilarious then that's more of a you issue then a me issue.
Right now, with using the clubs assets to buy the club and leaving it in a worse place financially than it was before they bought it doesn't give me the confidence that they are interested in anything other than their own pockets. If and when the debt is paid, it would be difficult to argue that same lack of confidence as they will have shown that the way the purchase was made was a short term hit for long term health of the club and themselves so such a concern as i currently have would then be irrational.
It really isn't that hard to understand fan's concerns about the debt if you aren't completely ignorant to it and/or naive to think that having a fantastic year doesn't mean the issues all disappear.
If we accept that ALK/VSL are in it for the money (and Morgan Edwards "we're gonna make lots of money" quip in the trailer for the new sky documentary does nothing to detract from that) then it is in their interests for the club to be relatively successful to build the equity value.
if we accept that ALK are going to use club profits as a means of paying off their loans from the club, then they will have to manage the clubs finances in at least a similarly stringent budget approach to that which the previous regime did. Just done a little differently and with different focus, after all it was the Garlick/Dyche years that provided all the groundwork that in now being utilised to the full - the working environments (and culture) for the players has never been better - it cost a lot to put in place and provided no immediate return but we can be certain that the club is now benefitting from it.
They will be no wild spending but approaches and revenues may different - Season tickets have risen 3 years running (same for matchday), prices corporate hospitality have increased dramatically, commercial income has been disappointing so far and needs substantial growth, the Watts should help on that front, and the hope is for overall revenues to reach new highs
The hope is that the outflow for non-business development reasons is coming to an end - it has proved costly for a club such as ours with cuts and changes being made for a wide range of reasons, some as a direct cost cutting. The increased confidence of the ownership group in the endeavour is seen in the fact they have provided security on the new loan together with the high probability that they have started to meet a portion of the outstanding share payments from their own funds not those of the club.
Key questions going forward are:
- will ALK/VSL meet all the outstanding share payment commitments from their own funds thereby not calling on more loans from the club?
- just how dependent are the club on the business activities/interest of the manager? and is there a plan to move those capabilities in house?
This user liked this post: Foshiznik
-
- 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
Of course they want to line their own pockets, that's the point of them buying the club, then changing the ethos and growing it etc.Foshiznik wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 12:30 pmIf you think taking £114m out of the club is hilarious then that's more of a you issue then a me issue.
Right now, with using the clubs assets to buy the club and leaving it in a worse place financially than it was before they bought it doesn't give me the confidence that they are interested in anything other than their own pockets. If and when the debt is paid, it would be difficult to argue that same lack of confidence as they will have shown that the way the purchase was made was a short term hit for long term health of the club and themselves so such a concern as i currently have would then be irrational.
It really isn't that hard to understand fan's concerns about the debt if you aren't completely ignorant to it and/or naive to think that having a fantastic year doesn't mean the issues all disappear.
Eventually, when the club is ripe enough, they'll sell it on and walk away with a hefty chunk of money
They're doing a fair amount of work to ensure the club is more valuable too.
It isn't hard to understand peoples concerns about the debt, I agree, but some fans focus on that before anything else and that's what I find odd
These 2 users liked this post: Burnley1989 Foshiznik
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
To be fair the previous owners went back up straight away with a team that barely lost a game after Xmas albeit the football was nothing like it has been this season..
But yes if they can transcend the the business realities of the PL then everything they have done will be justifiable but we aren't there yet.
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4183 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Foshiznik wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 12:30 pmIf you think taking £114m out of the club is hilarious then that's more of a you issue then a me issue.
Right now, with using the clubs assets to buy the club and leaving it in a worse place financially than it was before they bought it doesn't give me the confidence that they are interested in anything other than their own pockets. If and when the debt is paid, it would be difficult to argue that same lack of confidence as they will have shown that the way the purchase was made was a short term hit for long term health of the club and themselves so such a concern as i currently have would then be irrational.
It really isn't that hard to understand fan's concerns about the debt if you aren't completely ignorant to it and/or naive to think that having a fantastic year doesn't mean the issues all disappear.
No I thought your comment was hilarious, well more stupid really.
I guess one mans ignorant/naive is another mans meltdown/panic. Nothing you say or do will alter what ever the outcome will be so why live fearing the worst of something you have no control of. If in 5 years time things have gone wrong and you can pat yourself on the back "I knew this would happen" would that make you feel better ?
Fearing what might happen will have no impact on anything, just like someone doing a podcast or writing articles won't.
This user liked this post: Burnley1989
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
You can’t compare teams from different seasons, just because we went down under dyche and come back up with pretty much the same squad minus ings and trippier doesn’t mean we could have done it again.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 1:27 pmTo be fair the previous owners went back up straight away with a team that barely lost a game after Xmas albeit the football was nothing like it has been this season..
But yes if they can transcend the the business realities of the PL then everything they have done will be justifiable but we aren't there yet.
The only way the club was going to push forward was by getting into some form of debt one way or another, we had didn’t have enough resources to sell in the prem and be able to rebuild by staying in the prem, even without the new ownership you feel Garlick and the previous board would of needed to take some kind of loan to enable us to spend more money on the playing squad
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
We didn’t go into debt to fund the team for the season just finished, we sold Pope, Cornet, McNeil & Collins to help do that. The debt on the club came around 18 months before the relegation.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 3:15 pmYou can’t compare teams from different seasons, just because we went down under dyche and come back up with pretty much the same squad minus ings and trippier doesn’t mean we could have done it again.
The only way the club was going to push forward was by getting into some form of debt one way or another, we had didn’t have enough resources to sell in the prem and be able to rebuild by staying in the prem, even without the new ownership you feel Garlick and the previous board would of needed to take some kind of loan to enable us to spend more money on the playing squad
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They wouldn't have needed to take out some kind of loan.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 3:15 pmYou can’t compare teams from different seasons, just because we went down under dyche and come back up with pretty much the same squad minus ings and trippier doesn’t mean we could have done it again.
The only way the club was going to push forward was by getting into some form of debt one way or another, we had didn’t have enough resources to sell in the prem and be able to rebuild by staying in the prem, even without the new ownership you feel Garlick and the previous board would of needed to take some kind of loan to enable us to spend more money on the playing squad
They hardly spent anything in seasons prior to the sale and you can conjecture why.
We had £80 million in the bank, which funded a £50 million spend on shares. It could have been spent on players; the debt was related to an MSD loan also used to buy shares.
The club was relegated because of underinvestment in playing assets, and the sums subsequently spent make Mr Garlick's comments on Covid sound laughable.
In fact, the debt is not really an issue at this point because we have generated so much surplus cash from trading and selling players.
The issue is purely one of debate about how that money will affect the club going forward because that under-investment means we now have 4 PL quality players to replace.
And if VK can do that to a budget then even that is not a problem..!
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Did we not have £60m in the club coffers pre takeover, a large portion of that was used to fund the takeover123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 3:15 pmYou can’t compare teams from different seasons, just because we went down under dyche and come back up with pretty much the same squad minus ings and trippier doesn’t mean we could have done it again.
The only way the club was going to push forward was by getting into some form of debt one way or another, we had didn’t have enough resources to sell in the prem and be able to rebuild by staying in the prem, even without the new ownership you feel Garlick and the previous board would of needed to take some kind of loan to enable us to spend more money on the playing squad
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4183 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
You’ve missed my point, if we had of stayed in the premier league we wouldn’t of been selling those 4 players but would of needed to go onto debt to replace the 9 or 10 players who where all over 30 to stay competitive in the premier leagueClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 3:23 pmWe didn’t go into debt to fund the team for the season just finished, we sold Pope, Cornet, McNeil & Collins to help do that. The debt on the club came around 18 months before the relegation.
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Without the debt we wouldn’t have been able to sign cornet of Collins and even that debt wasn’t enough.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 3:23 pmWe didn’t go into debt to fund the team for the season just finished, we sold Pope, Cornet, McNeil & Collins to help do that. The debt on the club came around 18 months before the relegation.
If you can explain how we would of been able to rebuild the squad we had at the end of 20-21 without going into some kind of debt I’d be happy to hear it
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Take your point123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:35 pmYou’ve missed my point, if we had of stayed in the premier league we wouldn’t of been selling those 4 players but would of needed to go onto debt to replace the 9 or 10 players who where all over 30 to stay competitive in the premier league
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I don’t like the way the debt is on the club but I just don’t know how we possibly was going to compete any longer without it with an aging squad, even the one young player in McNeil wasn’t exactly playing well enough to warrant the massive fees some young English players go for
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Some real lack of understanding on this thread in the last couple of days as to the nature of the takeover and the debt structure of the club.
I get that everyone is not an expert in finance but this is a long long thread where CP in particular has tried his best to make it as simple as possible.
It’s very easy to get wrapped up in the wonderful season we have had on the pitch and ignore what has happened off it and where we are financially.
Of course success on the pitch makes it easier to deal with the new debt and ownership structure we have now but it only requires the most very basic of understanding of finances to know that our position now is less stable financially than it was under the last ownership.
But all that said we were previously the exception rather than the rule.
I get that everyone is not an expert in finance but this is a long long thread where CP in particular has tried his best to make it as simple as possible.
It’s very easy to get wrapped up in the wonderful season we have had on the pitch and ignore what has happened off it and where we are financially.
Of course success on the pitch makes it easier to deal with the new debt and ownership structure we have now but it only requires the most very basic of understanding of finances to know that our position now is less stable financially than it was under the last ownership.
But all that said we were previously the exception rather than the rule.
-
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:19 am
- Been Liked: 1357 times
- Has Liked: 2936 times
- Location: 'Turf
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Clive Holt said something very similar at the end, almost, of his book.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:53 pm
It’s very easy to get wrapped up in the wonderful season we have had on the pitch and ignore what has happened off it and where we are financially.
I'm not sure if it was a warning, he was by his own admission a very cautious director, or a bit of a dig at the new owners and former chairmen.
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
At the risk of repeating myself to death we had £80 million in the bank when ALK bought the club and they spent £50 million on shares.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:36 pmWithout the debt we wouldn’t have been able to sign cornet of Collins and even that debt wasn’t enough.
If you can explain how we would of been able to rebuild the squad we had at the end of 20-21 without going into some kind of debt I’d be happy to hear it
As it turned out in 21/22 we spent £50 million on Cornet, Weghorst et al but received £40 million for Wood, Gibson and Josh Benson.
ALKs spend in the first two transfer windows was negligible, which is why we got relegated.
We had around £40 million to spend replacing the ageing squad without going into debt.
In the summer of 16/17 we spent that much on 6 additional players that became the mainstay of the first 11 for 2 or 3 seasons.
We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt.
At this point, there is no debate we are worse off both financially and from the perspective of the investment in playing assets.
Of course, as RV would no doubt point out, Sean Dyche could have trotted off to Blackpool beach and bought 6 donkeys instead of Benson and Zaroury so even the fact of being both financially worse off and spending far less on playing assets we might not have been in a better position.
But then who knows VK may go and do the same. Dyche created a top 10 PL side up to 17/18 before he stated buying 30 old year olds from Brighton - if he indeed did buy them.
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The money left in the bank paid for the club wages go and loss of income due to covid, you can’t think the way football was going we would of been able to replace likes of lowton, long, pieters, Westwood, cork, stephens, lennon, barnes, jay rod whilst still being competitive, it wouldn’t happen without some kind of debt.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:21 pmAt the risk of repeating myself to death we had £80 million in the bank when ALK bought the club and they spent £50 million on shares.
As it turned out in 21/22 we spent £50 million on Cornet, Weghorst et al but received £40 million for Wood, Gibson and Josh Benson.
ALKs spend in the first two transfer windows was negligible, which is why we got relegated.
We had around £40 million to spend replacing the ageing squad without going into debt.
In the summer of 16/17 we spent that much on 6 additional players that became the mainstay of the first 11 for 2 or 3 seasons.
We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt.
At this point, there is no debate we are worse off both financially and from the perspective of the investment in playing assets.
Of course, as RV would no doubt point out, Sean Dyche could have trotted off to Blackpool beach and bought 6 donkeys instead of Benson and Zaroury so even the fact of being both financially worse off and spending far less on playing assets we might not have been in a better position.
But then who knows VK may go and do the same. Dyche created a top 10 PL side up to 17/18 before he stated buying 30 old year olds from Brighton - if he indeed did buy them.
We would of also needed to tie pope, Tarky and Mee down on big new contracts
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I’m no lover of the nature of the buyout by any means but that comment IMHO is just a bit daft !ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:21 pm
As it turned out in 21/22 we spent £50 million on Cornet, Weghorst et al but received £40 million for Wood, Gibson and Josh Benson.
ALKs spend in the first two transfer windows was negligible, which is why we got relegated.
Look at the transfer windows before the takeover if you want to see the reason we got relegated - we had an ageing squad and most weeks nothing to come off the bench other than defenders and keepers. At a time we were desperate to bring in players we were given petty cash out of the club shop to buy Dale Stephens.
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Like you are allowed to dislike the way the club is owned now without trying to make out like the old ownership was going to take us forward, just because we made good signings in 16/17, it’s not 16/17 anymore and when you have pretty much the same squad for 6/7 years there’s clearly a lack of resources which means taking a risk (going into debt) might be your only chanceClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:21 pmAt the risk of repeating myself to death we had £80 million in the bank when ALK bought the club and they spent £50 million on shares.
As it turned out in 21/22 we spent £50 million on Cornet, Weghorst et al but received £40 million for Wood, Gibson and Josh Benson.
ALKs spend in the first two transfer windows was negligible, which is why we got relegated.
We had around £40 million to spend replacing the ageing squad without going into debt.
In the summer of 16/17 we spent that much on 6 additional players that became the mainstay of the first 11 for 2 or 3 seasons.
We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt.
At this point, there is no debate we are worse off both financially and from the perspective of the investment in playing assets.
Of course, as RV would no doubt point out, Sean Dyche could have trotted off to Blackpool beach and bought 6 donkeys instead of Benson and Zaroury so even the fact of being both financially worse off and spending far less on playing assets we might not have been in a better position.
But then who knows VK may go and do the same. Dyche created a top 10 PL side up to 17/18 before he stated buying 30 old year olds from Brighton - if he indeed did buy them.
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, the point was not about the previous owners. And you are making my point for me.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:34 pmI’m no lover of the nature of the buyout by any means but that comment IMHO is just a bit daft !
Look at the transfer windows before the takeover if you want to see the reason we got relegated - we had an ageing squad and most weeks nothing to come off the bench other than defenders and keepers. At a time we were desperate to bring in players we were given petty cash out of the club shop to buy Dale Stephens.
I've already said above Garlick's comments about Covid was laughable.
ALK knew at the point of the buyout money had not been spent and we needed to invest to make up for that and they didn't do so because they had to pay for the shares. That was the point being made.
It was obvious to you and to me but not to ALK who had to buy shares not invest in the squad. That is the point I've been labouring...!
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I didn't say the previous owners were going to invest in the club quite the opposite.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:42 pmLike you are allowed to dislike the way the club is owned now without trying to make out like the old ownership was going to take us forward, just because we made good signings in 16/17, it’s not 16/17 anymore and when you have pretty much the same squad for 6/7 years there’s clearly a lack of resources which means taking a risk (going into debt) might be your only chance
I said there was enough money to keep Cornet et al and buy an additional 6 players to add to the squad with the money spent on shares.
And for the 6th millionth time:
When Garlick at al sold the club there was £80 million in the bank. ALK spent £50 million on shares and the debt came from the MSD loan of £65 million.
We haven't got a big debt issue now 123EasyasBFC - you can say the same thing over and over again but you are still wrong.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of what's happened financially. It's completely wrong.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:36 pmWithout the debt we wouldn’t have been able to sign cornet of Collins and even that debt wasn’t enough.
If you can explain how we would of been able to rebuild the squad we had at the end of 20-21 without going into some kind of debt I’d be happy to hear it
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The 80mil in the bank wouldn’t be enough to replace all the players that needed replacing, whilst maintaining the existing players on new contracts, the sole reason garlick sold was because he knew we wouldn’t compete anymoreClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 6:42 pmI didn't say the previous owners were going to invest in the club quite the opposite.
I said there was enough money to keep Cornet et al and buy an additional 6 players to add to the squad with the money spent on shares.
And for the 6th millionth time:
When Garlick at al sold the club there was £80 million in the bank. ALK spent £50 million on shares and the debt came from the MSD loan of £65 million.
We haven't got a big debt issue now 123EasyasBFC - you can say the same thing over and over again but you are still wrong.
Where did I say we have a big debt issue? I have said the club is in debt which it is, so I don’t understand why you feel the need to say ‘you are still wrong’ it’s not a competition about who’s right and wrongs it’s a discussion
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
-
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1018 times
- Has Liked: 278 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Probably a good job it ain’t for you123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 7:51 pm
…. I it’s not a competition about who’s right and wrongs it’s a discussion
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
As I said, you've fundamentally misunderstood what's happened.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 7:53 pmExplain how we would of replaced what was completely needed to rebuild the 20-21 squad without being in any kind of debt?
Not a penny of that debt was used on transfers.
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Again another sarcy comment
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
How was it not, ALK took over Jan 21 and the club instantly is in debt, we then spend money on cornet and Collins, without the total of those two coming back in sales
Jan 22 we sell wood and then sign weghorst
But the fact still is we are in debt and my pint was staying in the premier league we would need to be in debt to compete by signing new players as staying in the league you don’t sell pope Collins McNeil or cornet
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Because ALK took all that cash. It's all there in black and white.123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:04 pmHow was it not, ALK took over Jan 21 and the club instantly is in debt, we then spend money on cornet and Collins, without the total of those two coming back in sales
Jan 22 we sell wood and then sign weghorst
But the fact still is we are in debt and my pint was staying in the premier league we would need to be in debt to compete by signing new players as staying in the league you don’t sell pope Collins McNeil or cornet
-
- 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
Hi Pete, I fear you are getting mixed up over your dates.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:21 pmAt the risk of repeating myself to death we had £80 million in the bank when ALK bought the club and they spent £50 million on shares.
As it turned out in 21/22 we spent £50 million on Cornet, Weghorst et al but received £40 million for Wood, Gibson and Josh Benson.
ALKs spend in the first two transfer windows was negligible, which is why we got relegated.
We had around £40 million to spend replacing the ageing squad without going into debt.
In the summer of 16/17 we spent that much on 6 additional players that became the mainstay of the first 11 for 2 or 3 seasons.
We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt.
At this point, there is no debate we are worse off both financially and from the perspective of the investment in playing assets.
Of course, as RV would no doubt point out, Sean Dyche could have trotted off to Blackpool beach and bought 6 donkeys instead of Benson and Zaroury so even the fact of being both financially worse off and spending far less on playing assets we might not have been in a better position.
But then who knows VK may go and do the same. Dyche created a top 10 PL side up to 17/18 before he stated buying 30 old year olds from Brighton - if he indeed did buy them.
Maxwell Cornet, Connor Roberts, Nathan Collins were signed in summer 2021 transfer window (am I missing someone else). This was ALK's second transfer window - if you are counting Jan 21 as their first, days after they'd bought the club.
Wout Weghorst was signed in January 2022.
I fear you are also getting mixed up with "cash in the bank" and what that cash was needed for. A large chunk of the £80 million cash was the Premier League tv money and was needed to pay players' wages. Per the accounts, £37 million was lent by BFC to ALK to become part of ALK's payment to the former directors who sold their shares to ALK.
I don't know what you mean by "We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt." Cornet et al were signed the summer after ALK bought the club. The MSD £65 million was borrowed Dec 2020 and provided part of the money ALK borrowed to buy the shares from the former directors. What transfer window do you have in mind when the club could have signed 6 PL players "without going into debt?" Where would the money have come from to pay wages to these 6 PL players?
This user liked this post: 123EasyasBFC
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Right and ALK own Burnley football club therefore debt, but my whole point all along has been that from 19-20 onwards for us to stay in the premier league with the age of the players for us to continue in the league we where going to have to go into debt in my opinion to be able to rebuild and give a chance at staying in the league, whether it was garlick or ALK.
People can say we had 65mil, 80mil, 100mil in bank, that isn’t all for players that’s for running the whole club
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Finally someone who understands the point I was trying to makePaul Waine wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:17 pmHi Pete, I fear you are getting mixed up over your dates.
Maxwell Cornet, Connor Roberts, Nathan Collins were signed in summer 2021 transfer window (am I missing someone else). This was ALK's second transfer window - if you are counting Jan 21 as their first, days after they'd bought the club.
Wout Weghorst was signed in January 2022.
I fear you are also getting mixed up with "cash in the bank" and what that cash was needed for. A large chunk of the £80 million cash was the Premier League tv money and was needed to pay players' wages. Per the accounts, £37 million was lent by BFC to ALK to become part of ALK's payment to the former directors who sold their shares to ALK.
I don't know what you mean by "We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt." Cornet et al were signed the summer after ALK bought the club. The MSD £65 million was borrowed Dec 2020 and provided part of the money ALK borrowed to buy the shares from the former directors. What transfer window do you have in mind when the club could have signed 6 PL players "without going into debt?" Where would the money have come from to pay wages to these 6 PL players?
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 19369
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It sounds like you are getting confused about who holds which debt - this is the picture as described by the accounts plus personal information about the outstanding share payment123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:22 pmRight and ALK own Burnley football club therefore debt, but my whole point all along has been that from 19-20 onwards for us to stay in the premier league with the age of the players for us to continue in the league we where going to have to go into debt in my opinion to be able to rebuild and give a chance at staying in the league, whether it was garlick or ALK.
People can say we had 65mil, 80mil, 100mil in bank, that isn’t all for players that’s for running the whole club
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The point is there’s still debt and the owners have had to borrow, which again whichever owners where in place there wasn’t enough money for the club to push on so they would of had to borrowChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:36 pmIt sounds like you are getting confused about who holds which debt - this is the picture as described by the accounts plus personal information about the outstanding share payment
The debt overview for ALK-VSL group.png
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Maybe we would have gone into debt (although without the leveraged buyout we would have easily been able to spend double what we did in the last season without going into debt) but the fundamental point is that loan money could have then been spent on players rather than being used for non footballing expenditure (buying shares).123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:22 pmRight and ALK own Burnley football club therefore debt, but my whole point all along has been that from 19-20 onwards for us to stay in the premier league with the age of the players for us to continue in the league we where going to have to go into debt in my opinion to be able to rebuild and give a chance at staying in the league, whether it was garlick or ALK.
People can say we had 65mil, 80mil, 100mil in bank, that isn’t all for players that’s for running the whole club
I made the point on another thread that ALK may get a bit of an easy ride as the complicated structure means a lot of people don't understand how much cash has left the club and you're a perfect example of that.
This user liked this post: Foshiznik
-
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
£37 million was spent on shares during the financial year to 20/21 with a further £10 million spent as a post balance sheet event but it was clearly available and there was £50 million in the bank in July 21. In fact, by July 22 the bank had fallen from £80 (19/20) million to £50 million (20/21) to £13 million (21/22).Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:17 pmHi Pete, I fear you are getting mixed up over your dates.
Maxwell Cornet, Connor Roberts, Nathan Collins were signed in summer 2021 transfer window (am I missing someone else). This was ALK's second transfer window - if you are counting Jan 21 as their first, days after they'd bought the club.
Wout Weghorst was signed in January 2022.
I fear you are also getting mixed up with "cash in the bank" and what that cash was needed for. A large chunk of the £80 million cash was the Premier League tv money and was needed to pay players' wages. Per the accounts, £37 million was lent by BFC to ALK to become part of ALK's payment to the former directors who sold their shares to ALK.
I don't know what you mean by "We could have kept Cornet et al and signed 6 PL players without going into debt." Cornet et al were signed the summer after ALK bought the club. The MSD £65 million was borrowed Dec 2020 and provided part of the money ALK borrowed to buy the shares from the former directors. What transfer window do you have in mind when the club could have signed 6 PL players "without going into debt?" Where would the money have come from to pay wages to these 6 PL players?
So, £80 million in cashflow has fallen to £13 million and no one is worrying. At least you are clearly not...!
I think it is reasonable to argue that the over the course of the 21/22 season we could have spent significantly more on players and not been in debt. I would say £50 million but you can put whatever figure you like on it.
The proof of the pudding is that they spent it on shares and without the additional £65 million loan from MSD there would be no debt.
Now if you want to argue that it was £35 million and we could have had an additional 2 players and not 6 because we needed £15 million for wages then so be it. A £20 million midfielder and a £15 million striker may well have seen us safe
Otherwise, you are arguing that £50 million was spent on shares and frankly it couldn't have been spent on anything else
It was spent, and the debt is the MSD loan how self-evident can the point be?
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 615 times
- Has Liked: 180 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
My point all along was with how big the rebuild was there was no way the cash in the bank was enough for us to stay in the league, hence garlick selling up in the first place , he would of had to borrow, having 80mil in the bank doesn’t mean we have 80mil to buy 6 playersaggi wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:00 pmMaybe we would have gone into debt (although without the leveraged buyout we would have easily been able to spend double what we did in the last season without going into debt) but the fundamental point is that loan money could have then been spent on players rather than being used for non footballing expenditure (buying shares).
I made the point on another thread that ALK may get a bit of an easy ride as the complicated structure means a lot of people don't understand how much cash has left the club and you're a perfect example of that.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Anyway, away from that brief diversion it seems that the MSD charge on Kettering Capital has now gone.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 19369
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times