ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Newcastleclaret93
Posts: 11039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
Been Liked: 1559 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Newcastleclaret93 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:35 am

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:04 am
Keith Harris on Burnley’s takeover “ It’s as highly leveraged as you can ever make something...what has come as a surprise is that not only did ALK borrow external debt to fund the acquisition, they also used the club’s own cash.”

It appears they talk about the takeover on a Vidcast.

Not sure how to link to but sounds interesting. The Athletic journalist has shared the link.
Just watched it. Quite an interesting watch, they talk about the takeover and the opportunities/pitfalls. It would appear that the Athletic journalist that broke the existing story about the takeover was fairly accurate in his assumption that ALK have put very little of there own cash forward to buy the club.

Interestingly they seem to be of the opinion that it will be hard to improve the commercial revenue of club. I was surprised by this, thought that would be one of the easier elements.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:21 am

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:35 am
Just watched it. Quite an interesting watch, they talk about the takeover and the opportunities/pitfalls. It would appear that the Athletic journalist that broke the existing story about the takeover was fairly accurate in his assumption that ALK have put very little of there own cash forward to buy the club.

Interestingly they seem to be of the opinion that it will be hard to improve the commercial revenue of club. I was surprised by this, thought that would be one of the easier elements.
Hi Newcastle93, did it discuss the £98 million equity paid into Kettering? Have they worked out where ALK got this money from? Who paid this "permanent equity" money to ALK? Does it discuss the wealth of the ALK owners? What did they have to say about the commercial revenue?

Exciting times.

UTC

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:44 am

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:04 am
Keith Harris on Burnley’s takeover “ It’s as highly leveraged as you can ever make something...what has come as a surprise is that not only did ALK borrow external debt to fund the acquisition, they also used the club’s own cash.”

It appears they talk about the takeover on a Vidcast.

Not sure how to link to but sounds interesting. The Athletic journalist has shared the link.
it is the 2nd post at the top of page 180 if this thread, but now you may not have to register

https://www.sportbusiness.com/2021/02/w ... -football/
Last edited by Chester Perry on Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Newcastleclaret93
Posts: 11039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
Been Liked: 1559 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Newcastleclaret93 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:49 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:21 am
Hi Newcastle93, did it discuss the £98 million equity paid into Kettering? Have they worked out where ALK got this money from? Who paid this "permanent equity" money to ALK? Does it discuss the wealth of the ALK owners? What did they have to say about the commercial revenue?

Exciting times.

UTC
Did not go into specifics of where the money came from just that it was external debt.

When talking about commercial revenue they just highlighted that for smaller clubs it has always been an issue increasing commercial revenue and that there is a limit to how a club of our size can grow.

From what I gather all plans are very reliant on the club remaining in the premier league.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:54 am

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:49 am
Did not go into specifics of where the money came from just that it was external debt.

When talking about commercial revenue they just highlighted that for smaller clubs it has always been an issue increasing commercial revenue and that there is a limit to how a club of our size can grow.
not for the first time, something posted on this thread takes a life of it's own a dew fays later when a journalist tweets about it, and the comments by the panel - not just Keith Harris - are similar to those made on this thread by a few from the first point of knowledge about the loan and then the use of the club's own cash

Newcastleclaret93
Posts: 11039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
Been Liked: 1559 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Newcastleclaret93 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:04 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:54 am
not for the first time, something posted on this thread takes a life of it's own a dew fays later when a journalist tweets about it, and the comments by the panel - not just Keith Harris - are similar to those made on this thread by a few from the first point of knowledge about the loan and then the use of the club's own cash
Would be nice just to get a bit of clarity so we all knew what was truth.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:11 am

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:04 am
Would be nice just to get a bit of clarity so we all knew what was truth.
Do we know how the Issa brothers funded buying asda? Or how any other buyouts away from football have been funded. What gives us the right to know all the financial details of this deal?

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:12 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:11 am
Do we know how the Issa brothers funded buying asda? Or how any other buyouts away from football have been funded. What gives us the right to know all the financial details of this deal?
Fans deserve to know what happens to their club blah blah blah.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:14 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:11 am
Do we know how the Issa brothers funded buying asda? Or how any other buyouts away from football have been funded. What gives us the right to know all the financial details of this deal?
Asda is a hugely leveraged deal, in a consortium fronted by a hugely leveraged company (Euro garages) there has been plenty of discussion in the finance industry as to whether it is overstretched.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:26 am

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:04 am
Would be nice just to get a bit of clarity so we all knew what was truth.
it is relatively easy by now to know which posters are saying the same things as the experts referred to by journalists and their industry reference points.

There is a valid alternative view, just not one that the Journalists seem keen to use to balance their reports

I am always willing to listen to the views of

aggi, arise_sir_charge, dsr, duffer, KateR, RoyboyClaret, TallPaul, PaulWaine for example (and there are others it is not an exclusive list) because they challenge and expand my knowledge and understanding while sharing theirs and usually posting in an unemotional and non aggressive manner.
Last edited by Chester Perry on Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:26 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:14 am
Asda is a hugely leveraged deal, in a consortium fronted by a hugely leveraged company (Euro garages) there has been plenty of discussion in the finance industry as to whether it is overstretched.
There may well have been... But the average asda shopper won't know, don't care, and still shop there, so why is the average football fan any different?
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Stan Tastic
Posts: 1074
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 444 times
Has Liked: 58 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Stan Tastic » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:37 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:53 pm
Hi Kate, I know with 100% confidence that there is less money in BFC bank account today than there was when the takeover was completed. You've hit on the reason why this will be the case - all the players (and other staff) were paid in January - and are due to be paid again in February. There's been no new tv money paid to BFC in the past 2 months and money has gone out of the club to pay January wages and will shortly go out again to pay February wages. Maybe those wages also included some bonuses for the previous season, or maybe not. Timing of PAYE and NI is a little less certain - I forget whether the employer has to pay those to HMRC every quarter.

For me....

Exciting times.

UTC
I'm sure that everyone that reads this thread has got the message that you think these are exciting times.
This user liked this post: BurnleyFC

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:38 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:26 am
There may well have been... But the average asda shopper won't know, don't care, and still shop there, so why is the average football fan any different?
It comes down to something I regular post about - football (and most sports clubs) are not like ordinary businesses. They are for most the last bastion of civic pride and association, whether you support the local team or not. What is interesting at times like these is that people, often unconsciously become more concerned about the existence of the club than of the current results. Even the recent outpourings against the Bournemouth, Fulham and West Brom games are outweighed by the number of people fearing about the future of the club's existence. Which all fits in with a current favourite thought of mine re the Infinte and Finite game, to me the clubs existence - the Infinite game - is more important to the town than the division or the performance in a particular match - the finite game.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:47 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:38 am
It comes down to something I regular post about - football (and most sports clubs) are not like ordinary businesses. They are for most the last bastion of civic pride and association, whether you support the local team or not. What is interesting at times like these is that people, often unconsciously become more concerned about the existence of the club than of the current results. Even the recent outpourings against the Bournemouth, Fulham and West Brom games are outweighed by the number of people fearing about the future of the club's existence. Which all fits in with a current favourite thought of mine re the Infinte and Finite game, to me the clubs existence - the Infinite game - is more important to the town than the division or the performance in a particular match - the finite game.
I would have agreed with you 30 years ago, when I lived next door to league footballers, drank in the same pub, the clubs did feel local, however they are now multi billion pound companies, and act as such. Fans may feel they have a right to know all the inner workings of the club, but in reality they don't.
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 Vegas Claret

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:54 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:47 am
I would have agreed with you 30 years ago, when I lived next door to league footballers, drank in the same pub, the clubs did feel local, however they are now multi billion pound companies, and act as such. Fans may feel they have a right to know all the inner workings of the club, but in reality they don't.
I wasn't saying they had the right I was posting about why they have the more feelings of anxiety for the club as to their local supermarket in uncertain times

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:01 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:26 am
There may well have been... But the average asda shopper won't know, don't care, and still shop there, so why is the average football fan any different?
There has a to be quid pro quo though. The club takes advantage of the fact that fans are more than just customers, they are "invested" in the club.

The more that a club treats the fans as customers first, the greater the chance of them losing that additional tie and heading somewhere else when the results are poor, football is unattractive, transfer window is disappointing, etc

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:33 pm

aggi wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:01 pm
There has a to be quid pro quo though. The club takes advantage of the fact that fans are more than just customers, they are "invested" in the club.

The more that a club treats the fans as customers first, the greater the chance of them losing that additional tie and heading somewhere else when the results are poor, football is unattractive, transfer window is disappointing, etc
Years ago, when fans were the main income for the club, yes they were important and probably treated better than they are now
Nowadays fans are not that important, income wise, to the club, so yes, they will treat them as customers, fans need to get used to it.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KRBFC » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:24 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:12 am
Fans deserve to know what happens to their club blah blah blah.
You will truly never understand

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:37 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:24 pm
You will truly never understand
Pot, kettle, black when it comes to financial discussions on here for you....

Newcastleclaret93
Posts: 11039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
Been Liked: 1559 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Newcastleclaret93 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:18 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:47 am
I would have agreed with you 30 years ago, when I lived next door to league footballers, drank in the same pub, the clubs did feel local, however they are now multi billion pound companies, and act as such. Fans may feel they have a right to know all the inner workings of the club, but in reality they don't.
Fair comments. However I think it’s slightly different.

It would not bother me at all if Asda went under. However if Burnley went under that would be it for me, I would have no interest in football from that moment. It’s not a hobby it’s your club you can just change what shop you go to, you can’t change the club you support.

That I think is a very unique relationship between customer and company. I think fans in this circumstance deserve to know that the company/club they support is being handled in the correct way.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:29 pm

Majority of football fans in the PL and quite possibly the championship don't really care about how their clubs are financed, who owns what etc or what level of debt there is.
The information is available to see every year but I've had numerous chats with fans of other clubs and they're genuinely clueless about their clubs finances.

So long as the clubs are ticking over and appear to be normal on the outside the average fan couldn't give a toss about anything else.

The clubs are a privately owned business in the main, they're not obliged to share anything else with their customers.
This user liked this post: Grumps

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KateR » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:30 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:28 pm
A bit of nitpicking going on there, Kate. Because obviously you are right that there is money in the bank in the sense that the club can pay wages. But on the other hand, Newcastle is right that if you are running on bank loans and overdrafts, there isn't "money in the bank". Or at least, it is someone else's money.
dsr/Paul.
maybe I missing something or I am over thinking how this works but I don't think I'm nitpicking, consequently I would like your thoughts/feedback on the following:

ALK (whomever the entity taking the loan is) takes a loan, whatever the amount but for now let's 60 million.
BFC has money in the bank whatever the amount is but let's say 50 million

Therefore, there is now at a point in time 110 million for the new owners, maybe a millisecond or whatever before the transfer funds to MG & Co.

A payment is made from the 110 million to MG & Co, this payment is not 200 million so for now let's just say there is a contract/promissory note for 150 million, can be any number, whatever they decided upon, this let's say was in the form of 4 payments over a certain time period, yet unknown but for now let's guess at 5 years with a 20% equal payment.

December 31 2020 30 million is paid to MG & Co but they also retain shareholdings until a final payment is made in 5 years, where the final shareholdings are transferred to the new owners. Under a formal contract agreement the new owners become the chairman and can change the direction of the club.

From the 110 million only 30 has been paid (it could be a larger amount for the first payment with the remainder spread of 5 years or even 3 years)

This leaves a larger amount of funds for the new owners to play with, clearly not aimed at buying first team players as January proved, but they have the funds available to make the changes they believe will improve the club and increase revenues.

The numbers above are irrelevant in terms of accuracy but what is relevant is the structure of the deal and how payments are made. Clearly the loan & money in the bank were never going to cover the cost of the purchase, it is a staged process, with full buy in from the previous owners, in terms of they believed the proposed buyout business plan could work. Clearly it was not a thank you and walk with all the funds for BFC in there bank accounts, M Ashley for example had the problem selling Newcastle for the full amount and has come around to the belief that only a staged/gated payout will work.

Clearly as we all know the operating costs for BCF will continue as they were from 2020, however in 2021 our operating costs can be expected to increase due to the new owners involvement.

The incoming revenue from 2020 through 2021 will be the same, except where the new owners can generate revenue beyond what was already in place when they made the purchase, TV, adverizing, merchandise sales etc.

Today there is a loan to service, additional costs for the new owners over and above what was in 2020, 2022 payments to MG & Co. or the second staged payment.

You can not grow revenues in a few months, some new initiatives will take a year or two to take off, hence staged payments to MG & Co plus staged loan payments, therefore it's a race to grow revenue to a point that it will be higher than the outgoing addition costs of operation. There will be a tipping point/pivot somewhere down the line regarding this but I would not have thought before two years.

Just some of my thoughts and why I say what I say, there is rationale behind it, now it could be an absolute rubbish rationale but............

This was not a simple loan, thank you, transfer 100+ million to the previous owners, do you actually believe they took approx 150 - 180 million because I'm positive they didn't.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:32 pm

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:18 pm
Fair comments. However I think it’s slightly different.

It would not bother me at all if Asda went under. However if Burnley went under that would be it for me, I would have no interest in football from that moment. It’s not a hobby it’s your club you can just change what shop you go to, you can’t change the club you support.

That I think is a very unique relationship between customer and company. I think fans in this circumstance deserve to know that the company/club they support is being handled in the correct way.
That's how fans think
Clubs think differently
Fans need to get used to it

It's different for lower league clubs as paying fans mean more to the club

Newcastleclaret93
Posts: 11039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
Been Liked: 1559 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Newcastleclaret93 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:48 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:32 pm
That's how fans think
Clubs think differently
Fans need to get used to it

It's different for lower league clubs as paying fans mean more to the club
No arguments there at all.

Simply suggesting that football clubs are different to any other business. Which is why fans can be passionate about the owners and finances.

In respect to GDJ point. Totally agree, however fans almost unilaterally are interested in finances when it potentially puts the club at risk. Must say that is the only reason I am bothered now because for me (my opinion not fact) we are in a worse position now than 3 months ago.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:24 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:33 pm
Years ago, when fans were the main income for the club, yes they were important and probably treated better than they are now
Nowadays fans are not that important, income wise, to the club, so yes, they will treat them as customers, fans need to get used to it.
And if that's the way it is going to be then that's fine. But the club can't have it both ways and expect those fans to still be there when the product isn't as good (which will be when they really need their money).

It's a balancing act.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:31 pm

KateR wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:30 pm
dsr/Paul.
maybe I missing something or I am over thinking how this works but I don't think I'm nitpicking, consequently I would like your thoughts/feedback on the following:

ALK (whomever the entity taking the loan is) takes a loan, whatever the amount but for now let's 60 million.
BFC has money in the bank whatever the amount is but let's say 50 million

Therefore, there is now at a point in time 110 million for the new owners, maybe a millisecond or whatever before the transfer funds to MG & Co.

A payment is made from the 110 million to MG & Co, this payment is not 200 million so for now let's just say there is a contract/promissory note for 150 million, can be any number, whatever they decided upon, this let's say was in the form of 4 payments over a certain time period, yet unknown but for now let's guess at 5 years with a 20% equal payment.

December 31 2020 30 million is paid to MG & Co but they also retain shareholdings until a final payment is made in 5 years, where the final shareholdings are transferred to the new owners. Under a formal contract agreement the new owners become the chairman and can change the direction of the club.

From the 110 million only 30 has been paid (it could be a larger amount for the first payment with the remainder spread of 5 years or even 3 years)

This leaves a larger amount of funds for the new owners to play with, clearly not aimed at buying first team players as January proved, but they have the funds available to make the changes they believe will improve the club and increase revenues.

The numbers above are irrelevant in terms of accuracy but what is relevant is the structure of the deal and how payments are made. Clearly the loan & money in the bank were never going to cover the cost of the purchase, it is a staged process, with full buy in from the previous owners, in terms of they believed the proposed buyout business plan could work. Clearly it was not a thank you and walk with all the funds for BFC in there bank accounts, M Ashley for example had the problem selling Newcastle for the full amount and has come around to the belief that only a staged/gated payout will work.

Clearly as we all know the operating costs for BCF will continue as they were from 2020, however in 2021 our operating costs can be expected to increase due to the new owners involvement.

The incoming revenue from 2020 through 2021 will be the same, except where the new owners can generate revenue beyond what was already in place when they made the purchase, TV, adverizing, merchandise sales etc.

Today there is a loan to service, additional costs for the new owners over and above what was in 2020, 2022 payments to MG & Co. or the second staged payment.

You can not grow revenues in a few months, some new initiatives will take a year or two to take off, hence staged payments to MG & Co plus staged loan payments, therefore it's a race to grow revenue to a point that it will be higher than the outgoing addition costs of operation. There will be a tipping point/pivot somewhere down the line regarding this but I would not have thought before two years.

Just some of my thoughts and why I say what I say, there is rationale behind it, now it could be an absolute rubbish rationale but............

This was not a simple loan, thank you, transfer 100+ million to the previous owners, do you actually believe they took approx 150 - 180 million because I'm positive they didn't.
[NOTE - where I refer to ALK it is actually their new company that owns BFC but I can't remember its name; where I refer to Garlick this includes JohnB and possibly, to a lesser extent, other directors. This is outline principles.]

Roughly subject to approximate numbers I think what happened is:

1. Start of play - BFC had £50m cash, Garlick had the shares.

2. Garlick sold the shares to ALK, ALK owe Garlick £170m.

3. ALK have £30m of their own money which they pay to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £140m.

So far, Burnley FC are not affected except that we have a new owner.

4. ALK have no more money so they get Burnley FC to lend them £50m cash. ALK pay it to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £90m, and they owe Burnley FC £50m.

5. A loan is taken out for £60m. I don't know whether ALK took out the loan but promised that Burnley FC would pay it off, or whether Burnley FC took out the loan. Either way, it's Burnley FC who will be making the payments. This £60m is paid by ALK to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £30m, and they owe Burnley FC £110m.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so the end results are:

GARLICK - Before, he had his own wealth + Burnley FC shares. After, he has his own wealth + £140m cash + £30m owed by ALK.

ALK - Before, they (or rather, this new company) had £30m cash from investors. Now, it owns Burnley FC shares notionally worth £170m and owes £30m to Garlick and £110m; this makes up the £30m value that the investors put in.

BURNLEY FC - Before, we had £50m cash and we owed nothing. Now, we have no cash, we have a £60m loan with an overdraft facility, and ALK owe us £110m.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are the problems as I see them.

1. ALK owes Garlick £30m over the next 5 years. They have only one possible source of income, and that is Burnley FC. Burnley FC will have to pay them, one way or another, £30m to cover that debt.

2. ALK's directors will be drawing a salary. Burnley FC will also be paying heavy interest on the £60m loan - about £5m per year according to estimates. We will probably be paying a capital element of that loan as well. But Burnley FC will not be receiving interest or repayment of capital on the money ALK owes to Burnley FC.

3. ALK (again, referring to the new company here) has only one asset, and that is Burnley FC shares. If they sell those shares at a profit, then they can repay the £110m they owe to Burnley FC. If they lose money on those shares (eg. if we get relegated), or if they hang on to those shares and don't sell, then there is no money in their pot to repay the £110m they owe.

4. This new company may be owned by ALK but ALK has no legal duty to pay its debts of it goes belly up. ALK can wash its hands of Burnley FC, push the shares back to Garlick, and walk away. Burnley FC will have to pay its debts back or go into administration.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:41 pm

aggi wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:24 pm
And if that's the way it is going to be then that's fine. But the club can't have it both ways and expect those fans to still be there when the product isn't as good (which will be when they really need their money).

It's a balancing act.
I couldn't agree more, but they need less fans in the lower leagues, the running costs will be less etc etc, so for a club like Burnley, the die hard 10-12k required will still be there, hard nosed I know, but it's how it is. The only way to stay afloat at our current level is for it to be run as a business, with customers.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:02 pm

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:48 pm
No arguments there at all.

Simply suggesting that football clubs are different to any other business. Which is why fans can be passionate about the owners and finances.

In respect to GDJ point. Totally agree, however fans almost unilaterally are interested in finances when it potentially puts the club at risk. Must say that is the only reason I am bothered now because for me (my opinion not fact) we are in a worse position now than 3 months ago.
No they aren't interested.
Before this takeover we were pretty much the only club without debt, or operating at a loss in the PL and most of the championship.

Every other single club in the PL and majority in the championship would disappear overnight if debts were called in, or their revenue streams stopped.

They're not run in a sustainable manner and there is nothing from the fans really in the way of unrest.

Might hear the odd peep from Birmingham fans, but that's been ongoing for years, same with the Utd and their yellow/green scarves.

This is about a small minority on here being out of their comfort zone and making unreasonable demands of a business.

ewanrob
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 am
Been Liked: 361 times
Has Liked: 98 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by ewanrob » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:16 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:31 pm
[NOTE - where I refer to ALK it is actually their new company that owns BFC but I can't remember its name; where I refer to Garlick this includes JohnB and possibly, to a lesser extent, other directors. This is outline principles.]

Roughly subject to approximate numbers I think what happened is:

1. Start of play - BFC had £50m cash, Garlick had the shares.

2. Garlick sold the shares to ALK, ALK owe Garlick £170m.

3. ALK have £30m of their own money which they pay to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £140m.

So far, Burnley FC are not affected except that we have a new owner.

4. ALK have no more money so they get Burnley FC to lend them £50m cash. ALK pay it to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £90m, and they owe Burnley FC £50m.

5. A loan is taken out for £60m. I don't know whether ALK took out the loan but promised that Burnley FC would pay it off, or whether Burnley FC took out the loan. Either way, it's Burnley FC who will be making the payments. This £60m is paid by ALK to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £30m, and they owe Burnley FC £110m.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so the end results are:

GARLICK - Before, he had his own wealth + Burnley FC shares. After, he has his own wealth + £140m cash + £30m owed by ALK.

ALK - Before, they (or rather, this new company) had £30m cash from investors. Now, it owns Burnley FC shares notionally worth £170m and owes £30m to Garlick and £110m; this makes up the £30m value that the investors put in.

BURNLEY FC - Before, we had £50m cash and we owed nothing. Now, we have no cash, we have a £60m loan with an overdraft facility, and ALK owe us £110m.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are the problems as I see them.

1. ALK owes Garlick £30m over the next 5 years. They have only one possible source of income, and that is Burnley FC. Burnley FC will have to pay them, one way or another, £30m to cover that debt.

2. ALK's directors will be drawing a salary. Burnley FC will also be paying heavy interest on the £60m loan - about £5m per year according to estimates. We will probably be paying a capital element of that loan as well. But Burnley FC will not be receiving interest or repayment of capital on the money ALK owes to Burnley FC.

3. ALK (again, referring to the new company here) has only one asset, and that is Burnley FC shares. If they sell those shares at a profit, then they can repay the £110m they owe to Burnley FC. If they lose money on those shares (eg. if we get relegated), or if they hang on to those shares and don't sell, then there is no money in their pot to repay the £110m they owe.

4. This new company may be owned by ALK but ALK has no legal duty to pay its debts of it goes belly up. ALK can wash its hands of Burnley FC, push the shares back to Garlick, and walk away. Burnley FC will have to pay its debts back or go into administration.
So the Clubs Solicitors and the EPL all did their DD, and found this perfectly acceptable way of moving forward. Something really doesn't stack up, and once again everything with this Club is shrouded in mystery.
This user liked this post: Kreuzberg

Hapag Lloyd
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:24 am
Been Liked: 285 times
Has Liked: 423 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Hapag Lloyd » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:17 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:31 pm
[NOTE - where I refer to ALK it is actually their new company that owns BFC but I can't remember its name; where I refer to Garlick this includes JohnB and possibly, to a lesser extent, other directors. This is outline principles.]

Roughly subject to approximate numbers I think what happened is:

1. Start of play - BFC had £50m cash, Garlick had the shares.

2. Garlick sold the shares to ALK, ALK owe Garlick £170m.

3. ALK have £30m of their own money which they pay to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £140m.

So far, Burnley FC are not affected except that we have a new owner.

4. ALK have no more money so they get Burnley FC to lend them £50m cash. ALK pay it to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £90m, and they owe Burnley FC £50m.

5. A loan is taken out for £60m. I don't know whether ALK took out the loan but promised that Burnley FC would pay it off, or whether Burnley FC took out the loan. Either way, it's Burnley FC who will be making the payments. This £60m is paid by ALK to Garlick. Now ALK owe Garlick £30m, and they owe Burnley FC £110m.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so the end results are:

GARLICK - Before, he had his own wealth + Burnley FC shares. After, he has his own wealth + £140m cash + £30m owed by ALK.

ALK - Before, they (or rather, this new company) had £30m cash from investors. Now, it owns Burnley FC shares notionally worth £170m and owes £30m to Garlick and £110m; this makes up the £30m value that the investors put in.

BURNLEY FC - Before, we had £50m cash and we owed nothing. Now, we have no cash, we have a £60m loan with an overdraft facility, and ALK owe us £110m.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are the problems as I see them.

1. ALK owes Garlick £30m over the next 5 years. They have only one possible source of income, and that is Burnley FC. Burnley FC will have to pay them, one way or another, £30m to cover that debt.

2. ALK's directors will be drawing a salary. Burnley FC will also be paying heavy interest on the £60m loan - about £5m per year according to estimates. We will probably be paying a capital element of that loan as well. But Burnley FC will not be receiving interest or repayment of capital on the money ALK owes to Burnley FC.

3. ALK (again, referring to the new company here) has only one asset, and that is Burnley FC shares. If they sell those shares at a profit, then they can repay the £110m they owe to Burnley FC. If they lose money on those shares (eg. if we get relegated), or if they hang on to those shares and don't sell, then there is no money in their pot to repay the £110m they owe.

4. This new company may be owned by ALK but ALK has no legal duty to pay its debts of it goes belly up. ALK can wash its hands of Burnley FC, push the shares back to Garlick, and walk away. Burnley FC will have to pay its debts back or go into administration.
So a great deal for everyone involved apart from Burnley FC.
These 2 users liked this post: dsr Kreuzberg

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:27 pm

ewanrob wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:16 pm
So the Clubs Solicitors and the EPL all did their DD, and found this perfectly acceptable way of moving forward. Something really doesn't stack up, and once again everything with this Club is shrouded in mystery.
The club solicitors and the PL both found it legal. They don't have a say on whether it's acceptable. ALK will have to disclose most of the information when the June 2021 accounts are published in March 2022; until then, they can publish the information if they think we would be interested, or they can keep it under their hats if they would prefer us not to know.

Among the stuff that the club accounts will be forced to disclose is the amount of any loan payable, or even if the loan is in someone else's name, the amount that the club is liable for by way of guarantee. Also the amount of the debtor owed by the holding company and the terms of that loan. They can disclose it now, or they can wait until March 2022.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KateR » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:30 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:31 pm
[NOTE - where I refer to ALK it is actually their new company that owns BFC but I can't remember its name; where I refer to Garlick this includes JohnB and possibly, to a lesser extent, other directors. This is outline principles.]
I think we're all saying pretty much the same but it's the details of the deal, which we know we don't know.

I don't think MG & Co got anywhere near the money you and others think they did. I think we're all in agreement in regard to the value and that promises have been made, but legal promises in a contract rather than handshake type promises.

I think they got an amazing deal by paying little themselves, using a loan and numerous promises regarding staged payments. One of the reasons I believe that is that as you say the club defaults to them if payments are not made, I think these payments owed are substantial, again only my thoughts.

Therefore it's why I think the club are in better shape than many say today, but 100% agree there is a huge amount of more risk hanging over the club than there was, but many businesses and football/sports clubs are bought this way and are successful. Yet again I think there is more upside to go with the risk and it's why I'm firmly in the camp of there is enough money in the bank and no risk to an early demise, plus I am convinced the new owners have more the MG & Co for different reasons. However, them having money, doesn't mean they would use it to help BFC out.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by DCWat » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:35 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:29 pm
Majority of football fans in the PL and quite possibly the championship don't really care about how their clubs are financed, who owns what etc or what level of debt there is.
The information is available to see every year but I've had numerous chats with fans of other clubs and they're genuinely clueless about their clubs finances.

So long as the clubs are ticking over and appear to be normal on the outside the average fan couldn't give a toss about anything else.

The clubs are a privately owned business in the main, they're not obliged to share anything else with their customers.
Herein lays a difference between a football fan and a supporter. The average fan may not give a toss, the average supporter will.

A far greater proportion of our following will be supporters as opposed to fans and I’d wager that a good proportion of the fans you refer to are that, as opposed to supporters.
This user liked this post: Kreuzberg

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:37 pm

DCWat wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:35 pm
Herein lays a difference between a football fan and a supporter. The average fan may not give a toss, the average supporter will.

A far greater proportion of our following will be supporters as opposed to fans and I’d wager that a good proportion of the fans you refer to are that, as opposed to supporters.
By that logic there are very few supporters in the top 2 flights of English football...

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:51 pm

DCWat wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:35 pm
Herein lays a difference between a football fan and a supporter. The average fan may not give a toss, the average supporter will.

A far greater proportion of our following will be supporters as opposed to fans and I’d wager that a good proportion of the fans you refer to are that, as opposed to supporters.
I've spoken to quite a few burnley supporters recently, who don't read this board, and they've no great knowledge of the takeover details, and don't really want to know, they are more interested in the next game, or avoiding relegation. If you took away the 20 or so posters who debate it all day everyday on here, it might not register that much to many on here either.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by DCWat » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:02 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:37 pm
By that logic there are very few supporters in the top 2 flights of English football...
I’m not sure I’d say the top two divisions but certainly in the Premier League and more so the biggest of the PL clubs.

You’re right in your comparison of football with other businesses from a financial perspective, but I can certainly see where KRBFC and the likes are coming from, when supporters are referenced in the same context as a customer of a supermarket.

A supporter is far more than a customer and as Aggi pointed out, there is a certain quid pro quo.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:03 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:51 pm
If you took away the 20 or so posters who debate it all day everyday on here, it might not register that much to many on here either.
I have said as much in the past, though I know the MMT thread gets at least 2000 views a week and often double that (for which even I cannot be wholly responsible) and that has been ongoing for over 2 years now, and this thread is currently running at over 20,000 views a week,

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by DCWat » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:11 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:51 pm
I've spoken to quite a few burnley supporters recently, who don't read this board, and they've no great knowledge of the takeover details, and don't really want to know, they are more interested in the next game, or avoiding relegation. If you took away the 20 or so posters who debate it all day everyday on here, it might not register that much to many on here either.
Frankly, it amazes me that any Burnley supporter has no real inclination to understand more about the takeover of their club.

That doesn’t mean needing to understand the complexities surrounding the purchase, or the methods that will be adopted to generate additional finance.

It may be as simple as having confidence that the club is on a sound footing and in safe hands. I’ve no stats of course, but I’m confident in saying that far more are silent observers of this thread than there are contributors.

I’d also add that relegation or a poor transfer window in the coming summer will quickly focus the minds of many supporters, purported not to have an interest in who owns the club.

Edit... stats posted by CP
This user liked this post: Kreuzberg

Boss Hogg
Posts: 3294
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:34 am
Been Liked: 846 times
Has Liked: 1090 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Boss Hogg » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:19 pm

Please can we put an end to saying ‘Exciting Times’
This user liked this post: DCWat

boyyanno
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 7:25 pm
Been Liked: 498 times
Has Liked: 114 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boyyanno » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:25 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:47 am
I would have agreed with you 30 years ago, when I lived next door to league footballers, drank in the same pub, the clubs did feel local, however they are now multi billion pound companies, and act as such. Fans may feel they have a right to know all the inner workings of the club, but in reality they don't.
I take it you're not a shareholder?

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:49 pm

boyyanno wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:25 pm
I take it you're not a shareholder?
Iam talking about fans.... Not shareholders

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:51 pm

DCWat wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:11 pm
Frankly, it amazes me that any Burnley supporter has no real inclination to understand more about the takeover of their club.

That doesn’t mean needing to understand the complexities surrounding the purchase, or the methods that will be adopted to generate additional finance.

It may be as simple as having confidence that the club is on a sound footing and in safe hands. I’ve no stats of course, but I’m confident in saying that far more are silent observers of this thread than there are contributors.

I’d also add that relegation or a poor transfer window in the coming summer will quickly focus the minds of many supporters, purported not to have an interest in who owns the club.

Edit... stats posted by CP
If they didn't read this forum, they wouldnt read massive concerns about the takeover anywhere else.. The odd article in the lancs telegraph but not much else

boyyanno
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 7:25 pm
Been Liked: 498 times
Has Liked: 114 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boyyanno » Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:12 pm

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:49 pm
Iam talking about fans.... Not shareholders
You can be both.

Fans have a right to care about the clubs finances, they don't have a right to know, but a right to care absolutely.

Many posters after years of giving money to the club, buying bricks, purchasing shares (the list goes on) find it a bit insulting to have it suggested that they shouldn't care/concern themselves with the clubs finances: Especially considering it was this care and concern that was a custodian for the club in its times of need. Like I said, they don't have a right to know, but they have a right to care.
This user liked this post: Duffer_

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:50 pm

boyyanno wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:12 pm
You can be both.

Fans have a right to care about the clubs finances, they don't have a right to know, but a right to care absolutely.

Many posters after years of giving money to the club, buying bricks, purchasing shares (the list goes on) find it a bit insulting to have it suggested that they shouldn't care/concern themselves with the clubs finances: Especially considering it was this care and concern that was a custodian for the club in its times of need. Like I said, they don't have a right to know, but they have a right to care.
That's all I've said really, they have no right to know, any other feelings are up to the individual
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:54 pm

DCWat wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:02 pm
I’m not sure I’d say the top two divisions but certainly in the Premier League and more so the biggest of the PL clubs.

You’re right in your comparison of football with other businesses from a financial perspective, but I can certainly see where KRBFC and the likes are coming from, when supporters are referenced in the same context as a customer of a supermarket.

A supporter is far more than a customer and as Aggi pointed out, there is a certain quid pro quo.
KRBFC doesn't understand football finances, he simply screams and has a tantrum when we have a bad run, like the season when it seemed we couldn't buy an away win.

He's even dismissed the effects of Covid on football finances as fake news, to give you an idea of his level of interest in this.
If he's a shining example of a true supporter then I'm glad I'm not one like he's said.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:11 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:41 pm
I couldn't agree more, but they need less fans in the lower leagues, the running costs will be less etc etc, so for a club like Burnley, the die hard 10-12k required will still be there, hard nosed I know, but it's how it is. The only way to stay afloat at our current level is for it to be run as a business, with customers.
That die hard 10-12k are going to be the ones that are most upset by being treated as customers though (and I suspect the real die hard figure who'll put up with anything is much lower than that). It's something the new owners are really going to have to consider, they can't fall back on being local or being fans to shore up their position, they've bought the club at a peak valuation with the express intent of making a profit.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KRBFC » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:39 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:54 pm
KRBFC doesn't understand football finances, he simply screams and has a tantrum when we have a bad run, like the season when it seemed we couldn't buy an away win.

He's even dismissed the effects of Covid on football finances as fake news, to give you an idea of his level of interest in this.
If he's a shining example of a true supporter then I'm glad I'm not one like he's said.
I've never claimed to be a football finance expert, my thoughts on this takeover have nothing to do with having a bad run. I never dismissed the effects of Covid on football, I called fake news to you claiming Covid ate up our £50M bank balance. Its very easy for people like you to have a passing interest in BFC because you can just change your team again, that isn't the case for most supporters like DC pointed out.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Grumps » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:41 am

aggi wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:11 am
That die hard 10-12k are going to be the ones that are most upset by being treated as customers though (and I suspect the real die hard figure who'll put up with anything is much lower than that). It's something the new owners are really going to have to consider, they can't fall back on being local or being fans to shore up their position, they've bought the club at a peak valuation with the express intent of making a profit.
Perhaps iam in the minority, but I expect to be treated as a customer by the club because at the end of the day, that's what I am, and iam not actually sure how different a fan thinks they should be treated.
That's not to say that customer relations need to improve, but not down to being given every detail of how the club is run.

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

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:45 am

KRBFC wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:39 am
I've never claimed to be a football finance expert, my thoughts on this takeover have nothing to do with having a bad run. I never dismissed the effects of Covid on football, I called fake news to you claiming Covid ate up our £50M bank balance. Its very easy for people like you to have a passing interest in BFC because you can just change your team again, that isn't the case for most supporters like DC pointed out.
we and you would be much better served if you didn't put that last sentence in. Similarly it would be beneficial if the target doesn't rise to the bait.

Be grateful we can attract new fans, because we need them, always have ,actually and always will, and as you regularly note we are not the easiest of teams in recent years to jump on the bandwagon of.

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by warksclaret » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:04 pm

Apart from a lot of public appearances/interviews/pledges made by Mr Pace throughout January, has anyone living in the Burnley area and close to the club know any details of anything thats taken place ie meetings/discussions/review of internal structure on the running of the club etc. For someone who lives 160 miles away it all seems to have gone deadly quiet, which rightly or wrongly I was expecting to change from the previous management who retained virtual silence between May of last year until year end when our Chief Exec Mr Hart gave an interview and implied a rosy situation for post take over activity. Communication and positive PR cost nothing but keep fans on board

Post Reply