ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
-
- Posts: 3120
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 621 times
- Has Liked: 184 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Swear Chester parry is Chris Farnell in disguise and is just livid he didn’t get the club instead of Pace
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Obviously you have to bear in mind that this loan is due to their takeover. If Pace had paid himself a salary of £35m and used that to pay off a loan then people probably wouldn't be as forgiving.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:21 pmI take a far more simplistic view.
Despite multiple views to the contrary and people questioning whether Alan Pace or ‘the Yanks’ knew what they were doing, pretty much all of the available evidence to date suggests that they know exactly what they are doing.
They’ve rejuvenated the club seemingly on and off the field, whilst at the same time paying off a huge chunk of the MSD Loan everybody was so concerned about. We have a great manager who is a legend of the game, we are playing in front of sell out crowd and attracting positive attention from all around the world. We’ve gone from the so called ‘Brexit Burnley’ to a team that everyone now seems to appreciate and enjoy (our rivals aside).
On that basis, I’m happy to conclude that despite what some may have thought and may even still think, Alan Pace and his team know exactly what they are doing.
I think they are doing much better than virtually anyone expected (both on and off the pitch) but the leveraged buyout, opaque company structure, unexplained issues like late filing, etc are all still in the background.
-
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:16 pm
- Been Liked: 58 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Imo if someone offered me a house for 100k and I would only have to pay 25k of my own cash with no risk inflicted on me personally. I would buy that house.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
more so when you are only being asked to pay about 5% which is what ALK/VSL could end up doing - and it could possibly end up less - initial deal was 5.88% but more shares have been bought with the club's money and there is an option in place to buy more shares which if concluded would give them over 97% of the clubHistoricalClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:47 pmImo if someone offered me a house for 100k and I would only have to pay 25k of my own cash with no risk inflicted on me personally. I would buy that house.
-
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:16 pm
- Been Liked: 58 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Exactly as a fan I can get why people are concerned but I wont hate Pace for doing something that I know in the exact same position I would do. From his perspective its a bloody brilliant deal.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:54 pmmore so when you are only being asked to pay about 5% which is what ALK/VSL could end up doing - and it could possibly end up less - initial deal was 5.88% but more shares have been bought with the club's money and there is an option in place to buy more shares which if concluded would give them over 97% of the club
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
absolutelyHistoricalClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:59 pmExactly as a fan I can get why people are concerned but I wont hate Pace for doing something that I know in the exact same position I would do. From his perspective its a bloody brilliant deal.
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 337 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Indeedscouseclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:34 pmIndeed. The private equity industry is littered with extremely clever and highly qualified people taking enormous risks with other peoples' money, using ever more complicated financial engineering and multi-layered companies. Often they get it right, but more than occasionally it goes horribly wrong - for the banker as long as you get more of the former than the latter you can still have a successful career, but if you happen to be involved in one of the ones that go wrong it can be catastrophic. Personally, I think the LBO is wholly unsuitable for the vast majority of football clubs, but hopefully Mr Pace will prove me wrong.
Also, from what I've read, Pace's career was more centred around the sales/operations side than at the front end, no?
-
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 280 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
You seem to be very much dealing in extremes and exaggerations.HistoricalClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:17 pmMy criticism is more that none of the posters including myself have access to; those accounts, Alan Paces personal brain, the CURRENT list of ALK investors and financials or the General Motivations of ALK Capital as an entity and thus as a result everything you post in regards to those is speculation, informed speculation or otherwise so pardon me if I choose to trust an individual who thus far has been open and effective as the owner of our club, whose daughter got engaged at our ground because that's where she met her partner and whose entire life is very explicitly intertwined with our club and its fate. I was present at the graduation and having heard his speech began to see him more as person a human being rather than a mystical entity or the big bad that some on this board seem to see him as.
Most of the contributors to the financial threads on this board adopt a much more balanced view.
Rather than jump on a thread to tell people how little they know cos you have been impressed by a speech or his daughter getting engaged maybe try and appreciate that others still have concerns or questions and like to discuss them.
Does not mean people are not enjoying this season
-
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:16 pm
- Been Liked: 58 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Who said I was impressed I was just providing evidence to the affinity that he and his family very clearly have for the club and the town but hey ho keep twisting my wordsBig Vinny K wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:17 pmYou seem to be very much dealing in extremes and exaggerations.
Most of the contributors to the financial threads on this board adopt a much more balanced view.
Rather than jump on a thread to tell people how little they know cos you have been impressed by a speech or his daughter getting engaged maybe try and appreciate that others still have concerns or questions and like to discuss them.
Does not mean people are not enjoying this season
-
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 280 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So you weren’t impressed ?HistoricalClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:23 pmWho said I was impressed I was just providing evidence to the affinity that he and his family very clearly have for the club and the town but hey ho keep twisting my words
Ok.
Your contribution to this thread has been quality.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It's certainly a good deal. Just worth remembering that someone has to pay the other £75k.HistoricalClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:47 pmImo if someone offered me a house for 100k and I would only have to pay 25k of my own cash with no risk inflicted on me personally. I would buy that house.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Would there be any legal requirement to pay the other 75k back (in that example), or as DSR, I think, mentioned that they could just declare themselves bankrupt if they couldn't and we'd be up the creek without a paddle.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Technically the holding company (which is, we assume, owned by Pace, et al) owes the money to the football club.
The only likely scenario where they would be forced to pay that amount back would be if the club went into insolvency.
There could (although we don't know the details of guarantees) be a scenario where Burnley FC struggle and go into insolvency and then the company that holds that debt (Calder Vale Holdings) would likely choose to become bankrupt rather than repay the debt in full.
This user liked this post: Spijed
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I have been working on the assumption for some time that the money is not going to be paid back in a form that would see it increase it's cash holding - not that a repayment would actually be a full repayment given inflation and the fact that the club has serviced the MSD loan and almost certainly paid a penalty on the early capital repaymentaggi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:59 pmTechnically the holding company (which is, we assume, owned by Pace, et al) owes the money to the football club.
The only likely scenario where they would be forced to pay that amount back would be if the club went into insolvency.
There could (although we don't know the details of guarantees) be a scenario where Burnley FC struggle and go into insolvency and then the company that holds that debt (Calder Vale Holdings) would likely choose to become bankrupt rather than repay the debt in full.
We have to remember that for the most part the worst of the cash outflow to pay for shares is now in the past, going forward this will allow for more of the club's revenues to on itself - It should not be long before the club will be running to tightly managed budgets, with the same discipline we saw under Mike Garlick, just differently particularly with regards to player turnover. I fully expect the club to continue to be operationally profitable - certainly in the Premier League.
-
- Posts: 3891
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1282 times
- Has Liked: 682 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Mike Garlick and discipline ??Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:11 pmI have been working on the assumption for some time that the money is not going to be paid back in a form that would see it increase it's cash holding - not that a repayment would actually be a full repayment given inflation and the fact that the club has serviced the MSD loan and almost certainly paid a penalty on the early capital repayment
We have to remember that for the most part the worst of the cash outflow to pay for shares is now in the past, going forward this will allow for more of the club's revenues to on itself - It should not be long before the club will be running to tightly managed budgets, with the same discipline we saw under Mike Garlick, just differently particularly with regards to player turnover. I fully expect the club to continue to be operationally profitable - certainly in the Premier League.
Come back Bob Lord, all is forgiven.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
you cannot deny that the Garlick exercised fiscal discipline in budgetary terms during his tenure RoyRoyboyclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:25 pmMike Garlick and discipline ??
Come back Bob Lord, all is forgiven.
These 3 users liked this post: Royboyclaret KateR thomaspaine
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Come now, aggi. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of a mortgage. The buyer of the asset, in most of our cases a house, pays a certain amount and is able to borrow the rest of the funds required from someone else. When we are buying a house, we typically borrow most of the money from a bank or building society. When someone is buying a business, it's not unusual for the buyer to borrow some of the money required to complete the purchase for the seller and other willing lenders. Of course, the new owner of the business also has the opportunity to look at the cashflow needs and resources of the business and borrow from the asset they have acquired if there is "spare" capacity - according to their plans. Money borrowed from 3rd parties always has to be paid back, at risk of losing the asset if those borrowed moneys aren't repaid. Money withdrawn from the business acquired may not need to be paid back if the business is run successfully and is never in a situation where it will fail if the money is not paid back.
That's what has happened in the case of ALK's acquisition of BFC. More than half way through the season after relegation from the Premier League the club has rebuilt and refreshed the squad, BFC is well on the way back to the Premier League. Success on the field is critical to success as an investment for ALK. It's likely that BFC will require more resources than is available simply from Premier League tv money and commercial revenue. The money's borrowed by ALK from BFC will very possibly be repaid to BFC, possibly by ALK bringing in new investors, as the club's requirement for cash to spend grows in the Premier League. That's the call that I believe Alan Pace and ALK have made. They appear to be going about it the right way based on the success we are all enjoying on the field.
UTC
Exciting times.
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Global Head of ...Sales is pretty much the front end in investment banking. Yes, there are also traders and risk managers but traders and risk managers have very little to do if the sales teams aren't bringing in the business in the first place.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:34 pm
Also, from what I've read, Pace's career was more centred around the sales/operations side than at the front end, no?
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Not sure if anyone has answered your question, Sam.
Calder Vale Holdings holds the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited.
Kettering Capital holds the shares in Calder Vale.
On 19th Jan 2023 Companies House records:
STRIKING OFF ACTION HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED with respect to both Calder Vale and Kettering Capital.
"Cause has been shown why the above company should not be struck off the register and accordingly the Registrar is taking no further action under section 1000 of the Companies Act 2006 pursuant to the Notice dated 18/01/2023."
ALK Capital Ltd and Velocity Sports Partners Ltd aren't involved in the ownership of BFC. They are very likely dormant companies. If ALK/VSL have no further need for these companies it's quite possible that they will allow them to be struck off.
This user liked this post: SammyBoy
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hi CP, when you posted the images from Companies House on morning of 25th Jan did you look at the Filing History tab and the Document filed on 19th Jan - Compulsory strike-off action has been discontinued - plus attached pdf?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:59 amand because you can only have a max of 3 images per post
Calder Vale
CVHL.JPG
Kettering
KCL.JPG
I wonder if we will see some accounts from Calder Vale and Kettering Capital in the near future?
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I did - if you look at the post before that you will see I was posting the full house of accounts and confirmation statement overduePaul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:52 pmHi CP, when you posted the images from Companies House on morning of 25th Jan did you look at the Filing History tab and the Document filed on 19th Jan - Compulsory strike-off action has been discontinued - plus attached pdf?
I wonder if we will see some accounts from Calder Vale and Kettering Capital in the near future?
having previously had the full house of first set of accounts overdue leading to a first gazette notice
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, I saw both sets of images. But, I didn't see anywhere that mentioned that the striking off action had been discontinued for Calder Vale and Kettering.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:13 pmI did - if you look at the post before that you will see I was posting the full house of accounts and confirmation statement overdue
having previously had the full house of first set of accounts overdue leading to a first gazette notice
I've had another look on the images in your two posts - there are differences between the respective Company Status items: "Active - Active proposal to strike off" and "Active."
The latter "Active" with respect to Calder Vale and Kettering shows that something had changed - in this case that the strike-off action has been discontinued.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If you really want to go with that tortuous analogy then you're missing the part where you make the tenants loan you money to complete the purchase and then tell them they have to pay your mortgage.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:16 pmCome now, aggi. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of a mortgage. The buyer of the asset, in most of our cases a house, pays a certain amount and is able to borrow the rest of the funds required from someone else. When we are buying a house, we typically borrow most of the money from a bank or building society. When someone is buying a business, it's not unusual for the buyer to borrow some of the money required to complete the purchase for the seller and other willing lenders. Of course, the new owner of the business also has the opportunity to look at the cashflow needs and resources of the business and borrow from the asset they have acquired if there is "spare" capacity - according to their plans. Money borrowed from 3rd parties always has to be paid back, at risk of losing the asset if those borrowed moneys aren't repaid. Money withdrawn from the business acquired may not need to be paid back if the business is run successfully and is never in a situation where it will fail if the money is not paid back.
That's what has happened in the case of ALK's acquisition of BFC. More than half way through the season after relegation from the Premier League the club has rebuilt and refreshed the squad, BFC is well on the way back to the Premier League. Success on the field is critical to success as an investment for ALK. It's likely that BFC will require more resources than is available simply from Premier League tv money and commercial revenue. The money's borrowed by ALK from BFC will very possibly be repaid to BFC, possibly by ALK bringing in new investors, as the club's requirement for cash to spend grows in the Premier League. That's the call that I believe Alan Pace and ALK have made. They appear to be going about it the right way based on the success we are all enjoying on the field.
UTC
Exciting times.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
it was just the first day we had the the matching red of Accounts and Confirmation Statement being late - I and/or aggi had previously mentioned everything elsePaul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:37 pmYes, I saw both sets of images. But, I didn't see anywhere that mentioned that the striking off action had been discontinued for Calder Vale and Kettering.
I've had another look on the images in your two posts - there are differences between the respective Company Status items: "Active - Active proposal to strike off" and "Active."
The latter "Active" with respect to Calder Vale and Kettering shows that something had changed - in this case that the strike-off action has been discontinued.
just being flippant about that full house nothing more
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
That's what I always expected. I was just expecting it to be paid off as part of the deal when ALK sell the club.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:11 pmI have been working on the assumption for some time that the money is not going to be paid back in a form that would see it increase it's cash holding - not that a repayment would actually be a full repayment given inflation and the fact that the club has serviced the MSD loan and almost certainly paid a penalty on the early capital repayment
We have to remember that for the most part the worst of the cash outflow to pay for shares is now in the past, going forward this will allow for more of the club's revenues to on itself - It should not be long before the club will be running to tightly managed budgets, with the same discipline we saw under Mike Garlick, just differently particularly with regards to player turnover. I fully expect the club to continue to be operationally profitable - certainly in the Premier League.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
OK, I've now gone back to 19th Jan and see that both aggi and you commented on the strike-off actions being discontinued.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:46 pmit was just the first day we had the the matching red of Accounts and Confirmation Statement being late - I and/or aggi had previously mentioned everything else
just being flippant about that full house nothing more
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:46 amI cannot think of any other reason - though I still really don't see why they should file them so late, it is over 6 months since they were originally due and over 3 months late on the extension date they got last summer - Confirmation statements are due tomorrow at Calder Vale Holdings and Kettering Capital Limited, so we may still see this saga extended for a third chapter - there is no reason why given how simple those statements should be.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
My original expectation (based on nothing other than gut feeling) was 5-7 years.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:52 pmAnd the timeline on that will be an interesting one - particularly given how prices for some clubs have gone to another completely unexpected level
However, it does appear that there may be less external funding than originally suspected which may give scope for a less pressured timeline. It could also be that relegation set the plans back a little (although probably less than expected given how successful this season has been).
I commented before on the mismatch in values between US sports teams and Premier League ones and it looks like that may be evening out which, I suspect, was probably part of the reason that they thought Burnley could give a good return.
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 337 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hmmm how many investors will want to pay a £100 million plus for a gamble on PL broadcasting revenue.aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:26 amMy original expectation (based on nothing other than gut feeling) was 5-7 years.
However, it does appear that there may be less external funding than originally suspected which may give scope for a less pressured timeline. It could also be that relegation set the plans back a little (although probably less than expected given how successful this season has been).
I commented before on the mismatch in values between US sports teams and Premier League ones and it looks like that may be evening out which, I suspect, was probably part of the reason that they thought Burnley could give a good return.
There is no business model in place that's why ALK had to do an LBO based on the clubs cash in the first place. No one could pay £200 million plus and then invest in the team enough to make the business model work.
To me, that's where this conversation seems to go adrift. It's not about finance, investment or Sports clubs - it's about a business in a market place that shares similarities with others but is relatively unique.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:55 pmHmmm how many investors will want to pay a £100 million plus for a gamble on PL broadcasting revenue.
There is no business model in place that's why ALK had to do an LBO based on the clubs cash in the first place. No one could pay £200 million plus and then invest in the team enough to make the business model work.
To me, that's where this conversation seems to go adrift. It's not about finance, investment or Sports clubs - it's about a business in a market place that shares similarities with others but is relatively unique.
Well if we look at Bournemouth and Southampton last year then we have two groups, Newcastle just before that, and Crystal Palace have had over £100m in funding for new shares by a new shareholder who arrived in the last 18 months. Then we consider that Sheffield United are in the process of being sold for in excess of £100m.
West Ham United have a deal in place that values them in excess of £600m and could conclude in less than 3 months.
Leeds United have a deal in place that values them well over £400m that is due to conclude next January but may well end up doing so before the season ends.
That is possibly 25% or more of next years Premier League clubs
Somewhat surprisingly there are Americans looking really closely at Everton - not just the one that was in talks over the summer but another group involving a major shareholder in the Phoenix suns
Wolves are talking to potential minor investors
I imagine Brighton and Brentford have both been approached a number of times by people wanting a share in what they are doing
I am deliberately ignoring Manchester United and Liverpool here. Chelsea as we know changed hands and have rewritten the expectations of what is achievable - Spurs are now reportedly wanting £1bn for a minor stake.
my previous post was actually wondering if the flip from Pace and co (at a profit they would be happy with, could actually be in a shorter timeframe than any of us expected - even with all the related company loans
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:55 pmHmmm how many investors will want to pay a £100 million plus for a gamble on PL broadcasting revenue.
There is no business model in place that's why ALK had to do an LBO based on the clubs cash in the first place. No one could pay £200 million plus and then invest in the team enough to make the business model work.
To me, that's where this conversation seems to go adrift. It's not about finance, investment or Sports clubs - it's about a business in a market place that shares similarities with others but is relatively unique.
I put this on the MMT thread but it works equally well here - particularly in the context of the above postsChester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:16 pm.
Well if we look at Bournemouth and Southampton last year then we have two groups, Newcastle just before that, and Crystal Palace have had over £100m in funding for new shares by a new shareholder who arrived in the last 18 months. Then we consider that Sheffield United are in the process of being sold for in excess of £100m.
West Ham United have a deal in place that values them in excess of £600m and could conclude in less than 3 months.
Leeds United have a deal in place that values them well over £400m that is due to conclude next January but may well end up doing so before the season ends.
That is possibly 25% or more of next years Premier League clubs
Somewhat surprisingly there are Americans looking really closely at Everton - not just the one that was in talks over the summer but another group involving a major shareholder in the Phoenix suns
Wolves are talking to potential minor investors
I imagine Brighton and Brentford have both been approached a number of times by people wanting a share in what they are doing
I am deliberately ignoring Manchester United and Liverpool here. Chelsea as we know changed hands and have rewritten the expectations of what is achievable - Spurs are now reportedly wanting £1bn for a minor stake.
my previous post was actually wondering if the flip from Pace and co (at a profit they would be happy with, could actually be in a shorter timeframe than any of us expected - even with all the related company loans
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:57 pmMeanwhile for those who think the pricing of football clubs has gone mad, particular as it all seems to be based on future media revenues, how about this which features the perspective of one of the new Chelsea owning consortium
TV boom tempting Americans to pay top dollar for Premier League clubs
https://archive.is/jw9LR
This user liked this post: RVclaret
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
there is an interesting passage in a report in today's Times that will have a few wondering about how it relates to ny current estimate of £141.7m m being borrowed from the club by it's owners
"The Commons also heard from the Conservative MP for West Bromwich East, Nicola Richards, who raised West Bromwich Albion fans’ concerns about “the club’s ownership”, and asked if the regulator would have the power to “stop owners abusing the club’s assets in this way and to penalise owners whose business decisions are not in the best interest of the football club?”
Richards said: “The owner took a £5 million loan from the club to fund his other business — money that is still yet to be repaid.
“The club has now taken a high-interest loan of £20 million to fund day-to-day business secured against the club’s name and stadium.”
The sports minister, Stuart Andrew, replied: “The white paper will include strong action on owners and directors to ensure they are suitable custodians for clubs and to avoid harm to fans and local communities like she has described.”
it comes from this which tells us that we are 2 weeks away from the white paper in regards to an Independent Regulator for Football
Football warned to ‘act now’ before regulator leads to ‘huge shake-up’
Government says plans for the independent regulator, likely to be up and running by 2025, will be published in two weeks’ time
https://archive.is/HpYV2#selection-935.0-961.234
"The Commons also heard from the Conservative MP for West Bromwich East, Nicola Richards, who raised West Bromwich Albion fans’ concerns about “the club’s ownership”, and asked if the regulator would have the power to “stop owners abusing the club’s assets in this way and to penalise owners whose business decisions are not in the best interest of the football club?”
Richards said: “The owner took a £5 million loan from the club to fund his other business — money that is still yet to be repaid.
“The club has now taken a high-interest loan of £20 million to fund day-to-day business secured against the club’s name and stadium.”
The sports minister, Stuart Andrew, replied: “The white paper will include strong action on owners and directors to ensure they are suitable custodians for clubs and to avoid harm to fans and local communities like she has described.”
it comes from this which tells us that we are 2 weeks away from the white paper in regards to an Independent Regulator for Football
Football warned to ‘act now’ before regulator leads to ‘huge shake-up’
Government says plans for the independent regulator, likely to be up and running by 2025, will be published in two weeks’ time
https://archive.is/HpYV2#selection-935.0-961.234
-
- Posts: 8145
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3083 times
- Has Liked: 5064 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I'd just like to say thanks to the contributors.
Far too complicated for myself to work out, so I enjoy all the hard work put in to clarify it for the average Joe.
I would add 2 things, as an interested party.
I had faith from Day 1, that Alan Pace was a genuine guy, and had the best interest of Burnley FC, as well as his Business interest, at heart.
Secondly, despite peoples misgivings, where would we be if they hadn't used a leveraged buy out. The positives we have, are far outweighed by the possible negatives.
Far too complicated for myself to work out, so I enjoy all the hard work put in to clarify it for the average Joe.
I would add 2 things, as an interested party.
I had faith from Day 1, that Alan Pace was a genuine guy, and had the best interest of Burnley FC, as well as his Business interest, at heart.
Secondly, despite peoples misgivings, where would we be if they hadn't used a leveraged buy out. The positives we have, are far outweighed by the possible negatives.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 9907
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3182 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
It will be a sad day for football clubs and their fans when the government is regulating them. Although it might have been great for Accrington Stanley at one end of the pyramid and Burnley and a few other clubs at the other end of the pyramid, just think where football would be if the government had appointed a regulator in 1960 - just to pick one date. The old Accrington Stanley would still be struggling on and still playing at Peel Park. The maximum wage would still be in force for footballers. They'd still be travelling to the game on buses along with the fans. Very few if any games would be on tv. OK, a great nostalgia fest but state regulators never improve anything. All the world class footballers would be playing abroad. If we were extremely lucky, we'd be able to watch some top class European games on one of the 2 BBC or on Granada (or Thames, in my case). If the regulator followed the precedent set by Ofgem every year all fans of every club would pay into a pool to cover the losses of the clubs that had gambled on promotion and not made it.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:20 pmthere is an interesting passage in a report in today's Times that will have a few wondering about how it relates to ny current estimate of £141.7m m being borrowed from the club by it's owners
"The Commons also heard from the Conservative MP for West Bromwich East, Nicola Richards, who raised West Bromwich Albion fans’ concerns about “the club’s ownership”, and asked if the regulator would have the power to “stop owners abusing the club’s assets in this way and to penalise owners whose business decisions are not in the best interest of the football club?”
Richards said: “The owner took a £5 million loan from the club to fund his other business — money that is still yet to be repaid.
“The club has now taken a high-interest loan of £20 million to fund day-to-day business secured against the club’s name and stadium.”
The sports minister, Stuart Andrew, replied: “The white paper will include strong action on owners and directors to ensure they are suitable custodians for clubs and to avoid harm to fans and local communities like she has described.”
it comes from this which tells us that we are 2 weeks away from the white paper in regards to an Independent Regulator for Football
Football warned to ‘act now’ before regulator leads to ‘huge shake-up’
Government says plans for the independent regulator, likely to be up and running by 2025, will be published in two weeks’ time
https://archive.is/HpYV2#selection-935.0-961.234
OK, pick another date to introduce a regulator, 1970, 1980, 1990, whenever a regulator is introduced would be when the status quo is set in aspic and the decline begins.
UTC
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
it is well documented that I have significant reservations about the imposition of a regulator - but it is impossible to deny that the FA were negligent in not even responding to Irving Scholar's request to launch Tottenham on the Stock Market - via a holding company in 1983 or complicit in the formation of the Premier League both of which contravened the spirit and effort of what the created in Rule 34.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:47 pmIt will be a sad day for football clubs and their fans when the government is regulating them. Although it might have been great for Accrington Stanley at one end of the pyramid and Burnley and a few other clubs at the other end of the pyramid, just think where football would be if the government had appointed a regulator in 1960 - just to pick one date. The old Accrington Stanley would still be struggling on and still playing at Peel Park. The maximum wage would still be in force for footballers. They'd still be travelling to the game on buses along with the fans. Very few if any games would be on tv. OK, a great nostalgia fest but state regulators never improve anything. All the world class footballers would be playing abroad. If we were extremely lucky, we'd be able to watch some top class European games on one of the 2 BBC or on Granada (or Thames, in my case). If the regulator followed the precedent set by Ofgem every year all fans of every club would pay into a pool to cover the losses of the clubs that had gambled on promotion and not made it.
OK, pick another date to introduce a regulator, 1970, 1980, 1990, whenever a regulator is introduced would be when the status quo is set in aspic and the decline begins.
UTC
Times are different but how the games authorities responded to Footballs second commercial revolution (broadcast media) is markedly contrasted to how it did the first (professionalisation and football club companies.
yes certain situations have improved markedly - stadia, pitches and maybe the match going experience but actual competition and the development of the game for the game itself has increasingly disappeared from the picture
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 337 times
- Has Liked: 163 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I agree it makes sense for them to flip early because the business model cannot sustain PL football as a business norm.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:16 pm.
Well if we look at Bournemouth and Southampton last year then we have two groups, Newcastle just before that, and Crystal Palace have had over £100m in funding for new shares by a new shareholder who arrived in the last 18 months. Then we consider that Sheffield United are in the process of being sold for in excess of £100m.
West Ham United have a deal in place that values them in excess of £600m and could conclude in less than 3 months.
Leeds United have a deal in place that values them well over £400m that is due to conclude next January but may well end up doing so before the season ends.
That is possibly 25% or more of next years Premier League clubs
Somewhat surprisingly there are Americans looking really closely at Everton - not just the one that was in talks over the summer but another group involving a major shareholder in the Phoenix suns
Wolves are talking to potential minor investors
I imagine Brighton and Brentford have both been approached a number of times by people wanting a share in what they are doing
I am deliberately ignoring Manchester United and Liverpool here. Chelsea as we know changed hands and have rewritten the expectations of what is achievable - Spurs are now reportedly wanting £1bn for a minor stake.
my previous post was actually wondering if the flip from Pace and co (at a profit they would be happy with, could actually be in a shorter timeframe than any of us expected - even with all the related company loans
Are those clubs the same as Burnley? Southampton has a Metro conurbation of 1.5 million, which it shares with Portsmouth.
Wolverhampton is a City of over 300,000 in the 2.5 million West Midlands urban conurbation and has gates of 30,000 plus easily big enough to be in the top 3 championship teams should they suffer relegation.
Leeds is a city of 700,000 - West ham has gates of over 60,000 and and an East London post code.
Brentford is small but is a West London club with all the benefits of a London post code.
It's not the least bit surprising Americans are looking at Everton because from a business perspective there is an urban population of nigh on a million and an agreed new ground sited in a prime location.
I don't get why anyone would spend a over a 100 million to get a highly risky chunk of PL broadcast revenue from a business perspective unless the underlying business proposition means that relegation has a relatively low risk...!
Burnley are high risk in my view because it has a low capacity for organic growth and huge local competition for customers.
I feel sh*t dissing our club like this but there is an underlying reality to this - if the conversation is to be had....!
I go back to the same point, the previous owners couldn't sell the club other than as an investment through an LBO.
-
- Posts: 3322
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
A Pace may well be a genuine guy, but his interests are solely business.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:24 pmI'd just like to say thanks to the contributors.
Far too complicated for myself to work out, so I enjoy all the hard work put in to clarify it for the average Joe.
I would add 2 things, as an interested party.
I had faith from Day 1, that Alan Pace was a genuine guy, and had the best interest of Burnley FC, as well as his Business interest, at heart.
Secondly, despite peoples misgivings, where would we be if they hadn't used a leveraged buy out. The positives we have, are far outweighed by the possible negatives.
He performed a minor miracle buying the club in the manor that he did, he is now performing extremely well on the "front" end of the business, namely the team, but his biggest tasks lay ahead of him.
He has to find seed funding ( small investors) to continue the progress leading up to the coup de grace of selling the club to an unsuspecting billionaire.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
so we are now 12 days on from cause being shown to not continue the strike off action at Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital LimitedPaul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:42 pmNot sure if anyone has answered your question, Sam.
Calder Vale Holdings holds the shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited.
Kettering Capital holds the shares in Calder Vale.
On 19th Jan 2023 Companies House records:
STRIKING OFF ACTION HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED with respect to both Calder Vale and Kettering Capital.
"Cause has been shown why the above company should not be struck off the register and accordingly the Registrar is taking no further action under section 1000 of the Companies Act 2006 pursuant to the Notice dated 18/01/2023."
ALK Capital Ltd and Velocity Sports Partners Ltd aren't involved in the ownership of BFC. They are very likely dormant companies. If ALK/VSL have no further need for these companies it's quite possible that they will allow them to be struck off.
I would be grateful if someone could explain if the above reasoning could mean something other than the Accounts have actually been received and are being processed in readiness for posting on the Companies House webpages.
secondly what is the accepted maximum time delay for such posting - it seems to be am inordinately long period to now if documents were received on the 18th (the date of the pdf note of the strike-off action being discontinued).
Tomorrow represents 7 months from the initial deadline for the filing of the 1st set of accounts of Calder Vale Holdings Limited - this was extended by 3 months following a request to make use of the provisions introduced as a result of Covid, so officially the accounts will be 4 months late. These accounts will have an end date of October 31 2021. The key for much information, actually contained within or by inference will be determined by the sign off date, as this provides the scope of post period activities reported on.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They might have rung Companies House and explained the delay, and confirmed the company is still in being, and set out the timetable for filing the accounts. Though I have no idea why they would need to or how long the striking off could be delayed for by this method.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:41 pmso we are now 12 days on from cause being shown to not continue the strike off action at Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital Limited
I would be grateful if someone could explain if the above reasoning could mean something other than the Accounts have actually been received and are being processed in readiness for posting on the Companies House webpages.
secondly what is the accepted maximum time delay for such posting - it seems to be am inordinately long period to now if documents were received on the 18th (the date of the pdf note of the strike-off action being discontinued).
Tomorrow represents 7 months from the initial deadline for the filing of the 1st set of accounts of Calder Vale Holdings Limited - this was extended by 3 months following a request to make use of the provisions introduced as a result of Covid, so officially the accounts will be 4 months late. These accounts will have an end date of October 31 2021. The key for much information, actually contained within or by inference will be determined by the sign off date, as this provides the scope of post period activities reported on.
The time from documents being received (assuming they file online, which virtually everyone does now) is minimal. Same day; probably an hour or two., It's automatic.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
As DSR says, strike off action may be discontinued if an explanation is provided and a timetable agreed, not just on provision of missing documents.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:41 pmso we are now 12 days on from cause being shown to not continue the strike off action at Calder Vale Holdings Limited and Kettering Capital Limited
I would be grateful if someone could explain if the above reasoning could mean something other than the Accounts have actually been received and are being processed in readiness for posting on the Companies House webpages.
secondly what is the accepted maximum time delay for such posting - it seems to be am inordinately long period to now if documents were received on the 18th (the date of the pdf note of the strike-off action being discontinued).
Tomorrow represents 7 months from the initial deadline for the filing of the 1st set of accounts of Calder Vale Holdings Limited - this was extended by 3 months following a request to make use of the provisions introduced as a result of Covid, so officially the accounts will be 4 months late. These accounts will have an end date of October 31 2021. The key for much information, actually contained within or by inference will be determined by the sign off date, as this provides the scope of post period activities reported on.
There is also a bit of a slow turnaround on paper filing. Don't know how long it is at the moment but a week isn't unusual. (I've no idea how they will file but the other group companies did paper filing.)
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
strange change given no filings of the confirmation statements are showing at Companies House - for clarity this is a pointing out Companies House strangeness not ALK/VSLChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:59 amand because you can only have a max of 3 images per post
Calder Vale
CVHL.JPG
Kettering
KCL.JPG
-
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:13 am
- Been Liked: 164 times
- Has Liked: 33 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
What if the holding company moved its registration to a Channel Island? Would that stop HMRC pursuing the strike off action & also negate the need for the publishing of the accounts?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
You can't just move registration. You'd have to set up a new company in the Channel Isles and buy the assets from the old company. Technically you'd still need to produce accounts for the old company but I guess they could just ignore that requirement and let it be dealt with as part of the compulsory strike off. There would be a risk of being suspended from being a director though which wouldn't be good for them.Sleeping Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:02 pmWhat if the holding company moved its registration to a Channel Island? Would that stop HMRC pursuing the strike off action & also negate the need for the publishing of the accounts?
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I wish Companies House could make its mind upChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:41 pmstrange change given no filings of the confirmation statements are showing at Companies House - for clarity this is a pointing out Companies House strangeness not ALK/VSL
CVHL 1.JPG
KCL 1.JPG
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12975630
no change back at Calder Vale Holdings as of yet
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I should have added that there is still no sign of the first accounts at any of:
- Calder Vale Holdings Limited
- Kettering Capital Limited
- ALK Capital Limited
- Velocity Sports Partners Limited
- Calder Vale Holdings Limited
- Kettering Capital Limited
- ALK Capital Limited
- Velocity Sports Partners Limited
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
and now Companies house change their mind about Calder Vale Holdings too, going back to what it should not have been changed fromChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:41 pmstrange change given no filings of the confirmation statements are showing at Companies House - for clarity this is a pointing out Companies House strangeness not ALK/VSL
CVHL 1.JPG
KCL 1.JPG
-
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 771 times
- Has Liked: 10079 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Strange goings on here, methinks.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
only with Companies House in this instance
-
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 771 times
- Has Liked: 10079 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Sorry, yes that's what I meant.
They're changing their stance more times than my missus.
They're changing their stance more times than my missus.
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
So given this 1st gazette notice for ALK Capital Limited
and the fact there has been no submissions of appropriate documents as yet recorded at Companies House
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
how long do we wait for Companies House to confirm this company has been struck off?
and the fact there has been no submissions of appropriate documents as yet recorded at Companies House
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
how long do we wait for Companies House to confirm this company has been struck off?