ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Robbie_painter]

I guess I was being a bit facetious about the ownership structure. However I will admit that this is above my head. CP’s explanation is clear and helpful, but I can’t pretend I’m interested enough in the intricacies to have a full understanding, so I shouldn’t have commented.

Basically then you just chat **** all the time.

[Rileybobs]

Basically then you just chat **** all the time.

Why have you asterisked the word ‘class’?

[Chester Perry]

I’m interested in the calculation for 13m. Is that a portion of the interest due, if so what percentage?

I explain how I got to it in my last London clarets article, which I have referred to a few times

you can find it here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets/statu ... 0268922886

[OffTheBar]

I explain how I got to it in my last London clarets article, which I have referred to a few times

you can find it here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets/statu ... 0268922886

Right, so you’re assuming full payment of the assumed future interest? Can’t see how that could be right - why pay it back if you’re paying all the interest anyway; if you need to refinance again, you’re doubling the financing cost?

[Chester Perry]

Right, so you’re assuming full payment of the assumed future interest? Can’t see how that could be right - why pay it back if you’re paying all the interest anyway; if you need to refinance again, you’re doubling the financing cost?

No, I am assuming a present value calculation based on the fixed element of the interest outstanding (the Libor element of interest has been discounted from my estimate) - and then rounded down all based on how MSD themselves say they would apply penalties - I have been very generous to ALK in it being so low

we have had it essentially confirmed that the early repayment penalties are sizeable because Southampton's new owners have baulked at paying them even though that was a stated aim when they took over -the new owner is a billionaire.

[OffTheBar]

No, I am assuming a present value calculation based on the fixed element of the interest outstanding (the Libor element of interest has been discounted from my estimate) - and then rounded down all based on how MSD themselves say they would apply penalties - I have been very generous to ALK in it being so low

we have had it essentially confirmed that the early repayment penalties are sizeable because Southampton's new owners have baulked at paying them even though that was a stated aim when they took over -the new owner is a billionaire.

PVing the flow is just the same as it occurring in the future; there is no benefit there.

[Chester Perry]

PVing the flow is just the same as it occurring in the future; there is no benefit there.

That is exactly the point of what I was saying - MSD held the all the cards so why was the debt cleared then in that way.

MSD had zero interest in the repayment and debt clearance unless it materially gave them what the loan agreement provided over the full period

[OffTheBar]

Yes it makes no sense for us to pay under that penalty. So either we’ve done something seemingly nonsensical or they’ve negotiated something far lower. That’s what I was saying.

[Chester Perry]

Yes it makes no sense for us to pay under that penalty. So either we’ve done something seemingly nonsensical or they’ve negotiated something far lower. That’s what I was saying.

I suspect there are other reasons - the one thing we have seemingly learned from MSD UK Holdings Limited activities with Southampton, Derby, West Ham, ourselves and now West Brom is that they manage their own interests very well and do not give up on the earnings specified in their loan agreements.

[Ightenhill_Claret]

Only in the last week, unfortunately I cannot say too much. As for the outstanding 'charges' I have neither seen or heard of an explanation from the club. The faith I had in the certainty of MSD's actions on TISE appears to have been well founded though.

The thing I am really looking out for on the issue now is a statement about early repayment penalties that I believe had been applied. I have them totalling £13m+ anything at that number or below would mean that ALK/VSL have got away with it rather lightly.

There is also the far from insignificant issue as to where the funds for the November repayment came from - that will certainly be an interesting revelation if made.

One thing for sure is that the statement on post period events is going to be the focus of a lot of attention on here and in the media

Hi CP, thanks as ever for your contributions on this subject - it’s a massive help.

Just wondered if you knew the details of where the funds for the November repayment came from and the details of the post period events?

Obviously not expecting you to reveal what either of those are but just wondering if you had knowledge of them?

[NewClaret]

I suspect there are other reasons - the one thing we have seemingly learned from MSD UK Holdings Limited activities with Southampton, Derby, West Ham, ourselves and now West Brom is that they manage their own interests very well and do not give up on the earnings specified in their loan agreements.

CP,

I may be wrong on this but when we originally took the loan, I recall looking up MSD Capital and thought their CEO was from SLC/Utah and possibly Mormon. It made me think that might’ve been a link to Alan, although I can no longer find who that was so I may be incorrect. Also I recall very clearly Alan saying that getting a mortgage in itself wasn’t bad, if you have a good lender offering good terms (presumably flexibility, etc).

Who knows, maybe we got some mates rates? Or mates terms? Particularly if the consortium backing ALK are well connected.

Or maybe MSD were prepared to negotiate early repayment on favourable terms in November (baring in mind negotiations would’ve started much earlier, when our form was decidedly dodgier) - perhaps they were eager to get their stake back and move on.

There’s another explanation possible, where MSD converted debt for equity. When you look at who they own, or have stakes in, some massive organisations, it’s not unfathomable that they may want a sport investment. Do they lend to anyone else anymore?

A final hairbrained theory could be that we have cleared the debt in technical terms but are covering early repayment payments over the term? Meaning MSD were happy to clear the charges on the main entities but retain them on the others until these are covered?

Either way, I’ll be very shocked if we paid such high fees all in one go as part of repayment.

[Chester Perry]

Hi CP, thanks as ever for your contributions on this subject - it’s a massive help.

Just wondered if you knew the details of where the funds for the November repayment came from and the details of the post period events?

Obviously not expecting you to reveal what either of those are but just wondering if you had knowledge of them?

That would be a no on both accounts - I covered what I thought were the most logical (not factual I must stress) possibilities in that last London Clarets article - and again I stress they are in reality just a series of speculations and there are plenty of other possibilities including combinations of those I put forward

[Paul Waine]

CP,

I may be wrong on this but when we originally took the loan, I recall looking up MSD Capital and thought their CEO was from SLC/Utah and possibly Mormon. It made me think that might’ve been a link to Alan, although I can no longer find who that was so I may be incorrect. Also I recall very clearly Alan saying that getting a mortgage in itself wasn’t bad, if you have a good lender offering good terms (presumably flexibility, etc).

Who knows, maybe we got some mates rates? Or mates terms? Particularly if the consortium backing ALK are well connected.

Or maybe MSD were prepared to negotiate early repayment on favourable terms in November (baring in mind negotiations would’ve started much earlier, when our form was decidedly dodgier) - perhaps they were eager to get their stake back and move on.

There’s another explanation possible, where MSD converted debt for equity. When you look at who they own, or have stakes in, some massive organisations, it’s not unfathomable that they may want a sport investment. Do they lend to anyone else anymore?

A final hairbrained theory could be that we have cleared the debt in technical terms but are covering early repayment payments over the term? Meaning MSD were happy to clear the charges on the main entities but retain them on the others until these are covered?

Either way, I’ll be very shocked if we paid such high fees all in one go as part of repayment.

Hi New, I feel CP has got it wrong with the early repayment penalties. These things exist with mortgages and such like because the bank lending the money has hedged the fixed rate that they have provided for the mortgage. In effect early repayment of a mortgage results in the bank having a cost that the mortgagee making early repayment compensates that bank for. In the case of ALK/BFC the interest rate wasn't fixed, rather it was set at a fixed margin over the floating Libor reference rate. The margin +8% was fixed to reflect the credit risk of lending money to a football club playing in the Premier League. That's a fair rate to reflect the credit risk of a 5 year loan. (If the loan period was shorter the rate would more likely lower). As we know, MSD protected this credit risk with the right to call for significant repayment in the event of relegation. We also understand (based on TISE disclosures) that these repayments were made. I don't see there's any logic in saying £X amount of loan must be repaid and also saying you must pay penalty in addition to the repayment that yields the return MSD would have received in the event there was no repayment. Immediately the repayment is received MSD no longer has exposure to the credit risk of ALK/BFC default. There's no logic that fits the idea that MSD would be entitled to receive payment for a risk that they no longer have. This is different to the situation MSD experienced with Derby County. Derby went into administration exposing MSD to significantly more risk. This is the basis of their penalty clauses and the reason Derby had to pay penalties.

No such thing as "mates rates" in multi-million dollar/pounds finance. The best we can expect is that the two parties respected each other and arrived at a loan agreement that respected each parties position in the different scenarios that may arise in the period of the loan.

All this, of course, is my speculation. We will learn what we are able to learn when BFCHL accounts for the period to 31st July 2022, including the accompanying notes on "events after the balance sheet date" are published in a few weeks time.

UTC

[Chester Perry]

CP,

I may be wrong on this but when we originally took the loan, I recall looking up MSD Capital and thought their CEO was from SLC/Utah and possibly Mormon. It made me think that might’ve been a link to Alan, although I can no longer find who that was so I may be incorrect. Also I recall very clearly Alan saying that getting a mortgage in itself wasn’t bad, if you have a good lender offering good terms (presumably flexibility, etc).

Who knows, maybe we got some mates rates? Or mates terms? Particularly if the consortium backing ALK are well connected.

Or maybe MSD were prepared to negotiate early repayment on favourable terms in November (baring in mind negotiations would’ve started much earlier, when our form was decidedly dodgier) - perhaps they were eager to get their stake back and move on.

There’s another explanation possible, where MSD converted debt for equity. When you look at who they own, or have stakes in, some massive organisations, it’s not unfathomable that they may want a sport investment. Do they lend to anyone else anymore?

A final hairbrained theory could be that we have cleared the debt in technical terms but are covering early repayment payments over the term? Meaning MSD were happy to clear the charges on the main entities but retain them on the others until these are covered?

Either way, I’ll be very shocked if we paid such high fees all in one go as part of repayment.

I wrote an extensive piece about MSD, Football and Burnley last autumn for the London Clarets

Michael Saul Dell is indeed a Mormon - the activities of MSD Capital and MSD Partners fall under the watchful eye of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, 'mates rates' are not a thing for them.

If MSD were keen to close the book on the loan to Burnley FC then yes it is possible that they may have made the terms of repayment/clearance less onerous - Thing is MSD are presiding over $billions and generating $millions if not $billioins each year, there has been no evidence I have seen that they needed/wanted to close the book with BFC. In fact the most logical commercial deal for BFC was to renegotiate the rate and extend the deal - but that would require MSD to lower the rates. We now know that the outcome was a debt clearance so obviously that has not happened.

In 2021 a number of clubs expressed concern that MSD held effective control over clubs because of the loans they had engaged in - the argument being that this breached FA, PL and EFL rules on ownership. It was a nonsense theory because there had never bee such complaints about Barclays. Metro bank, Rights and Media Funding etc. none of these lenders had equity in the clubs they lent to. If MSD exchanged the debt for equity it would create difficulties in this area as loan deals were still existent with Southampton and West Ham, also since November MSD have entered an agreement with West Ham. While not impossible a debt to equity conversion at BFC is extremely unlikely, it makes no sense to MSD. That would not prevent say Robert Piatek from having paid off the debt and become a partner in Velocity Sports Partners LLC - he bought control of Danish club Sønderjyske Fodbold in 2020, Italian side Spezia in February 2021 and also holds a stake in Portuguese side Casa Pia. While possible I think Piatek has not got involved in English football for the reasons mentioned above. When you look at the cash sums involved it would demand a 15% - 20% stake and that would draw the interest of the FA, PL and EFL under current rules - as would anything of 10% and greater.

Your last idea about the remaining charges is one I have looked at - at the end of the day it makes no commercial sense for MSD to give up access to the liquid assets at the club if the loan was still live.

It is good to think of possible reasons - and nice to know I am not the only one who has been doing so, but as I say there are a lot of sound reasons to write most ideas off

[Chester Perry]

Given all the updates we are awaiting from Companies House receiving one that says Alan Pace has replaced Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) as the person with 'Significant Control' at Kettering Capital Limited might not appear at the top of our list. That said, this is an interesting development of transparency (even though it has been made clear on the Club's Company Details page) - is this to please the EFL, an auditor or for some other reason?

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

[Chester Perry]

Given all the updates we are awaiting from Companies House receiving one that says Alan Pace has replaced Velocity Sports Limited (Jersey) as the person with 'Significant Control' at Kettering Capital Limited might not appear at the top of our list. That said, this is an interesting development of transparency (even though it has been made clear on the Club's Company Details page) - is this to please the EFL, an auditor or for some other reason?

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Of particular interest is that this notification highlights that Alan Pace has held such control since the moment that Kettering Capital Limited was founded on October 26 2020 by way of backdating the notice

KCL AP sigcon note.JPG (81.57 KiB) Viewed 3234 times

[Chester Perry]

Hi New, I feel CP has got it wrong with the early repayment penalties. These things exist with mortgages and such like because the bank lending the money has hedged the fixed rate that they have provided for the mortgage. In effect early repayment of a mortgage results in the bank having a cost that the mortgagee making early repayment compensates that bank for. In the case of ALK/BFC the interest rate wasn't fixed, rather it was set at a fixed margin over the floating Libor reference rate. The margin +8% was fixed to reflect the credit risk of lending money to a football club playing in the Premier League. That's a fair rate to reflect the credit risk of a 5 year loan. (If the loan period was shorter the rate would more likely lower). As we know, MSD protected this credit risk with the right to call for significant repayment in the event of relegation. We also understand (based on TISE disclosures) that these repayments were made. I don't see there's any logic in saying £X amount of loan must be repaid and also saying you must pay penalty in addition to the repayment that yields the return MSD would have received in the event there was no repayment. Immediately the repayment is received MSD no longer has exposure to the credit risk of ALK/BFC default. There's no logic that fits the idea that MSD would be entitled to receive payment for a risk that they no longer have. This is different to the situation MSD experienced with Derby County. Derby went into administration exposing MSD to significantly more risk. This is the basis of their penalty clauses and the reason Derby had to pay penalties.

No such thing as "mates rates" in multi-million dollar/pounds finance. The best we can expect is that the two parties respected each other and arrived at a loan agreement that respected each parties position in the different scenarios that may arise in the period of the loan.

All this, of course, is my speculation. We will learn what we are able to learn when BFCHL accounts for the period to 31st July 2022, including the accompanying notes on "events after the balance sheet date" are published in a few weeks time.

UTC

Hi Paul, for some reason I missed this when you posted - probably because I was posting at the same time and then had to go out.

As always it is great to have your experiential insight on these matters, the insights from your time in the banking industry has provided a much greater understanding for myself (and no doubt others). Naturally, I have a further question or two.

The summer enforced repayment took the form of:
• £15m on or prior to June 14 2022
• £5m on or prior to July 14 2022
• £12,237,986.25 on or prior to August 24 2022

The first two will likely reported as outgoings in the 2021/22 Accounts for the period ending July 31 2022, the last together with the clearance payment of £32,762,013.75 on or prior to November 17 2022 are likely (given the reticence to divulge much information) to merit a single sentence in post date events - we will not see the accounting detail until April 2024 (and even then not very much.

From the sums of the first two payments, what you say about credit risk and not charging a penalty for managing for it makes an awful lot of sense when I look back to the guidance provided by MSD.

MSD UK Holdings Limited Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ending December 31 2020
2. Significant Accounting Policies,
(e) Financial Instruments,
(i) Classification,
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities Measured at Amortised Cost
Paragraph 5 forward “…The company recognises ECL Impairments outlined by IFRS 9 in a ‘three-stage’ model to the changes in credit quality for credit counterparties since initial recognition. The Directors have classified all loans as stage 1 as there has been no significant increase in credit risk from the date of origination. In completing the ECL assessment, the Directors have performed a weighted scenario based assessment as discussed below...
• …The second scenario assumes the UK football teams cannot pay a portion of the balance due at maturity. Additionally, cash flows and the value of the investment s fluctuate depending on the investments’ current sporting performance and financial situation. In this scenario, the UK football club finishes the season in the bottom two/three spots of their national league and demoted to a lower division, which has implications on club revenues. The Company would require sale of the collateral in an orderly fashion and review comparable market transactions to support.

Could £20m be the actual enforced repayment sum?

The August payment, is a strange figure and is one that makes me believe a penalty was attached, the question is was this payment an enforced relegation repayment? or was it a genuine early repayment?

We have been round the circle of MSD penalty payments a few times now, the above is an adaptation on my original position in regard to the relegation enforced repayment but I remain unpersuaded by you (for now at least) on the rest.

The combination of this

MSD UK Holdings Limited Notes to Financial Statements for the year ended December 31 2020
2 Significant Accounting Policies,
(d) Critical Accounting Judgements and Key Sources of Estimation Uncertainty,
Critical Judgements in Applying the Company’s Accounting Policies,
Business Model Assessment
Paragraph 3 “…Whilst there are early repayment penalties, the Directors consider the penalty to be materially equivalent to the lost interest that would have been received, but would highlight that this is an area of judgement.”

and the reports of Southampton's new owner baulking at the penalty charges for early repayment in the Athletic last Jan/Feb, still leave me convinced about some form of penalty for an optional early repayment.

[Big Vinny K]

In my experience of commercial finance and lending to SMEs (I worked in the industry for 30 years) the multi million pound loans are often very individual agreements. There’s very little “standard” about these deals and will be dependent on a whole range of factors in relation to the individual customer, the economic climate, the risk of course, but also the risk appetite of the lender at that time (which will often change).
The institution I worked in for example were one of the main bankers and lenders to the football sector a couple of decades ago. It was a deliberate strategy to target that sector. That strategy changed very quickly and we decided that we would exit the sector (like most of the main banks did actually). Our loan agreements pre and post that decision for football clubs were very different !! When we thought it was a sexy sector it was not uncommon to see deals with football clubs at rates of less than 1% over LIBOR…..they were treated like royalty as many bank executives wanted to be seen with football clubs. Our chief executive of the commercial sector was a massive Liverpool fan for example. Liverpool banked with us and not surprisingly they had pretty decent rates !!

Paul W is correct about hedging rates but this was previously done by the banks on a “book” of lending rather than individual deals (unless it was a huge deal). I don’t know what classifies as a huge deal for someone like MSD.

Point is really that there is a whole range of scenarios in relation to the terms of our deal, early repayment clauses etc and it will be a bit clearer i imagine when we see the accounts for the next couple of years.

[Chester Perry]

Project 23rd Century Ltd (AiScout) have been on a fund raising round again - another 203,223 Class B shares (non-voting) at roughly £30.00 each bought in 10 transactions. Quite probable that ALK Capital LLC have taken part in this round of sales (there were similar ones this time last year which ALK were involved in). It will be a while before a confirmation statement tells us who bought what

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Turns out that that ALK did not take part in last years fund raising rounds for AIScout owner Project 23rd Century (there were 3 altogether) a further 234,233 Class B (non voting) shares were issued raising the total to 1,419,684 of such shares (there are also 1,333,334 Class A - full voting right shares)

ALK Capital's holding of 46,895 Class B shares remains unchanged according to a Confirmation Statement for Project 23rd Century Ltd filed today at Companies House. ALK now own 3.3% of all Class B shares.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

One interesting element of this Confirmation Statement is the appearance of a new shareholder Lighthouse Sports Partners LLC (possibly registered in Delaware, natch) which has acquired 183,430 Class B shares or a holding of 12.92% of that share type.

It is difficult to find any information on Lighthouse Sports LLC - everything keeps getting pushed towards Lighthouse Partners LLC an investment group that has been around since the mid-1990's

https://www.lighthousepartners.com/about-us/

There may be nothing in this from our club's perspective, but it is interesting to ponder

[Chester Perry]

Turns out that that ALK did not take part in last years fund raising rounds for AIScout owner Project 23rd Century (there were 3 altogether) a further 234,233 Class B (non voting) shares were issued raising the total to 1,419,684 of such shares (there are also 1,333,334 Class A - full voting right shares)

ALK Capital's holding of 46,895 Class B shares remains unchanged according to a Confirmation Statement for Project 23rd Century Ltd filed today at Companies House. ALK now own 3.3% of all Class B shares.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

One interesting element of this Confirmation Statement is the appearance of a new shareholder Lighthouse Sports Partners LLC (possibly registered in Delaware, natch) which has acquired 183,430 Class B shares or a holding of 12.92% of that share type.

It is difficult to find any information on Lighthouse Sports LLC - everything keeps getting pushed towards Lighthouse Partners LLC an investment group that has been around since the mid-1990's

https://www.lighthousepartners.com/about-us/

There may be nothing in this from our club's perspective, but it is interesting to ponder

the reason I speculate about Lighthouse is because European football is quite a hot thing in Palm Beach with he Invest fund managers that are based in the area - John Textor and Elliot Management are just two, further south you have 777 Partners in Miami, you also have serial football club bidder and former owner of Bordeaux Joe Dagrossa in Florida - it is quite the hotbed for interest in European football

[ClaretPete001]

I still don't see where the underlying business model is in football clubs outside the top 6 to 8 other then a leveraged buyout where you use the clubs own money to generate value in the deal.

The real money is in TV broadcast rights and there are few ways of generating organic growth for most clubs. Other than that, most professional clubs are, in business terms, quite small.

Almost inexorably, the elite clubs will break away and what will be left will be decent local businesses but not much more.

Quite why so many investors seem to be investing in what appears to be a business model fraught with risk is beyond me albeit we see the same thing with tech companies.

[Chester Perry]

I still don't see where the underlying business model is in football clubs outside the top 6 to 8 other then a leveraged buyout where you use the clubs own money to generate value in the deal.

The real money is in TV broadcast rights and there are few ways of generating organic growth for most clubs. Other than that, most professional clubs are, in business terms, quite small.

Almost inexorably, the elite clubs will break away and what will be left will be decent local businesses but not much more.

Quite why so many investors seem to be investing in what appears to be a business model fraught with risk is beyond me albeit we see the same thing with tech companies.

I was going to ask ChatGPT - What are American investment groups looking for in return for their purchase of European Football Clubs? but it wanted my telephone number to register - so that was the end of that.

[RVclaret]

I was going to ask ChatGPT - What are American investment groups looking for in return for their purchase of European Football Clubs? but it wanted my telephone number to register - so that was the end of that.

Here you go...

American investment groups typically look for a variety of factors when considering the purchase of European football clubs. Some of the main factors may include:

Financial Returns: Investment groups are often looking for a return on their investment, which can come in the form of profits generated by the club or through the sale of the club in the future.

Brand Exposure: Owning a successful European football club can provide significant exposure and brand recognition for the investment group, particularly in the United States.

Fan Base: Successful European football clubs have large and dedicated fan bases that can translate into increased revenue streams for the club and its owners.

Trophy Success: Investment groups may be attracted to clubs with a history of success and a potential for future trophy wins, which can bring prestige and increased revenue opportunities.

Youth Development: Some investment groups may be interested in clubs with a strong youth development program, which can provide a pipeline of talented players for the club and potential transfer fees in the future.

Overall, investment groups are looking for a combination of financial returns and the potential for brand exposure, success, and growth in the European football market.

[Chester Perry]

Here you go...

American investment groups typically look for a variety of factors when considering the purchase of European football clubs. Some of the main factors may include:

Financial Returns: Investment groups are often looking for a return on their investment, which can come in the form of profits generated by the club or through the sale of the club in the future.

Brand Exposure: Owning a successful European football club can provide significant exposure and brand recognition for the investment group, particularly in the United States.

Fan Base: Successful European football clubs have large and dedicated fan bases that can translate into increased revenue streams for the club and its owners.

Trophy Success: Investment groups may be attracted to clubs with a history of success and a potential for future trophy wins, which can bring prestige and increased revenue opportunities.

Youth Development: Some investment groups may be interested in clubs with a strong youth development program, which can provide a pipeline of talented players for the club and potential transfer fees in the future.

Overall, investment groups are looking for a combination of financial returns and the potential for brand exposure, success, and growth in the European football market.

hmm that is very generic - there are a number of questions that get repeatedly asked on this board - if you can be bothered, ask:
- What kind of return of investment are ALK Capital LLC looking to gain from their acquisition of Burnley Football Club?
- What is the organisational structure of ALK Capital LLC's ownership of Burnley Football Club?
- Have ALK Capital and Burnley FC cleared their debt with MSD Holdings UK Limited?
- How have ALK Capital and Burnley FC cleared their debt with MSD Holdings UK Limited?

[RVclaret]

hmm that is very generic - there are a number of questions that get repeatedly asked on this board - if you can be bothered, ask:
- What kind of return of investment are ALK Capital LLC looking to gain from their acquisition of Burnley Football Club?
- What is the organisational structure of ALK Capital LLC's ownership of Burnley Football Club?
- Have ALK Capital and Burnley FC cleared their debt with MSD Holdings UK Limited?
- How have ALK Capital and Burnley FC cleared their debt with MSD Holdings UK Limited?

It's response to all of that was basically that it doesn't have that info as it's not up to date

[Chester Perry]

It's response to all of that was basically that it doesn't have that info as it's not up to date

Shame - last one for now, it you are willing to amuse me

What would ALK Capital LLC's acquisition of Burnley Football Club seek to gain from the UK Governments Northern Powerhouse initiative?

hopefully this may give us something including the £6m 'Town to Turf' development

[RVclaret]

Shame - last one for now, it you are willing to amuse me

What would ALK Capital LLC's acquisition of Burnley Football Club seek to gain from the UK Governments Northern Powerhouse initiative?

hopefully this may give us something including the £6m 'Town to Turf' development

The UK Government's Northern Powerhouse initiative is focused on promoting economic growth in the North of England, particularly in key cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. While Burnley is not one of these key cities, it is located in the wider North West region and may still benefit from some of the initiatives associated with the Northern Powerhouse.

As an AI language model, I do not have access to any specific plans or strategies that ALK Capital LLC may have for gaining from the Northern Powerhouse initiative in relation to Burnley Football Club. However, here are some potential ways that the acquisition of Burnley Football Club could potentially benefit from the initiative:

Infrastructure investment: The Northern Powerhouse initiative aims to invest in infrastructure in the North of England, such as roads, railways, and airports. Improved infrastructure could make it easier for fans to travel to Burnley for matches and for the club to transport players and equipment.

Talent development: The Northern Powerhouse initiative also focuses on developing talent in the North of England, particularly in sectors such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This could potentially benefit Burnley Football Club in terms of developing its youth academy and recruiting local talent.

Regional partnerships: The Northern Powerhouse initiative seeks to foster partnerships between businesses, local governments, and other stakeholders in the region. ALK Capital LLC may be able to leverage these partnerships to build relationships with local businesses, increase revenue opportunities for the club, and improve the overall profile of Burnley in the wider region.

[Chester Perry]

The UK Government's Northern Powerhouse initiative is focused on promoting economic growth in the North of England, particularly in key cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. While Burnley is not one of these key cities, it is located in the wider North West region and may still benefit from some of the initiatives associated with the Northern Powerhouse.

As an AI language model, I do not have access to any specific plans or strategies that ALK Capital LLC may have for gaining from the Northern Powerhouse initiative in relation to Burnley Football Club. However, here are some potential ways that the acquisition of Burnley Football Club could potentially benefit from the initiative:

Infrastructure investment: The Northern Powerhouse initiative aims to invest in infrastructure in the North of England, such as roads, railways, and airports. Improved infrastructure could make it easier for fans to travel to Burnley for matches and for the club to transport players and equipment.

Talent development: The Northern Powerhouse initiative also focuses on developing talent in the North of England, particularly in sectors such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This could potentially benefit Burnley Football Club in terms of developing its youth academy and recruiting local talent.

Regional partnerships: The Northern Powerhouse initiative seeks to foster partnerships between businesses, local governments, and other stakeholders in the region. ALK Capital LLC may be able to leverage these partnerships to build relationships with local businesses, increase revenue opportunities for the club, and improve the overall profile of Burnley in the wider region.

Thanks RV - there is still much for ChatGPT to do it seems (which I am oddly pleased about), though no doubt there are those that will like it being free of speculation (I find that a positive too), though I so see it's responses as being very much politicians type none committal ones.

Anyone else find any benefit to this little exercise that RV has facilitated?

[Nonayforever]

Thanks RV - there is still much for ChatGPT to do it seems (which I am oddly pleased about), though no doubt there are those that will like it being free of speculation (I find that a positive too), though I so see it's responses as being very much politicians type none committal ones.

Anyone else find any benefit to this little exercise that RV has facilitated?

The chat responses are pretty generic as you mentioned but the only obvious benefit that I can see would be the building of a new stadium out of town.

[dsr]

The chat responses are pretty generic as you mentioned but the only obvious benefit that I can see would be the building of a new stadium out of town.

Benefit?

[Nonayforever]

Benefit?

Not for the fans. For the investors.
Retail, hotel, food outlets etc , all partly funded.

[Paul Waine]

hmm that is very generic - there are a number of questions that get repeatedly asked on this board - if you can be bothered, ask:
- What kind of return of investment are ALK Capital LLC looking to gain from their acquisition of Burnley Football Club?
- What is the organisational structure of ALK Capital LLC's ownership of Burnley Football Club?
- Have ALK Capital and Burnley FC cleared their debt with MSD Holdings UK Limited?
- How have ALK Capital and Burnley FC cleared their debt with MSD Holdings UK Limited?

Hi CP, ChatGPT is only giving us back combinations of words that it has "learnt" by being fed these words in all the billions of words that exist via the internet. At the very least - so far as I understand what ChatGPT operates - ChatGPT could only answer these specific questions if the same questions had already been asked and answers provided somewhere on the internet AND the same questions hadn't also been asked and different answers been provided to those questions at a different time or in a different written document found somewhere on the internet. Of course, it's possible that ChatGPT could make up a response based on similar questions about other football club owners and other football clubs and other lenders to football clubs - but, of course, that would not be intelligent, either "artificial" or "real." It wouldn't, in other words, provide any truth.

I doubt ChatGPT has been fed all the words - and the numbers - in all the annual reports that have been published by all the publicly listed companies and certainly wouldn't have been fed all the annual reports of all the private companies. Even if ChatGPT had been fed all the annual reports from previous years for Burnley Football Club (in whatever guise) it would not be able to answer questions about annual reports that haven't yet been published. The "general stuff" would be easy, but all the specifics wouldn't be predictable unless a document already existed that purported to respond to these questions.

However, ChatGPT has learnt to be "clever" - and respond by saying "I can't answer that question."

I'd be interested if ChatGPT could explain the purpose of US Partnerships LLC and the relationship between such entities and their Managing Partner. Similarly, we could ask ChatGPT to explain why US entities would use a Jersey registered company to hold shares in a UK registered entity.

[Paul Waine]

It's response to all of that was basically that it doesn't have that info as it's not up to date

Hi RV, please see my post to Chester, above.

I'd be interested if ChatGPT could explain the purpose of US Partnerships LLC and the relationship between such entities and their Managing Partner. Similarly, we could ask ChatGPT to explain why US entities would use a Jersey registered company to hold shares in a UK registered entity.

Any chance you can put the two questions I suggest asking ChatGPT?

I've never used ChatGPT. I guess I'm applying my knowledge of IT systems to what I've read about ChatGPT. Am I on the right lines? I'm sure I've a lot to learn.

Thanks.

[Swizzlestick]

Hi RV, please see my post to Chester, above.



Any chance you can put the two questions I suggest asking ChatGPT?

I've never used ChatGPT. I guess I'm applying my knowledge of IT systems to what I've read about ChatGPT. Am I on the right lines? I'm sure I've a lot to learn.

Thanks.

I tried your second question, Paul, but it’s all pretty generic stuff:

There could be several reasons why a US entity would use a Jersey registered company to hold shares in a UK registered entity, including:

1. Tax efficiency: Jersey is known for its favorable tax regime, and using a Jersey company to hold shares in a UK entity may offer tax benefits to the US entity.

2. Asset protection: Jersey has strong asset protection laws, which may be appealing to US entities looking to safeguard their investments.

3. Ease of doing business: Jersey is a well-regulated and transparent jurisdiction, which may make it easier for US entities to conduct business with UK entities.

4. International reputation: Jersey is a reputable international financial center, which may add credibility to the US entity's investment in the UK entity.

5. Confidentiality: Jersey offers a high level of confidentiality, which may be important to US entities that want to keep their investments private.

Overall, using a Jersey registered company to hold shares in a UK registered entity can offer several benefits to US entities, including tax efficiency, asset protection, ease of doing business, international reputation, and confidentiality.

[aggi]

I'd agree with other comments re: CP's estimate of an MSD penalty. Seems very high to me and not worth paying off (particularly given the current high rates if the penalty was on that basis it would make more sense to sit it out at the moment).

One suggestion a friend came up with was that the loan has been repaid and is now with ALK (or some related entity) in order that they get the benefit of the interest rather than a third party. I'm not convinced they have the funds for that but I can see the commercial sense behind it.

On club valuations and returns, I've commented before about how cheap it is to buy a European club compared to buying in to American sports (even an MLS team can set you back £300m). I'd expect that to level up (which we are starting to see with some of the recent valuations) given there is little sign of Premier League revenues dropping.

[dsr]

One suggestion a friend came up with was that the loan has been repaid and is now with ALK (or some related entity) in order that they get the benefit of the interest rather than a third party. I'm not convinced they have the funds for that but I can see the commercial sense behind it.

If the ownership group is borrowing money at zero interest and then lending it back at double digit interest, that would be (morally if not legally) a fraud on the other shareholders, as well as on the club and its supporters. Surely that can't be happening.

[Chester Perry]

I'd agree with other comments re: CP's estimate of an MSD penalty. Seems very high to me and not worth paying off (particularly given the current high rates if the penalty was on that basis it would make more sense to sit it out at the moment).

One suggestion a friend came up with was that the loan has been repaid and is now with ALK (or some related entity) in order that they get the benefit of the interest rather than a third party. I'm not convinced they have the funds for that but I can see the commercial sense behind it.

On club valuations and returns, I've commented before about how cheap it is to buy a European club compared to buying in to American sports (even an MLS team can set you back £300m). I'd expect that to level up (which we are starting to see with some of the recent valuations) given there is little sign of Premier League revenues dropping.

That is the theory that has appeared most likely to me since the beginning of March when no new charges appeared against the club

I have also made the same acknowledgement that there is little commercial sense in paying off the loan if the penalties were as high as I have estimated. That said if you replace the loan with a fresh one that is earning the owners an income (even at a fixed rate of say 8%) the overall cost to the club remains similar but importantly is more stable and the ownership group is able to see a return.

The real problem in that scenario is if Calder Vale Holdings then borrows more money from the club to pay off the final stage and to buy the ring fenced shares.

On the issue of valuations - new NSWL franchises are now approaching the price paid for Bournemouth and reportedly offered for Sheffield United. European Football has a long way to go before it reaches the values in North America.

Those thinking that Premier League revenues are going to jump significantly in the next cycle should be mindful that most of the key earning overseas markets are now in 6 year deals - there really is little opportunity for significant growth there - much is resting on the domestic deals which is currently less than it was in 2016/17. The real question is can they grow the commercial sponsorships in such a way that it does not compromise the commercial income of the big clubs without losing to much revenue to the rest of the game via the impositions of an Independent regulator.

[Paul Waine]

I tried your second question, Paul, but it’s all pretty generic stuff:

There could be several reasons why a US entity would use a Jersey registered company to hold shares in a UK registered entity, including:

1. Tax efficiency: Jersey is known for its favorable tax regime, and using a Jersey company to hold shares in a UK entity may offer tax benefits to the US entity.

2. Asset protection: Jersey has strong asset protection laws, which may be appealing to US entities looking to safeguard their investments.

3. Ease of doing business: Jersey is a well-regulated and transparent jurisdiction, which may make it easier for US entities to conduct business with UK entities.

4. International reputation: Jersey is a reputable international financial center, which may add credibility to the US entity's investment in the UK entity.

5. Confidentiality: Jersey offers a high level of confidentiality, which may be important to US entities that want to keep their investments private.

Overall, using a Jersey registered company to hold shares in a UK registered entity can offer several benefits to US entities, including tax efficiency, asset protection, ease of doing business, international reputation, and confidentiality.

Thanks, Swizzlestick. Seems that I may be on the right lines with ChapGPT, much more "artificial" than "intelligence."

UTC

[Chester Perry]

so I have had a quick check at the EFL and our Transfer Embargo still stands on both counts

Today marks 51 days since the required date of filing of financial Accounts with the EFL, it is also 41 days since the EFL informed the club of the impending embargo and 39 days since the club released it's statement that it was about to be placed in Transfer Embargo - many will point to the fact that we are still 10 days from the closing period of filing the clubs accounts at Companies House (though that is a Sunday)

It is worth noting that the 2nd of the EFL charges P&S 2.1.3 is not really an audit issue, it refers specifically to estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for the current season (I am confident that 2.1.3.c does not apply - we will not be in breach of P&S aggregate losses over 3 seasons unless ALK/VSL are wanting to impair/write off he loans to CVHL)). It would be great to see/know what has been produced in respect of 2.1.4. that might even explain how the debt with MSD was cleared in November 2022.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/
2 PROFITABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.1 Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to The League:

2.1.1 copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to The League) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) and agreed upon procedures (where relevant), on those accounts;

2.1.2 a Player Registration Schedule;

2.1.3 its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a) be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b) be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

(c) if Rule 2.5 applies to the Club its P&S Calculation in a form approved by The League from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is set out in Annex 1; and

2.1.4 full details of each and any Associated Party Transaction.


This is important because under the Companies Act 2006 Directors are required to maintain accounting records for the current trading period. As clearly stated under 'Directors Responsibilities' in the published accounts for the period ending July 31 2021 where it says

"Directors are responsible for keeping adequate accounting records that are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions and disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the company and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 2006. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the company...."

I acknowledge that reporting to the games authorities can be over and above what is required by the 2006 Companies Act. However, given the safeguarding responsibility I am minded of the following statement from the last set of published accounts, signed off by Alan Pace on April 28 2022 (357 days ago), in the final paragraph on 'Principal Risks and Uncertainties'

"Another risk to the company is the compliance with Premier League, FA and English Football League Rules and Regulations, in Particular Financial Fair Play regulations. The company takes all necessary steps to ensure compliance with all the relevant rules and regulations"

On this point, particularly when understanding the importance of group accounts in EFL/PL reporting, there are a few other numbers worth our noting too, It is now:
- 141 days since that first ALK.VSL statement of an administrative error in regards to the late filings to LancsLive
- 162 days since the new auditors BDO were appointed
- 176 days since the accounts for KCL were due (though you could add another 92 to the date prior to the granting of the extension on filing date)
- 202 days since the accounts for CVHL were due (again you could add another 92 to the date prior to the granting of the extension on filing date)
- 309 days since the Accounts for ALK Capital Limited were due

Are there more questionable administration issues to consider? well we are now 7 days on from a change and huge backdate of declaration of person of significant control at KCL - which strangely has provoked no comment on this board - It is worth noting that two clubs have been sanctioned in recent weeks for not registering 'relevant persons', the sanctions incorporated fines, bans on football involvement and in one case a suspended points deduction. It appears that the change at KCL is in direct response to a similar query by the EFL, though I do not believe that in our case such charges and sanctions could have materialised.

There are many who have and will continue to argue that given ALK/VSL own the club it is for them to be act as they see appropriate. This directly ignores the fact that the board has a direct fiduciary responsibility to other members (shareholders) of the company. There are still 16,371 of the allotted 122,478 shares that ALK/VSL do not own, though 12,098 of those are ringfenced until October 2024. The board members directly represent 116,440 of the shares but do not appear to show much consideration to those who own the remaining 6,038 - 4,273 of which are small shareholders who did not take up the very questionably structured offer for their shares made in October 2021.

What few of these shareholders appear to realise is the powers that the Companies Act 2006 give them in regards to visibility of meeting and decision documentation. They should be encouraged to exercise these rights and test the club and its majority owners on it's claims of wanting to be transparent 39 days ago.

While this is not directly under the control of the club, I would be very interested for a clarification on this statement made by an ALK Capital spokesman 141 days ago

“This is an administrative error that has come to our attention and is being addressed and resolved with immediacy."

Just what activity does immediacy actually refer to here, It cannot be finding replacement auditors given the statement was made 22 days after the appointment of the new auditors. Perhaps it is time for the chaps at LancsLive to go back to ALK/VSL and start asking some pointed questions - we know they read this thread

[Carwin261]

so I have had a quick check at the EFL and our Transfer Embargo still stands on both counts

Today marks 51 days since the required date of filing of financial Accounts with the EFL, it is also 41 days since the EFL informed the club of the impending embargo and 39 days since the club released it's statement that it was about to be placed in Transfer Embargo - many will point to the fact that we are still 10 days from the closing period of filing the clubs accounts at Companies House (though that is a Sunday)

It is worth noting that the 2nd of the EFL charges P&S 2.1.3 is not really an audit issue, it refers specifically to estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for the current season (I am confident that 2.1.3.c does not apply - we will not be in breach of P&S aggregate losses over 3 seasons unless ALK/VSL are wanting to impair/write off he loans to CVHL)). It would be great to see/know what has been produced in respect of 2.1.4. that might even explain how the debt with MSD was cleared in November 2022.Always been a pessimist ,and have watched you posts with interest ,is there a dark cloud looming that could destroy our promotion,or are your posts although factual ? a bit on the pessimistic side ( this isn’t a dig ,but my pessimistic streak is in overdrive)

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/
2 PROFITABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.1 Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to The League:

2.1.1 copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to The League) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) and agreed upon procedures (where relevant), on those accounts;

2.1.2 a Player Registration Schedule;

2.1.3 its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a) be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b) be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

(c) if Rule 2.5 applies to the Club its P&S Calculation in a form approved by The League from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is set out in Annex 1; and

2.1.4 full details of each and any Associated Party Transaction.


This is important because under the Companies Act 2006 Directors are required to maintain accounting records for the current trading period. As clearly stated under 'Directors Responsibilities' in the published accounts for the period ending July 31 2021 where it says

"Directors are responsible for keeping adequate accounting records that are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions and disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the company and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 2006. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the company...."

I acknowledge that reporting to the games authorities can be over and above what is required by the 2006 Companies Act. However, given the safeguarding responsibility I am minded of the following statement from the last set of published accounts, signed off by Alan Pace on April 28 2022 (357 days ago), in the final paragraph on 'Principal Risks and Uncertainties'

"Another risk to the company is the compliance with Premier League, FA and English Football League Rules and Regulations, in Particular Financial Fair Play regulations. The company takes all necessary steps to ensure compliance with all the relevant rules and regulations"

On this point, particularly when understanding the importance of group accounts in EFL/PL reporting, there are a few other numbers worth our noting too, It is now:
- 141 days since that first ALK.VSL statement of an administrative error in regards to the late filings to LancsLive
- 162 days since the new auditors BDO were appointed
- 176 days since the accounts for KCL were due (though you could add another 92 to the date prior to the granting of the extension on filing date)
- 202 days since the accounts for CVHL were due (again you could add another 92 to the date prior to the granting of the extension on filing date)
- 309 days since the Accounts for ALK Capital Limited were due

Are there more questionable administration issues to consider? well we are now 7 days on from a change and huge backdate of declaration of person of significant control at KCL - which strangely has provoked no comment on this board - It is worth noting that two clubs have been sanctioned in recent weeks for not registering 'relevant persons', the sanctions incorporated fines, bans on football involvement and in one case a suspended points deduction. It appears that the change at KCL is in direct response to a similar query by the EFL, though I do not believe that in our case such charges and sanctions could have materialised.

There are many who have and will continue to argue that given ALK/VSL own the club it is for them to be act as they see appropriate. This directly ignores the fact that the board has a direct fiduciary responsibility to other members (shareholders) of the company. There are still 16,371 of the allotted 122,478 shares that ALK/VSL do not own, though 12,098 of those are ringfenced until October 2024. The board members directly represent 116,440 of the shares but do not appear to show much consideration to those who own the remaining 6,038 - 4,273 of which are small shareholders who did not take up the very questionably structured offer for their shares made in October 2021.

What few of these shareholders appear to realise is the powers that the Companies Act 2006 give them in regards to visibility of meeting and decision documentation. They should be encouraged to exercise these rights and test the club and its majority owners on it's claims of wanting to be transparent 39 days ago.

While this is not directly under the control of the club, I would be very interested for a clarification on this statement made by an ALK Capital spokesman 141 days ago

“This is an administrative error that has come to our attention and is being addressed and resolved with immediacy."

Just what activity does immediacy actually refer to here, It cannot be finding replacement auditors given the statement was made 22 days after the appointment of the new auditors. Perhaps it is time for the chaps at LancsLive to go back to ALK/VSL and start asking some pointed questions - we know they read this thread

[Carwin261]

Sorry if I’ve already posted this,but I’ve followed your posts over the years ,and being on the pessimitic side have started wonder if it’s going to rain on our parade ,( this isn’t a dig ,& I know your only posting things as you see them ) but are you looking for scenarios that probably wont happen ,and have you a bee in your bonnet re the unconventional buy out ( like I say ,this isn’t a dig)

[Nori1958]

Sorry if I’ve already posted this,but I’ve followed your posts over the years ,and being on the pessimitic side have started wonder if it’s going to rain on our parade ,( this isn’t a dig ,& I know your only posting things as you see them ) but are you looking for scenarios that probably wont happen ,and have you a bee in your bonnet re the unconventional buy out ( like I say ,this isn’t a dig)

I've said it before...guessing, whether or not it's informed or not, does not help, it's best just to wait for official news

[arise_sir_charge]

No it doesn’t, especially when they could well have been provided.

[Chester Perry]

What exactly am I guessing at here? The answer is nothing btw

I am pointing out inconsistencies, the length of time things are taking re filing, challenging official statements, asking questions and encouraging others to do so, particularly shareholders, a number of whom I know a unhappy with certain events that have occurred and the way that they have been treated by ALK/VSL.

[arise_sir_charge]

Your all post is based on a guess that the EFL have not been sent the paper work.

[Paul Waine]

so I have had a quick check at the EFL and our Transfer Embargo still stands on both counts

Today marks 51 days since the required date of filing of financial Accounts with the EFL, it is also 41 days since the EFL informed the club of the impending embargo and 39 days since the club released it's statement that it was about to be placed in Transfer Embargo - many will point to the fact that we are still 10 days from the closing period of filing the clubs accounts at Companies House (though that is a Sunday)

It is worth noting that the 2nd of the EFL charges P&S 2.1.3 is not really an audit issue, it refers specifically to estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for the current season (I am confident that 2.1.3.c does not apply - we will not be in breach of P&S aggregate losses over 3 seasons unless ALK/VSL are wanting to impair/write off he loans to CVHL)). It would be great to see/know what has been produced in respect of 2.1.4. that might even explain how the debt with MSD was cleared in November 2022.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/
2 PROFITABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.1 Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to The League:

2.1.1 copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to The League) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) and agreed upon procedures (where relevant), on those accounts;

2.1.2 a Player Registration Schedule;

2.1.3 its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a) be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b) be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

(c) if Rule 2.5 applies to the Club its P&S Calculation in a form approved by The League from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is set out in Annex 1; and

2.1.4 full details of each and any Associated Party Transaction.


This is important because under the Companies Act 2006 Directors are required to maintain accounting records for the current trading period. As clearly stated under 'Directors Responsibilities' in the published accounts for the period ending July 31 2021 where it says

"Directors are responsible for keeping adequate accounting records that are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions and disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the company and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 2006. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the company...."

I acknowledge that reporting to the games authorities can be over and above what is required by the 2006 Companies Act. However, given the safeguarding responsibility I am minded of the following statement from the last set of published accounts, signed off by Alan Pace on April 28 2022 (357 days ago), in the final paragraph on 'Principal Risks and Uncertainties'

"Another risk to the company is the compliance with Premier League, FA and English Football League Rules and Regulations, in Particular Financial Fair Play regulations. The company takes all necessary steps to ensure compliance with all the relevant rules and regulations"

On this point, particularly when understanding the importance of group accounts in EFL/PL reporting, there are a few other numbers worth our noting too, It is now:
- 141 days since that first ALK.VSL statement of an administrative error in regards to the late filings to LancsLive
- 162 days since the new auditors BDO were appointed
- 176 days since the accounts for KCL were due (though you could add another 92 to the date prior to the granting of the extension on filing date)
- 202 days since the accounts for CVHL were due (again you could add another 92 to the date prior to the granting of the extension on filing date)
- 309 days since the Accounts for ALK Capital Limited were due

Are there more questionable administration issues to consider? well we are now 7 days on from a change and huge backdate of declaration of person of significant control at KCL - which strangely has provoked no comment on this board - It is worth noting that two clubs have been sanctioned in recent weeks for not registering 'relevant persons', the sanctions incorporated fines, bans on football involvement and in one case a suspended points deduction. It appears that the change at KCL is in direct response to a similar query by the EFL, though I do not believe that in our case such charges and sanctions could have materialised.

There are many who have and will continue to argue that given ALK/VSL own the club it is for them to be act as they see appropriate. This directly ignores the fact that the board has a direct fiduciary responsibility to other members (shareholders) of the company. There are still 16,371 of the allotted 122,478 shares that ALK/VSL do not own, though 12,098 of those are ringfenced until October 2024. The board members directly represent 116,440 of the shares but do not appear to show much consideration to those who own the remaining 6,038 - 4,273 of which are small shareholders who did not take up the very questionably structured offer for their shares made in October 2021.

What few of these shareholders appear to realise is the powers that the Companies Act 2006 give them in regards to visibility of meeting and decision documentation. They should be encouraged to exercise these rights and test the club and its majority owners on it's claims of wanting to be transparent 39 days ago.

While this is not directly under the control of the club, I would be very interested for a clarification on this statement made by an ALK Capital spokesman 141 days ago

“This is an administrative error that has come to our attention and is being addressed and resolved with immediacy."

Just what activity does immediacy actually refer to here, It cannot be finding replacement auditors given the statement was made 22 days after the appointment of the new auditors. Perhaps it is time for the chaps at LancsLive to go back to ALK/VSL and start asking some pointed questions - we know they read this thread

Hi CP, that's a big, long post.

Yes, of course the EFL transfer embargo still stands. It won't be lifted until BFC have submitted all the information required.

As you note, the (last) accounts for the period ended 31st July 2021 were signed by Alan Pace on 28th April 2022. The auditors, Azets, also signed their audit report on that date.

Similarly, you note that the accounts for the period to 31st July 2022 are due to be filed at Companies House by Sunday 30th April. My expectation is that these accounts will be signed by Alan Pace on Friday 28th April 2023 and will be filed at Companies House by the deadline. However, given it is a bank holiday w/end, the new set of accounts may not appear Companies House public domain site until early in May. Given the following w/end is also a bank holiday w/end, it is not impossible that the accounts don't appear until some time after the 8th May.

You note that EFL requires estimated accounts for the current year, i.e. for the accounting period from 1st August 2022 to 31st July 2023. I wouldn't expect this current year estimate to be completed until the accounts for the period up to 31st July 2022 have also been completed. The end point for the 31st July 2022 accounts is the starting point for the 31st July 2023 estimated accounts.

I've no idea the degree of accuracy the EFL expects/requires for estimated. The club confirmed promotion to the Premier League on 7th April - not quite 2 weeks ago and on the Easter bank holiday weekend. I'd expect promotion makes a big difference to any accounting estimates. Promotion bonuses to be paid to Vincent Kompany, his coaching staff and players. Possibly transfer fees for incoming transfers last summer and last January may have triggered add-ons. Possibly there are implications for some of the loan players, also. It wouldn't surprise me if the EFL has said to BFC, please complete these estimated accounts as accurately as you are able and we are happy that you delay submitting them to us until the same time as submitting your audited accounts to Companies House.

The directors' responsibilities re accounting records and risk factors are "boiler plate" - i.e. all limited company accounts will make these statements.

As an aside, I'd expect, while the loan from MSD was in place, BFC had obligation to report management accounts to MSD at regular and timely intervals. It would not be unusual for these management accounts to be prepared monthly and to be submitted to MSD, with directors' statement of "complete and accurate, to the best of directors' knowledge" every month.

Last point: minority shareholders are at the very end of the line with respect to their shares in a non-public company. Yes, there may be access to some formal board minutes. But, being a minority shareholder you always know that the majority shareholder(s) will out vote you. I don't understand why anyone who is unhappy didn't sell their shares when the offer to buy was made.

[Paul Waine]

Your all post is based on a guess that the EFL have not been sent the paper work.

And, in my post, I'm suggesting that EFL has said to BFC don't submit all the paper work until they've included all the extra payments that are triggered by the club gaining promotion.

We will all find out in time. In the meantime let's enjoy the football.

[arise_sir_charge]

And, in my post, I'm suggesting that EFL has said to BFC don't submit all the paper work until they've included all the extra payments that are triggered by the club gaining promotion.

We will all find out in time. In the meantime let's enjoy the football.

Couldn’t agree more.

By the way, my use of all, as opposed to whole in my post is a reminder not to post whilst eating tea!

[Chester Perry]

Last point: minority shareholders are at the very end of the line with respect to their shares in a non-public company. Yes, there may be access to some formal board minutes. But, being a minority shareholder you always know that the majority shareholder(s) will out vote you. I don't understand why anyone who is unhappy didn't sell their shares when the offer to buy was made.

I know for certain that some objected to the club credit element and/or the fact they had to sell the whole of their holding rather than a portion of it - neither of those conditions applied to the original sellers. My understanding is that ALK/VSL would not make a distinction on either of those points to the shareholders who held multiple shares. As I said the offer was questionable.

[Chester Perry]

Your all post is based on a guess that the EFL have not been sent the paper work.

No it is not - it is based on the fact that the embargo remains in place

The club have said they have been in dialogue with the EFL for months and I have no reason to believe why this has not continued.

And, in my post, I'm suggesting that EFL has said to BFC don't submit all the paper work until they've included all the extra payments that are triggered by the club gaining promotion.

We will all find out in time. In the meantime let's enjoy the football.

If the club are only just able to put this together then we really should question the way they are managing things

and yes we should find out in time - it still doesn't justify the delays - even last year the information arrived at the PL on March 1st, though the Accounts were actually signed off om April 28th