No mention of the total repayment value by Burnley even though the MSD Accounts were signed off on August 26 2022, two days after the last partial delisting we saw on TISE.

It does mention (on the last page) the final sum repaid by Derby and what appears to be repayments by West Ham (who can do that as a feature of their flexible loan) and either Southampton (or possibly ourselves) but collates the sum together.

Also, no indication of the penalties charged, there is mention of rolled up interest being paid in relation to clearing of Derby's debt

In a separate note, I am still curious as to why we haven't seen the Dwight McNeil transfer fee, advanced in the same way as the Wood, Pope and Collins have by Macquarie. In many respects it would make more sense than the Collins fee given that so much was outstanding to Stoke on the original transfer.

Speculation on my part, but it may be because Everton are not considered to be worth the risk given their current financial status - Everton have a £30m overdraft facility with Metrobank (who refuse to have it any larger) and a £100m credit facility with Rights and Media Funding (a Cheshire based private office) all to help with the day-to-day finances at the club. Separately, Moshiri has committed over £230m of his own money to fund the Bramley Dock build this year because the club still cannot get a construction loan after over 18 months of effort.

The latest stage payment for the takeover (in excess of £20m, possibly as much as £25m) was due today, I am struggling to see how it could be achieved from the club's cash flow without the McNeil advancement. Anything is possible, including Pace and Co putting in their own money, and no doubt they are pleased so many fans are putting money into the club at this time (record levels of match attendance and shirt sales etc) to help meet such need, but they certainly would like them to spend even more.

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

This month will see the first accounts produced by Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited, not that I am expecting too much from them - but we can always remain hopeful.

The accounts for Kettering Capital Limited are due by October 26th

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12975630

The accounts for Calder Vale Holdings Limited, then entity that has borrowed so much from Burnley FC Holdings Limited) - £84m if that stage payment due on September 30th was made - are already overdue - they should have been posted on October 1st

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12919689

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:56 pm

In a separate note, I am still curious as to why we haven't seen the Dwight McNeil transfer fee, advanced in the same way as the Wood, Pope and Collins have by Macquarie. In many respects it would make more sense than the Collins fee given that so much was outstanding to Stoke on the original transfer.

Speculation on my part, but it may be because Everton are not considered to be worth the risk given their current financial status - Everton have a £30m overdraft facility with Metrobank (who refuse to have it any larger) and a £100m credit facility with Rights and Media Funding (a Cheshire based private office) all to help with the day-to-day finances at the club. Separately, Moshiri has committed over £230m of his own money to fund the Bramley Dock build this year because the club still cannot get a construction loan after over 18 months of effort.

The latest stage payment for the takeover (in excess of £20m, possibly as much as £25m) was due today, I am struggling to see how it could be achieved from the club's cash flow without the McNeil advancement. Anything is possible, including Pace and Co putting in their own money, and no doubt they are pleased so many fans are putting money into the club at this time (record levels of match attendance and shirt sales etc) to help meet such need, but they certainly would like them to spend even more.

Imagine your theory is spot on re: Dwight/Everton.

Re: stage payments, still suspect they’ll have been renegotiated or potentially seen previous shareholders take back some shares. Well, more so than ALK having stumped up, anyway.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:10 pm

Imagine your theory is spot on re: Dwight/Everton.

Re: stage payments, still suspect they’ll have been renegotiated or potentially seen previous shareholders take back some shares. Well, more so than ALK having stumped up, anyway.

I have been chatting to The Esk who is the font of knowledge on Everton financials, often referred to by the top journalists who look at football finance - he reckons that the Football Creditors rule means this idea is a none-starter - I have a question with him relating to whether Everton have a recent history of default on a transfer or HMRC rule, which would create the same issue for Macquarie (the 'charge' on our other factoring agreements demands that they be informed of any such instance by buyer (Everton in this case) of loanee (ourselves) not just relating to the specific transaction - from what I can ascertain this is a very standard requirement in any credit agreement in football.

As for the stage payments - I am still not aware if the September 30th deadline was met or not, I would appreciate input from anyone who knows.

The Esk is a bit of a laughing stock amongst Everton fans.

He got some huge, huge, huge things wrong in the early days regarding Moshiri. Search his name on Grand Old Team, their forum. Not great reading.

Socrates wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:56 pm

The Esk is a bit of a laughing stock amongst Everton fans.

He got some huge, huge, huge things wrong in the early days regarding Moshiri. Search his name on Grand Old Team, their forum. Not great reading.

we all get things wrong - I know from my own painful, and embarrassing experience, but he gets much more right and has the guts to put his thoughts out there. It pays to acknowledge your mistakes, learn from them and apply the lessons learned. My own relationship with him developed from pointing out the errors he made during the early days of Covid - he was given the raw data for his Premier League analysis by Deloitte - it was miles out on all the smaller clubs in the 14. RoyboyClaret and I spent some time correcting that for him.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:02 pm

we all get things wrong - I know from my own painful, and embarrassing experience, but he gets much more right and has the guts to put his thoughts out there. It pays to acknowledge your mistakes, learn from them and apply the lessons learned. My own relationship with him developed from pointing out the errors he made during the early days of Covid - he was given the raw data for his Premier League analysis by Deloitte - it was miles out on all the smaller clubs in the 14. RoyboyClaret and I spent some time correcting that for him.

Thinking about this a bit more, Kieran Maguire regularly gets things wrong, another Kieron but with an O rather than an A @SwissRamble (who knows The Esk well) occasionally does too, his raw data is supplied by Deloitte, as does Matt Slater at the Athletic and Tariq Panja at the New York Times, They all retain high credibility outside some in the fanbase of their own clubs (it is a weird feature of football fandom).

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:59 pm

This month will see the first accounts produced by Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited, not that I am expecting too much from them - but we can always remain hopeful.

The accounts for Kettering Capital Limited are due by October 26th

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12975630

The accounts for Calder Vale Holdings Limited, then entity that has borrowed so much from Burnley FC Holdings Limited) - £84m if that stage payment due on September 30th was made - are already overdue - they should have been posted on October 1st

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12919689

So, after a small bit of digging, this is now getting interesting, at least to me - not all of you I know

The accounts of Calder Vale Holdings Limited for the period up to October 31 2021 are now over two weeks late, by that period Burnley FC Holdings has loaned related parties, thought to be Calder Vale, £37m according to their accounts (£23m I believe used to shares in Kettering Capital Limited on December 30 2020 then used as a down payment on the takeover and £14m for the first stage payment). Since then, we have been informed of another £10m advance to related parties, most probably to fund the purchase of shares from the small shareholders including the club credit element). Further stage payments totalling £37m were scheduled in 2022, the final one being due on September 30 2022. It seems inevitable that Burnley FC Holdings Limited with be loaning the funds to cover these payments. We are fast approaching the end of the reporting period for the 2nd set of accounts at Calder Vale, will it come before the first set have been released.

That scenario has already occurred for two other UK based ALK operations

ALK Capital Limited whose first accounts for the period ending September 30 2021 were due by June 15 2022 but remain overdue
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12880549

Velocity Sports Partners Limited whose first accounts for the period ending September 30 2021 were due by June 15 2022 but remain overdue
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12880579

It can be argued that the last two are effectively dormant companies with Kettering and Calder Vale being established to take their place after consideration of all the issues, but that is no excuse for such late reporting.

It seems either tardy (particularly) after the late filings of Confirmation Statements at the beginning of the year for Kettering and Calder Vale, or a deliberate strategy to delay putting information into the public sphere - remember the clubs accounts were posted at the last possible moment.

This is not a good look for the directors associated, particularly Alan Pace who is listed as the person with significant control in Kettering (which has total control over Calder Vale), ALK Capital Limited, Velocity Sports Partners Limited and of course the club though Companies House has that down to Alan Gary Pace (if only Directors were issued registration numbers as well).

I was being truly picky I would wonder what a tightened-up Owners and Directors test continually applied under a new Independent regulator would make of such things. Then again, I have long said I did not believe such a regulator would/could be totally effective

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 1:55 pm

So, after a small bit of digging, this is now getting interesting, at least to me - not all of you I know

The accounts of Calder Vale Holdings Limited for the period up to October 31 2021 are now over two weeks late, by that period Burnley FC Holdings has loaned related parties, thought to be Calder Vale, £37m according to their accounts (£23m I believe used to shares in Kettering Capital Limited on December 30 2020 then used as a down payment on the takeover and £14m for the first stage payment). Since then, we have been informed of another £10m advance to related parties, most probably to fund the purchase of shares from the small shareholders including the club credit element). Further stage payments totalling £37m were scheduled in 2022, the final one being due on September 30 2022. It seems inevitable that Burnley FC Holdings Limited with be loaning the funds to cover these payments. We are fast approaching the end of the reporting period for the 2nd set of accounts at Calder Vale, will it come before the first set have been released.

That scenario has already occurred for two other UK based ALK operations

ALK Capital Limited whose first accounts for the period ending September 30 2021 were due by June 15 2022 but remain overdue
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12880549

Velocity Sports Partners Limited whose first accounts for the period ending September 30 2021 were due by June 15 2022 but remain overdue
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12880579

It can be argued that the last two are effectively dormant companies with Kettering and Calder Vale being established to take their place after consideration of all the issues, but that is no excuse for such late reporting.

It seems either tardy (particularly) after the late filings of Confirmation Statements at the beginning of the year for Kettering and Calder Vale, or a deliberate strategy to delay putting information into the public sphere - remember the clubs accounts were posted at the last possible moment.

This is not a good look for the directors associated, particularly Alan Pace who is listed as the person with significant control in Kettering (which has total control over Calder Vale), ALK Capital Limited, Velocity Sports Partners Limited and of course the club though Companies House has that down to Alan Gary Pace (if only Directors were issued registration numbers as well).

I was being truly picky I would wonder what a tightened-up Owners and Directors test continually applied under a new Independent regulator would make of such things. Then again, I have long said I did not believe such a regulator would/could be totally effective

Taken in isolation I don't find the Calder Vale one that surprising. A reasonable chance that different filing dates had been missed and both would be filed before the 26th.

But, it does seem to be a pattern which is a bit concerning.

As I'm not that knowledgeable regarding how leveraged buyouts work I'd be curious to know whether the impact of another lengthy stay in the Prem (say six seasons again) would lessen the dangers of another relegation in future, or would we always be back to square one in the Championship, and looking at another fire sale of players were we not to get promotion soon after?

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:03 am

As I'm not that knowledgeable regarding how leveraged buyouts work I'd be curious to know whether the impact of another lengthy stay in the Prem (say six seasons again) would lessen the dangers of another relegation in future, or would we always be back to square one in the Championship, and looking at another fire sale of players were we not to get promotion soon after?

The essential point about a leveraged buyout is that Alan Pace has taken £100m++ out of the club. It's technically a loan, so we might get it back, or else he might declare a dividend and keep it, or else go bust and never repay it.

But the point being that we are no better or worse off than anyone else who has had £100m++ taken out of the club by any means, whether the directors have bagged it or whether it has been blown on useless players or spent on a new ground or whatever. We have what we have, the squad, the infrastructure, the debts, and how we got there is barely relevant for the future.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:03 am

As I'm not that knowledgeable regarding how leveraged buyouts work I'd be curious to know whether the impact of another lengthy stay in the Prem (say six seasons again) would lessen the dangers of another relegation in future, or would we always be back to square one in the Championship, and looking at another fire sale of players were we not to get promotion soon after?

It all depends what we did with the Premier League money. If we just spent it all on wages it would be no different.

I suspect (based on what has happened this season) that a large part of the external debt would be paid down which would, in theory, lessen the risk.

Ultimately though it's very unlikely that Pace et al would have the deep pockets to invest more (setting aside the issue of them owing the club money) in the Championship so some sort of significant sale would be likely if we didn't go back up again.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:18 pm

Taken in isolation I don't find the Calder Vale one that surprising. A reasonable chance that different filing dates had been missed and both would be filed before the 26th.

But, it does seem to be a pattern which is a bit concerning.

The Accounts for Kettering Capital Limited now overdue (last date was yesterday), they could be in the works at Companies House, but that is all four of ALK's English based entities now with their first set of accounts overdue.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:11 pm

The Accounts for Kettering Capital Limited now overdue (last date was yesterday), they could be in the works at Companies House, but that is all four of ALK's English based entities now with their first set of accounts overdue.

Are there still extensions allowed for Covid?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:24 pm

Are there still extensions allowed for Covid?

Ignore, no they’ve ended.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:11 pm

The Accounts for Kettering Capital Limited now overdue (last date was yesterday), they could be in the works at Companies House, but that is all four of ALK's English based entities now with their first set of accounts overdue.

Aren’t there mandatory financial penalties for late submission of accounts? What you wrote earlier implied intentional late submission in which case what are the likely benefits of doing this for Pace et al. and these four companies? I can’t imagine this is incompetence by them. If they’ve deemed it worth taking the penalties to withhold the accounts, what might this relate to? Financial obligations elsewhere? Raising capital? Something else?

Dingo wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:12 pm

Aren’t there mandatory financial penalties for late submission of accounts? What you wrote earlier implied intentional late submission in which case what are the likely benefits of doing this for Pace et al. and these four companies? I can’t imagine this is incompetence by them. If they’ve deemed it worth taking the penalties to withhold the accounts, what might this relate to? Financial obligations elsewhere? Raising capital? Something else?

The financial penalty for up to 3 months late is £100. Not going to trouble someone shuffling milions around. whether they don't want to submit the accounts or whether they haven't got round to producing them yet, we can't tell.

As for covid exemptions, they aren't automatic for all companies like they used to be, companies now need to apply. But a company that applies for an exemption based on covid will be granted an extra 3 months.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:35 pm

Ignore, no they’ve ended.

They’ve not ended, you just have to apply for it, but they’re granted automatically if you choose ‘Covid 19’ as the reason for the delay.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 pm

They’ve not ended, you just have to apply for it, but they’re granted automatically if you choose ‘Covid 19’ as the reason for the delay.

Ah, okay. We definitely won’t see them before three months then, if there’s an easy route to extend & I’m sure they’d pay the £100 if there weren’t.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:54 am

Ah, okay. We definitely won’t see them before three months then, if there’s an easy route to extend & I’m sure they’d pay the £100 if there weren’t.

Looks like they’ve already applied for it, certainly in the case of Calder Vale Holdings, as they’ve had 24 months to file rather than the usual 21 months for first year accounts. So they’ve even gone beyond that which is possibly cause for concern.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 8:14 am

Looks like they’ve already applied for it, certainly in the case of Calder Vale Holdings, as they’ve had 24 months to file rather than the usual 21 months for first year accounts. So they’ve even gone beyond that which is possibly cause for concern.

Is this an assumption that they have applied for it - nothing being shown as filed at Companies House that I can see
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12919689


Both ALK Capital Limited and Velocity Sports Partners Limited are over 4 months late in producing their first accounts - as I have said before these could well be dormant companies but there is little excuse for such tardiness when we know the directors are active in this country

Dingo wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:12 pm

Aren’t there mandatory financial penalties for late submission of accounts? What you wrote earlier implied intentional late submission in which case what are the likely benefits of doing this for Pace et al. and these four companies? I can’t imagine this is incompetence by them. If they’ve deemed it worth taking the penalties to withhold the accounts, what might this relate to? Financial obligations elsewhere? Raising capital? Something else?

We need to tread carefully with phrasing here

The reasons could be innocent ones - the problem is that there is now a definite trend emerging in the reporting at all the companies this group of Directors are involved with - this will inevitably lead to uneasiness and questions particularly in the light of filings being made that essentially refute previous statements by Alan Pace, who will hide behind claims of absolute accuracy. It encourages the thought that something is being hidden whether that is the case or not.

Mike Garlick had a preference to file in the final few weeks of the allotted time, having ended the AGM's, which was in his legal purview, but I do not recall him being late or filing at the last minute which is what we are now seeing on a regular basis.

No excuse, but in reality, Pace seems to has little experience in running a small business. I realise he has partners and others but he was a mid-level Director in an investment bank ,until 2019, which is a corporate business with layers of people sorting out the company admin stuff.

It could be that....!

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:16 pm

Is this an assumption that they have applied for it - nothing being shown as filed at Companies House that I can see
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/12919689


Both ALK Capital Limited and Velocity Sports Partners Limited are over 4 months late in producing their first accounts - as I have said before these could well be dormant companies but there is little excuse for such tardiness when we know the directors are active in this country

Nothing would show on the filings, only the extended deadline of 24 months from incorporation, which is there, so it’s a reasonable assumption that they applied for and were given the three month extension (or it may have been automatic at the time of incorp anyway).

Any idea how much debt is loaded on the club atm?

Superjohnnyfrancis wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:34 pm

Any idea how much debt is loaded on the club atm?

There is the MSD debt of £32,762,013.75 following the reduction over the summer required as a result of relegation as per the terms of the loan agreement (a penalty payment was almost certainly attached to the debt reduction)

There are outstanding transfer payments of an unknown value and also conditional transfer payments (performance based usually) also of an unknown value

The club is currently a creditor to VSL via its subsidiaries Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited of £143m:
- £23m used for the takeover down payment
- £65m - the MSD money loaned to the club and then advanced to VSL for the takeover down payment
- £51m used for Stage Payments (I believe another £21m will be loaned to cover the outstanding stage payment next year)
- £10m used for buying the shares of the small shareholders (I think £2m - £2.5m) more will be needed in future years on to cover remaining club credit liabilities)

The club is also a creditor to Everton for transfer payments related to Dwight McNeil
There are conditional payments related to the transfers of Dwight McNeil, Nathan Collins, Nick Pope and possibly for Maxwell Cornet, Josh Benson, Jimmy Dunne and maybe some of the younger players that left the club in the summer.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:57 pm

The club is currently a creditor to VSL via its subsidiaries Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited of £143m £149m:
- £23m used for the takeover down payment
- £65m - the MSD money loaned to the club and then advanced to VSL for the takeover down payment
- £51m used for Stage Payments (I believe another £21m will be loaned to cover the outstanding stage payment next year)
- £10m used for buying the shares of the small shareholders (I think £2m - £2.5m) more will be needed in future years on to cover remaining club credit liabilities)

I really should learn to add up better

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:57 pm

There is the MSD debt of £32,762,013.75 following the reduction over the summer required as a result of relegation as per the terms of the loan agreement (a penalty payment was almost certainly attached to the debt reduction)

There are outstanding transfer payments of an unknown value and also conditional transfer payments (performance based usually) also of an unknown value

The club is currently a creditor to VSL via its subsidiaries Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited of £143m:
- £23m used for the takeover down payment
- £65m - the MSD money loaned to the club and then advanced to VSL for the takeover down payment
- £51m used for Stage Payments (I believe another £21m will be loaned to cover the outstanding stage payment next year)
- £10m used for buying the shares of the small shareholders (I think £2m - £2.5m) more will be needed in future years on to cover remaining club credit liabilities)

The club is also a creditor to Everton for transfer payments related to Dwight McNeil
There are conditional payments related to the transfers of Dwight McNeil £20m, Nathan Collins£21.5, Nick Pope£10m and possibly for Maxwell Cornet£17m, Josh Benson£1m, Jimmy Dunne £750k and maybe some of the younger players that left the club in the summer.

Thanks for the numbers, still quite a way to go then, what do you reckon will happen if we go up how much is due straight away do you think, could seriously hamper plans to stay up!

Do you think the player values above are right, i make it £70m sales going off what i saw via sky sports and otehr news outlets etc. Leaving a net of £80m owed from all the costs you mentioned? I believe we didnt pay all of Cornets fee up front but i dont profess to know all the in and outs of every transfer weve done just the reported figures of the sales.

We spent around £10-20m this summer on new players or thereabouts?

Superjohnnyfrancis wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:48 pm

Do you think the player values above are right, i make it £70m sales going off what i saw via sky sports and otehr news outlets etc. Leaving a net of £80m owed from all the costs you mentioned?

Doesn't work like that I am afraid - we may book the headline numbers in the accounts but the cash flow situation is very different

Cornet sale of £17.5m cash (we are led to believe) there was about £8m outstanding on his inward transfer and there would have been a sell-on clause for the profit on the original deal - we kept around half of the sale transaction money - Legally on international transfers UEFA do not require us to do more that meet the original payment schedule for Cornet, but you would hope we have paid up and not spent the money elsewhere

Nathan Collins - £20.5m sale then there were add-ons/conditional payments, we owed Stoke £9m on the original transfer - add in the sell on arrangements with Stoke and the cost of factoring/Invoice advancing the remaining payments from Wolves with Macquarie and we will have seen around £8.5m - £9m in cash inflow. Not forgetting that we probably made conditional payments during the season of circa £1m as he became a full Irish International and played so many games for us. My understanding is that under domestic transfers the rules mean that upon sale we have to pay all the outstanding transfer monies upon the time of sale.

It should be noted that the more payments/time required to complete a transfer debt the greater the cost to factor/invoice advance from the likes Macquarie, consequently it will have been more/equally expensive to advance what is likely to have been around £4m - £5m for Nick Pope (after deductions for sell-on and fees to Macquarie than the £11m or so for Chris Wood

so, you kind of get the picture of where we are on the cash inflow from the sales

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:13 pm

Doesn't work like that I am afraid - we may book the headline numbers in the accounts but the cash flow situation is very different

Cornet sale of £17.5m cash (we are led to believe) there was about £8m outstanding on his inward transfer and there would have been a sell-on clause for the profit on the original deal - we kept around half of the sale transaction money - Legally on international transfers UEFA do not require us to do more that meet the original payment schedule for Cornet, but you would hope we have paid up and not spent the money elsewhere

Nathan Collins - £20.5m sale then there were add-ons/conditional payments, we owed Stoke £9m on the original transfer - add in the sell on arrangements with Stoke and the cost of factoring/Invoice advancing the remaining payments from Wolves with Macquarie and we will have seen around £8.5m - £9m in cash inflow. Not forgetting that we probably made conditional payments during the season of circa £1m as he became a full Irish International and played so many games for us. My understanding is that under domestic transfers the rules mean that upon sale we have to pay all the outstanding transfer monies upon the time of sale.

It should be noted that the more payments/time required to complete a transfer debt the greater the cost to factor/invoice advance from the likes Macquarie, consequently it will have been more/equally expensive to advance what is likely to have been around £4m - £5m for Nick Pope (after deductions for sell-on and fees to Macquarie than the £11m or so for Chris Wood

so, you kind of get the picture of where we are on the cash inflow from the sales

None of this cash reduces the debt that ALK/VSL/Kettering Capital/Calder Vale Holdings owe to the club - that requires them to make a financial transaction into the club - even if the club has first given it to them as a dividend/consultancy fee.

you will also notice just how out of sync the club's debt to MSD is to the related debt VSL have with the club

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:27 pm

None of this cash reduces the debt that ALK/VSL/Kettering Capital/Calder Vale Holdings owe to the club - that requires them to make a financial transaction into the club - even if the club has first given it to them as a dividend/consultancy fee.

you will also notice just how out of sync the club's debt to MSD is to the related debt VSL have with the club

In terms of fag packet figures if we paid getting on for £30 million to MSD and according to your figures £17 million to the former owners (68 - 51). In addition to over £20 million on incoming transfers - it all adds up.

Although we've cut the wage bill because of relegation clauses and player disposals we have added 18/19 players to the payroll and lost £30 - 40 million of PL broadcast revenue.

I'm not sure why people think we will have lots of money for January transfers.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:27 pm

No excuse, but in reality, Pace seems to has little experience in running a small business. I realise he has partners and others but he was a mid-level Director in an investment bank ,until 2019, which is a corporate business with layers of people sorting out the company admin stuff.

It could be that....!

I'd say that's pretty unlikely. These aren't self-filed things where it's possible to forget/miss by accident.

There are accountants/auditors involved who, unless they are terrible, will be reminding them that these things need filling.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:57 pm

There is the MSD debt of £32,762,013.75 following the reduction over the summer required as a result of relegation as per the terms of the loan agreement (a penalty payment was almost certainly attached to the debt reduction)

There are outstanding transfer payments of an unknown value and also conditional transfer payments (performance based usually) also of an unknown value

The club is currently a creditor to VSL via its subsidiaries Kettering Capital Limited and Calder Vale Holdings Limited of £143m:
- £23m used for the takeover down payment
- £65m - the MSD money loaned to the club and then advanced to VSL for the takeover down payment
- £51m used for Stage Payments (I believe another £21m will be loaned to cover the outstanding stage payment next year)
- £10m used for buying the shares of the small shareholders (I think £2m - £2.5m) more will be needed in future years on to cover remaining club credit liabilities)

The club is also a creditor to Everton for transfer payments related to Dwight McNeil
There are conditional payments related to the transfers of Dwight McNeil, Nathan Collins, Nick Pope and possibly for Maxwell Cornet, Josh Benson, Jimmy Dunne and maybe some of the younger players that left the club in the summer.

Just to be clear as the phrasing is a bit unclear.

The club likely owes ~ £30m externally.

It is owed £143m (I've not checked the numbers but assume it is right) by Pace and co. It is unlikely this will be repaid in cold, hard cash.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:13 pm

Nathan Collins - £20.5m sale then there were add-ons/conditional payments, we owed Stoke £9m on the original transfer - add in the sell on arrangements with Stoke and the cost of factoring/Invoice advancing the remaining payments from Wolves with Macquarie and we will have seen around £8.5m - £9m in cash inflow.

I doubt we met a single add on for Collins, he didn't make many appearances and we got relegated. When would those numbers come out CP ?

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:47 pm

In terms of fag packet figures if we paid getting on for £30 million to MSD and according to your figures £17 million to the former owners (68 - 51). In addition to over £20 million on incoming transfers - it all adds up.

Although we've cut the wage bill because of relegation clauses and player disposals we have added 18/19 players to the payroll and lost £30 - 40 million of PL broadcast revenue.

I'm not sure why people think we will have lots of money for January transfers.

Your fag packet has a minus sign where it should have a plus. Burnley FC has paid 68 + 51 to the owners, that is £119m.

Very broadly speaking, BFC has paid £143m to Pace according to Chester's figures which are certainly there or thereabouts. The club collected this money from various sources, essentially £40m cash saved up over the previous few years, £65m loan from MSD, which leaves £38m from net player transfers.

We have since repaid £30m to MSD, again essentially from net player transfers. Parachute money from the PL may also have been used.

What we don't know is how much we owe in player incoming transfers, other loans or bank overdrafts, and so forth. But it's fairly certain that the only "liquid" asset is the loan owed to Burnley FC by Pace, and his company has no cash and no liquid assets, we ain't getting that back any time soon. The only alternative source of future cash to pay our (or Pace's) debts is via further player sales.

That's why we can't afford to wait a year for promotion. We need to go up if we're ever going to pay off Pace's debts. It's also why I'm resolved to enjoy the football for football's sake and put my head in the sand and not worry about the financial situation - at least, not on match day.

aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:00 pm

Just to be clear as the phrasing is a bit unclear.

The club likely owes ~ £30m externally.

It is owed £143m (I've not checked the numbers but assume it is right) by Pace and co. It is unlikely this will be repaid in cold, hard cash.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:22 pm

,,,,
Very broadly speaking, BFC has paid £143m to Pace according to Chester's figures which are certainly there or thereabouts. The club collected this money from various sources, essentially £40m cash saved up over the previous few years, £65m loan from MSD, which leaves £38m from net player transfers.

you may have noted that there was an adding mistake which I pointed out in the very next post - to avoid confusion

The Club have loaned ALK/VSL/Kettering Capital/Calder Vale Holdings £149m to date by my reckoning
- £23m used for the takeover down payment
- £65m - the MSD money loaned to the club and then advanced to VSL for the takeover down payment
- £51m used for Stage Payments (I believe another £21m will be loaned to cover the outstanding stage payment next year)
- £10m used for buying the shares of the small shareholders (I think £2m - £2.5m) more will be needed in future years on to cover remaining club credit liabilities)

With the amounts listed above how many seasons in the Prem will be required to pay off all the debt?

It still feels like we are in a very precarious position if we don't yo-yo for the next few seasons at the very least.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:17 pm

With the amounts listed above how many seasons in the Prem will be required to pay off all the debt?

It still feels like we are in a very precarious position if we don't yo-yo for the next few seasons at the very least.

It depends on what you are calling debt

The club has £32,762,013.75 of external debt, which is peanuts for a Premier League club, even with the high interest on it - this debt is scheduled to be cleared at the end of December 2025 and if we are promoted this season then that is achievable, thereafter, even if we come straight back down. This is assuming that the MSD loan is not renegotiated/extended. The major issue people like me have with it is that it is not being used to develop the club's revenue earning potential, it is being used to develop the owner's (past and present) personal return.

We will ignore the transfer debt for now as it is part of the general operating practice of a Football Club, though the MSD debt repayment and servicing will impact the ability to trade (as it did this summer) though many would argue that hurdle has been well negotiated to date

The issue of the related company debt - the £149m to Pace and his mates is very different and while there have been various signals of how it will be addressed in the future it really is a moving picture - do not be surprised if the club contributes to the capital repayments via a dividend or other payment like consultancy fee. There is always the option of the original plan which is bringing in new investment partners and using their buy-in to pay down the loans - but you feel that would require an extended return to the PL.

There has always been a potentially successful route through this, just one with more risks than many would take with a community asset. It certainly not one that many investors would have taken using their own funds (hence the lack of new investors to date), but the longer it holds together the more likely new investors are to come on board.

As I have said a number of times, we have to hope they are successful, not for themselves but because of the club's importance to the well-being of the local community both emotionally and economically.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:17 pm

With the amounts listed above how many seasons in the Prem will be required to pay off all the debt?

It still feels like we are in a very precarious position if we don't yo-yo for the next few seasons at the very least.

It's a bit of a how long is a piece of string question but a couple of seasons would probably clear it if it was treated as a priority, but not prioritised above everything.

It very much looks like we're looking at resale value on our signings so we'll likely be generating income there as well as TV rights (but it's a tough one to do consistently).

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:58 pm

It depends on what you are calling debt

The club has £32,762,013.75 of external debt, which is peanuts for a Premier League club, even with the high interest on it - this debt is scheduled to be cleared at the end of December 2025 and if we are promoted this season then that is achievable, thereafter, even if we come straight back down. This is assuming that the MSD loan is not renegotiated/extended. The major issue people like me have with it is that it is not being used to develop the club's revenue earning potential, it is being used to develop the owner's (past and present) personal return.

We will ignore the transfer debt for now as it is part of the general operating practice of a Football Club, though the MSD debt repayment and servicing will impact the ability to trade (as it did this summer) though many would argue that hurdle has been well negotiated to date

The issue of the related company debt - the £149m to Pace and his mates is very different and while there have been various signals of how it will be addressed in the future it really is a moving picture - do not be surprised if the club contributes to the capital repayments via a dividend or other payment like consultancy fee. There is always the option of the original plan which is bringing in new investment partners and using their buy-in to pay down the loans - but you feel that would require an extended return to the PL.

There has always been a potentially successful route through this, just one with more risks than many would take with a community asset. It certainly not one that many investors would have taken using their own funds (hence the lack of new investors to date), but the longer it holds together the more likely new investors are to come on board.

As I have said a number of times, we have to hope they are successful, not for themselves but because of the club's importance to the well-being of the local community both emotionally and economically.

Hi CP,

It doesn't depend "what you are calling debt." The only debt the club has - aside from transfer obligations - is the £33 million (rounded) owed to MSD. As we all know - and you've covered this detail excellently for everyone - the club has repaid about half of the original amount of £65 million owed to MSD over the summer transfer window> This repayment obligation arose early because the club was relegated from the Premier League.

The other figures discussed recently in this thread, £149 million, is money owed to BFC by the BFC owners. So, it's the exact opposite of debt.

The term "creditor" (as used above) can be misleading for many. When we have a credit balance in our bank account we know that is good news, a positive, it is money we can spend. It means that we are a creditor of the bank. Similarly, BFC is a creditor of the BFC owners. Yes, of course, that money can only be spent if it is paid to us by our bank or by the BFC's owners to BFC. All this is based on our bank's or the club's owners' accounts. In BFC's accounts the £149 million will be recorded as a debtor, i.e. money that is owed to BFC.

UTC

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:09 pm

Hi CP,

....

I'd generally agree with this. I posted a similar clarification above as the terms are used a bit jarringly.

One thing to consider is the next set of stage payments. There is a reasonable chance we may see more debt loaded on the club to clear these (obviously nothing definite and it may be the club will generate enough revenue to fund this or they will be paid from external funds).

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:09 pm

Hi CP,

It doesn't depend "what you are calling debt."...

Paul,

While everything you say is technically correct, and as ever have no issues with any of the clarifications or that you have made them, I would say that you appear to be missing the context in which I am responding, it is pretty obvious that there are questions from people who are not, au-fait with the language and technicalities of finance and accounting (and yes, I can be included in that, but I am improving) and are referring to the club's debt and the VSL debt to the club in the same way. We know they are different, but it appeared to me that they are asking how it can all be cleared. I was just differentiating between the two as aggi had done a few posts earlier.
I also took it that these questioners had an expectation that it is the club not the owners that will be clearing the related company debt. We know that while it is certainly not the club's legal responsibility that there is a level of reasonable probability that the club will end up contributing significantly to VSL reducing/paying off the debt they have with the club.

There is also the possibility that some or all of the MSD debt could essentially be paid off twice by the club, once to MSD and a second time by providing VSL funds (via dividend etc) which they then use to pay off that related portion of the debt to the club. I say this as there appeared to be a real intention that this particular portion of VSL's debt was always to be repaid from the proceeds of a dividend.

Of course, if no new investors are found it is entirely possible that the whole of VSL's debt obligation to the club could be met in this way in the coming years. It is this fear that I take as the cause of a number of posters sub-consciously amalgamating the two distinct debts into one (I hope I am not being too presumptuous here), which as you have so clearly illustrated is not the case in technicality or legality. but could end up being how the situation essentially unfolds in practice and actuality.

I trust you enjoyed your recent holiday and may be in touch regarding some London Clarets stuff, that we have previously corresponded on in the coming days.

I think what what CP is getting at here, and correct me if it's not, is that the money owed to the club (£149m or whatever) could be cleared by the club actually paying money to Pace, etc's companies.

The money would just come back to the club though to clear the debt though so although it would have an impact on net assets in the balance sheet it would have no difference on cash balances.

aggi wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:59 am

I think what what CP is getting at here, and correct me if it's not, is that the money owed to the club (£149m or whatever) could be cleared by the club actually paying money to Pace, etc's companies.

The money would just come back to the club though to clear the debt though so although it would have an impact on net assets in the balance sheet it would have no difference on cash balances.

yep, that is the concern I was picking up on

and as we both know there is every chance that they have not yet finished borrowing from the club - I see the potential for around another £43m

- £21m final stage payment
- £20m to buy the ring-fenced shares of the old ownership group
- £2m or so to finalise the club credit obligations on the purchase of shares from the small shareholders assuming as many sold them as we think (that being almost all).

Of course, the current pattern of practice may change, and I think most would be very happy to see that even if they currently believe it to be unlikely.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:09 pm

Hi CP,

It doesn't depend "what you are calling debt." The only debt the club has - aside from transfer obligations - is the £33 million (rounded) owed to MSD. As we all know - and you've covered this detail excellently for everyone - the club has repaid about half of the original amount of £65 million owed to MSD over the summer transfer window> This repayment obligation arose early because the club was relegated from the Premier League.

The other figures discussed recently in this thread, £149 million, is money owed to BFC by the BFC owners. So, it's the exact opposite of debt.

The term "creditor" (as used above) can be misleading for many. When we have a credit balance in our bank account we know that is good news, a positive, it is money we can spend. It means that we are a creditor of the bank. Similarly, BFC is a creditor of the BFC owners. Yes, of course, that money can only be spent if it is paid to us by our bank or by the BFC's owners to BFC. All this is based on our bank's or the club's owners' accounts. In BFC's accounts the £149 million will be recorded as a debtor, i.e. money that is owed to BFC.

UTC

As a stand alone legal entity the club only has debts of £33 million but in reality it appears to be the only income generating component of a group.

Therefore, with all due respect Paul - I don't think you can simplify the situation in the manner that you have....

The money owed by the BFC owners to BFC is in reality debt owed to someone else. While technically it is not BFCs debt in the absence of any other visible means of payment it is in effect debt that the club will likely incur.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:22 pm

Your fag packet has a minus sign where it should have a plus. Burnley FC has paid 68 + 51 to the owners, that is £119m.

Very broadly speaking, BFC has paid £143m to Pace according to Chester's figures which are certainly there or thereabouts. The club collected this money from various sources, essentially £40m cash saved up over the previous few years, £65m loan from MSD, which leaves £38m from net player transfers.

We have since repaid £30m to MSD, again essentially from net player transfers. Parachute money from the PL may also have been used.

What we don't know is how much we owe in player incoming transfers, other loans or bank overdrafts, and so forth. But it's fairly certain that the only "liquid" asset is the loan owed to Burnley FC by Pace, and his company has no cash and no liquid assets, we ain't getting that back any time soon. The only alternative source of future cash to pay our (or Pace's) debts is via further player sales.

That's why we can't afford to wait a year for promotion. We need to go up if we're ever going to pay off Pace's debts. It's also why I'm resolved to enjoy the football for football's sake and put my head in the sand and not worry about the financial situation - at least, not on match day.

I was largely referring to what the club has paid out in terms of cash this season. As far as I understand it Chester seems to suggest that we still owe £51 million to the former owners, therefore, £68 - £51 = £17 million paid out of the incoming cash this season. Of course, I could have misread CPs point.

That in addition to the £30 million paid out to MSD equates to £47 million plus the transfer fees of £22 million is £69 million. To be clear, that is £69 million this season....!

My point was to try and give some context to those who think we have got £70 million in the bank from transfers and there will be funds available in January.

My point was firstly: we haven't received all that because as CP points out some of that transfer money is owed to former clubs and, secondly, there has been an awful lot cash paid out.

And yes on the upside there seem much more likelihood of a positive outcome than anyone would have thought a year ago.

After the debts are paid , what is stopping Pace & Co selling the club for say £200 million , with that sum becoming the new debt ?