Grim
Re: Grim
Isn't all this talk about who leaked the info a bit like shooting the messenger? Maybe they were concerned and thought it should be known. What's it matter who leaked it? I'm more concerned with what's been leaked.
-
- Posts: 7104
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3580 times
- Has Liked: 1023 times
- Location: Chesterfield
Re: Grim
I think whoever is leaking it isn't doing it 'destabilise' the club as some are saying, I think it's exactly like you've suggested. They're deeply concerned for the club they support and doing the only thing they can do if no longer in a position of influence - sound the alarm bells to the fans publicly, but anonymously.
No idea who it could be but you look at everyone who has left and all of the ex-shareholders/board members and it's a large list of possibles who probably still have the inside track on what's going on within Turf Moor.
This user liked this post: groove
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
Hi spt_claret, I tried last night to respond - but I realised easier to try again with your underlines copy/pasted above, without all the rest of the stuff. My mistake in adding underlines into your early post.spt_claret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:23 pmAlso commented in underlines.
I misread the article as the timeline having begun in 2007 continuing until 2010, apologies. Just out of curiosity- what DO Prime Finance do then, just provide capital or securities for hedge funds to then reinvest? I assume Prime Finance would not have either sold the CDOs or taken the CDS positions?
I'm wary of Wall Street Finance because of all the corruption, predation, risky speculation with other peoples' money & misrepesentation of dealings, disaster capitalists profiting from collapses, and the way Wall Street money regularly manipulates all manner of industries. It's hilarious that you can't understand why someone would distrust Wall Street.
Which was in part due to poor cashflow management and things like Flood loaning the club money at interest if I recall. And we got back out of debt for years due to being in the Premier League and spending little. We were NOT in debt when he sold the club. I was dissatisified with Garlick & B's lack of on pitch investment but happy with how responsible they were managing our finances, 2 conflicting needs but the position was understandable. Right now, we are in debt and the situation could turn stickier if relegated. Not the same as when Garlick took over.
I'm concerned that pursuing this discussion will result in my miscommunicating my worries as something else beyond my concern and desire for greater transparency, so I'm not responding to every point, much as I'd like to, and going to leave it here. I want to be confident about the club, and believe in Pace and ALK's stewardship but so far I am worried. They have 11 days to literally put their money where their mouth is. I would merrily admit to being wrong.
Prime Finance (aka Prime Brokerage) provide two services to hedge funds: the first is all the systems and other infrastructure required to support a securities and derivatives trading - banks have created this infrastructure for their own trading activities and it's an easy thing to extend the same infrastructure to other firms - with suitable firewalls, so that the hedge fund's positions are not known to other parts of the bank - saving the smaller hedge funds from the significant expense of investing in and setting it up for themselves; the second is lending money to the hedge fund to enable the latter to leverage their positions. Prime Finance wouldn't be involved in any trading activities for their own account, so not selling CDOs or taking CDS positions or any other securities.
Wall Street, it's just the name for the largest financial center (US spelling) in the world. There's no reason to think of "Wall Street" as any different to any other financial centre or any other collection of people doing whatever it is that people do. Big Tech in Silicon Valley. Car Manufacturers in Germany or any other country. FIFA and all the football associations. TV companies. Fans watching streams without paying.
Let's see what the rest of January transfer window brings us.
UTC
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
That is very kind of you LTLLong Time Lurker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:55 pmThe absence of Chester Perry from these boards, and discussions like this, is a big loss. However, I can understand why he stopped posting, having done the same thing myself for quite a few months ( for similar reasons ).
The Magic Money Tree thread was always one of the most interesting reads on here.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&p=1673266&hil ... y#p1673266
I spent the first 17 days of this year researching and writing around this subject matter for the next issue of the excellent London Clarets Magazine - ''Something to Write Home About' which is currently at the printers and subscribers should get their copy in the post next week
There are one or two interesting items on public record if you look for them that make you question the ALK takeover narrative, certain illusions will and need be shattered - though on the whole the ALK Three seem to try extremely hard to keep things close to their chest.
the article starts like with this
“Beware of the clever, sharp men who are creeping into the game.”
William McGregor, founder of the Football League, in: ‘League Football and the Men Who Made it’ (1909)
but does not proceed or conclude the way you may think.
Overall it has come as something as a surprise just how topical the subject matter has become. Given, the article wasn't even supposed to be about this subject matter, it developed as a result of the research findings, i just followed through on questions raised by my findings.
It makes me think back to to this on the takeover thread
and that my first article for the London Clarets about the takeover had a similar conclusionChester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:00 pmThe difficulty for some to comprehend (or accept) is that the club is being leveraged for the talent in the boardroom, and not to invest in the club in a financial sense that the majority of us would understand. The challenge is for that talent, having effectively removed the ability to leverage the assets of the club to invest in their strategy and having no known additional monies to invest is to find a revenue uplift to do so (or investment partners - hence the talk of a partial flip). This follows the same paths of Checketts previous two attempts at owning a sports franchise, he ultimately failed in both (though both were in better positions structurally and organisationally on his exit), he performed much better on the second effort but ultimately found he could not finance his plans and had to step aside, the first time he was forced to sell up by the league. Time will tell if enough relevant lessons have been learnt and are suitable to be applied to English Football
I have repeatedly spoken against debt in football, though I fully accept that it is an important tool for business development (as has been clearly detailed by KateR and aggi a number of times), I would be less apprehensive if the debt was being used to to invest in projects that would lead to a planned increase in revenues such as stand or retail development. This debt and reduction of the cash holding is a the cost of bringing a willingness for a different kind of risk to the boardroom combined with a wider range of talents. That seems an expensive burden, if you wanted the talents at executive level you could argue that the £6m+ we are hearing is the cost of servicing the interest on the debt could have been spent on recruiting that talent and vision. Of course that would still leave Mike Garlick as Chairman, and it has seemed apparent that would encourage the manager to leave at the opportunity and whim of his choosing with a reportedly toxic atmosphere seeping through the club in the meantime.
For now the manager has got his wish on the player contract front, and seems content to be working with a different person, he has effectively been given the power to dethrone the board and with so much resting on his shoulders from a performance and marketing perspective you wonder what may happen if he becomes unhappy with the limitations of the club?
There is much to ponder, much to wish for and much to worry about, we have had our sliding doors trigger event and now must watch on and hope for a happy ending
"We have to wish them every success, not because we want them to profit hugely from their ownership, because we want our club to remain a stable foundation at the heart of the town’s economic and social well-being. All we can ask is that they drive carefully."
those who refer to the Division 4 years and the Orient game are often mocked on these pages, but the spirit here is what we came to recognise then. Whatever may befall us, and I do not think the picture is as bad as some would make you believe, the club being there for and as a symbol of our community is and will always remain the most important thing.
These 8 users liked this post: Paul Waine GodIsADeeJay81 Buxtonclaret Aclaret frankinwales Vegas Claret fatboy47 randomclaret2
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
London Clarets have decided to share my latest article for their magazine 'Something to Write Home About" online - As I said in my above post it is surprising how topical this subject matter has become - a word of caution - it is quite lengthy
In the magazine they introduce it like this
"This is the third instalment of Chester’s analysis of ALK’s takeover. What he has produced far surpasses what we originally asked for, and provides an in-depth consideration of ALK: their corporate set-up, business model, and the levels of risk that the takeover involves. It’s a detailed read, but it is up-to-date, written from a fan’s perspective and offers a level of insight that we don’t believe has been offered elsewhere. Our sincere thanks to Chester for the time, effort and conscientiousness he has put into this article."
it can be found here - be warned it takes 10 to 20 seconds to load
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWEVLK ... E2a7w/view
you can follow London Clarets here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets
and find out more about them here
https://www.londonclarets.org.uk/
In the magazine they introduce it like this
"This is the third instalment of Chester’s analysis of ALK’s takeover. What he has produced far surpasses what we originally asked for, and provides an in-depth consideration of ALK: their corporate set-up, business model, and the levels of risk that the takeover involves. It’s a detailed read, but it is up-to-date, written from a fan’s perspective and offers a level of insight that we don’t believe has been offered elsewhere. Our sincere thanks to Chester for the time, effort and conscientiousness he has put into this article."
it can be found here - be warned it takes 10 to 20 seconds to load
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWEVLK ... E2a7w/view
you can follow London Clarets here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets
and find out more about them here
https://www.londonclarets.org.uk/
These 2 users liked this post: GaryClaret Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
you will find it is a follow up to a specific post about me and my thoughts - this is the thread that post was made on - I have bever been a fan of creating a new thread for the sake of it
you don't have to read it and I wouldn't even say my post was downbeat, just that people need to open their eyes and ears a bit more - heart most be taken in that the owners and the new administration are still very much working together to achieve the same goal
Re: Grim
No. The loan is with one of the ALK entities above the club. The club's assets have been used to guarantee the loan which means there is the possibility of some of the club's assets being used to pay the loan off if ALK defaulted. I'm pretty sure players weren't included, TV revenue was.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:54 amBut isn't it the club that owe MSD (or whatever they are called) the money and not specifically ALK ?
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
as I posted above
'the club being there for and as a symbol of our community is and will always remain the most important thing' irrespective of the division we play in
-
- Posts: 30273
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 10916 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Grim
good to see you back CPChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:40 pmas I posted above
'the club being there for and as a symbol of our community is and will always remain the most important thing' irrespective of the division we play in
-
- Posts: 4377
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1250 times
- Has Liked: 1367 times
Re: Grim
Ok , so let’s put all this ultra examination of administration to one side for a while , eh?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:40 pmas I posted above
'the club being there for and as a symbol of our community is and will always remain the most important thing' irrespective of the division we play in
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
It was something I was asked to do - the people who asked for it find it worthwhile - you don't that is fine, but so is their view as is the one from LTL (and others that have been asking for my take) - as I have said, I am not necessarily with the doom and gloom merchants but neither am I going to take things at face value from people who have control over our club but have little apparent equity other than personal reputations invested in it. In many ways Elizabeth you are showing a greater personal investment in the club than they have
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
I wouldn't say I am back, just that I may get involved in the odd discussion from time to time
-
- Posts: 4377
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1250 times
- Has Liked: 1367 times
Re: Grim
Im showing no more personal investment than any other fan , we all know what we got ourselves into when we started supporting the club. I will not look down on Pace and I would prefer others to back off at the moment
Re: Grim
Interesting, I look forward to a proper rest of it tomorrow.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:57 pmLondon Clarets have decided to share my latest article for their magazine 'Something to Write Home About" online - As I said in my above post it is surprising how topical this subject matter has become - a word of caution - it is quite lengthy
In the magazine they introduce it like this
"This is the third instalment of Chester’s analysis of ALK’s takeover. What he has produced far surpasses what we originally asked for, and provides an in-depth consideration of ALK: their corporate set-up, business model, and the levels of risk that the takeover involves. It’s a detailed read, but it is up-to-date, written from a fan’s perspective and offers a level of insight that we don’t believe has been offered elsewhere. Our sincere thanks to Chester for the time, effort and conscientiousness he has put into this article."
it can be found here - be warned it takes 10 to 20 seconds to load
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWEVLK ... E2a7w/view
you can follow London Clarets here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets
and find out more about them here
https://www.londonclarets.org.uk/
I've only had s quick scan through but I was confused by this bit
Of particular note to us, not one of those 1,731 shareholders was called ALK Capital Limited, Velocity Sports Partners Limited, Kettering Capital Limited, Calder Vale Holdings Limited, Alan Gary Pace, Stuart Hunt, Michael Lee Smith, David Wayne Checketts, or Antonio Davila Parra – all names with which we have had to become familiar in the last year. The final five are all new Directors of Burnley FC Holdings, a company whose Articles of Association demand that Directors must hold a minimum of 4,000 shares within
Calder Vale Holdings Limited have over 100,000 shares. The suggestion that current directors would have held on to their shares but signed over voting rights (I think that's what you're suggesting) would be very unusual and isn't borne out by companies house.
Also, just looking at the suggested structure (and setting aside the above issue), were you able to definitively verify the Jersey and Delaware sections or is that best guess. I had a quick look before but couldn't find anything, it looks like you've got a bit further than me with Jersey at least.
I don't think your shareholdings are quite right, I'm pretty sure Kettering Capital at least have more shares than that.
-
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 978 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Grim
Excellent news.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:54 pmI wouldn't say I am back, just that I may get involved in the odd discussion from time to time
This user liked this post: frankinwales
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
Mea Culpa
I think I know what happened there, just not why
please try and find other errors - I have always encouraged that - as I have said before I would be happy to be proved wrong
there is still much of relevance in the article if you are prepared to read it
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
For the sake of clarity this would also mean the speculation on the Checketts and Parra being separate investors is wrong as the previous board members account for around 10% of shares - though it is interesting that small share holdings have been retained by the othersChester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:43 amMea Culpa
I think I know what happened there, just not why
please try and find other errors - I have always encouraged that - as I have said before I would be happy to be proved wrong
there is still much of relevance in the article if you are prepared to read it
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:59 pm
- Been Liked: 20 times
- Has Liked: 76 times
Re: Grim
Thank you for sharing your efforts on this Chester. Your input is always something I look out for and appreciate.
These 2 users liked this post: evensteadiereddie Lancasterclaret
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Grim
Then again, followers of the club have every right to mull over a detailed and objective analysis of the recent takeover and any potential consequences arising from it, warts and all. Huge congratulations to CP for his expertise in offering this.
If you feel you can't face these details, don't read them but to object to others showing an interest is odd.
Re: Grim
Hi Chester - I read your article, thanks for sharing it. On this point you made re. the ALK 3 not having any equity invested themselves, maybe I am not understanding but where has the supposed £15m of ALK’s own funding come from?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:52 pmIt was something I was asked to do - the people who asked for it find it worthwhile - you don't that is fine, but so is their view as is the one from LTL (and others that have been asking for my take) - as I have said, I am not necessarily with the doom and gloom merchants but neither am I going to take things at face value from people who have control over our club but have little apparent equity other than personal reputations invested in it. In many ways Elizabeth you are showing a greater personal investment in the club than they have
-
- Posts: 4377
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1250 times
- Has Liked: 1367 times
Re: Grim
Fair enough eddie, I’ll leave you to enjoy your grim timesevensteadiereddie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:28 amThen again, followers of the club have every right to mull over a detailed and objective analysis of the recent takeover and any potential consequences arising from it, warts and all. Huge congratulations to CP for his expertise in offering this.
If you feel you can't face these details, don't read them but to object to others showing an interest is odd.
Re: Grim
I'd suggest editing it for that point if possible. It fairly fundamentally changes a few areas.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:43 amMea Culpa
I think I know what happened there, just not why
please try and find other errors - I have always encouraged that - as I have said before I would be happy to be proved wrong
there is still much of relevance in the article if you are prepared to read it
It was a good read, I don't think there was much new for me but it set out things clearly for those who don't spend lots of time on the Companies House website.
In terms of the 4,000 share requirement to be a director, I think there is also an option to be a representative of an entity that owns 4,000 shares, it doesn't have to be owned personally.
As I mentioned, the Kettering Capital shareholding isn't right. Companies House has this in addition to the original 1,000 shares
Now it's not 100% clear whether those amounts paid are per share or not. I'm pretty certain they are per share though (the nominal value of 50,000 shares at 1p would be £500 so it wouldn't be possible to have a total paid of £200 without £300 unpaid). Grossing those shareholdings up you're actually getting ~£98m in Kettering Capital. This makes sense as you need some funds somewhere to actually buy the shares in BFC Holdings. Obviously how that £98m of shares was funded is the big question and it's likely a mix of the MSD money and investments.
I think my viewpoint is a little less negative than yours. I suspect there is a bit more investment than you believe, I don't think MSD would have come on board without a decent amount of funds coming from elsewhere. Obviously they have decent security but ideally it's not something you want to rely on. Derby at the moment are showing the issues with that.
In terms of growing revenues, you suggest it would be difficult to do and taking Burnley to the "next level" would be very expensive. I agree with that to an extent (particularly about the next level bit) but I'm not sure it will be necessary to take Burnley to the next level to significantly increase revenue. The alternative is that they just caryy on increasing revenues on the coattails of the Premier League doing the same. The latest US TV deal was up significantly, there's talk of removing the 3 o'clock KO broadcasting ban which would see a hefty increase in the domestic TV deal, etc. They don't necessarily need to innovate, just cling on.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
Re: Grim
That's something we don't know. It may be the ALK 3, it may be outside investors, it may (most likely) be a combination of the two. Given Delaware's opaque nature this stuff is all hidden.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
Hi CP, I'm looking forward to spending some time reading your latest article. Thanks for posting all the links.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:57 pmLondon Clarets have decided to share my latest article for their magazine 'Something to Write Home About" online - As I said in my above post it is surprising how topical this subject matter has become - a word of caution - it is quite lengthy
In the magazine they introduce it like this
"This is the third instalment of Chester’s analysis of ALK’s takeover. What he has produced far surpasses what we originally asked for, and provides an in-depth consideration of ALK: their corporate set-up, business model, and the levels of risk that the takeover involves. It’s a detailed read, but it is up-to-date, written from a fan’s perspective and offers a level of insight that we don’t believe has been offered elsewhere. Our sincere thanks to Chester for the time, effort and conscientiousness he has put into this article."
it can be found here - be warned it takes 10 to 20 seconds to load
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWEVLK ... E2a7w/view
you can follow London Clarets here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets
and find out more about them here
https://www.londonclarets.org.uk/
UTC
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
To add to my earlier post, I feel that your latest article merits its own thread. I believe this "Grim" thread is only transitory and won't age well. I also feel it is time that we moved on from "ALK or an unknown Egyptian Takeover" thread.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:57 pmLondon Clarets have decided to share my latest article for their magazine 'Something to Write Home About" online - As I said in my above post it is surprising how topical this subject matter has become - a word of caution - it is quite lengthy
In the magazine they introduce it like this
"This is the third instalment of Chester’s analysis of ALK’s takeover. What he has produced far surpasses what we originally asked for, and provides an in-depth consideration of ALK: their corporate set-up, business model, and the levels of risk that the takeover involves. It’s a detailed read, but it is up-to-date, written from a fan’s perspective and offers a level of insight that we don’t believe has been offered elsewhere. Our sincere thanks to Chester for the time, effort and conscientiousness he has put into this article."
it can be found here - be warned it takes 10 to 20 seconds to load
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWEVLK ... E2a7w/view
you can follow London Clarets here
https://twitter.com/LondonClarets
and find out more about them here
https://www.londonclarets.org.uk/
A new thread will help gather all the comments and discussions in one convenient place, much like you did with the wonderful MMT thread.
Of course, I was out of time to edit my earlier post.
I've downloaded your article, but I've got some other things to do before I can read it.
Exciting times.
UTC
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
Cheers aggi for the education (again) am I now right in thinking that added to this £98m is £10m in Calder Vale Holdings giving them £108m in total from whatever sourceaggi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:41 amI'd suggest editing it for that point if possible. It fairly fundamentally changes a few areas.
It was a good read, I don't think there was much new for me but it set out things clearly for those who don't spend lots of time on the Companies House website.
In terms of the 4,000 share requirement to be a director, I think there is also an option to be a representative of an entity that owns 4,000 shares, it doesn't have to be owned personally.
As I mentioned, the Kettering Capital shareholding isn't right. Companies House has this in addition to the original 1,000 shares
Kettering.JPG
Now it's not 100% clear whether those amounts paid are per share or not. I'm pretty certain they are per share though (the nominal value of 50,000 shares at 1p would be £500 so it wouldn't be possible to have a total paid of £200 without £300 unpaid). Grossing those shareholdings up you're actually getting ~£98m in Kettering Capital. This makes sense as you need some funds somewhere to actually buy the shares in BFC Holdings. Obviously how that £98m of shares was funded is the big question and it's likely a mix of the MSD money and investments.
I think my viewpoint is a little less negative than yours. I suspect there is a bit more investment than you believe, I don't think MSD would have come on board without a decent amount of funds coming from elsewhere. Obviously they have decent security but ideally it's not something you want to rely on. Derby at the moment are showing the issues with that.
In terms of growing revenues, you suggest it would be difficult to do and taking Burnley to the "next level" would be very expensive. I agree with that to an extent (particularly about the next level bit) but I'm not sure it will be necessary to take Burnley to the next level to significantly increase revenue. The alternative is that they just caryy on increasing revenues on the coattails of the Premier League doing the same. The latest US TV deal was up significantly, there's talk of removing the 3 o'clock KO broadcasting ban which would see a hefty increase in the domestic TV deal, etc. They don't necessarily need to innovate, just cling on.
I am investigating whether a revision of the article is possible (and indeed what it will be revised to)
as a sidebar I found this interesting note in the accounts ending Dec 31 2020 and posted on September 7 2021 for Freight Investor (Holdings) Limited (No 08443420) - it is John B's company -
under the title Business Review is this and I quote "The Company, as one of Burnley FC's shareholders, participated in the sale of the club in 2020 to ALK Capital, generating a profit on disposal of £29.5m.........The payments to the Company are split into 5 future instalments to be received in 2021, 22 and 23"
given Freight Investor sold all it's 19,660 shares that works out at a profit of almost £1500.51 per share, which in football terms is huge
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
just be aware of the problems already highlightedPaul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:46 amHi CP, I'm looking forward to spending some time reading your latest article. Thanks for posting all the links.
UTC
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Grim
What q stupid thing to say.
Where have I talked about enjoying the grim times ? I don't think any Claret would enjoy reading about the potential difficulties the takeover might throw up but to ignore them and ask others to do so is pathetic.
La-la-la, you're not listening. How very grown up !
Re: Grim
That tracks, I think they were mainly purchased at £200 per share which gives a purchase value of ~ £200m. Interesting bit of info on when instalments are due too. I think his other shares were held in an overseas co.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:17 amCheers aggi for the education (again) am I now right in thinking that added to this £98m is £10m in Calder Vale Holdings giving them £108m in total from whatever source
I am investigating whether a revision of the article is possible (and indeed what it will be revised to)
as a sidebar I found this interesting note in the accounts ending Dec 31 2020 and posted on September 7 2021 for Freight Investor (Holdings) Limited (No 08443420) - it is John B's company -
under the title Business Review is this and I quote "The Company, as one of Burnley FC's shareholders, participated in the sale of the club in 2020 to ALK Capital, generating a profit on disposal of £29.5m.........The payments to the Company are split into 5 future instalments to be received in 2021, 22 and 23"
given Freight Investor sold all it's 19,660 shares that works out at a profit of almost £1500.51 per share, which in football terms is huge
Clarets Go Large Limited, Mike Garlick's UK company hasn't filed the relevant accounts but I imagine they'll show similar.
By the way, you mention convoluted company structures but it wasn't that simple previously with multiple overseas companies holding shares.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
A piece of great research, CP. I'd not thought of finding information on the takeover in the accounts of Freight Investor - even though I used to know some people who worked there, 6 or more years back.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:17 amCheers aggi for the education (again) am I now right in thinking that added to this £98m is £10m in Calder Vale Holdings giving them £108m in total from whatever source
I am investigating whether a revision of the article is possible (and indeed what it will be revised to)
as a sidebar I found this interesting note in the accounts ending Dec 31 2020 and posted on September 7 2021 for Freight Investor (Holdings) Limited (No 08443420) - it is John B's company -
under the title Business Review is this and I quote "The Company, as one of Burnley FC's shareholders, participated in the sale of the club in 2020 to ALK Capital, generating a profit on disposal of £29.5m.........The payments to the Company are split into 5 future instalments to be received in 2021, 22 and 23"
given Freight Investor sold all it's 19,660 shares that works out at a profit of almost £1500.51 per share, which in football terms is huge
Didn't John B buy his BFC shares the season after the one Owen Coyle Premier League season? I can imagine 10 years later and (I lose count) 6 more Premier League seasons, plus the growth in Premier League tv money, that John B's (FIS, as his company is known) profit on the shares says more about how much the club has grown in those 10 years. Of course, we can see the same in the club's revenues and wage bill.
UTC
-
- Posts: 30273
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 10916 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Grim
Daily mail throwing stuff about again, apparently we owe MSD a 60 million early repayment if we get relegated
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... eague.html
To me it's just another should/could nonsense article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... eague.html
To me it's just another should/could nonsense article
-
- Posts: 11039
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1559 times
- Has Liked: 359 times
Re: Grim
Matt Hughes is usually a pretty decent journoVegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:05 amDaily mail throwing stuff about again, apparently we owe MSD a 60 million early repayment if we get relegated
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... eague.html
To me it's just another should/could nonsense article
Re: Grim
All ifs and maybe's. A bit of a non story, especially when you read the final paragraph -
"Burnley are in frequent touch with MSD and could renegotiate the terms, and the owners insist they are on a sound footing and will give Sean Dyche funds to bolster his squad this month"
"Burnley are in frequent touch with MSD and could renegotiate the terms, and the owners insist they are on a sound footing and will give Sean Dyche funds to bolster his squad this month"
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
Aggi I am looking to follow up your suggestion of a corrected articleaggi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:03 pmThat tracks, I think they were mainly purchased at £200 per share which gives a purchase value of ~ £200m. Interesting bit of info on when instalments are due too. I think his other shares were held in an overseas co.
Clarets Go Large Limited, Mike Garlick's UK company hasn't filed the relevant accounts but I imagine they'll show similar.
By the way, you mention convoluted company structures but it wasn't that simple previously with multiple overseas companies holding shares.
Am I right in the thinking that any money used from Burnley FC Holdings in the deal could have been used to buy shares in Kettering Capital at £1,795.918 each rather than as a related company loan - that way ALK/Kettering would not have to repay BFC for a loan, or is it that a loan has to taken by Kettering to buy shares in itself for legal reasons.
Is it appropriate to consider that the 50,000 shares at £200 each allotted in both Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings on December 30 2020 as being ALK Investments only (given the preferential rate) even though that money particularly in Calder Vale Holdings could have come from the club of even MSD and bearing in mind the initial 1000 shares in that company have never had an actual cash capital paid for them?
Also, going back to an old post of yours on the takeover thread
Are these correctly assigned? The reason I ask is that if that is the case then John B is still on the board even though he now only has 3615 shares to his name. Of course he could have the voting rights assigned to him by the outgoing board members, which would back up your suggestion that a place on the board could be held that way (I think that was part of the long term plan of the Claret's Trust). For the outgoing directors this would make sense (particularly Brendan Flood, though John gave most of not all his UFCB related directorships up last summer) that they would have representatives on the board monitoring the situation re the payment schedule.
I am also intrigued that all directors sold just under 90% of their shares to ALK (except Barry Kilby who was bound by a previous legal agreement with Garlick). Why would they retain such a minor shareholding? Is it possible, even likely that there is a deal in place to dispose of the rest once the payment schedule is completed successfully?
If that is the case then the the long term plan for ALK would appear to be as close to a compete takeover as possible given the share offer to small shareholders and the anecdotal scale of take up that has received - however delayed the payment appears to be.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
Hi CP, good to see you are planning to edit and re-publish a corrected article. The proposition that ALK have control of the club but don't have ownership is "way off the mark." As aggi has pointed out Companies House records show ALK companies holding the shares. Remember also the "person with significant control" statement. If you don't own the shares you don't have control. Good to remember that Premier League approval (is it still called "fit and proper?") of the change in ownership.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:26 pmAggi I am looking to follow up your suggestion of a corrected article
Am I right in the thinking that any money used from Burnley FC Holdings in the deal could have been used to buy shares in Kettering Capital at £1,795.918 each rather than as a related company loan - that way ALK/Kettering would not have to repay BFC for a loan, or is it that a loan has to taken by Kettering to buy shares in itself for legal reasons.
Is it appropriate to consider that the 50,000 shares at £200 each allotted in both Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings on December 30 2020 as being ALK Investments only (given the preferential rate) even though that money particularly in Calder Vale Holdings could have come from the club of even MSD and bearing in mind the initial 1000 shares in that company have never had an actual cash capital paid for them?
Also, going back to an old post of yours on the takeover thread
Are these correctly assigned? The reason I ask is that if that is the case then John B is still on the board even though he now only has 3615 shares to his name. Of course he could have the voting rights assigned to him by the outgoing board members, which would back up your suggestion that a place on the board could be held that way (I think that was part of the long term plan of the Claret's Trust). For the outgoing directors this would make sense (particularly Brendan Flood, though John gave most of not all his UFCB related directorships up last summer) that they would have representatives on the board monitoring the situation re the payment schedule.
I am also intrigued that all directors sold just under 90% of their shares to ALK (except Barry Kilby who was bound by a previous legal agreement with Garlick). Why would they retain such a minor shareholding? Is it possible, even likely that there is a deal in place to dispose of the rest once the payment schedule is completed successfully?
If that is the case then the the long term plan for ALK would appear to be as close to a compete takeover as possible given the share offer to small shareholders and the anecdotal scale of take up that has received - however delayed the payment appears to be.
It would be useful if you could include references to sources for much of the data and media reports you include in the article. I don't recall that there were 2 MSD loans. If you look at the Debenture that Calder Vale has filed at Companies House it refers to a Term Loan Agreement which governs the loan that MSD (note "as security agent") has with Calder Vale, and possibly other ALK legal entities. The Kettering Capital charge document is not identical, but it also joins Kettering into the MSD loan. The Burnley FC Holdings charge is a "accession security agreement" - bringing BFC assets into the MSD security once the takeover had been completed. Note that the Debenture refers to a Guarantor - I've not found any further indications who might be the guarantor. This may be Alan Pace and possibly others, if MSD have followed the model they appear to have used with Mel Morris and Derby. Reports on their administration have shown that Mel Morris issued a personal guarantee to MSD. (Personal guarantees, in my experience, don't necessarily demonstrate that the guarantor has the wealth to meet any loan obligation. However, they do make it very clear that a guarantor has no "free option" to walk away).
Good luck.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
Am i the only one who is reading this as there was no initial down payment made on December 30 2020 and that the full transaction would be covered across 5 instalments? - even though we know Kettering Capital had circa £98m injected on December 30 2020 and Calder Vale Holdings had £10m on December 30 2020. Is the first down payment likely to be delayed into the New Year - I would have thought it would have had to be in escrow at least - and that is why Freight Investor Holdings have reported it in this way as their accounts report against a December 31 2020 year end. Which would make it a down payment plus 4 instalments.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:17 am...as a sidebar I found this interesting note in the accounts ending Dec 31 2020 and posted on September 7 2021 for Freight Investor (Holdings) Limited (No 08443420) - it is John B's company -
under the title Business Review is this and I quote "The Company, as one of Burnley FC's shareholders, participated in the sale of the club in 2020 to ALK Capital, generating a profit on disposal of £29.5m.........The payments to the Company are split into 5 future instalments to be received in 2021, 22 and 23"
given Freight Investor sold all it's 19,660 shares that works out at a profit of almost £1500.51 per share, which in football terms is huge
Looking for answers from those who understand these things
Re: Grim
No. A subsidiary can't hold shares in it's parent company.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:26 pmAggi I am looking to follow up your suggestion of a corrected article
Am I right in the thinking that any money used from Burnley FC Holdings in the deal could have been used to buy shares in Kettering Capital at £1,795.918 each rather than as a related company loan - that way ALK/Kettering would not have to repay BFC for a loan, or is it that a loan has to taken by Kettering to buy shares in itself for legal reasons.
Is it appropriate to consider that the 50,000 shares at £200 each allotted in both Kettering Capital and Calder Vale Holdings on December 30 2020 as being ALK Investments only (given the preferential rate) even though that money particularly in Calder Vale Holdings could have come from the club of even MSD and bearing in mind the initial 1000 shares in that company have never had an actual cash capital paid for them?
The shares in Calder Vale Holdings were bought by Kettering Capital so they don't really add much to the picture. They aren't an extra amount to the Kettering Capital shares, it's just flowing down the group.
I would guess that all shares were ALK investments only (via Velocity Sports) in Jersey.
The original shares were paid for by Velocity Sports at a penny each, they didn't have any premium attached to them.
They were guesses but they were the only permutations that matched up to the percentages that the directors were meant to hold (I can't remember where I got those percentages from but it was pretty widely reported that MG owned 49% of the shares).Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:26 pmAlso, going back to an old post of yours on the takeover thread
Are these correctly assigned? The reason I ask is that if that is the case then John B is still on the board even though he now only has 3615 shares to his name. Of course he could have the voting rights assigned to him by the outgoing board members, which would back up your suggestion that a place on the board could be held that way (I think that was part of the long term plan of the Claret's Trust). For the outgoing directors this would make sense (particularly Brendan Flood, though John gave most of not all his UFCB related directorships up last summer) that they would have representatives on the board monitoring the situation re the payment schedule.
I am also intrigued that all directors sold just under 90% of their shares to ALK (except Barry Kilby who was bound by a previous legal agreement with Garlick). Why would they retain such a minor shareholding? Is it possible, even likely that there is a deal in place to dispose of the rest once the payment schedule is completed successfully?
If that is the case then the the long term plan for ALK would appear to be as close to a compete takeover as possible given the share offer to small shareholders and the anecdotal scale of take up that has received - however delayed the payment appears to be.
To be honest I'm not convinced the 4,000 share limit is being applied. I don't think multiple shareholders pooling their shares to nominate a director is allowed, it's got to be the person who owns them. In the case of nomination by a company, it's the person in control of the company. I guess it's possible that all of our directors have joint control of the parent company.
No idea why some shares were kept back. Maybe an option to buy later, maybe sentimentality (albeit sentimentality worth ~ £750k), maybe with a view to a further price increase when ALK sell?
Re: Grim
That is certainly how it looks. The cashflow statement only shows £45k cash received from the sale and debtors (money owed to them) in the company jump ~ £30m which would be roughly in line with the sale of the shares.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:33 pmAm i the only one who is reading this as there was no initial down payment made on December 30 2020 and that the full transaction would be covered across 5 instalments? - even though we know Kettering Capital had circa £98m injected on December 30 2020 and Calder Vale Holdings had £10m on December 30 2020. Is the first down payment likely to be delayed into the New Year - I would have thought it would have had to be in escrow at least - and that is why Freight Investor Holdings have reported it in this way as their accounts report against a December 31 2020 year end. Which would make it a down payment plus 4 instalments.
Looking for answers from those who understand these things
No idea why that would be the case.
Although one slightly strange thing is that debtor is all marked as due within one year rather than reflecting the instalments.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
I've now had a look at Freight Investor's accounts. I'm not sure what's going on with the accounts. Yes, the note is there, exactly as you quoted, but in the notes to the balance sheet the whole of the £29 million due to JB/FIS is shown in "prepayments and accruals" due within less than one year - even though the accounts says 5 instalments in 2021, 2022 and 2023. Some of the £29m should be shown as receivable in more than 1 year. All of the £29m should be shown as debtor rather than "prepayment and accruals." I'm tending towards the view that an error has been made in the accounts, possibly because the sale of a subsidiary is not the day to day business activity of Freight Investors, maybe also a result of everyone working from home...Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:33 pmAm i the only one who is reading this as there was no initial down payment made on December 30 2020 and that the full transaction would be covered across 5 instalments? - even though we know Kettering Capital had circa £98m injected on December 30 2020 and Calder Vale Holdings had £10m on December 30 2020. Is the first down payment likely to be delayed into the New Year - I would have thought it would have had to be in escrow at least - and that is why Freight Investor Holdings have reported it in this way as their accounts report against a December 31 2020 year end. Which would make it a down payment plus 4 instalments.
Looking for answers from those who understand these things
Errors can happen in accounts, even after the auditors have signed them off.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
Given that John B has sold 30,929 shares (if he is indeed the owner of CO. UTC Limited) then could it be the way he has organised the payment schedule coving his interests, it would reduce the risk within the deal for his that business, passing it over to himself. It kind of fits proportionally if we assume the first payment was around 58%-60% of the overall takeover fee, That would suggest and average of 10% - 10.5% of the transaction value in each of the next 4 instalments if they are on an equal value basis.aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:04 pmThat is certainly how it looks. The cashflow statement only shows £45k cash received from the sale and debtors (money owed to them) in the company jump ~ £30m which would be roughly in line with the sale of the shares.
No idea why that would be the case.
Although one slightly strange thing is that debtor is all marked as due within one year rather than reflecting the instalments.
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
Cheers aggiaggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:56 pmNo. A subsidiary can't hold shares in it's parent company.
The shares in Calder Vale Holdings were bought by Kettering Capital so they don't really add much to the picture. They aren't an extra amount to the Kettering Capital shares, it's just flowing down the group.
I would guess that all shares were ALK investments only (via Velocity Sports) in Jersey.
The original shares were paid for by Velocity Sports at a penny each, they didn't have any premium attached to them.
They were guesses but they were the only permutations that matched up to the percentages that the directors were meant to hold (I can't remember where I got those percentages from but it was pretty widely reported that MG owned 49% of the shares).
To be honest I'm not convinced the 4,000 share limit is being applied. I don't think multiple shareholders pooling their shares to nominate a director is allowed, it's got to be the person who owns them. In the case of nomination by a company, it's the person in control of the company. I guess it's possible that all of our directors have joint control of the parent company.
No idea why some shares were kept back. Maybe an option to buy later, maybe sentimentality (albeit sentimentality worth ~ £750k), maybe with a view to a further price increase when ALK sell?
more questions I am afraid:
- is it likely that ALK paid £10m into Kettering Capital and £10m into Calder Vale Holdings or could they have paid into Kettering and then passed it through to Calder Vale with the share purchase - basically is it more likely they invested £10m + £10m or just £10m to buy shares in both companies
- re the owner share permutations, I had come up with the same answer based on the same knowledge, they are the ones that make the most sense
- if the nomination is not allowed you then have to question how Checketts and Parra are on the board (they have not been declared as non-exec), though it is possible/probable that they are investors in one of ALK's Delaware entities, there has never been an indication from the ALK Three that they are.
- the real question of the shares being held back is why is the percentage so even across the board at 10.1% or so, it is just puzzling
-
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Grim
I saw this and thought he had been reading MSD's accounts, particularly where they outline about how they manage their financial controls see page 22 Section 2.e.i. of the accounts posted October 5 2021Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:05 amDaily mail throwing stuff about again, apparently we owe MSD a 60 million early repayment if we get relegated
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... eague.html
To me it's just another should/could nonsense article
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
It's possible and logical that cash paid in as share capital into Kettering is then spent by K to pay in share capital in Calder Vale. The same could flow from CV to buy shares in BFC.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:10 pmCheers aggi
more questions I am afraid:
- is it likely that ALK paid £10m into Kettering Capital and £10m into Calder Vale Holdings or could they have paid into Kettering and then passed it through to Calder Vale with the share purchase - basically is it more likely they invested £10m + £10m or just £10m to buy shares in both companies
- re the owner share permutations, I had come up with the same answer based on the same knowledge, they are the ones that make the most sense
- if the nomination is not allowed you then have to question how Checketts and Parra are on the board (they have not been declared as non-exec), though it is possible/probable that they are investors in one of ALK's Delaware entities, there has never been an indication from the ALK Three that they are.
- the real question of the shares being held back is why is the percentage so even across the board at 10.1% or so, it is just puzzling
Checketts was at RSL with Alan Pace. It's logical that he is an ALK investor.
-
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 148 times
- Has Liked: 23 times
- Location: Leyland
Re: Grim
Off topic to CP’s article and subsequent questions.
But who do we think is responsible for the leaks to the press?
Chris Boden claims to know but isn’t sharing.
But who do we think is responsible for the leaks to the press?
Chris Boden claims to know but isn’t sharing.
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Grim
My guess is someone who isn't in the know. Most of the stuff we are reading is obviously wrong and contradicted by other stuff that we are also reading, which very probably is also wrong.Father Jack wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:41 pmOff topic to CP’s article and subsequent questions.
But who do we think is responsible for the leaks to the press?
Chris Boden claims to know but isn’t sharing.
UTC
Re: Grim
MSD got Derby by the nut sack with loans from MSD stacked on their stadium. Kinda blows your whole positive talk of MSD to smithereensPaul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:47 pmMy guess is someone who isn't in the know. Most of the stuff we are reading is obviously wrong and contradicted by other stuff that we are also reading, which very probably is also wrong.
UTC