Grim
Re: Grim
Amazing how many people are satisfied with that from Pace. Let's see how much money is invested this window before we lap up what he has said.
Rumblings coming out of the club that the Wood money won't be invested and will be used to cover debt. We will see come February 1st.
Rumblings coming out of the club that the Wood money won't be invested and will be used to cover debt. We will see come February 1st.
-
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:14 pm
- Been Liked: 78 times
- Has Liked: 13 times
Re: Grim
Perhaps Paul Waines comments might be more appreciated if he dropped the now absurd, exciting times tag.
Where is the excitement?
An ageing squad, a host of soon to be out of contract players, the real possibility of relegation.
You can only assume Paul is some kind of masochist.
Where is the excitement?
An ageing squad, a host of soon to be out of contract players, the real possibility of relegation.
You can only assume Paul is some kind of masochist.
This user liked this post: tiger76
-
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:13 am
- Been Liked: 164 times
- Has Liked: 33 times
Re: Grim
Precisely. I simply cannot see how the club copes with all this debt in the case of relegation. Previously we had money in the bank ready for that scenario to help keep us strong in the event of a relegation, but as the DM article says "The Delaware-based investment firm agreed an unusual takeover deal last January, largely financed by borrowing and the club’s own resources. ALK initially only put in £15m of their own money, with the rest of the funds coming from a £60m loan and Burnley’s own bank account."jedi_master wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:17 pmAgree with all of this.
The facts are we have a £60m loan to Dell to repay, loans to Garlick and Banasciewicz to pay, and the repayments as they stand are deemed serviceable on Premier League TV monies.
All fans want to know is if we go down this season, are the repayments going to have to be met by selling anything that’s not bolted down and our parachute payments? If they are, how do we expect to renew our squad who are mostly 30+ or out of contract (or both).
The clubs own bank account. ALK used the clubs own money to buy the club. So we have no cash in the bank, are now in serious debt, and also in serious risk of seeing our annual turnover reduced by 60%.
But hey, Alan's on twitter saying everything is alright so I feel better now.
These 2 users liked this post: tiger76 Top Claret
-
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:52 pm
- Been Liked: 744 times
- Has Liked: 463 times
Re: Grim
This perfectly sums up my position. The club has seemingly been put into a very high risk strategy which is extremely unclear as to how it will benefit the club on the pitch or its long term survival, at a time when high risk investment is even more volatile than usual, and the ownership have a history of high level employment at banks where high risk strategies have failed or turned scandalous, and I fail to see how the club could survive a risky strategy failing.claretandbluesky wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:13 pmI think for most fans the problem is simple.
When we had 50 million in the bank it looked certain we could survive over a number of years. Most accepted we could be a yo-yo club or maybe settle down to being a Championship side, but we would exist.
What was and remains concerning is the fact that our survival now appears to depend on both growth of our revenues and maintenance of our ability to be at the top table, when everything points to the club having diminishing assets, lack of growth potential and what appears like instability ahead.
As a country we are heading into economically turbulent times and that is when the weakest go to the wall.
Financially to the lay person at least our house appears to be built on sand rather than rock.
That element of risk may well appeal to some but to most it possess a problem, particularly in a club which means so much to the town and its people.
The Board need to be much more transparent in their dealings with the fans and fully explain how they might deal with descent into Division 1 because given our position that is a possibility.
Pace's statement doesn't actually rule out any of the fears over cashflow or alleged motivations behind the Wood sale, but provides some reassurance for now.
Also worth remembering, sports MSM has a history of misrepresentation particularly with us (See the Barnes/Matic affair, or our 'dirty' reputation) and the timing of an article sowing doubt about our transfer capability, while our Saudi-backed rivals need to weaken us, is suspect. Had this article come out in 2 weeks time after the window closes I'd be much more worried. Should we fail to make signings before it closes, likewise.
For now my concern is not predicated on the DM article but wider factors, but it is also just that- a concern, not a prediction. After Sky Digital, Flood etc. I've developed a habitually worried disposition about Burnley's finances.
Last edited by spt_claret on Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 11:34 am
- Been Liked: 42 times
- Has Liked: 288 times
Re: Grim
I’m not saying we will be fine because Pace is a Mormon. . I’m saying his church will tear him to shreds if he defaults, asset strips, and puts people out of a job. I studied church history at Princeton and while I’m not the expert that writes the books and I’m not a Mormon I do fancy myself as someone who knows a thing or two about church history and anthropology.fatboy47 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:48 amThe reality is there in the article. I have a close friend who works on the financial section of a national broadsheet...not a claret, but he assures me that our precarious position is common knowledge whilst not deemed particularly newsworthy to his editor.
The rest of this thread is mere whistling in the dark to keep spirits up. Understandable.....theres going to be plenty of that in the coming years.
And the line "" we'll be fine because Pace is a Mormon" could be destined to haunt us for decades.
Pace could very well do all those terrible things and I wouldn’t be the least but surprised. Lots of people who claim to follow God have done some terrible things.- I’m just saying he has a small incentive not to do so.
You are quite right- we are in a precarious position. I wouldn’t say otherwise. We just knew this from the start.
This user liked this post: fatboy47
-
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1102 times
- Has Liked: 856 times
Re: Grim
What message does that send to Dyche and the players if they come out and openly have discussions about the Championship when we have more than half a season of PL games left to play?claretandbluesky wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:13 pmI think for most fans the problem is simple.
When we had 50 million in the bank it looked certain we could survive over a number of years. Most accepted we could be a yo-yo club or maybe settle down to being a Championship side, but we would exist.
What was and remains concerning is the fact that our survival now appears to depend on both growth of our revenues and maintenance of our ability to be at the top table, when everything points to the club having diminishing assets, lack of growth potential and what appears like instability ahead.
As a country we are heading into economically turbulent times and that is when the weakest go to the wall.
Financially to the lay person at least our house appears to be built on sand rather than rock.
That element of risk may well appeal to some but to most it possess a problem, particularly in a club which means so much to the town and its people.
The Board need to be much more transparent in their dealings with the fans and fully explain how they might deal with descent into Division 1 because given our position that is a possibility.
-
- Posts: 13509
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 3833 times
Re: Grim
As I’ve posted before, there’s a lot happened under ALK’s ownership and been discussed by Pace for future that I find exciting.claretandbluesky wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:18 pmPerhaps Paul Waines comments might be more appreciated if he dropped the now absurd, exciting times tag.
Where is the excitement?
An ageing squad, a host of soon to be out of contract players, the real possibility of relegation.
You can only assume Paul is some kind of masochist.
I also appreciate Paul’s balanced and positive contributions far more than the constant negativity spouted by some posters. Not everyone wants to look for the bad in everything.
Re: Grim
Absolutely this.NewClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:29 pmAs I’ve posted before, there’s a lot happened under ALK’s ownership and been discussed by Pace for future that I find exciting.
I also appreciate Paul’s balanced and positive contributions far more than the constant negativity spouted by some posters. Not everyone wants to look for the bad in everything.
Re: Grim
Let's put it this way, I was told when we sold Wood that it was likely the money would be banked.
I was also told that we had already made some funds available before we knew Wood was leaving.
I'm still told that we are trying to recruit and spend the money we had prior to Wood leaving, but from what I've heard the money we got from Wood won't be added to the pot.
Only time will tell but it seems a bit like we are making enquiries left right and centre but we have no intention of signing some of these players.
I think we might spend 10-15 million, but I'd be amazed if we spent the 35 million we would have from the Wood sale and what was made available previously.
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Grim
When we had money in the bank we had enough fans who wanted a change and for the club to spend more and reach the next level (nobody has ever said what the next level is) and not be scared of having owners not from the town. I said at the time rumours of a takeover that some would be seduced by money and get carried away wanting a sugar daddy approach, this was never going to happen.claretandbluesky wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:13 pmI think for most fans the problem is simple.
When we had 50 million in the bank it looked certain we could survive over a number of years. Most accepted we could be a yo-yo club or maybe settle down to being a Championship side, but we would exist.
What was and remains concerning is the fact that our survival now appears to depend on both growth of our revenues and maintenance of our ability to be at the top table, when everything points to the club having diminishing assets, lack of growth potential and what appears like instability ahead.
As a country we are heading into economically turbulent times and that is when the weakest go to the wall.
Financially to the lay person at least our house appears to be built on sand rather than rock.
That element of risk may well appeal to some but to most it possess a problem, particularly in a club which means so much to the town and its people.
The Board need to be much more transparent in their dealings with the fans and fully explain how they might deal with descent into Division 1 because given our position that is a possibility.
Anybody taking over the club was always going to do so with making money the main aim, there just isn't the type of investor some were thinking of for a club of our size. It would now seem a tad unfair that a little over 12 months and everything should be massively different.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Grim
Bank of America - has offices in London - just like most of the world's banks do. BoA is, of course, one of the very big ones. BoA acquired Merrill Lynch, one of the 5 largest investment banks, in late 2008. ML also had large offices in London.spt_claret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:40 pmIt does take regulators time, yes. This is why I'm not concerned by the first item I listed, I mentioned it purely in advance in case someone else brought it up based on the timing of the fine.
I know Libor stands for London, but global banking doesn't require you to be in London to use Libor. Bank of America is an American bank and was implicated.
Prime Finance as I understand it largely concerns funds, securities and services offered to hedgefunds and clients for long & short market positions, which is connected to high risk mortgages. See the subprime mortgage crash. I'm happy to be corrected on this.
The credit practices were relate to misrepresentation and mischarging of credit services- I assume you are saying credit services and general investor services are different, which makes sense to me.
Could you elaborate on what Global Client experience means?
I remain unconvinced of your final point, but thank you for the information.
Prime Finance, also known as Prime Brokerage, provides services to hedge funds and similar. These services include lending and securities trading. However, the hedge fund/client is taking their own trading decisions. Prime Finance is not connected with "high risk" or subprime mortgages, sold as CDOs. Of course, the subprime mortgages/CDOs had all come to an end in late 2008.
You can find jobs advertised for "client experience or customer experience" - it appears to be related to the "customer journey" as the customer interacts with the firm, whatever that firm does. I imagine "Global Client experience" would be a senior role in Citi, "global" meaning in charge for this activity in all of Citi's offices, and, maybe, only responsible for the clients that also have "global scale" to their business. However, I'd expect it wouldn't be in charge of any of the specific business lines that Citi (or whoever the employer was) had that were selling services to the "global" clients.
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Grim
So you have been told we are banking the money but we are also going to spend ?boyyanno wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:36 pmLet's put it this way, I was told when we sold Wood that it was likely the money would be banked.
I was also told that we had already made some funds available before we knew Wood was leaving.
I'm still told that we are trying to recruit and spend the money we had prior to Wood leaving, but from what I've heard the money we got from Wood won't be added to the pot.
Only time will tell but it seems a bit like we are making enquiries left right and centre but we have no intention of signing some of these players.
I think we might spend 10-15 million, but I'd be amazed if we spent the 35 million we would have from the Wood sale and what was made available previously.
Todays weather forecast is it is likely to be hot, cold, raining and dry. Nothing like covering your bases. I am sure 1 will be right
Re: Grim
Did you actually read my post? We had a limited amount of money available prior to the sale of Wood. From what I've heard the money from Woods sale will not be added to this pot- it will be banked- is that difficult to understand really?claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:41 pmSo you have been told we are banking the money but we are also going to spend ?
Todays weather forecast is it is likely to be hot, cold, raining and dry. Nothing like covering your bases. I am sure 1 will be right
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Grim
You have been told 10-15m is what we will spend. Lets see then
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Grim
Lets hope no club accepts any offers the club makes which are clearly bogus offers and have no intention of going through with.
Imagine thinking this kind of s**t up
Re: Grim
So, if that article is correct and it says that the first payment to the directors was over £100m and ALK only put in £15m with the rest coming from the clubs resources, isn’t that the same as saying the previous directors found a way of withdrawing all the clubs bank funds into their own pockets?
Re: Grim
I was told that up to 15million was what was available for the right player prior to the sale of Wood, and that pot hasn't changed despite his departure.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:45 pmYou have been told 10-15m is what we will spend. Lets see then
I'm happy to wait and see and would be even happier if the info is wrong.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Grim
I believe I've explained once or twice before, "exciting times" isn't about the football, it's about the excitement of someone taking on the challenge of providing the finance to keep Burnley in the Premier League. Most want BFC to be a PL team. Most recognise that the town of Burnley is not the "largest" in terms of population, or the wealthiest. Most know that Mike Garlick and John B and the other former owners recognised that they didn't have the wealth that was required to keep BFC in the PL. So, the only way to stay there was to find new owners. There are already enough examples around Lancashire of clubs that had wealthy owners until the owner ran out of money, or died and their heirs didn't want to continue with their club ownership. So, Burnley is pursuing another way with Alan Pace and ALK - and, that for me, with a little understanding of what they are aiming to do, is exciting. It has a chance of success and that's all that matters.claretandbluesky wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:18 pmPerhaps Paul Waines comments might be more appreciated if he dropped the now absurd, exciting times tag.
Where is the excitement?
An ageing squad, a host of soon to be out of contract players, the real possibility of relegation.
You can only assume Paul is some kind of masochist.
Yes, I also get excited when the team plays well and when we come away with a point, or 3, especially when playing one of the big clubs. I was at Chelsea a few weeks ago. I will be at Emirates on Sunday.
I hope you can understand a little when I acclaim....
Exciting times.
UTC
Re: Grim
There’s nothing exciting about the club being in debtPaul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:53 pmI believe I've explained once or twice before, "exciting times" isn't about the football, it's about the excitement of someone taking on the challenge of providing the finance to keep Burnley in the Premier League. Most want BFC to be a PL team. Most recognise that the town of Burnley is not the "largest" in terms of population, or the wealthiest. Most know that Mike Garlick and John B and the other former owners recognised that they didn't have the wealth that was required to keep BFC in the PL. So, the only way to stay there was to find new owners. There are already enough examples around Lancashire of clubs that had wealthy owners until the owner ran out of money, or died and their heirs didn't want to continue with their club ownership. So, Burnley is pursuing another way with Alan Pace and ALK - and, that for me, with a little understanding of what they are aiming to do, is exciting. It has a chance of success and that's all that matters.
Yes, I also get excited when the team plays well and when we come away with a point, or 3, especially when playing one of the big clubs. I was at Chelsea a few weeks ago. I will be at Emirates on Sunday.
I hope you can understand a little when I acclaim....
Exciting times.
UTC
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Grim
NO, NO, NO. ALK bought the club. The 84% shareholder appointed the directors and a directors' vote on the use of the club's cash in the bank was carried by ALK directors. The former owners, even though MG and JB are continuing as directors, had no say in how ALK funded the purchase.Steddyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pmSo, if that article is correct and it says that the first payment to the directors was over £100m and ALK only put in £15m with the rest coming from the clubs resources, isn’t that the same as saying the previous directors found a way of withdrawing all the clubs bank funds into their own pockets?
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Grim
Maybe not for you, Joey. However, if that's how Alan Pace wants to run the club, that's his decision and I'm not going to tell him he's got it wrong.
How are things going for you? Did I see that you'd been in hospital with heart issues?
Take care.
-
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:52 pm
- Been Liked: 744 times
- Has Liked: 463 times
Re: Grim
Again the investigation and fine involve US authorities and Libor is used in the US and worldwide. Parts of the manipulation were traced to Singapore. Nothing about the Libor scandal required being physically in London as I understand it.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:38 pmBank of America - has offices in London - just like most of the world's banks do. BoA is, of course, one of the very big ones. BoA acquired Merrill Lynch, one of the 5 largest investment banks, in late 2008. ML also had large offices in London.
Prime Finance, also known as Prime Brokerage, provides services to hedge funds and similar. These services include lending and securities trading. However, the hedge fund/client is taking their own trading decisions. Prime Finance is not connected with "high risk" or subprime mortgages, sold as CDOs. Of course, the subprime mortgages/CDOs had all come to an end in late 2008.
You can find jobs advertised for "client experience or customer experience" - it appears to be related to the "customer journey" as the customer interacts with the firm, whatever that firm does. I imagine "Global Client experience" would be a senior role in Citi, "global" meaning in charge for this activity in all of Citi's offices, and, maybe, only responsible for the clients that also have "global scale" to their business. However, I'd expect it wouldn't be in charge of any of the specific business lines that Citi (or whoever the employer was) had that were selling services to the "global" clients.
Thank your for the clarification. Wouldn't Prime Finance also involve recommendations on investments? What would Citigroup betting against their own securities and mortgages come under, as per the fine? Which occurred after 2008 as I understand it.
Customer journey sounds awful vague and doesn't really address how they get involved in cash or asset handling or client services. Client relations cover a wide net and specificity would be reassuring.
I would like to know what Pace DID do at Citi, as well as didn't, because I am wary of investment from American Wallstreet finance given previous such problems, especially given the terms of the takeover.
This is precisely one of the big problems with football, finance, and society in general. I'd ask your views on Glass-Steagall but I can guess.
Additionally, Burnley very much were not in debt before the takeover. We are not a club which can easily survive debt if relegated.
-
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:13 am
- Been Liked: 164 times
- Has Liked: 33 times
Re: Grim
CGT can be deferred if payments for the assets are made in installments. I can't remember the exact rules, needs to be payments over a few years or something. It's basically to avoid the situation of selling an asset but not having the cash to pay the tax as you haven't yet been paid for it.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:05 pmI've read the DM article. This is an odd statement: "the revised schedule will take the payments into the next financial year, potentially enabling the owners to defer millions in tax." I'm an accountant, I've been involved in a few corporate m&a deals. Tax becomes due based on the date of the transaction - delaying any payments due has no impact on the tax payable. I'm not sure what type of tax the DM is referring to. It's not corporation tax, that is charged on the profit made by the trading entity. It's not capital gains tax, whatever gains the previous shareholders have achieved on the sale would become due based on the date of purchase. And, of course, ALK are the buyers, so no capital gains tax for them.
Anyone know any different?
If the DM can make this silly (and obvious) error in their article, it's more likely that there are lots of errors in the article. Why does the article say "fees" are due to former owners? Purchase price paid in instalments, fine, but a buyer doesn't pay "fees" to the sellers.
Best bit of the article: ALK statement "all parties are aligned and abiding by the terms of the sale."
Exciting times.
UTC
Not sure how this works if the schedule of payments changes.
As for the "Exciting times", it does remind me of the apocryphal curse "May you live in interesting times".
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 9473
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1185 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: Grim
To a certain degree yes, but other clubs are well poised advantageously to generate far more funding to service the debts unlike us, when it’s getting to the stage that clubs are looking to offload their star strikers (granted underperforming) to relegation rivals in order to cushion the impact of the debt it’s unsettling to say the least. Simon Jordan described it as a land grab.
-
- Posts: 13509
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3114 times
- Has Liked: 3833 times
Re: Grim
My initial reading of the DM article was that MG/JB May have requested a deferral for CGT reasons, which ALK accommodated.aggi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:10 pmCGT can be deferred if payments for the assets are made in installments. I can't remember the exact rules, needs to be payments over a few years or something. It's basically to avoid the situation of selling an asset but not having the cash to pay the tax as you haven't yet been paid for it.
Not sure how this works if the schedule of payments changes.
As for the "Exciting times", it does remind me of the apocryphal curse "May you live in interesting times".
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Grim
Hi aggi, I agree re previous owners' CGT - maybe my post wasn't as clear as it could be on the distinction between ALK's tax bill and MG/JB et al's tax bills. DM, of course, was suggesting that it would be ALK that would get "several millions" tax saving.aggi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:10 pmCGT can be deferred if payments for the assets are made in installments. I can't remember the exact rules, needs to be payments over a few years or something. It's basically to avoid the situation of selling an asset but not having the cash to pay the tax as you haven't yet been paid for it.
Not sure how this works if the schedule of payments changes.
As for the "Exciting times", it does remind me of the apocryphal curse "May you live in interesting times".
Re: Grim
Still in , thanks for askingPaul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:59 pmMaybe not for you, Joey. However, if that's how Alan Pace wants to run the club, that's his decision and I'm not going to tell him he's got it wrong.
How are things going for you? Did I see that you'd been in hospital with heart issues?
Take care.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
Re: Grim
I read it as referring to the former owners but that's probably because I couldn't see where the tax would be arising for ALK.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:17 pmHi aggi, I agree re previous owners' CGT - maybe my post wasn't as clear as it could be on the distinction between ALK's tax bill and MG/JB et al's tax bills. DM, of course, was suggesting that it would be ALK that would get "several millions" tax saving.
Re: Grim
But was the end result that the former directors got paid the majority of the money in the clubs bank account?Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:57 pmNO, NO, NO. ALK bought the club. The 84% shareholder appointed the directors and a directors' vote on the use of the club's cash in the bank was carried by ALK directors. The former owners, even though MG and JB are continuing as directors, had no say in how ALK funded the purchase.
If that is the case, I’d be more annoyed about the former directors than ALK.
Re: Grim
That's disingenuous. You know perfectly well that Garlick and B were fully aware that the funds for their shares were coming from within the club. You must have discovered from your extensive knowledge of baking that no-one sells a £100m+ asset without checking where the funds are coming from.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:57 pmNO, NO, NO. ALK bought the club. The 84% shareholder appointed the directors and a directors' vote on the use of the club's cash in the bank was carried by ALK directors. The former owners, even though MG and JB are continuing as directors, had no say in how ALK funded the purchase.
It is technically correct to say that ALK decided how the purchase would be funded and all that Garlick and B did was to nod their heads and accept it, but it's the sort of technicality designed to deceive people into thinking they weren't party to the decision. Garlick and B absolutely were party to the decision to remove the funds from BFC.
Last edited by dsr on Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 67892
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32542 times
- Has Liked: 5279 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Grim
Not for one minute am I saying his tweet is incorrect but I’m amazed how so many people suddenly become all reassured because of it.Sleeping Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:24 pmBut hey, Alan's on twitter saying everything is alright so I feel better now.
-
- Posts: 67892
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32542 times
- Has Liked: 5279 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Grim
I think you need to be very careful with your words/suggestions.dsr wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:37 pmThat's disingenuous. You know perfectly well that Garlick and B were fully aware that the funds for their shares were coming from within the club. You must have discovered from your extensive knowledge of baking that no-one sells a £100m+ asset without checking where the funds are coming from.
It is technically correct to say that ALK decided how the purchase would be funded and all that Garlick and B did was to nod their heads and accept it, but it's the sort of technicality designed to deceive people into thinking they weren't party to the decision. Garlick and B absolutely were party to the decision to remove the funds from BFC.
Re: Grim
1. It’s pretty rare that club owners communicate on random media reports 2. AP has made it clear MG, JB and ALK are all in agreement with how the finances are set up - I would assume JB and MG were happy to put out the joint statement given their names are attached 3. Maybe some people aren’t doom mongers and want to look at positives 4. Has AP upset you somehow? Seem to be very negative towards him.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:37 pmNot for one minute am I saying his tweet is incorrect but I’m amazed how so many people suddenly become all reassured because of it.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: Grim
Added comments - underlined above.spt_claret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:03 pmAgain the investigation and fine involve US authorities and Libor is used in the US and worldwide. Parts of the manipulation were traced to Singapore. Nothing about the Libor scandal required being physically in London as I understand it. Libor interest rates were the interest rates (theoretically) charged between banks in London. Yes, Libor rates would impact activities in the bank's other major offices, so, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore and New York may also have been involved in setting these rates - and, as happened, submitting inaccurate figures, at times. Using Libor in a loan agreement, for example, is not the same as being part of the banking groups that set the Libor interest rates.
Thank your for the clarification. Wouldn't Prime Finance also involve recommendations on investments? What would Citigroup betting against their own securities and mortgages come under, as per the fine? Which occurred after 2008 as I understand it. I've read the little of the Reuters report you linked. Citi's events took place in 2007. What I understand Citi did was structure and sell CDOs based on subprime mortgages on the one hand, and on the other they took CDS positions that would pay out if the CDOs they sold defaulted. No, Prime Finance wouldn't be recommending any investments or trades to hedge funds. Other parts of the bank may recommend trades to pension funds and other institutional clients. But, hedge funds are generally staffed by people who have more experience than the people working at the banks - they may have learnt their trading skills at one or more banks - and won't be looking to banks for trading recommendations. What they do want and need from the banks are the trading infrastructure and the funding so that they can leverage the hedge fund's own funds.
Customer journey sounds awful vague and doesn't really address how they get involved in cash or asset handling or client services. Client relations cover a wide net and specificity would be reassuring. The way I see it - and it is vague - client experience is aiming to ensure that clients have good experiences in all their broad dealings with the bank. This would include aiming to ensure that the bank didn't miss out on anything that the bank could be do with the client only that the client wasn't aware of the bank's skills/experience in a particular area.
I would like to know what Pace DID do at Citi, as well as didn't, because I am wary of investment from American Wallstreet finance given previous such problems, especially given the terms of the takeover. Alan Pace lists his career appointments on LinkedIn. I'm not sure why you are wary of Wall Street finance, that's where all the biggest banks are, and, as someone once said, "that's where the money is." I see nothing to fear with an investment banker, nor with Mike Garlick's or John B's professions. Some might argue that we need to be wary of ownership by a butcher.
This is precisely one of the big problems with football, finance, and society in general. I'd ask your views on Glass-Steagall but I can guess.
Additionally, Burnley very much were not in debt before the takeover. We are not a club which can easily survive debt if relegated. BFC was in debt before Mike Garlick took charge. Remember, the club sold the ground.
-
- Posts: 67892
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32542 times
- Has Liked: 5279 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Grim
I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with what was said, just that I was amazed really how many people suddenly changed opinion based on one tweet.RVclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:44 pm1. It’s pretty rare that club owners communicate on random media reports 2. AP has made it clear MG, JB and ALK are all in agreement with how the finances are set up - I would assume JB and MG were happy to put out the joint statement given their names are attached 3. Maybe some people aren’t doom mongers and want to look at positives 4. Has AP upset you somehow? Seem to be very negative towards him.
What I would like to know is who is leaking info to the Daily Mail.
Re: Grim
Given that MG and JB are still due money then I'm not surprised they agreed to the statement, risking further unbalance to the club would be no good for any of them.RVclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:44 pm1. It’s pretty rare that club owners communicate on random media reports 2. AP has made it clear MG, JB and ALK are all in agreement with how the finances are set up - I would assume JB and MG were happy to put out the joint statement given their names are attached 3. Maybe some people aren’t doom mongers and want to look at positives 4. Has AP upset you somehow? Seem to be very negative towards him.
-
- Posts: 7177
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3604 times
- Has Liked: 1032 times
- Location: Chesterfield
Re: Grim
When you think of how many people Pace has binned from the club, it could be a long list with axes to grind. Purely conjecture from me as I’ve no idea of how happy they were to leave/whether it was of their own accord (I doubt it considering how many left one after another)ClaretTony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:48 pmI wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with what was said, just that I was amazed really how many people suddenly changed opinion based on one tweet.
What I would like to know is who is leaking info to the Daily Mail.
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:41 pm
- Been Liked: 35 times
- Has Liked: 231 times
Re: Grim
Okay so:
Burnley with Garlick - we're unhappy when we're not spending the required money for a Premier League in transfer windows. 6 years in the Premier League on our budget. Probably would have lost the manager had this ownership continued. Eventually it is probable we were relegated if we continued with this investment/ownership? No guarantee of coming straight back up afterwards. Yes, we have the money in the bank but if we don't go up soon that would ebb away. Agreed?
Burnley with ALK - financed via borrowing so not debt free anymore. I hope people would agree the last transfer window was better? We don't know the outcome of this transfer window. Lots of uncertainty about finances if we do go down. Lots of uncertainty about overall strategy: is it signings? Is it promoting youth into the 1st team and selling it on? Nowhere near achieving that with youth at the moment. This is a transitional time and there is a lot of uncertainty. Looks probable we'll be relegated as things stand. No guarantee of coming straight back up afterwards.
Burnley with Oil money- unlimited money forever and ever but takes away from our identity. It just wouldn't be Burnley anymore. It's not going to happen and we probably don't want it to happen.
I may lack imagination but I don't see many other models of football ownership that are realistic for us. The reality surely is that we are always going to be under threat from relegation. Along with this we're always at risk of blowing our budget - a few wrong moves and we're in big trouble.
Is there any league, which Burnley can exist in, that is financially sustainable without a benefactor? We have done well in terms of accounts in recent years but we were probably mostly upset with lack of investment across transfer windows.
I know we belong in the Premier League because we earnt it. But I know we don't belong in the Premier League financially. Okay so how about the league below? Well there are lots of benefactors there too oh and the TV deal/commercial income probably doesn't sustain the wages of a decent playing staff. At least if we're trying to run Burnley like a business anyway.
Are we looking for an ownership that doesn't exist?
Burnley with Garlick - we're unhappy when we're not spending the required money for a Premier League in transfer windows. 6 years in the Premier League on our budget. Probably would have lost the manager had this ownership continued. Eventually it is probable we were relegated if we continued with this investment/ownership? No guarantee of coming straight back up afterwards. Yes, we have the money in the bank but if we don't go up soon that would ebb away. Agreed?
Burnley with ALK - financed via borrowing so not debt free anymore. I hope people would agree the last transfer window was better? We don't know the outcome of this transfer window. Lots of uncertainty about finances if we do go down. Lots of uncertainty about overall strategy: is it signings? Is it promoting youth into the 1st team and selling it on? Nowhere near achieving that with youth at the moment. This is a transitional time and there is a lot of uncertainty. Looks probable we'll be relegated as things stand. No guarantee of coming straight back up afterwards.
Burnley with Oil money- unlimited money forever and ever but takes away from our identity. It just wouldn't be Burnley anymore. It's not going to happen and we probably don't want it to happen.
I may lack imagination but I don't see many other models of football ownership that are realistic for us. The reality surely is that we are always going to be under threat from relegation. Along with this we're always at risk of blowing our budget - a few wrong moves and we're in big trouble.
Is there any league, which Burnley can exist in, that is financially sustainable without a benefactor? We have done well in terms of accounts in recent years but we were probably mostly upset with lack of investment across transfer windows.
I know we belong in the Premier League because we earnt it. But I know we don't belong in the Premier League financially. Okay so how about the league below? Well there are lots of benefactors there too oh and the TV deal/commercial income probably doesn't sustain the wages of a decent playing staff. At least if we're trying to run Burnley like a business anyway.
Are we looking for an ownership that doesn't exist?
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Grim
They want a Burnley version of Bloom from Brighton I think.GaryClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:57 pmOkay so:
Burnley with Garlick - we're unhappy when we're not spending the required money for a Premier League in transfer windows. 6 years in the Premier League on our budget. Probably would have lost the manager had this ownership continued. Eventually it is probable we were relegated if we continued with this investment/ownership? No guarantee of coming straight back up afterwards. Yes, we have the money in the bank but if we don't go up soon that would ebb away. Agreed?
Burnley with ALK - financed via borrowing so not debt free anymore. I hope people would agree the last transfer window was better? We don't know the outcome of this transfer window. Lots of uncertainty about finances if we do go down. Lots of uncertainty about overall strategy: is it signings? Is it promoting youth into the 1st team and selling it on? Nowhere near achieving that with youth at the moment. This is a transitional time and there is a lot of uncertainty. Looks probable we'll be relegated as things stand. No guarantee of coming straight back up afterwards.
Burnley with Oil money- unlimited money forever and ever but takes away from our identity. It just wouldn't be Burnley anymore. It's not going to happen and we probably don't want it to happen.
I may lack imagination but I don't see many other models of football ownership that are realistic for us. The reality surely is that we are always going to be under threat from relegation. Along with this we're always at risk of blowing our budget - a few wrong moves and we're in big trouble.
Is there any league, which Burnley can exist in, that is financially sustainable without a benefactor? We have done well in terms of accounts in recent years but we were probably mostly upset with lack of investment across transfer windows.
I know we belong in the Premier League because we earnt it. But I know we don't belong in the Premier League financially. Okay so how about the league below? Well there are lots of benefactors there too oh and the TV deal/commercial income probably doesn't sustain the wages of a decent playing staff. At least if we're trying to run Burnley like a business anyway.
Are we looking for an ownership that doesn't exist?
Just pours money into the club regardless as a form of financial doping and don't worry about it, debts of £300 million and growing down there but the media don't care about that one.
This user liked this post: RVclaret
-
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:11 am
- Been Liked: 112 times
- Has Liked: 1662 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Grim
I think Boyanno is correct in the way he explained in that a transfer fund had already been agreed before the Wood sale. If he had said as you suggest we are planning to spend half the money from the sale of Wood people would then say that implied without the sale of Wood, nothing would be spent.
-
- Posts: 4643
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 3190 times
Re: Grim
Rumblings coming out of the club that the Wood money won't be invested and will be used to cover debt. We will see come February 1st.
Are these Rumblings in your head?
Did this wrong......it's a reply to Boyyano.
Are these Rumblings in your head?
Did this wrong......it's a reply to Boyyano.