Re: Grim
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:44 pm
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59712
I hope you don't mind if I bump this when the 1st February comes around. As I've said let's wait and see.Taffy on the wing wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:41 pmRumblings 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.
I can only assume that Pace will have a fair idea about the identity of that individual(s).ClaretTony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:48 pmWhat I would like to know is who is leaking info to the Daily Mail.
ClaretLoup wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:25 amGot my Chester Perry hat on here........
Lots of Bar charts to show expenditure and debts in the Premier League for the last 10 years.
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 2F59648401
The 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 ).Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:25 pmIt always amuses me when this kind of thing is published - it is almost like no one really listened to what I was saying about the way our club was run when stuff like this comes out - so many people are always surprised - particularly by the comparisons to everyone else - all a bit strange really given that a the MMT thread is still getting over 2000 views a week and is the single most viewed football related thread on this board this season (and that includes the shareholders letter one) yet there have only been a handful of posts on it since the end of August (the time when a few were removed, and I have no idea at all as to what the offensiveness was in them for that to happen - nothing political, nothing about other posters or entities and nothing with links away from the site - but it goes a long way to explaining my general abstinence from posting).
In the meantime following today's Guardian piece on whether are club may finally drop out of the top flight this season (https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... he-watford) the chaps at Vysyble reminded their followers and guardian readers as to just how well we have been managed as a business during that period
https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1470734043234844677
I agree it’s a real loss not having Chester on this board anymore. Very insightful and interestingLong 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
The Daily Mail reporters probably just logged in here after the Chris Wood transfer story broke. You know, to get the fans opinion and see if any content could be dug out and shoe horned into a news piece. This article is just a follow up piece to capitalise on the interest that is currently focussed on the club. I doubt that it is any more sinister than that.NewClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:51 pmI can only assume that Pace will have a fair idea about the identity of that individual(s).
There were several other major shareholders so I can only assume it’s one of those, presumably disgruntled because they’re impacted by decisions made by the “inner circle” but not part of it and therefore no real influence/understanding of why these decisions are being made.
Also commented in underlines. 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.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:46 pmI'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. 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 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.
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.
BFC was in debt before Mike Garlick took charge. Remember, the club sold the ground. 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.
For me it's just some minor relief that we aren't imminently behind, and that Pace has said something rather than the deafening silence I've got used to over the years. Coupled with not wanting to contribute to a board culture undermining confidence at a time the club needs it.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.
Somebody already established within the club privy to the going ons is definitely leaking to the media, could be anybody but I wouldn’t necessarily say the shareholders the last thing they’d want to do is to create more instability & the person who is leaking will fully understand everything but will have their own agendas, pace clearly isn’t everybody’s best friend within the corridors.NewClaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:51 pmI can only assume that Pace will have a fair idea about the identity of that individual(s).
There were several other major shareholders so I can only assume it’s one of those, presumably disgruntled because they’re impacted by decisions made by the “inner circle” but not part of it and therefore no real influence/understanding of why these decisions are being made.
Wasn’t it Jack Gaughan who got the first interview with Pace around a year ago?MrTopTier wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:25 pmWhen it comes to articles of this type, the Daily Mail are usually well informed. Read the Jack Gaughan stuff about Blackpool and the Oyston’s and the goings on at Derby and Oldham.
Easy to have a pop The Mail, but aside from the Athletic and the Guardian you get very few pieces like this in the papers until everyone piles in. So must be a decent source.
Do we need our Teasdale out placards yet?
It was.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:40 pmWasn’t it Jack Gaughan who got the first interview with Pace around a year ago?
Hi nnf, isn't the world agreed that Burnley didn't want or plan to sell Chris Wood, never mind sell to a relegation rival? Wood was sold for, reported, £25 million. His release clause was triggered. It wasn't a planned fire sale.Nonayforever wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:10 pmMy take on all the recent goings on ( for what it's worth ) is that CT is correct when mentioning the DM must have a source. Nationals only print stories such as theirs without a backup just in case it is incorrect.
ALK may well have had to renegotiate the deal with the outgoing directors due to Corvid impacting revenues or the fact that investment hasn't materialised as planned because of A, due to Corvid or B, Relegation looks ominous or C, the business plan isn't being adhered to.
My thoughts are that investment hasn't occurred because the business plan isn't being adhered to. The first part was to tie SD up to a long deal, the second part was to buy cheap good players from abroad to revitalise the team, this is the part of the plan which has proved the most difficult and the element of the business that the new owners underestimated.
The Wood sale had to take place to fund the gap. I would be totally amazed if the sale was not a planned fire sale to give breathing space.
Like I said - I would be amazed if the release clause was indeed activated. I think that is what is being reported by the media as the reason but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 pmHi nnf, isn't the world agreed that Burnley didn't want or plan to sell Chris Wood, never mind sell to a relegation rival? Wood was sold for, reported, £25 million. His release clause was triggered. It wasn't a planned fire sale.
If that bit's not correct was does that day to the rest?
It was confirmed by our club that the release clause had been activatedNonayforever wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:33 pmLike I said - I would be amazed if the release clause was indeed activated. I think that is what is being reported by the media as the reason but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate.
Then I will have to hold my hand up to that.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:35 pmIt was confirmed by our club that the release clause had been activated
Newcastle have confirmed the release clause was triggered and that's why they paid the price.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:38 pmI don’t think it’s in dispute that the release clause was activated it’s when it could have been later activated that’s in doubt.
What I meant is if Simon Jordan’s sources are correct we could have kept Chris wood until the summer, forget the release clause being activated that’s not in dispute I know Newcastle activated that & you are probably right we released him earlier contractually because of the extra £5mill, I think it will backfire on us but I don’t wish to argue about something I can’t be sure about. Good evening.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:39 pmNewcastle have confirmed the release clause was triggered and that's why they paid the price.
Sean Dyche has also confirmed the club didn't want to sell Chris Wood but had no choice because the release clause was triggered.
I don't understand what you mean by saying "it's when it could have been later activated that's in dispute." There have been some strange ideas put around about the release clause being only £20m and only applicable in the summer transfer window, so NUFC threw in an extra £5 million. That doesn't make any sense. Can you imagine NUFC telling their fans "we paid extra to get him for you now."
We didn’t release him early, if there was a clause in his contract that said he could leave if a set price was reached. If the clause was met (which doesn’t appear to be in dispute) and Wood wanted to move, there was nothing we could feasibly do to stop him moving now.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:46 pmWhat I meant is if Simon Jordan’s sources are correct we could have kept Chris wood until the summer, forget the release clause being activated that’s not in dispute I know Newcastle activated that & you are probably right we released him earlier contractually because of the extra £5mill, I think it will backfire on us but I don’t wish to argue about something I can’t be sure about. Good evening.
if ALK bought this club with their own money, there is no issue here. Do they have the funds to repay any debts in the Championship once the parachute payments dry up? I don't think anybody was expecting billions spent in transfers, just a little more than what Garlick spent.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:36 pmWhen 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.
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.
Pretty sure we know where the blame is for that.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:58 pmI agree it’s a real loss not having Chester on this board anymore. Very insightful and interesting
let's not forget, Garlick sanctioned it all and he is still a director - IF he thought it was a deal that ALK could renege on then what's the upside for him ?KRBFC wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:06 amif ALK bought this club with their own money, there is no issue here. Do they have the funds to repay any debts in the Championship once the parachute payments dry up? I don't think anybody was expecting billions spent in transfers, just a little more than what Garlick spent.
If you can't see the issue fans have with the current takeover model, then I don't know what to tell you. How would fans feel if Garlick spent the £50m in cash from the club on transfers, a £60m loan on transfers and then further £40m loan on transfers? It's effectively the same thing.
The club is £150m worse off financially and for what? new owners? is that benefit worth £150m? we'd have been better spending £150m on transfers and been in the same position, at least with spending on transfers there's hope of recouping money from future sales.
He will get his money, ALK can't just walk away without paying him.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:29 amlet's not forget, Garlick sanctioned it all and he is still a director - IF he thought it was a deal that ALK could renege on then what's the upside for him ?
The release clause wasn’t effective until summer regardless of any amount offered to activate it, a team could have offered £200 billion & technically we could have refused, it’s a silly example I’m using because obviously we would have accepted that being the case.DCWat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:21 pmWe didn’t release him early, if there was a clause in his contract that said he could leave if a set price was reached. If the clause was met (which doesn’t appear to be in dispute) and Wood wanted to move, there was nothing we could feasibly do to stop him moving now.
https://www.footballinsider247.com/sour ... nited/?ampJakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:41 amThe release clause wasn’t effective until summer regardless of any amount offered to activate it, a team could have offered £200 billion & technically we could have refused, it’s a silly example I’m using because obviously we would have accepted that being the case.
That's exactly the point, do ALK have the funds to pay those debts if we're relegated and income drops dramatically? The issue is when it falls onto the club.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 ?
right, so if they don't have the funds and control is handed back to super fan Garlick then he has to pay up or close the club - so again I ask, where's the upside for him ? It's a genuine question because not a single person on here knows the facts, I just can't fathom an upside for Garlick if ALK fail
Where do you think money from player sales will go to..... unpaid debts to GarlickVegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:43 amright, so if they don't have the funds and control is handed back to super fan Garlick then he has to pay up or close the club - so again I ask, where's the upside for him ? It's a genuine question because not a single person on here knows the facts, I just can't fathom an upside for Garlick if ALK fail
I know you have it in for Mike Garlick but maybe time to cut him some slack.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:43 amright, so if they don't have the funds and control is handed back to super fan Garlick then he has to pay up or close the club - so again I ask, where's the upside for him ? It's a genuine question because not a single person on here knows the facts, I just can't fathom an upside for Garlick if ALK fail
you are reading my words completely the wrong way - i'm trying to ascertain what the upside for him is if ALK fail - I can't see one hence why I was asking questions. It's not an attack on anyoneQuickenthetempo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:05 amI know you have it in for Mike Garlick but maybe time to cut him some slack.
His time in charge was the only time the club has run smoothly and within it's own means in my 30 odd years as a fan.
He has even helped out the club by deferring payments so Pace could buy Cornet.
Sorry if I have the wrong poster but I thought you have been quite vocal about Mike Garlick in recent weeks/months on here.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:33 amyou are reading my words completely the wrong way - i'm trying to ascertain what the upside for him is if ALK fail - I can't see one hence why I was asking questions. It's not an attack on anyone
I don't think MG would consider it "an upside" if he had to take over the club againQuickenthetempo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:15 amSorry if I have the wrong poster but I thought you have been quite vocal about Mike Garlick in recent weeks/months on here.
In answer to your question. The only upside is he will own a football club again after earning a few quid.
Nixon too, usually got a good idea of what’s going on. That’s pretty worrying and adds another layer to this situation.creepingdeath wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:40 amMore grim stories in the sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/17392439 ... -takeover/
Don't worry, I am sure it's just the Newcastle Saudi's trying to derail us or something else rather than what is being reported by the media and rumoured amongst many, many fans.
KRBFC wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:06 amif ALK bought this club with their own money, there is no issue here. Do they have the funds to repay any debts in the Championship once the parachute payments dry up? I don't think anybody was expecting billions spent in transfers, just a little more than what Garlick spent.
If you can't see the issue fans have with the current takeover model, then I don't know what to tell you. How would fans feel if Garlick spent the £50m in cash from the club on transfers, a £60m loan on transfers and then further £40m loan on transfers? It's effectively the same thing.
The club is £150m worse off financially and for what? new owners? is that benefit worth £150m? we'd have been better spending £150m on transfers and been in the same position, at least with spending on transfers there's hope of recouping money from future sales.
I'm sure Mike Garlick does want the deal to succeed and Burnley prosper.jojomk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:48 amI don't think MG would consider it "an upside" if he had to take over the club again
Chairing a club with substantial debt, a manager who has called him out on numerous occasions and Dyche disciples who now don't want him anywhere near the ground
Garlick wanted this deal to succeed
Yes, he has made a shed load of money but ALK will, no doubt, have given a powerpoint presentation on all the new investments they were going to bring into the club to maintain, even improve financial stability
So far that new investment seems to be part of a fairy story
Pace is presenting Jackanory not Garlick
You're right, it doesn't help when people pretend to be in the know and spread absolute nonsense. Like the BenWickes fella claiming we'd break our transfer record twice in this window (prior to Wood leaving), he seemingly pretended to be in the know for a while and built up some followers on here.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:08 amHow long do you think the club was up for sale for ? In those years of being up for sale how many people came forward with the amount needed to buy the club.
The club was pretty much at the maximum it could be prior to the sale there aren't many buyers for a club our size when it is at it's full potential, deluded people thought we could move to the next level, we were even linked to the "northern powerhouse" by 1 poster . When people were told previously that the club was over achieving being in this league for so long competing against almost every other club with far more resources the answer was just sign a few more players and carry on and we shouldn't settle for that, then there are those who understand reality.
Look at the clubs of our size in this area and who owned them previously and who owns them now. The saying "careful what you wish for" really does need paying more attention to.