Mike Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
Longtimeclaret
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
Been Liked: 48 times
Has Liked: 18 times

Mike Garlick

Post by Longtimeclaret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:29 pm

Where are we now Is largely in my view , down to the greed of the previous Chairman and the reluctance to invest in various windows prior to the sale of the Club to ALK

When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
These 5 users liked this post: IanMcL THEWELLERNUT70 Gibbo AotearoaClaret Top Claret

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6900 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:32 pm

Mmmmm, garlic cheese.

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Nonayforever » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:35 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:32 pm
Mmmmm, garlic cheese.
I'm going to get the port out !
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret

Iloveyoubrady
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:30 am
Been Liked: 296 times
Has Liked: 28 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Iloveyoubrady » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pm

Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
This user liked this post: AotearoaClaret

randomclaret2
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4314 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by randomclaret2 » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:39 pm

Iloveyoubrady wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
Lifelong fan apparently...

ClaretTony
Posts: 67429
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5254 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm

Iloveyoubrady wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
This user liked this post: Spike

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6900 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm

Nonayforever wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:35 pm
I'm going to get the port out !
Sounds like a recipe for heartburn.

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2058
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
Been Liked: 1129 times
Has Liked: 94 times
Location: your mum

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by daveisaclaret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:41 pm

If Mike Garlick ran the football club in such a way as to get as much money as possible when he sold it, is his greed not exactly mirrored by the new owners who were happy to buy the club without actually spending their own money on it in hopes of making a profit?

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:44 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Like all Americans, they worship at the alter of profit.

NickBFC
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:33 am
Been Liked: 391 times
Has Liked: 278 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by NickBFC » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:46 pm

Does he stand to lose a few quid if we're relegated? Sure I read he will. My thoughts on him are covered by others above.

BaronGarcia
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:36 pm
Been Liked: 108 times
Has Liked: 16 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by BaronGarcia » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:48 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
I’d like to think that Pace and ALK can and will be good for our club, but I’m yet to be convinced CT. What I can say with certainty is that Mike Garlick did what was best for Mike Garlick. I don’t think the way he exited his position was done in any way to spite the club, but he had his best interests at heart for some time. There were signings he could have got over the line and didn’t, and it is hurting us big style now.

Mike Garlick may be from Burnley, but he has carved out a very lucrative life, and well done to him, in London. We just happen to be the club from where he was born, not where his life is now.

Milltown1882
Posts: 3063
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:47 pm
Been Liked: 1102 times
Has Liked: 854 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Milltown1882 » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm

He fattened the goose long enough to get out but to stay in. Where we are now is on him.
These 8 users liked this post: IanMcL Rodleydave Rumpelstiltskin bobinho THEWELLERNUT70 Stayingup AotearoaClaret Top Claret

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:29 pm
Where are we now Is largely in my view , down to the greed of the previous Chairman and the reluctance to invest in various windows prior to the sale of the Club to ALK

When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).

do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Nonayforever » Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:59 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).

do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
I was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.
There was a point, when Garlick as chairman, should have sacked Dyche, but I realised that if he sacked Dyche he would have "lost" the players for a new manager.
I don't think he had any option but to sell.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

ClaretTony
Posts: 67429
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5254 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pm

Nonayforever wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:59 pm
I was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.
There was a point, when Garlick as chairman, should have sacked Dyche, but I realised that if he sacked Dyche he would have "lost" the players for a new manager.
I don't think he had any option but to sell.
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3138 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:02 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pm
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?

When they fell out publicly?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:03 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
this is a great question

my take has long been he couldn't find someone to do that so had to go with someone who he thought the manager would work with from the options that were on the table at that time - I think he understood the urgency of having to go, if he didn't leave the manager would.

there is a kicker in all this in that he has not really left yet, and may still be a major stakeholder for some way into the future (just not quite as big and certainly not as visible as that stake is likely to be in VSL.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Longtimeclaret
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
Been Liked: 48 times
Has Liked: 18 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Longtimeclaret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).

do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.

The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
These 6 users liked this post: Gibbo Rumpelstiltskin THEWELLERNUT70 Stayingup AotearoaClaret Top Claret

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 772 times
Has Liked: 1426 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:06 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Parts of the fan base wanted him out as we weren’t spending beyond our means. I really doubt there was a long line of buyers.

That’s how I see it.
Last edited by Burnleyareback2 on Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Nonayforever » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pm
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
The option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager. I can't recall the timing, but will have a look back to find the related incidents.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pm
The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
so shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrong

no doubt he may make a lot of money if the whole plan from VSL comes together - but we have to that happen yet in the meantime the money has to remain on call should the worst happen
Last edited by Chester Perry on Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IanMcL
Posts: 30126
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8654 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm

They fell out because Mr D could see what Mr G was doing.

Garlick turned out to be a liar "We have to have large reserves for a new stand and to cushion any relegation, so we can get back up" (paraphrased)

He took all that money for himself and those other trusted directors and left the club, irreparably in debt, unless we manage to stay up, by hard work and sudden good fortune.
These 2 users liked this post: Stayingup AotearoaClaret

ClaretTony
Posts: 67429
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5254 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:03 pm
this is a great question

my take has long been he couldn't find someone to do that so had to go with someone who he thought the manager would work with from the options that were on the table at that time - I think he understood the urgency of having to go, if he didn't leave the manager would.

there is a kicker in all this in that he has not really left yet, and may still be a major stakeholder for some way into the future (just not quite as big and certainly not as visible as that stake is likely to be in VSL.
The urgency was trying to sell for around four years but, as you say, he's not gone, he's still there as a director although I doubt he has much clout.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3138 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pm
The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
Actually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.
Spent most of it.

Longtimeclaret
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
Been Liked: 48 times
Has Liked: 18 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Longtimeclaret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:10 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm
so shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrong

You got it wrong.Are you an MG friend or family member?

randomclaret2
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4314 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by randomclaret2 » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
Actually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.
Spent most of it.
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3138 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:14 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pm
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
no idea. you'd have to ask him.
But we've been grossing in excess of £100 million in the PL.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:21 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pm
The urgency was trying to sell for around four years but, as you say, he's not gone, he's still there as a director although I doubt he has much clout.
the search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020

it came when the manager demanded new contracts for players and more players but wasn't prepared to sell the ones other clubs wanted to buy, to pay for it, There was also the issue that a number of major signings had been devalued by the manager not using them, questions remain as to who actually signed them. The club chose to manage it's way through Covid as it had through the better years by trying to budget for operational breakeven - you do not have to agree with it to understand that was the option chosen.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

ClaretTony
Posts: 67429
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5254 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:24 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:21 pm
the search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020

it came when the manager demanded new contracts for players and more players but wasn't prepared to sell the ones other clubs wanted to buy, to pay for it, There was also the issue that a number of major signings had been devalued by the manager not using them, questions remain as to who actually signed them. The club chose to manage it's way through Covid as it had through the better years by trying to budget for operational breakeven - you do not have to agree with it to understand that was the option chosen.
Was it about four years ago that the prospectus was issued.

Yes it did become more urgent and it wasn't just with the manager that Garlick had issues. There were always suggestions that the manager wasn't signing the players and I think that might continue to apply now.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm

Certainly isn't a fan of this club, nobody who seriously cared about this club would leave us in the absolute financial mess he did by selling to ALK.

We've gone from £60m(ish) in the club coffers, to -£50m(ish) taken by Garlick, a further -£60m(ish) owed to Garlick still and £60m(ish) loaned secured against the club assets to pay Garlick.

How does a Championship club find £110m? £6m a year interest?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pm
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
that was just from Clarets go Large limited - by Jan 2026 Garlick could potentially walk away with almost £100m for all his shareholding, he has not received all that yet and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails, so has to keep a large chunk reasonably accessible in case it is required.

The profits Garlick made on the Clarets go Large shares are substantially less than those fans who took a share in lieu of a season ticket and he also risked more and worked at the club for the last decade or so for free. There is no doubt that he is one of the few to get much richer as a result of owning a club (effectively he has doubled his wealth if it all comes off

randomclaret2
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4314 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by randomclaret2 » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:36 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm
that was just from Clarets go Large limited - by Jan 2026 Garlick could potentially walk away with almost £100m for all his shareholding, he has not received all that yet and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails, so has to keep a large chunk reasonably accessible in case it is required.

The profits Garlick made on the Clarets go Large shares are substantially less than those fans who took a share in lieu of a season ticket and he also risked more and worked at the club for the last decade or so for free. There is no doubt that he is one of the few to get much richer as a result of owning a club (effectively he has doubled his wealth if it all comes off
Thanks CP

randomclaret2
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4314 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by randomclaret2 » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:38 pm

I would say working at the club " for free " is somewhat offset by the near £100m 😉

ClaretTony
Posts: 67429
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5254 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:40 pm

He was a director, then joint chairman and then chairman but throughout that period we employed senior people to run the club so I'm not sure how much work he did at the club.
This user liked this post: THEWELLERNUT70

ElectroClaret
Posts: 17774
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 4044 times
Has Liked: 1846 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ElectroClaret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:42 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm
... and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails...
Jesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.
How likely is that scenario in the event of relegation?
I suppose I'm asking is it more likely if we go down?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:43 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:38 pm
I would say working at the club " for free " is somewhat offset by the near £100m 😉

no doubt, and it is not all profit of course - he has the opportunity to make a lot from it, and that has also been the opportunity for all the shareholders of have sold up, I suspect not one of them though they would get so much return

Swizzlestick
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:40 pm
Been Liked: 1503 times
Has Liked: 578 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Swizzlestick » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:48 pm

Nonayforever wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pm
The option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager.
What on earth is this based on

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pm

ElectroClaret wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:42 pm
Jesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.
How likely is that scenario in the event of relegation?
I suppose I'm asking is it more likely if we go down?
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.

ChrisG
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:10 am
Been Liked: 327 times
Has Liked: 335 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ChrisG » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:54 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pm
Sounds like a recipe for heartburn.
Get the port gout, am I right?

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:55 pm

Lots of Burnley fans were wanting that unicorn. An owner who was morally sound but also willing to invest a load of money (and we're talking upwards of £100m) with no reward.

Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.

There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm

Never liked him (a thought long before he sold us) he has absolute dodge pot written in his eyes and smile.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pm
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
Is this fact or your supposition? I've not seen anything to suggest it is the case.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pm
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).

do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
when we spent 800K (or whatever) on Stephens - how much money was in the bank ?

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:59 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pm
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
What does "effectively acting as guarantors" mean? It seems an unusually woolly definition of what is normally a precise legal term.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Devils_Advocate » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:07 am

aggi wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:55 pm
Lots of Burnley fans were wanting that unicorn. An owner who was morally sound but also willing to invest a load of money (and we're talking upwards of £100m) with no reward.

Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.

There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
^^^^^^^100% This^^^^^^^

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 am

aggi wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:58 pm
Is this fact or your supposition? I've not seen anything to suggest it is the case.
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
dsr wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:59 pm
What does "effectively acting as guarantors" mean? It seems an unusually woolly definition of what is normally a precise legal term.
answer contained above - I have been asked not to quote directly from the letter
Last edited by Chester Perry on Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:12 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 am
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
I don't believe in guarantee by supposition. Guarantees have to be recorded in the accounts and at Companies house, for UK companies at least. Let's see those.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:15 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 am
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -



answer contained above - I have been asked not to quote directly from the letter
I should probably have a look at the letter I guess. Sounds more interesting than I expected.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:15 am

dsr wrote:
Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:12 am
I don't believe in guarantee by supposition. Guarantees have to be recorded in the accounts and at Companies house, for UK companies at least. Let's see those.
I agree - just that is how it appears to me from what I have seem - I may have read too much into it, I may not have

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:19 am

aggi wrote:
Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:15 am
I should probably have a look at the letter I guess. Sounds more interesting than I expected.
there are times when I just wish it was out there, given that probably 2000 or more people have seen it - there is much that is open to interpretation though in regards to their statements (5 paragraphs) on the takeover

Post Reply