Mike Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Funkydrummer
Posts: 8310
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2949 times
Has Liked: 2063 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Funkydrummer » Tue May 24, 2022 11:31 am

If that happens I fear an uprising in many quarters. Me for one I'm afraid.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 11:31 am

brexit wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 11:23 am
Actually Mike Garlick loves the club and hopefully will be back in charge.
It was intimated that he was backed into a corner by Dyche who had a list of players he wanted to bring in. Mike looked at the list saw they were expensive and had no long term resale value plus Dyche wanted to renew contracts for players who again were passed their prime. He allegedly refused to sanction the deals.
Allegedly he had a choice sell the club or sack Dyche . Theoretically he chose to sell the club because he believed Dyche was more important to the club than himself and he was also a shrewd business man.
In hindsight the fact that we had awful transfer windows under Garlick actually benefits us - we are not saddled with expensive players with no resale value. The current signings bear this out Lennon,Stephens - too old Cornet - defour like fitness, wout - a cheaper but less productive chris wood. Time will tell for collins and roberts - I think they will shine in the championship. Brownhill in my opinion has been the only signing that has increased in value. But again the potential decent signings, Vydra and Gibson Dyche had issues with.

I am hoping the big announcement on friday will be ALK gone and Garlick back in charge
Right

There is a lot of heavy lifting going on there mate, with all the will in the world!

Let assume you are right about Garlick being back in charge by Friday, what happens to the debt?

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 » Tue May 24, 2022 11:32 am

Boss Hogg wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 11:11 am
The starting point of the current situation is the former chairman imo. The payments from tv are to help make the league competitive. If you play the cautious route and keep reserves to protect the club fair enough but to sell those cash reserves to a leveraged buyout and to line your own pockets ( whilst damaging necessary team strengthening) means you are not acting in the long term interests of the club and cannot be a true fan of the club.
Agree with this completely
Self interest as opposed to the interests of the Club

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Burnley Ace » Tue May 24, 2022 12:16 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:22 am
Really? If you were selling your house, you wouldn't expect to see the money before you hand over the keys?

I absolutely promise you - if anyone had gone to Mike Garlick and said they wanted to buy the club and would pay £180m, he would ask where the money was coming from, and if you said "I'm not willing to say but I'll find it from somewhere", he would not have sold. You only sell major assets if the money is already in your hand or if you have an exact knowledge of how you are going to get it. Garlick 100% knew where Pace was getting his money from.
You would expect the money but you wouldn’t be concerned where it came from. Perhaps it’s a weak analogy comparing the sale of a house/car to a business. Has anyone ever said he didn’t know where the money was coming from or how they anticipated reducing the debt?

ClaretAndJew
Posts: 8020
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
Been Liked: 2814 times
Has Liked: 503 times
Location: Earth

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretAndJew » Tue May 24, 2022 12:18 pm

brexit wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 11:23 am
Actually Mike Garlick loves the club and hopefully will be back in charge.
It was intimated that he was backed into a corner by Dyche who had a list of players he wanted to bring in. Mike looked at the list saw they were expensive and had no long term resale value plus Dyche wanted to renew contracts for players who again were passed their prime. He allegedly refused to sanction the deals.
Allegedly he had a choice sell the club or sack Dyche . Theoretically he chose to sell the club because he believed Dyche was more important to the club than himself and he was also a shrewd business man.
In hindsight the fact that we had awful transfer windows under Garlick actually benefits us - we are not saddled with expensive players with no resale value. The current signings bear this out Lennon,Stephens - too old Cornet - defour like fitness, wout - a cheaper but less productive chris wood. Time will tell for collins and roberts - I think they will shine in the championship. Brownhill in my opinion has been the only signing that has increased in value. But again the potential decent signings, Vydra and Gibson Dyche had issues with.

I am hoping the big announcement on friday will be ALK gone and Garlick back in charge
So the OWNER of the club had a choice to either sell the club or sack the manager?

I somehow do not believe that.

dsr
Posts: 15134
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 12:21 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:16 pm
You would expect the money but you wouldn’t be concerned where it came from. Perhaps it’s a weak analogy comparing the sale of a house/car to a business. Has anyone ever said he didn’t know where the money was coming from or how they anticipated reducing the debt?
It has been suggested that the club's debt is Pace/ALK's fault and nothing to do with Garlick. All I am saying is that Pace and Garlick did it jointly. They both wanted to put the club into this debt.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Burnley Ace » Tue May 24, 2022 12:24 pm

ClaretAndJew wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:18 pm
So the OWNER of the club had a choice to either sell the club or sack the manager?

I somehow do not believe that.
Perhaps it was more - there has been a total breakdown between myself and the manager and one of us has to go. I’ve had enough, I’m spending too much time focusing on the club (for no wage) and need to work at my actual business. The majority of fans want Dyche to stay and there is only one offer on the table, despite wanting to sell.

brexit
Posts: 1481
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:20 am
Been Liked: 234 times
Has Liked: 58 times
Location: on the gravy train in strasbourg

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by brexit » Tue May 24, 2022 12:26 pm

ClaretAndJew wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:18 pm
So the OWNER of the club had a choice to either sell the club or sack the manager?

I somehow do not believe that.
I know it's strange but it's a bit like a divorce and you leave the kids (or in case of this messageboard the french bulldog) with the parent you think will enable the best future.
Given the vitriol against Garlick and the deification of Dyche on this board, I am inclined to think there maybe some truth to this.

Reb
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:17 pm
Been Liked: 33 times
Has Liked: 37 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Reb » Tue May 24, 2022 12:27 pm

Think you pretty much summed it up Burnley Ace - although I am interested in the view that it was MG who didn't want to sign new players, not quite the way it was.

bfcjg
Posts: 13152
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 5002 times
Has Liked: 6716 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by bfcjg » Tue May 24, 2022 12:33 pm

I'd sooner have Teasdale then ALK.

ClaretAndJew
Posts: 8020
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
Been Liked: 2814 times
Has Liked: 503 times
Location: Earth

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretAndJew » Tue May 24, 2022 12:36 pm

I think these coming weeks and months, and perhaps even the season, will show us the true nature of the new owners.

Owning us in the Premier League allowed for a relatively easy ride, finance wise. For me their ownership can come into question if they do nothing this season, if they remain silent or if they just sell up and leave.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Tue May 24, 2022 1:45 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 am
Did he explore that Barry Kilby might have re-purchased his shares at the cost (plus a percentage) that he paid? Or that some other local businessman and/or club supporter could have done similar, with some sort of trust document or golden share rule in place to ensure there could not be a takeover like we've just had?

I don't doubt that if Garlick wanted to sell and pocket £100m, there were no other viable offers. But I'm sure there would have been viable offers if he wanted to settle for less. I'm not saying he should have settled for less necessarily, but rest assured that the reason he sold the club and took (with his associates) over £100m from the club, is not purely because he had no choice.
Selling the club to someone else who couldn't afford the market value doesn't seem like a recipe for success either though.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Tue May 24, 2022 1:49 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:38 am
I'm not talking about checking where your buyer is getting the money from. I'm talking about checking where you are getting the money from.

If you are selling your house, you do not hand over the keys until you know where you are getting the money from. It will be your solicitor, who is getting or who has already got the money from the other party's solicitor, usually. But you have seen the money, you know it is there. That's the point.

Garlick did not sell his shares and then ask where the money was coming from. He knew where the money was coming from.
The theory, and who knows how accurate it is, is that ALK/VSL expected to fairly quickly turn over more shares and get additional investment. Various accounts seem to suggest this was attempted but hasn't been overly successful.

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by joey13 » Tue May 24, 2022 2:03 pm

Nori1958 wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:46 am
I've a car for sale.. Someone wants to pay cash... Is that OK, or do I need to know where that cash has come from?
This car of yours are you selling it without brakes and a steering wheel ?

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1985 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by elwaclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 2:13 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 1:49 pm
The theory, and who knows how accurate it is, is that ALK/VSL expected to fairly quickly turn over more shares and get additional investment. Various accounts seem to suggest this was attempted but hasn't been overly successful.
The question surely now is… are investors more likely to back a winning team bouncing back after relegation, with all the ‘good news’ of a winning team forging back. As opposed to a team fighting (and losing) above its weight after years of treading water? Relegation could actually help market the club as long as the bounce back is steady and sustained, time will tell I guess.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5058
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by BurnleyFC » Tue May 24, 2022 2:20 pm

brexit wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:26 pm
I know it's strange but it's a bit like a divorce and you leave the kids (or in case of this messageboard the french bulldog) with the parent you think will enable the best future.
Given the vitriol against Garlick and the deification of Dyche on this board, I am inclined to think there maybe some truth to this.
There was no vitriolic abuse aimed towards Mike Garlick, just a few murmurs of discontent on this board and the other social media outlets.

Nori1958
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
Been Liked: 1112 times
Has Liked: 347 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Nori1958 » Tue May 24, 2022 2:23 pm

joey13 wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:03 pm
This car of yours are you selling it without brakes and a steering wheel ?
If we can come to an agreement that is beneficial to both of us, yes.

NewClaret
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by NewClaret » Tue May 24, 2022 2:40 pm

joey13 wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:03 pm
This car of yours are you selling it without brakes and a steering wheel ?
It’s one of those driverless cars :lol: :lol: :lol:

spt_claret
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:52 pm
Been Liked: 728 times
Has Liked: 456 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by spt_claret » Wed May 25, 2022 12:40 pm

brexit wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:26 pm
I know it's strange but it's a bit like a divorce and you leave the kids (or in case of this messageboard the french bulldog) with the parent you think will enable the best future.
Given the vitriol against Garlick and the deification of Dyche on this board, I am inclined to think there maybe some truth to this.
There was some vitriol to Garlick, moreso frustration at his refusal to speculate to accumulate and wide reported resistance to exploring overseas markets. The former can be somewhat explained by the financial squeeze Europe caused us between qualification bonuses and a lower league finish, and Dyche's reluctance to sanction sales (which I'll add, most fans would also have rejected. Selling Tarks or McNeil would have had significant outcry at "lack of ambition" and complaints that we're still selling our best players even as an established side).

Still understandable to think investing a little bit of our cash reserve in playing assets is a squeeze we can recover from via selling players. Certainly an investment with greater returns than using that reserve to change owner. It's a shame if the sale was driven by the unrealistic demands of a few fans, likely the sort who now expect us to suddenly bounce back playing dazzling football.

As for Dyche nobody has deified him. Pro Dyche supporters have pretty consistently outlined logical, balanced cases on why they backed retaining him, or backing him more financially, and even those who in an ideal world would have him still at the helm or in charge of the bounceback recognise that bridge can't be crossed back over and trying to do so would go worse than commiting to moving on.

The most hyperbolic Dyche sentiment has always come from the anti-Dyche contingent who have a chip on their shoulder about playing style, desperately want the approval of sports media outlets who will never approve of Burnley anyway, and have a bizarre celebratory status to a Championship reset because "we can play U23s and sign a progressive flair manager", which they see as preferable to Premier League survival under "Dinosaur Dyche". These same fans then talk about lack of ambition from others, which is hilarious.

Dyche is gone. Garlick is relegated to a minor boardroom role. I for one would much rather have Garlick in charge than Pace, and for Dyche to have not left, but the former is unlikely to be the case again unless we have serious problems, and the latter an impossibility.
This user liked this post: brexit

brexit
Posts: 1481
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:20 am
Been Liked: 234 times
Has Liked: 58 times
Location: on the gravy train in strasbourg

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by brexit » Wed May 25, 2022 2:52 pm

spt_claret wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 12:40 pm
Dyche is gone. Garlick is relegated to a minor boardroom role. I for one would much rather have Garlick in charge than Pace, and for Dyche to have not left, but the former is unlikely to be the case again unless we have serious problems, and the latter an impossibility.
Agree with the last sentence agree to disagree about the rest - it's opinion after all

Post Reply