Mike Garlick

[Rileybobs]

I hope your wholehearted belief in his belief in a business model will be of some comfort to you in the future, I suppose.

It won't give me any comfort whatsoever, the future of the club is entirely out of my hands.

I would have been happy for Garlick to have remained in charge and continue with our prudent, yet sustainable approach, even if it had resulted in relegation. What I can take comfort in is the fact that I wasn't one of the dissenters who called for him to sell up.

[FeedTheArf]

It is in the hands of the current Board to steer the Club in the right direction and it is their failing if it all goes wrong.

How many of you have questioned how the finance was put together when you sold a car or a house? You were surely just interested in getting the best price possible for yourself and not bothered if the new owners would show the same love and care as perhaps you did!

Comparing a football club to a house or a car is a little different. A club is part of the community, especially in an area like Burnley. It's so much more than a financial asset.

Garlick (and let's not forget the other board members in this), were all local, Burnley fans.

Investors in clubs of our level (certainly the level we were at when they came into the club) don't get involved in the club as an investment - no football club with our level of fanbase and global appeal is an investment as so few are profitable. We had one amazing season under Coyle where nobody expected promotion, followed by a few more seasons treading water before another unexpected promotion. It was only then that we started to become profitable. It's normally a case of local boys done good and wanting to put something back into their local club, or someone stepping in as clubs are in trouble. So let's not pretend Garlick and Co got into Burnley foreseeing 10 years into the future and becoming a relatively stable, profitable Premier League club. This should never have been an investment with the size of returns that they've now received (whichever figures you believe!). Yes they should have been rewarded for the work and time they've put into the club as to my knowledge they never took salaries - but not to the extent that it has been, putting the club under such financial pressure.

I suppose, as a fan, I expected better from them all. This wasn't a faceless corporation with no links to Burnley (ironically, like ALK are!), these were local fans done good who should want to see the club go from strength to strength and in agreeing to the deal they have, the finances will be hamstrung for the next x number of years (before even getting into the financial pressures of relegation).

[BabylonClaret]

Comparing a football club to a house or a car is a little different. A club is part of the community, especially in an area like Burnley. It's so much more than a financial asset.

Garlick (and let's not forget the other board members in this), were all local, Burnley fans.

Investors in clubs of our level (certainly the level we were at when they came into the club) don't get involved in the club as an investment - no football club with our level of fanbase and global appeal is an investment as so few are profitable. We had one amazing season under Coyle where nobody expected promotion, followed by a few more seasons treading water before another unexpected promotion. It was only then that we started to become profitable. It's normally a case of local boys done good and wanting to put something back into their local club, or someone stepping in as clubs are in trouble. So let's not pretend Garlick and Co got into Burnley foreseeing 10 years into the future and becoming a relatively stable, profitable Premier League club. This should never have been an investment with the size of returns that they've now received (whichever figures you believe!). Yes they should have been rewarded for the work and time they've put into the club as to my knowledge they never took salaries - but not to the extent that it has been, putting the club under such financial pressure.

I suppose, as a fan, I expected better from them all. This wasn't a faceless corporation with no links to Burnley (ironically, like ALK are!), these were local fans done good who should want to see the club go from strength to strength and in agreeing to the deal they have, the finances will be hamstrung for the next x number of years (before even getting into the financial pressures of relegation).

I rather think the 2009 promotion was kind of planned for - we tilted at a playoff shot and actually it took us close to financial problems (had we not got promoted it would have been v difficult). Following our failure to bounce back quickly I agree the strategy became more about cutting our cloth for the2nd tier.

The real surprise was the 2014 promotion. And that's what allowed us to kick on as the 2009 funds were pretty much gone by then.

[ClaretPete001]

Comparing a football club to a house or a car is a little different. A club is part of the community, especially in an area like Burnley. It's so much more than a financial asset.

It's not a very accurate analogy. The true analogy is if you sold a house to someone who couldn't afford it because of their precarious job situation at an inflated prices based upon a third of the price being paid some time in the future with a sub-clause that if it all goes pear shaped you can have the house back

I wonder if john would sell on that basis of if he would whether he would then care that the new owners were looking after the house?

[Chester Perry]

Obviously the fuller story here is that after the club was "handed over with guarantees of continued, huge future investment." they were then relegated to League One a few seasons later and that owner subsequently sold the club for more than what he'd promised to invest.

Bolton, our friends down the road and Wigan (twice you could argue) even Bury were all similar sales with similar intentions and all went very wrong very quickly - Other clubs have been through such traumas Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, Ipswich, Birmingham City, Orient, Charlton even Leeds. There are probably many more.

I have been looking at the changes in the club since the millennium

- the noughties saw an almost doubling of the allotted shares as 7 new directors came on board, mainly as a result of buying new shares and not those of existing shareholders. On top of that there were loans from the PFA, Gerling Insurance and later Daniel Thwaites all existing in parallel. There was the sale and leaseback of club properties to first Kilby and Sullivan, then Lionbridge, also director loans - over £5m each from Kilby and Flood and more from others, Ray Griffiths was said to have written a £1m cheque on his deathbed. All that was paid back with commercial rates of interest as a result of the return to the top flight - every single one of those seasons was loss making. All that promotion did was wipe out the debt - it did little else, even though both Kilby and Flood had said it would put the club on an even financial keel for the next 10 years - back in the championship we immediately started posting losses again and cash flow was so strapped we factored season ticket sales with the TSB.

- Garlick's tenure as Chairman saw a different approach, the first promotion under Dyche shows a loss, but take out the bonuses to players and conditional payments on inward transfers there was a £300k profit, the second promotion under Dyche was the same, an underlying operational profit. Most forget that the first promotion season saw a huge issue of shares in Q1 of 2014 (around 45,000) this appears to be when Garlick and John B saw their ownership and control of the club cemented. It was not until the 2019/20 season that we first saw an operational loss - though a profit was posted as a result of the sale of Sam Vokes. Garlick has run a very operationally tight ship, the majority of profits have come as a result of first season back, or player sales. A number of posters believe that the bonuses paid out when the club finished 7th and made the qualifying stages of the Europa League shocked the board to the core (I do miss Royboy). I wage bill has never recovered (though the next accounts should show a sizeable reduction as a result of the tighter, Covid induced budgets).

[Paul Waine]

Bolton, our friends down the road and Wigan (twice you could argue) even Bury were all similar sales with similar intentions and all went very wrong very quickly - Other clubs have been through such traumas Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, Ipswich, Birmingham City, Orient, Charlton even Leeds. There are probably many more.

I have been looking at the changes in the club since the millennium

- the noughties saw an almost doubling of the allotted shares as 7 new directors came on board, mainly as a result of buying new shares and not those of existing shareholders. On top of that there were loans from the PFA, Gerling Insurance and later Daniel Thwaites all existing in parallel. There was the sale and leaseback of club properties to first Kilby and Sullivan, then Lionbridge, also director loans - over £5m each from Kilby and Flood and more from others, Ray Griffiths was said to have written a £1m cheque on his deathbed. All that was paid back with commercial rates of interest as a result of the return to the top flight - every single one of those seasons was loss making. All that promotion did was wipe out the debt - it did little else, even though both Kilby and Flood had said it would put the club on an even financial keel for the next 10 years - back in the championship we immediately started posting losses again and cash flow was so strapped we factored season ticket sales with the TSB.

- Garlick's tenure as Chairman saw a different approach, the first promotion under Dyche shows a loss, but take out the bonuses to players and conditional payments on inward transfers there was a £300k profit, the second promotion under Dyche was the same, an underlying operational profit. Most forget that the first promotion season saw a huge issue of shares in Q1 of 2014 (around 45,000) this appears to be when Garlick and John B saw their ownership and control of the club cemented. It was not until the 2019/20 season that we first saw an operational loss - though a profit was posted as a result of the sale of Sam Vokes. Garlick has run a very operationally tight ship, the majority of profits have come as a result of first season back, or player sales. A number of posters believe that the bonuses paid out when the club finished 7th and made the qualifying stages of the Europa League shocked the board to the core (I do miss Royboy). I wage bill has never recovered (though the next accounts should show a sizeable reduction as a result of the tighter, Covid induced budgets).

Valuable post, CP.

I recommend all on the mb take a look at Burnley Football & Athletic Company on Companies House for the early years on the 2000s and, alongside that look at the Championship end of season table. (If you've not done it before, it's free to search and look at all these company records).

4 May 2003, last game of the 2002-03 season, Burnley lost to Wimbledon (played at Selhurst Park). That was the season that ITV Digital went bust. It was reported that 14 players had been told they would be let go a couple of days before that last game.

Burnley were a "bottom half" Championship club, making losses every season, 13th was the best finishing position.

Mike Garlick was appointed a director in October 2006. Brendan Flood was appointed Dec 2006. Mike Garlick bought 2,600 (approx) shares. Flood bought 14,000. Barry Kilby had the most shares, 20,000. (I guess they paid £200 per share - though I've not done the calcs. Maybe some of the small shareholders also bought some shares around this time). John B joined the board in 2010, I think after the end of the 2009-10 season.

When Mike Garlick bought his share and became a director the club was loss making. Shareholders funds were negative. He'd bought into a football club in the town of Burnley that was worth nothing.

From the club's perspective and the town's perspective, Mike Garlick (with support from John B and Barry Kilby, in particular) has turned Burnley Football Club into an enterprise that is valued at £200 million. That's some achievement in my book. That's a great outcome for the fans of Burnley, particularly the ones who owned shares, and the town of Burnley and surrounding areas.

UTC

[joey13]

Valuable post, CP.

I recommend all on the mb take a look at Burnley Football & Athletic Company on Companies House for the early years on the 2000s and, alongside that look at the Championship end of season table. (If you've not done it before, it's free to search and look at all these company records).

4 May 2003, last game of the 2002-03 season, Burnley lost to Wimbledon (played at Selhurst Park). That was the season that ITV Digital went bust. It was reported that 14 players had been told they would be let go a couple of days before that last game.

Burnley were a "bottom half" Championship club, making losses every season, 13th was the best finishing position.

Mike Garlick was appointed a director in October 2006. Brendan Flood was appointed Dec 2006. Mike Garlick bought 2,600 (approx) shares. Flood bought 14,000. Barry Kilby had the most shares, 20,000. (I guess they paid £200 per share - though I've not done the calcs. Maybe some of the small shareholders also bought some shares around this time). John B joined the board in 2010, I think after the end of the 2009-10 season.

When Mike Garlick bought his share and became a director the club was loss making. Shareholders funds were negative. He'd bought into a football club in the town of Burnley that was worth nothing.

From the club's perspective and the town's perspective, Mike Garlick (with support from John B and Barry Kilby, in particular) has turned Burnley Football Club into an enterprise that is valued at £200 million. That's some achievement in my book. That's a great outcome for the fans of Burnley, particularly the ones who owned shares, and the town of Burnley and surrounding areas.

UTC

The club is valued at 200 million, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read on here .

[Chester Perry]

The club is valued at 200 million, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read on here .

The most recent share acquisitions (completed less than 3 weeks ago) valued the club at just over £208m

[Paul Waine]

The club is valued at 200 million, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read on here .

Approx 120,000 shares, price for shares bought from small shareholders approx £1,700 = £204,000,000.

[fidelcastro]

Exciting times.

[joey13]

The most recent share acquisitions (completed less than 3 weeks ago) valued the club at just over £208m

Meaningless

[fidelcastro]

Meaningless

Is it?

Out of interest, what would you value the club at?

[joey13]

Is it?

Out of interest, what would you value the club at?

How much did Burnley Football Club benefit from this share
acquisition ?

[Chester Perry]

How much did Burnley Football Club benefit from this share
acquisition ?

how much does any business benefit from a share acquisition from another shareholder

perhaps it should be noted that in all probability over 60% (possibly more) of Mike Garlick's shares were bought to put money into the club (new issues) at times of need rather than the pockets of other shareholders. He was not the only one to do so, just probably bought more than any other individual

[Paul Waine]

How much did Burnley Football Club benefit from this share
acquisition ?

Hi joey13, interesting question. Let's go back to the analogy of buying a car or a house. How much does your car benefit if you sell it to a new owner? Does it get a new, bigger engine, or some "go faster" stripes? How much does your house benefit if you sell it to a new owner? Does it add a conservatory, some solar pv panels, some loft insulation or a new front door?

It's the same with any asset. It's the same with Burnley Football Club, new owners buying the shares owned by the previous owners doesn't "benefit" the club. However, it does show what the club is worth at the time that the new owners bought it and the benefit that has accrued to the club from the period when the previous shareholders bought their shares. We may deduce that the club has benefited under the previous owners to the extent of the increase in value under their ownership.

As an approximate comparison between the value of the club when Mike Garlick became a shareholder and director, Oct-2006, and Dec-2020 when ALK bought a significant part of the club, we can estimate that the club's value has increased by £180 million, give or take £10 million. In recent years, the first team squad have been earning, collectively, £60 million and more each season. That's also part of what Burnley Football Club has benefitted.

As fans, we've benefited from at least 8 seasons in the Premier League, counting to the end of this season. Let's hope there are more to come.

UTC

[BurnleyFC]

Mikey G has played an absolute blinder getting the Americans to believe that the club was worth north of £200m.

[boatshed bill]

Mikey G has played an absolute blinder getting the Americans to believe that the club was worth north of £200m.

Anything is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

[BurnleyFC]

Anything is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

Or what someone is not prepared to pay for it, in our case.

[boatshed bill]

Or what someone is not prepared to pay for it, in our case.

Yes, it can appear that way.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

http://priceoffootball.com/2728-2/

Article from 2020 about club valuations.
They priced Burnley at more than we were sold for its worth noting.

[paulatky]

Mikey G has played an absolute blinder getting the Americans to believe that the club was worth north of £200m.

Based on a factor of turnover ALK could well have thought that price a bargain.

[Quickenthetempo]

Venkys paid 46m for Blackburn in 2010. 23m for the club and had to pay off 23m in debts.

Burnley worth more than 4x that.

[ClaretTony]

how much does any business benefit from a share acquisition from another shareholder

perhaps it should be noted that in all probability over 60% (possibly more) of Mike Garlick's shares were bought to put money into the club (new issues) at times of need rather than the pockets of other shareholders. He was not the only one to do so, just probably bought more than any other individual

I’m not sure where he bought his initial shares but I suspect most of his shares in total were purchased from other shareholders. He first joined the board in 2006 just before Brendan Flood.

[paulatky]

Delia at Norwich would also make a fortune if she sold her share in Norwich. She got involved in similar circumstances to MG, primarily to save the club with no guarantee of getting her money back

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Rovers were cheap, especially when you consider the amount of money they still need for their infrastructure.
They still don't have a Desso style pitch, either at Ewood or their training grounds.

Ewood needs some work doing to it and at the time their squad needed an overhaul.
Plus their wage bill was well out of hand and has remained so even in the championship, I think it's 160% of income.

[JohnDearyMe]

"Ray Griffiths was said to have written a £1m cheque on his deathbed"

Very interesting, I'd never heard that before

[Chester Perry]

I’m not sure where he bought his initial shares but I suspect most of his shares in total were purchased from other shareholders. He first joined the board in 2006 just before Brendan Flood.

it is all in the thread CT, no doubt that a good number were from other Shareholders, but there have been around 85,000 new shares issued since the millennium in first The Burnley Football and Athletic Company Limited, then (after the one for one transfer) Burnley FC Holdings Limited - of which only 500 or so were issued in lieu of a season ticket I understand. The money for all those shares went to the club, with the last issues of almost 45,000 being in Q1 2014,

[GodIsADeeJay81]

"Ray Griffiths was said to have written a £1m cheque on his deathbed"

Very interesting, I'd never heard that before

I just had a quick Google and an article from Clarets mad pops up, written by Dave Thomas, written in 2010.

[Chester Perry]

"Ray Griffiths was said to have written a £1m cheque on his deathbed"

Very interesting, I'd never heard that before

probably too much drama from me - though this tells the seriousness of his situation

"The accounts from the 2007-08 campaign show that the directors put in £5.86 million during the year, including £1.5 million from Barry and £2.7 million from Brendan Flood. The following year’s accounts, the promotion season, has the figure at £3.74 million, which includes the famous Easter bailout when the club ran out of cash and needed more money to keep the show on the road – the sobering moment when the terminally-ill Ray Griffiths wrote a cheque for £1 million."

quoted from this https://m.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s37/st170450.htm

[ClaretTony]

it is all in the thread CT, no doubt that a good number were from other Shareholders, but there have been around 85,000 new shares issued since the millennium in first The Burnley Football and Athletic Company Limited, then (after the one for one transfer) Burnley FC Holdings Limited - of which only 500 or so were issued in lieu of a season ticket I understand. The money for all those shares went to the club, with the last issues of almost 45,000 being in Q1 2014,

Those Q1 2014 shares. That’s when John B launched the fundraising to try to help the manager improve the squad. It meant we could sign Ashley Barnes.

The people who put money in got some shares plus extra shares should we be promoted. A friend of mine secured a good number of shares through that.

[bfcjg]

"Ray Griffiths was said to have written a £1m cheque on his deathbed"

Very interesting, I'd never heard that before

From what I was told from a guy with a similar business to Ray who was close to Ray it wasn't the emotional death bed story, but he knew he was on the way out and just wanted to help out.

[IanMcL]

Obviously the fuller story here is that after the club was "handed over with guarantees of continued, huge future investment." they were then relegated to League One a few seasons later and that owner subsequently sold the club for more than what he'd promised to invest.

No the owner got them back to the Prem and recently handed over for a pound.

[JohnDearyMe]

From what I was told from a guy with a similar business to Ray who was close to Ray it wasn't the emotional death bed story, but he knew he was on the way out and just wanted to help out.

I just read he passed away in July 2009. I hope his health allowed him to attend the final at Wembley

[BurnleyFC]

Where’s BenWickes when you need him to put our minds at ease?

Probably involved in the Northern Powerhouse discussions or helping us smash our transfer record again.

[JohnMcGreal]

Hi joey13, interesting question. Let's go back to the analogy of buying a car or a house. How much does your car benefit if you sell it to a new owner? Does it get a new, bigger engine, or some "go faster" stripes? How much does your house benefit if you sell it to a new owner? Does it add a conservatory, some solar pv panels, some loft insulation or a new front door?

It's the same with any asset. It's the same with Burnley Football Club, new owners buying the shares owned by the previous owners doesn't "benefit" the club. However, it does show what the club is worth at the time that the new owners bought it and the benefit that has accrued to the club from the period when the previous shareholders bought their shares. We may deduce that the club has benefited under the previous owners to the extent of the increase in value under their ownership.

As an approximate comparison between the value of the club when Mike Garlick became a shareholder and director, Oct-2006, and Dec-2020 when ALK bought a significant part of the club, we can estimate that the club's value has increased by £180 million, give or take £10 million. In recent years, the first team squad have been earning, collectively, £60 million and more each season. That's also part of what Burnley Football Club has benefitted.

As fans, we've benefited from at least 8 seasons in the Premier League, counting to the end of this season. Let's hope there are more to come.

UTC

None of which answers joey13's question and explains how the club has benefited from the takeover.

We didn't need the club to be sold and plunged into debt to realise we'd been very successful between 2006 and 2020.

[ClaretPete001]

None of which answers joey13's question and explains how the club has benefited from the takeover.

We didn't need the club to be sold and plunged into debt to realise we'd been very successful between 2006 and 2020.

Quite! The million dollar question no one seems to be able to answer, which is odd after 15 months.

The Venky's will only get any money back when they sell the club and that depends upon promotion to the Premiership. In the meantime, they are squandering millions of quid propping up a club that has a turnover of £14 million and net liabilities of £134 million (see below). Wolves lost a million pounds a week when they won promotion.

The difference between Rovers and Burnley is that the Venky's are billionaires and can probably put in the £20-£30 million quid a season required to make Rovers a top Championship side. It will have been money well spent if they can do it in terms of their brand and personal standing.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

[ClaretPete001]

In relation to the valuation of the club it is solely based upon Premiership TV money. There is no meaningful organic growth in the business albeit the board has done to well to grow it significantly - it's still very small compared to broadcast revenue.

In addition, whether you agree or not you have to consider it was artificially raised by the nature of the deal.

Ironically, the more you argue that MG and co have leveraged the football business of the club the less viable the deal looks.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

None of which answers joey13's question and explains how the club has benefited from the takeover.

We didn't need the club to be sold and plunged into debt to realise we'd been very successful between 2006 and 2020.

He didn't ask about the takeover, he asked about the recent share acquisition, they're different things.

[Quickenthetempo]

In relation to the valuation of the club it is solely based upon Premiership TV money. There is no meaningful organic growth in the business albeit the board has done to well to grow it significantly - it's still very small compared to broadcast revenue.

In addition, whether you agree or not you have to consider it was artificially raised by the nature of the deal.

Ironically, the more you argue that MG and co have leveraged the football business of the club the less viable the deal looks.

Pete I know you put a lot of effort into your posts, but when you keep referring to the Premier League as The Premiership, it questions all your other knowledge.

[ClaretPete001]

Pete I know you put a lot of effort into your posts, but when you keep referring to the Premier League as The Premiership, it questions all your other knowledge.

Quicken, how rude. I would not dream of questioning the lack of knowledge displayed by your posts for two reasons: (1) it would be rude and I am nothing if not courteous and (2) Why bother? They are there for everyone to read.

[Quickenthetempo]

Quicken, how rude. I would not dream of questioning the lack of knowledge displayed by your posts for two reasons: (1) it would be rude and I am nothing if not courteous and (2) Why bother? They are there for everyone to read.

Pete I'm not being rude.

The Premiership name was dropped in 2007. We have only ever played in the Premier League.

[ClaretTony]

Pete I'm not being rude.

The Premiership name was dropped in 2007. We have only ever played in the Premier League.

I’m astonished how many people still refer to it as the Premiership. I know we stuck PREMIERSHIP on a lot of merchandise when we went up in 2009 and were told to remove it from the shelves.

[Elizabeth]

Pete I know you put a lot of effort into your posts, but when you keep referring to the Premier League as The Premiership, it questions all your other knowledge.

Wow, someone calls it the Premiership and it nullifies every opinion they have.

[RVclaret]

Wow, someone calls it the Premiership and it nullifies every opinion they have.

Does cast a shadow

[Rileybobs]

Reminds me a bit of the people who still call the Barnfield Construction Stand the Cricketfield Stand.

[Quickenthetempo]

Wow, someone calls it the Premiership and it nullifies every opinion they have.

Yes, Elizabeth

[Elizabeth]

The milk cup and all the other names it had was always the League cup for me

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Reminds me a bit of the people who still call the Barnfield Construction Stand the Cricketfield Stand.

Imagine how the Bradford fans feel with the amount of names their ground has had

[ClaretPete001]

Wow, someone calls it the Premiership and it nullifies every opinion they have.

I know what a bunch of numpties. Nothing intelligent to say that's the problem.

Ho hum .....!

[ClaretTony]

I know what a bunch of numpties. Nothing intelligent to say that's the problem.

Ho hum .....!

The problem is your response to being called out for referring to the league incorrectly. To suggest it’s because it’s from a bunch of numpties with an inability to have anything intelligent to say is a comment from yourself that’s neither required nor acceptable.