Mike Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:40 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:05 am
He didn't ask about the takeover, he asked about the recent share acquisition, they're different things.
The recent share issue probably had to be valued at the same as the original takeover because of the risk of committing a fraud on the minority shareholders. To buy a company, strip out the cash, and use the majority shareholding to decree the company is now worth less than it was and pay the minority shareholders less for their shares - that would be at best, dubious practice.

The initial value of £200m or so was based on having £50m cash rserves or thereabouts. When those cash reserves are replaced by a loan from a holding company with no other assets, and when a loan guarantee is slapped on top, the actual value of the company (as opposed to the balance sheet value) would surely take a hit.
This user liked this post: IanMcL

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:38 am

dsr wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:40 pm
The recent share issue probably had to be valued at the same as the original takeover because of the risk of committing a fraud on the minority shareholders. To buy a company, strip out the cash, and use the majority shareholding to decree the company is now worth less than it was and pay the minority shareholders less for their shares - that would be at best, dubious practice.

The initial value of £200m or so was based on having £50m cash rserves or thereabouts. When those cash reserves are replaced by a loan from a holding company with no other assets, and when a loan guarantee is slapped on top, the actual value of the company (as opposed to the balance sheet value) would surely take a hit.
Hi dsr, aren't there some big flaws in your reasoning? If your idea that exchanging £50 million cash into an inter-company loan and adding a guarantee for MSD loan to Calder Vale has reduced the value of the club, why on earth would an offer to buy the shares of the small shareholders have to be valued at the same level as the original takeover? By your reasoning it should be very significantly less, surely?

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretPete001 » Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:14 am

ClaretTony wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:46 pm
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.
My use of the term numpty referred to the point that using an out of date term negated all my other posts. As someone else pointed out many still refer to the league cup and sometimes even the European Cup. I do - it's probably my age...!

I did not perceive the reference to the naming of the Premier league as a polite correcting of a misused term - I perceived it to be an attempt to gaslight the debate on a point unrelated to its substance.

If a polite pointing out of the error had been made without reference to the effort I put in and an attempt to link that with the completely unrelated substance of the thread I would have taken it in good humour.

Perhaps, I mistook a simple correcting for a bit of sneering joined in by 3 or 4 others - if that is the case then I got it wrong.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretPete001 » Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:22 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:38 am
Hi dsr, aren't there some big flaws in your reasoning? If your idea that exchanging £50 million cash into an inter-company loan and adding a guarantee for MSD loan to Calder Vale has reduced the value of the club, why on earth would an offer to buy the shares of the small shareholders have to be valued at the same level as the original takeover? By your reasoning it should be very significantly less, surely?
As DSR pointed out - for a company to acknowledge that it had damaged its own asset by its investment would be both dubious practice and not very sensible from the perspective of the value of the asset and PR. Particularly when those small shareholders are likely important supporters of the club.

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17915
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Quickenthetempo » Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:57 am

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:14 am
My use of the term numpty referred to the point that using an out of date term negated all my other posts. As someone else pointed out many still refer to the league cup and sometimes even the European Cup. I do - it's probably my age...!

I did not perceive the reference to the naming of the Premier league as a polite correcting of a misused term - I perceived it to be an attempt to gaslight the debate on a point unrelated to its substance.

If a polite pointing out of the error had been made without reference to the effort I put in and an attempt to link that with the completely unrelated substance of the thread I would have taken it in good humour.

Perhaps, I mistook a simple correcting for a bit of sneering joined in by 3 or 4 others - if that is the case then I got it wrong.
I pointed out you put effort into your posts because you bring facts and figures into your reasoning. Most on here, me included are more opinion based. It was a compliment.

It was a polite point out because it winds me up. I know there's worse things happening but still.

The term questioning your knowledge after simple mistakes is similar to an article you read with the title being spelt wrong. You probably won't take the rest as gospel.

Hope this clears it up.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretPete001 » Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:08 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:57 am
I pointed out you put effort into your posts because you bring facts and figures into your reasoning. Most on here, me included are more opinion based. It was a compliment.

It was a polite point out because it winds me up. I know there's worse things happening but still.

The term questioning your knowledge after simple mistakes is similar to an article you read with the title being spelt wrong. You probably won't take the rest as gospel.

Hope this clears it up.
Ok I took it the wrong way Quicken. Thank you for your clarification. To be fair if others hadn't jumped in I would probably have taken it better,

My apology for misreading your intentions. Let's move on - handbags and all that...!
This user liked this post: Quickenthetempo

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:12 pm

dsr wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:40 pm
The recent share issue probably had to be valued at the same as the original takeover because of the risk of committing a fraud on the minority shareholders. To buy a company, strip out the cash, and use the majority shareholding to decree the company is now worth less than it was and pay the minority shareholders less for their shares - that would be at best, dubious practice.

The initial value of £200m or so was based on having £50m cash rserves or thereabouts. When those cash reserves are replaced by a loan from a holding company with no other assets, and when a loan guarantee is slapped on top, the actual value of the company (as opposed to the balance sheet value) would surely take a hit.
The recent share issue put over £5,5m of additional value on the club when compared to the December 30 2020 transaction, that can be confirmed because the Offer Letter, from the club on behalf of VSL/CVHL, gives us hard numbers with which to make the calculation based on the known allotment of 122,478 shares in the Burnley FC Holdings Limited.

We have no evidence that all those cash reserves were used in that initial transactions, and I currently suspect that less than half the sum you quote was used for that purpose in the initial transaction. My calculation is a series of assumptions based on figures in public records relating to both MSD and VSL and its subsidiaries. What happened after that is currently unknown.

At the moment we do not have clear knowledge of many of the details (including why the sale actually happened) and may never have. We are able to put together a a reasoned argument about some of financial details - and we expect some confirmation on a few of them in the next published accounts.
These 2 users liked this post: Paul Waine GodIsADeeJay81

dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:14 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:38 am
Hi dsr, aren't there some big flaws in your reasoning? If your idea that exchanging £50 million cash into an inter-company loan and adding a guarantee for MSD loan to Calder Vale has reduced the value of the club, why on earth would an offer to buy the shares of the small shareholders have to be valued at the same level as the original takeover? By your reasoning it should be very significantly less, surely?
You misunderstand the term "fraud on the minority shareholders". Fraud on the minority shareholders is an offence in law, whether criminal or civil I'm not sure. If you buy the majority of shares in a company, and by your own deliberate actions make the company worth less than it was, you are not allowed - in law - to pay the minority shareholders less than their shares were worth before. You're right that the shares would logically be worth less than they were, which is why there is a law preventing it.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:00 pm

dsr wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:14 pm
You misunderstand the term "fraud on the minority shareholders". Fraud on the minority shareholders is an offence in law, whether criminal or civil I'm not sure. If you buy the majority of shares in a company, and by your own deliberate actions make the company worth less than it was, you are not allowed - in law - to pay the minority shareholders less than their shares were worth before. You're right that the shares would logically be worth less than they were, which is why there is a law preventing it.
Hi dsr, ok, perhaps I did miss your point about "fraud on the minority." Are you saying that it was necessary for ALK to make the offer to buy the shares of minority shareholders at equivalent value to the value placed on the 84% shares they acquired 30-Dec-2020, even though the only way ALK could buy the 84% shares was by borrowing £60m from MSD, which by necessity had to be secured, amongst other arrangements, on the club's assets and in addition by borrowing £Xm from the club's own cash held on balance sheet? And, if ALK hadn't acquired 84% of the shares, with the financing arrangements as described, all the shares in the club, including those shares held by the minority, would have been worth considerable less than the amount ALK/Calder Vale offered to buy those minority shares? All that not withstanding that minority shares are generally valued at a discount to the majority because the minority do not, by definition, exercise control of the company?

dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:08 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:00 pm
Hi dsr, ok, perhaps I did miss your point about "fraud on the minority." Are you saying that it was necessary for ALK to make the offer to buy the shares of minority shareholders at equivalent value to the value placed on the 84% shares they acquired 30-Dec-2020, even though the only way ALK could buy the 84% shares was by borrowing £60m from MSD, which by necessity had to be secured, amongst other arrangements, on the club's assets and in addition by borrowing £Xm from the club's own cash held on balance sheet? And, if ALK hadn't acquired 84% of the shares, with the financing arrangements as described, all the shares in the club, including those shares held by the minority, would have been worth considerable less than the amount ALK/Calder Vale offered to buy those minority shares? All that not withstanding that minority shares are generally valued at a discount to the majority because the minority do not, by definition, exercise control of the company?
In general, the law is to protect majority owners from abusing the rights of the minority. For example, Alf, Bert and Charlie may own a company, and if the company receives a vast offer for its land, Alf and Bert can't vote to issue several million new shares at 1p each to dilute Charlie's shareholding. That's the sort of law which may apply - at a lower level, obviously - here. I'm only speculating because it's a complex law.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:50 am

IanMcL wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:25 am
No the owner got them back to the Prem and recently handed over for a pound.
No, Jack Hayward sold them for a pound in 2007. They got back into the Premier League and then subsequently dropped down to League One. Fosun bought them in 2016 for £45m and got them back into the Premier League again.
This user liked this post: IanMcL

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:54 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:57 pm
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
Ha, I'd forgotten the stuff I had on there. A look back at those days when our wages were higher than our turnover.
https://thefootballnetwork.net/boards/r ... C10298103=

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:58 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:58 pm
...
I have also stated a few times now that Garlick is currently the single biggest investor in the VSL project and has always been the one who is likely to gain the largest reward - probably more than the ALK Three who no doubt have significant ambition.
...
I think you've mentioned this before but I can't remember whether I queried it. Are you basing this on the outstanding amounts owed to Garlick or do you believe that he has invested in VSL? If it's the latter then what's that based on?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:21 pm

aggi wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:58 am
I think you've mentioned this before but I can't remember whether I queried it. Are you basing this on the outstanding amounts owed to Garlick or do you believe that he has invested in VSL? If it's the latter then what's that based on?
The former, combined with that 'buyback' - there is a a remote possibility Garlick may have invested in VSL itself, there is new investment indicated in the Clarets Go Large Limited accounts - a company set up as a investment vehicle in Burnley Football club, but absolutely nothing to substantiate it with.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:02 pm

aggi wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:58 am
I think you've mentioned this before but I can't remember whether I queried it. Are you basing this on the outstanding amounts owed to Garlick or do you believe that he has invested in VSL? If it's the latter then what's that based on?
Hi aggi, I know I've posted earlier, somewhere on this mb, maybe earlier on this thread, about Clarets Go Large accounts. Not just the most recently published, but also going back a couple of years.

Director's report, year ended 31 May 2019, Principal activities: The principal activity of the company was investing in Burnley FC Holdings Limited.
Followed by further details on balance sheet and notes to accounts. BFCHL listed as Associate 26.65%

These unaudited accounts were prepared by Moore Kingston Smith LLP.

Y/end 31 May 2020 - no director's report or accountants' report - otherwise details on balance sheet and BFCHL listed as Associate 26.65%

Y/end 31 May 2021 - again, no director's report or accountants' report - Fixed Assets, investments in associates reduce to £830k, other investments addition £7m. Current Assets Investments, other investments £6m.

No further details re the additions of "other investments." No mention if purpose, as described in 2019, has changed.

It's my speculation that the other investments may be investments in Velocity Sports Partners, with split between Fixed Assets and Current Assets reflecting expectation that the current asset item may be disposed off within 1 year of the balance sheet date. Noting that there is also a balance of £830k in fixed assets investments from the original investment in BFCHL, so, I reason that the addition of £6m in current assets other investments may arise from the agreement with ALK...

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:44 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:21 pm
The former, combined with that 'buyback' - there is a a remote possibility Garlick may have invested in VSL itself, there is new investment indicated in the Clarets Go Large Limited accounts - a company set up as a investment vehicle in Burnley Football club, but absolutely nothing to substantiate it with.
Cheers. I don't think that really meets what I'd describe as an investor, not unless there's some mechanism for the repaid amount to ramp up and options (exercisable by Garlick) to extend the repayment period.
Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:02 pm
...
Hi aggi, I know I've posted earlier, somewhere on this mb, maybe earlier on this thread, about Clarets Go Large accounts. Not just the most recently published, but also going back a couple of years.
...
I also pondered those investments. If that £12m is really in Velocity then that suggests that there is upwards of £60m of equity in Velocity and Garlick is just along for the ride.

I can't really work out why an investment in Velocity would make sense for Garlick though, from a commercial point of view.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:57 pm

Just further to previous chat about relegation clauses, Bournemouth announced their results today and their wages dropped by 47% after relegation.
These 3 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 tiger76 RVclaret

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17915
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Quickenthetempo » Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:04 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:57 pm
Just further to previous chat about relegation clauses, Bournemouth announced their results today and their wages dropped by 47% after relegation.
That was just Eddie's wage.
This user liked this post: ClaretTony

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 Mar 29, 2022 8:48 pm

What’s the capital gains tax “treatment” for the club credit?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:09 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:48 pm
What’s the capital gains tax “treatment” for the club credit?
I'd imagine it's whatever cash value is of the credit.

If there was any different treatment, just think of all the games those who could make significant gains would be playing.

Don't forget your CGT allowance. I assume you haven't.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretPete001 » Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:31 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:57 pm
Just further to previous chat about relegation clauses, Bournemouth announced their results today and their wages dropped by 47% after relegation.
Bournemouth have also managed to unload around £115 million quid's worth of playing talent in the last 2 years.

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 Mar 29, 2022 9:35 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:09 pm
I'd imagine it's whatever cash value is of the credit.

If there was any different treatment, just think of all the games those who could make significant gains would be playing.

Don't forget your CGT allowance. I assume you haven't.
It’s not “cash” though, you are having to pay a tax this year on credit that may take years to spend or even, if the club goes bust, not get the benefit of.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:53 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:35 pm
It’s not “cash” though, you are having to pay a tax this year on credit that may take years to spend or even, if the club goes bust, not get the benefit of.
If you've got enough of a gain to have exceeded your CGT allowance, then best have a chat with a tax advisor.

As I've said, if there are "games" to be played by treating a credit as less than the cash value every guy in the City of London would have been doing it every year.

Good luck.

Is that you, Mike Garlick? Or one of the other directors?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:01 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:35 pm
It’s not “cash” though, you are having to pay a tax this year on credit that may take years to spend or even, if the club goes bust, not get the benefit of.
It would be cash equivalent. Saying that it would take you years to spend the cash from a sale wouldn't get you any sympathy from the taxman.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:07 pm

Not Mike Garlick, but this is what can happen (not always, but far too regularly), when a club suddenly finds wealth but has no clue about the best way to use it. Most outside the club though Kenright had done reasonably well with the club when they lived within their means - particularly with Moyes. His tenure since the money arrived has been abysmal, though their are regular reports of Moshiri interference on signings and appointments (most involving first meeting the approval of Alisher Usmanov)

The Esk with a review of Everton's 2020/21 accounts which were published last night - the comments are worth a read too

https://theesk.org/2022/03/29/everton-r ... l-support/

wealth is not something we have ever been used to, in fact it was the years of working with a tight budget that is one of the key features said to have attracted our new owners. AS UEFA (and inevitably the domestic leagues will follow) consider a new approach to FFP based on the Amortisation + Salaries to Revenue ratio it will be interesting to see how those clubs used to overspending will react, there is no doubt it's successful application would lead to increased values of clubs to investors.

This may come too late to assist us in our efforts at long term Premier League membership, but the equation was always likely to have formed part of our new administrations long term plan to grow value. Under Garlick we had been reasonably good under this measurement - until the last few years where market cost increases generated by spendthrift competitors pushed our own spending to the limit.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:30 pm

further up this thread, I posted about our approach to Covid under Garlick, but also how others with deeper pockets would approach things differently (though not always successfully) here is a report on Fulham's accounts - the link takes you through the paywall

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... astrous%2F

FWIW, I think we will post a lost of circa £10m for last season - which when combined with the previous seasons breakeven will show us with the smallest loss in the Premier League as a result of Covid across the two seasons - by a huge margin - most other clubs (even in the 14) will start at a factor of 10 x our amount of losses for the two seasons.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by RVclaret » Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:47 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:30 pm
further up this thread, I posted about our approach to Covid under Garlick, but also how others with deeper pockets would approach things differently (though not always successfully) here is a report on Fulham's accounts - the link takes you through the paywall

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... astrous%2F

FWIW, I think we will post a lost of circa £10m for last season - which when combined with the previous seasons breakeven will show us with the smallest loss in the Premier League as a result of Covid across the two seasons - by a huge margin - most other clubs (even in the 14) will start at a factor of 10 x our amount of losses for the two seasons.
92m loss last season, staggering. Yet continues to not be penalised and the owner can just tidy up the mess.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:50 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:47 pm
92m loss last season, staggering. Yet continues to not be penalised and the owner can just tidy up the mess.
Yet us trying to sign Moses harms the integrity of the league according to some on here :lol:

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:53 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:50 pm
Yet us trying to sign Moses harms the integrity of the league according to some on here :lol:
"Integrity" is a very unusual word for the Premier League to use. Apparently it's ok for Everton to attribute, in their latest set of accounts, something over £100 million of their losses to covid-19, including the fall in market values of players. Covid-19 being excluded from FFP rules.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17915
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Quickenthetempo » Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:49 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:53 pm
"Integrity" is a very unusual word for the Premier League to use. Apparently it's ok for Everton to attribute, in their latest set of accounts, something over £100 million of their losses to covid-19, including the fall in market values of players. Covid-19 being excluded from FFP rules.
Every struggling business in the world will be blaming Covid.

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 » Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:05 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:49 am
Every struggling business in the world will be blaming Covid.
How many struggling businesses in the world are in the habit of wasting tens of millions they don't earn every year on crap footballers?

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17915
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Quickenthetempo » Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:37 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:05 am
How many struggling businesses in the world are in the habit of wasting tens of millions they don't earn every year on crap footballers?
Hundreds of football clubs, not that any admit they are struggling.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:44 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:49 am
Every struggling business in the world will be blaming Covid.
A business "blaming covid" for their financial results is one thing, a football club, subject to FFP rules, claiming as much as possible of their business results is down to covid and, thereby, escaping the FFP rules, is another thing altogether.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:47 pm

More owners with deep pockets and not much of a clue madness

https://twitter.com/richsharpe89/status ... Sr8PIpAAAA

"Another allotment of shares from Rovers’ parent company, Venky’s London Limited, this time of £6.98m, as per Companies House. Total now stands at £216,704,219. Previous allotment of £8m came in December."

That is £15m in 4 months this season with crowds and full central distributions

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 » Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:58 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:47 pm
More owners with deep pockets and not much of a clue madness
There are some club owners with not much of a club but no deep pockets
This user liked this post: tiger76

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 » Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:19 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:58 pm
There are some club owners with not much of a club but no deep pockets
This would be funny if it wasn’t so close to home.
This user liked this post: ClaretTony

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 » Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:12 pm

Tough one to take today .Central midfield woeful ,and where as we all know we should have been investing in the the previous windows
Must be difficult for our previous Chairman to wonder where to spend his ill gotten gains

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 » Mon May 23, 2022 10:02 am

Will Garlick retain his seat on the Board next season?

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 » Mon May 23, 2022 10:12 am

Probably a kneejerk reaction but he should, imo, be as far away from the club
as it is possible to be.

Maybe a bit harsh, but that's how I feel.
This user liked this post: bobinho

Tinribs
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:04 am
Been Liked: 281 times
Has Liked: 20 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Tinribs » Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 am

He should be ashamed to show his face at Turf Moor ever again.

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 » Mon May 23, 2022 11:16 am

Tinribs wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 am
He should be ashamed to show his face at Turf Moor ever again.
But he's a life long fan isn't he ? 😉

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 23, 2022 2:23 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 10:02 am
Will Garlick retain his seat on the Board next season?
Given his current shareholding and the difficulties that VSL have experienced in paying him (and the other sellers) for the shares under their control but not yet paid for - the answer is likely to be yes

Add in the fact that the offer letter to the minor shareholders told of a mechanism for the 'sellers' to buy back shares in case of a default on the MSD loan agreement and you would expect that MSD will have insisted that he remain - it may also explain why John B is still on the board while no longer having the requisite shareholding

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 » Mon May 23, 2022 2:25 pm

Tinribs wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 am
He should be ashamed to show his face at Turf Moor ever again.
Why? Don’t say you believe everything you read on here?

AfloatinClaret
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 7:16 pm
Been Liked: 559 times
Has Liked: 1393 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by AfloatinClaret » Mon May 23, 2022 2:40 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:25 pm
Why?
Because when all the numpties on here called for him to sell the club to 'outside investors' he did do; didn't MG realise that those same numpties were going to change their minds and complain when they realised what they were demanding actually meant.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 23, 2022 2:59 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:16 am
But he's a life long fan isn't he ? 😉
so am I, but that doesn't mean my fandom is the same as yours, or either of ours as many others

Mike Garlick put his money in when the club were in a seriously distraught financial peril and did so repeatedly until the club (under his helm) stabilised (he was not the only one) - he then ran it within its means while continually investing on and off the pitch from it's own resources - a combination of events that occurred in just 20 months broke that:

- a poor return on a massive summer of trading in 2018
- questionable appointments particularly Rigg (supported by Dyche at the time)
- significant investment in non revenue generating infrastructure (at least in the short to medium term)
- players/agents recognising that running down contracts meant more money for themselves (Hendrick was just an encapsulation of a wider trend in the game)
- Aston Villa in particular but also Fulham changed the dynamic in our traditional hunting ground on wages and transfer fees
- the departure of Dave Baldwin
- covid

All this led to the lack of player churn and Dyche effectively hamstringing himself and the club in the transfer market. Garlick's consistent approach to budget management - never spend more than you bring in and the legacy thinking of the final Kilby years (do not commit to long term contracts/costs unless you are certain you have the income/reserves to cover them) meant our approach to covid was always going to be cost cutting to meet the likely revenue picture (literally all other multi-year premier league teams borrowed and or had additional owner funding).

Our model was broken as much from the inside as the outside - the breakdown in the relationship between Dyche and Garlick being the most symbolic illustration of this.

Dyche walks away a very wealthy man for his mainly outstanding contribution to our club and (subject to the terms of his contract) could remain on our payroll for another 3 years, along with the backroom team that were pushed out with him.

Garlick is left as the apparent ultimate backstop if we take that Offer Letter statement at face value - is he (along with the sellers) the guarantor to the MSD Loan that the Debenture agreement mentions? That is difficult to say and still difficult to believe but it is not impossible. What does seem likely is that will have to pay out again if the financial situation gets desperate at the club. He may even be able to force the issue if the cash flow problems continue and having no new investors VSL default on outstanding payments to the sellers, the multiple delays that have been experienced in that area so far have certainly caused concern frustration and frank discussion from what I have heard.

There are no blameless parties in what we have witnessed over the last few years but there is likely only one (group) who can come to the ultimate rescue and save the club if things go seriously wrong - and that is not necessarily something to feel happy about, even if it tells us a lot about just how attractive a proposition the club is and was.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretPete001 » Mon May 23, 2022 3:38 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:59 pm
so am I, but that doesn't mean my fandom is the same as yours, or either of ours as many others

Mike Garlick put his money in when the club were in a seriously distraught financial peril and did so repeatedly until the club (under his helm) stabilised (he was not the only one) - he then ran it within its means while continually investing on and off the pitch from it's own resources - a combination of events that occurred in just 20 months broke that:

- a poor return on a massive summer of trading in 2018
- questionable appointments particularly Rigg (supported by Dyche at the time)
- significant investment in non revenue generating infrastructure (at least in the short to medium term)
- players/agents recognising that running down contracts meant more money for themselves (Hendrick was just an encapsulation of a wider trend in the game)
- Aston Villa in particular but also Fulham changed the dynamic in our traditional hunting ground on wages and transfer fees
- the departure of Dave Baldwin
- covid
I agree with this particularly the poor return in 2018, which did affect us; however, that is four years ago. We have been relegated having achieved 35 points only 3 short of survival. You cannot say that the problems we have are equal to those of Norwich or Watford who have fallen way short.

There was clearly money to spend because VSL/ALK spent £30 million of it to to buy the club from MG and Co. Had that money been spent on the playing squad would we be sat here now?

There is one clear reason that we have ben relegated and that is the decision not to invest in the summer prior to last season and in the January window last season.

Added to the poor recruitment in 2018, mediocre recruitment in 2019 and nothing at all in 2020 we had 3 years of poor recruitment - yet the squad still competed all season.

Despite all the fall outs and poor appointments we still ended up in 2022 with a squad 1 midfielder and a fit second striker short of surviving. Even the sale of Chris Wood was not the deciding factor.

While all the other things contributed the single biggest factor in the relegation was MG and Co's desire not to spend the money that VSL/AKL eventually used to buy the club.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by RVclaret » Mon May 23, 2022 3:41 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 3:38 pm
While all the other things contributed the single biggest factor in the relegation was MG and Co's desire not to spend the money that VSL/AKL eventually used to buy the club.
Agree with this.
This user liked this post: Boss Hogg

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 23, 2022 4:13 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 3:38 pm
While all the other things contributed the single biggest factor in the relegation was MG and Co's desire not to spend the money that VSL/AKL eventually used to buy the club.
I covered the reasoning for that also - and I recognise that it opened the door for a new ownership group to use differently - that does not mean that Garlick/club had other uses for the money if a takeover had not materialised - there had to be and appeared to be more than one plan

at the time of the takeover I lamented that we could have brought in new executives to enact the fresh thinking/ideas that we expected VSL to bring and probably for less than the cost of servicing the MSD loan - for me the crux of the thing has been the Dyche - Garlick - Rigg dynamic - Garlick employed Rigg with Dyche's support, Garlick probably felt he had to trust Rigg in the job he was doing - Dyche (it seems) quickly saw something he did not like with Rigg and the previously harmonious/strong working relationship with Garlick deteriorated over the ensuing disagreements on approach. It seems Garlick still believed Dyche was the man to manage the team (at least for that 2020/21 season when the club were in relegation danger (and was proved correct) so apparently took the least bad offer on the table to remove the distraction of his presence.

It could be crap but that is my interpretation of events

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by JohnMcGreal » Mon May 23, 2022 4:26 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:59 pm
Garlick is left as the apparent ultimate backstop if we take that Offer Letter statement at face value - is he (along with the sellers) the guarantor to the MSD Loan that the Debenture agreement mentions? That is difficult to say and still difficult to believe but it is not impossible. What does seem likely is that will have to pay out again if the financial situation gets desperate at the club. He may even be able to force the issue if the cash flow problems continue and having no new investors VSL default on outstanding payments to the sellers, the multiple delays that have been experienced in that area so far have certainly caused concern frustration and frank discussion from what I have heard.
If the new owners have been unable to pay the previous shareholders when the money has been rolling in, how likely is it that they'll be able to pay them in the future when the money starts to dry up?

elwaclaret
Posts: 8928
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1985 times
Has Liked: 2875 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by elwaclaret » Mon May 23, 2022 4:29 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 4:26 pm
If the new owners have been unable to pay the previous shareholders when the money has been rolling in, how likely is it that they'll be able to pay them in the future when the money starts to dry up?
Depends on our start next season I suggest. American’s thrive on buying into success… it may well prove easier to create interest in a Burnley bouncing back strong… winning games, than ‘hanging on’ in the Premier for another season.

Post Reply