Mike Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:10 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:01 pm
I understand what a guarantee is but Chester seems to be suggesting that in some way VSL have funded £98 million of the £170 million by guaranteeing the MSD loan. I can't quite see his point and yours above seems to be saying something else again.
As I have previously stated the Offer Letter says that VSL intend to pay the principal of the MSD loan and the loan from the club which I have taken to be a total sum of £88m which we find in Kettering Capital on December 30 2020
- they have not said that they guarantee the loan

I also said that if you add those sums together with the other £10m in Kettering Capital on December 30 2020 then you have an apparent minimum commitment from VSL of £98m to the £170m if you assume all of that went to buy shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited - it could be more but that is visible capital on public record

I must certainly did not say what you have twisted it into

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 22, 2022 3:38 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:10 pm
As I have previously stated the Offer Letter says that VSL intend to pay the principal of the MSD loan and the loan from the club which I have taken to be a total sum of £88m which we find in Kettering Capital on December 30 2020
- they have not said that they guarantee the loan

I also said that if you add those sums together with the other £10m in Kettering Capital on December 30 2020 then you have an apparent minimum commitment from VSL of £98m to the £170m if you assume all of that went to buy shares in Burnley FC Holdings Limited - it could be more but that is visible capital on public record

I must certainly did not say what you have twisted it into
Unless there is a guarantor it is as likely as not VSL will use money from Burnley FC to pay MSD up to the point it can't and MSD will take the assets of the club.

Once purchased VSL will just regard the club's money as it's own- it won't hesitate to use it as it feels fit. I expect to see serious management re-charges in the accounts

It does not seem to me to be a sound rebuttal to the charge that the club will eventually end up liable for the best part of £200 million. Unless someone can point to serious external funding or a seriously rich benefactor I don't see how a credible argument can be constructed that can definitely say that VSL is much more than BFC.

I stand to be corrected.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:30 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:38 pm
Unless there is a guarantor it is as likely as not VSL will use money from Burnley FC to pay MSD up to the point it can't and MSD will take the assets of the club.

Once purchased VSL will just regard the club's money as it's own- it won't hesitate to use it as it feels fit. I expect to see serious management re-charges in the accounts

It does not seem to me to be a sound rebuttal to the charge that the club will eventually end up liable for the best part of £200 million. Unless someone can point to serious external funding or a seriously rich benefactor I don't see how a credible argument can be constructed that can definitely say that VSL is much more than BFC.

I stand to be corrected.
I think ultimately it's unknown so we can only work with what is out there.

My gut is that such a highly leveraged takeover would have rung too many alarm bells with the previous owners (they still want to get their money) and lenders.

There is no chance I can see that you'd be able to load £200m onto the club. MSD surely aren't going to leave themselves so highly exposed and it's incredibly unlikely that they would give permission for the assets to be used as guarantee for someone else's loan. I can't imagine anyone lending an assetless company £100m with no guarantees or charges on assets.

Personally, and it's only my opinion, but I don't buy the idea that VSL is going to load the club up with tens of millions of interest and management fees and squeeze until the pips squeak.

There isn't enough money in Burnley to do that, you're not going to make serious profits by running the club into the ground. The route to serious profit is selling it in 5 years or 10 years for a hefty premium. (That's not to say I don't think there won't be anything, just that it won't be loading everything that people have suggested onto the club).
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 » Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:26 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:30 pm
I think ultimately it's unknown so we can only work with what is out there.

My gut is that such a highly leveraged takeover would have rung too many alarm bells with the previous owners (they still want to get their money) and lenders.

There is no chance I can see that you'd be able to load £200m onto the club. MSD surely aren't going to leave themselves so highly exposed and it's incredibly unlikely that they would give permission for the assets to be used as guarantee for someone else's loan. I can't imagine anyone lending an assetless company £100m with no guarantees or charges on assets.

Personally, and it's only my opinion, but I don't buy the idea that VSL is going to load the club up with tens of millions of interest and management fees and squeeze until the pips squeak.

There isn't enough money in Burnley to do that, you're not going to make serious profits by running the club into the ground. The route to serious profit is selling it in 5 years or 10 years for a hefty premium. (That's not to say I don't think there won't be anything, just that it won't be loading everything that people have suggested onto the club).
Hi aggi, good post. I'm with you on this. MSD wouldn't lend ALK/VSL/BFC £60 million (or more) and be happy that the same entity that owes money to MSD can also run up very significant debts to others. Some may recall the saying, "Borrow £100 and not be able to repay and you have a problem. Borrow £100 million and not be able to repay and the bank has a problem." That's why banks, and MSD will be "better than a bank," are very careful who they lend to and want to know everything about the borrower's business and future plans before they will agree to lend. Yes, that will include what happens if BFC were to be relegated.

UTC

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 » Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:50 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 1:02 pm
The sale price of the club was £170m a fact confirmed by VSL in the Offer Letter

VSL have committed to paying the principal of the MSD loan and the money borrowed from the club for the initial transaction - which from the records in Kettering Capital to probably amount to £88m with what appears to be another £10m of VSL funding - that suggests a minimum VSL commitment of £98m of the £170m.

I would be interested to see a different set of reasoning as to how that costs the club £200m even with the up to £32m of additional share purchases.
£170m plus the MSD yearly interest of £6m, plus wages for ALK. I think close to £200m will be an accurate figure.

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 » Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:56 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:50 pm
If you're going to outright lie then at least make it convincing :lol:
I've said the payment structures will change, completely different to the garbage you've just written.

Maybe you should stop taking part in these discussions until you learn to read properly.
Ok, I may have trolled you a little bit after your previous patronising tone, here's what you actually said. You then accused me of making unsupported claims, hypocrisy...

''In the event of relegation the deal won't be structured the same in the championship as it is in the PL, reference to that has been made on here, but you're not mentioning that part because it doesn't suit your agenda.''

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 » Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:03 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:26 pm
Hi aggi, good post. I'm with you on this. MSD wouldn't lend ALK/VSL/BFC £60 million (or more) and be happy that the same entity that owes money to MSD can also run up very significant debts to others. Some may recall the saying, "Borrow £100 and not be able to repay and you have a problem. Borrow £100 million and not be able to repay and the bank has a problem." That's why banks, and MSD will be "better than a bank," are very careful who they lend to and want to know everything about the borrower's business and future plans before they will agree to lend. Yes, that will include what happens if BFC were to be relegated.

UTC
A point you keep mentioning but fail to recognise MSD lent to Derby... Football clubs are the safest to lend to, the bigger ones will always generate money someway and wont go out of business. A value commodity with seemingly endless buyers willing to jump in and save them.

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 » Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:04 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:56 pm
Ok, I may have trolled you a little bit after your previous patronising tone, here's what you actually said. You then accused me of making unsupported claims, hypocrisy...

''In the event of relegation the deal won't be structured the same in the championship as it is in the PL, reference to that has been made on here, but you're not mentioning that part because it doesn't suit your agenda.''
I'm not even going to enter further discussion with you, not after your outright lies earlier about me, you can go and whistle.

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 Mar 22, 2022 9:55 pm

I’ve been avoiding this thread. I just can’t bare the torment on top of the gloom on the pitch. Can I just ask whether we know any more now than a few months ago in the “grim”, “worse than grim”, etc threads - or is everything still pure speculation?

Boss Hogg
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:34 am
Been Liked: 846 times
Has Liked: 1089 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Boss Hogg » Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:52 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:26 am
Yes it is, sitting there calling him a morally bankrupt thief is libellous.

So maybe just tone it down, I get you're bitter and twisted, but your comments endanger this forum.
Nonsense. He said ‘he’ btw so you would find it very difficult to prove who he was referring to even if he had quoted another poster. A former chairman has personally benefitted from money that the club earned in the PL whilst the club was starved of this money for reinvestment. The club is now going down as a result and saddled with debt.
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 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:10 am

KRBFC wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:03 pm
A point you keep mentioning but fail to recognise MSD lent to Derby... Football clubs are the safest to lend to, the bigger ones will always generate money someway and wont go out of business. A value commodity with seemingly endless buyers willing to jump in and save them.
I recommend you take a look at the Companies House filings for Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited, specifically the Debentures registered on 6 August 2020 and 29 October 2021. Gellaw is Mel Morris's company that owns the freehold to Pride Park.

Also, take a look at the Debenture registered by MSD with The Derby County Football Club Limited (in Administration) on 25 November 2021.

Then, there's the Statement of administrator's proposal dated 24 November 2021.

Note that the Administrator was appointed 30 September 2021.

MSD lent to Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited - owner of the freehold of Pride Park - under a Term Loan Agreement that is referenced in the Debenture. The Derby County Football Club Limited (and others) are additional chargors under the Debenture of 6 August 2020.

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 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:07 am

aggi wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:30 pm
I think ultimately it's unknown so we can only work with what is out there.

My gut is that such a highly leveraged takeover would have rung too many alarm bells with the previous owners (they still want to get their money) and lenders.

There is no chance I can see that you'd be able to load £200m onto the club. MSD surely aren't going to leave themselves so highly exposed and it's incredibly unlikely that they would give permission for the assets to be used as guarantee for someone else's loan. I can't imagine anyone lending an assetless company £100m with no guarantees or charges on assets.

Personally, and it's only my opinion, but I don't buy the idea that VSL is going to load the club up with tens of millions of interest and management fees and squeeze until the pips squeak.

There isn't enough money in Burnley to do that, you're not going to make serious profits by running the club into the ground. The route to serious profit is selling it in 5 years or 10 years for a hefty premium. (That's not to say I don't think there won't be anything, just that it won't be loading everything that people have suggested onto the club).
Agreed It is unknown, I suppose it is a question of which hypothesis best fits the evidence. The problem we seem to be coming up against is the difference between the club as a legal entity and the club as an ongoing concern.

Most of the points on here address the former and not the latter. VSL has probably already loaded £170 million onto the club. £60 million to MSD, £68 million to the former owners and £30 or £40 million from operating cash. The rest could come from personal loans or loans from private investors that VSL intend to re-pay out of the operating profits of Burnley Football Club.

MSD would have no say on any of those matters. There are many ways to skin a financial cat but the basic point is that while some of it may not affect the legal entity Burnley Football Club it would certainly affect the ongoing business proposition. In other words the only debt landing on the clubs balance sheet is £60 million but the rest would affect it's ability to invest in the product.

The only viable alternative hypothesis is there is a mystery benefactor who is seriously rich but I see no evidence for that hypothesis.

Chester posits the view that the former owners offer a benevolent role overseeing the club. I can see they want to remain involved but point to the evidence and ask the question where is the benefit of this deal to the club? Is it not more likely he remains involved precisely because this is a risky deal. What does the evidence suggest? The latter not the former.

Another argument against the above is that this portrays the deal as very stupid and risky and everyone involved is too clever to be this stupid.

Fine I agree but as yet, 15 months in, no one has yet been able to enunciate a coherent strategy moving forward.

The difference between a Newcastle United and a Burnley is that Burnley's matchday revenue would be mid table in the championship whereas Newcastle's is double that of most of the others in the Championship. That is why relegation is nowhere near the risk for Newcastle as it is for Burnley. The difference between the two is £30 million, which is more than Burnley's current revenue from football related activities.

The evidence that best fits the hypothesis points to the fact that this was a deal of convenience between two parties. One who wanted what they felt was the club was worth and could not find a buyer willing to pay it and another who was prepared to meet that price to secure an asset they did not have the money to buy outright.

In the Premiership all this would probably just about work and that is the central gamble implicit to the deal.

If VSL come out and say something sensible, as opposed to alluding to companies they don't own, then all this would go away. As yet no one has been able to say anything sensible as to how they are going to transition this club into one that can limit its risk of relegation.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Devils_Advocate » Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:13 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:10 am
I recommend you take a look at the Companies House filings for Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited, specifically the Debentures registered on 6 August 2020 and 29 October 2021. Gellaw is Mel Morris's company that owns the freehold to Pride Park.

Also, take a look at the Debenture registered by MSD with The Derby County Football Club Limited (in Administration) on 25 November 2021.

Then, there's the Statement of administrator's proposal dated 24 November 2021.

Note that the Administrator was appointed 30 September 2021.

MSD lent to Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited - owner of the freehold of Pride Park - under a Term Loan Agreement that is referenced in the Debenture. The Derby County Football Club Limited (and others) are additional chargors under the Debenture of 6 August 2020.
Makes you wonder why MSD lent money to Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited when they are so careful to know everything about the borrowers business and future plans
Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:26 pm
That's why banks, and MSD will be "better than a bank," are very careful who they lend to and want to know everything about the borrower's business and future plans before they will agree to lend.
UTC

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 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:40 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:13 am
Makes you wonder why MSD lent money to Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited when they are so careful to know everything about the borrowers business and future plans
As you probably know, because they are lenders to high risk business propositions, which is why they seek ongoing relationships and charge high interest rates.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:58 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:07 am
Agreed It is unknown, I suppose it is a question of which hypothesis best fits the evidence. The problem we seem to be coming up against is the difference between the club as a legal entity and the club as an ongoing concern.

Most of the points on here address the former and not the latter. VSL has probably already loaded £170 million onto the club. £60 million to MSD, £68 million to the former owners and £30 or £40 million from operating cash. The rest could come from personal loans or loans from private investors that VSL intend to re-pay out of the operating profits of Burnley Football Club.

MSD would have no say on any of those matters. There are many ways to skin a financial cat but the basic point is that while some of it may not affect the legal entity Burnley Football Club it would certainly affect the ongoing business proposition. In other words the only debt landing on the clubs balance sheet is £60 million but the rest would affect it's ability to invest in the product.

The only viable alternative hypothesis is there is a mystery benefactor who is seriously rich but I see no evidence for that hypothesis.

Chester posits the view that the former owners offer a benevolent role overseeing the club. I can see they want to remain involved but point to the evidence and ask the question where is the benefit of this deal to the club? Is it not more likely he remains involved precisely because this is a risky deal. What does the evidence suggest? The latter not the former.

Another argument against the above is that this portrays the deal as very stupid and risky and everyone involved is too clever to be this stupid.

Fine I agree but as yet, 15 months in, no one has yet been able to enunciate a coherent strategy moving forward.

The difference between a Newcastle United and a Burnley is that Burnley's matchday revenue would be mid table in the championship whereas Newcastle's is double that of most of the others in the Championship. That is why relegation is nowhere near the risk for Newcastle as it is for Burnley. The difference between the two is £30 million, which is more than Burnley's current revenue from football related activities.

The evidence that best fits the hypothesis points to the fact that this was a deal of convenience between two parties. One who wanted what they felt was the club was worth and could not find a buyer willing to pay it and another who was prepared to meet that price to secure an asset they did not have the money to buy outright.

In the Premiership all this would probably just about work and that is the central gamble implicit to the deal.

If VSL come out and say something sensible, as opposed to alluding to companies they don't own, then all this would go away. As yet no one has been able to say anything sensible as to how they are going to transition this club into one that can limit its risk of relegation.
I have not and would not call it a benevolent role of oversight from the former owners - please stop suggesting I have said things I haven't.

I have said they (primarily Garlick) remain involved precisely because it is a risky deal, I also happen to think (not know) that MSD may have insisted on this and that the 'buyback' to prevent an insolvency action (which it seems is specifically to prevent defaults to MSD) is in place.

I was only saying to RodleyDave yesterday that there is a chance that Garlick could come out of the other side of this with his shareholding virtually intact and 3 to 4 times his investment in the club since 2006 in cash. 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.

They, like a number of American investors in our game believe the clubs are chronically undervalued and that they can realise valuations of 10+ times revenues, which is common to US sports franchises which equates to 10+ times investment for them at our club - what no one appears conscious of is that Garlick has already beaten them to it, he achieves that with his investment, if this is a successful venture for VSL .

If it is successful, and the club will have to maintain it's relative success for it to be achieved, that will be his 2nd unicorn achievement with the club - the first being an extended Premier League stay as a self sufficient small club - as far as I am aware no one as ever achieved either of those outcomes in the English game.

Some may feel the above contradicts what I have consistently said about the operating model, I do not see how, I have sought to be objective about both, without passing judgement, commenting on what I see in the public record, seeking to understand the pervading culture in the running of the club. My feelings about it I have kept to myself apart from the fact a have a strong dislike for what Arsene Wenger called financial doping.

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 » Thu Mar 24, 2022 8:12 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:58 pm
I have not and would not call it a benevolent role of oversight from the former owners - please stop suggesting I have said things I haven't.

I have said they (primarily Garlick) remain involved precisely because it is a risky deal, I also happen to think (not know) that MSD may have insisted on this and that the 'buyback' to prevent an insolvency action (which it seems is specifically to prevent defaults to MSD) is in place.

I was only saying to RodleyDave yesterday that there is a chance that Garlick could come out of the other side of this with his shareholding virtually intact and 3 to 4 times his investment in the club since 2006 in cash. 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.

They, like a number of American investors in our game believe the clubs are chronically undervalued and that they can realise valuations of 10+ times revenues, which is common to US sports franchises which equates to 10+ times investment for them at our club - what no one appears conscious of is that Garlick has already beaten them to it, he achieves that with his investment, if this is a successful venture for VSL .

If it is successful, and the club will have to maintain it's relative success for it to be achieved, that will be his 2nd unicorn achievement with the club - the first being an extended Premier League stay as a self sufficient small club - as far as I am aware no one as ever achieved either of those outcomes in the English game.

Some may feel the above contradicts what I have consistently said about the operating model, I do not see how, I have sought to be objective about both, without passing judgement, commenting on what I see in the public record, seeking to understand the pervading culture in the running of the club. My feelings about it I have kept to myself apart from the fact a have a strong dislike for what Arsene Wenger called financial doping.
To be fair you said things like: he (MG) has also signed up to agreements to reinvest in the club if the plans create a serious financial struggle or threaten create a default to MSD - hardly the actions of someone who does not care now he has his money.

But if benevolent is not the right word then I apologise it is not my intention to misrepresent albeit given the medium it does happen.

Agree with much of what you say. I would add Blackburn Rovers and Bolton are the only two smaller club to have maintained long stints in the premiership (18 and 13 games respectively out of 30). Both received substantive funds from backers so I agree what MG and co have achieved is exceptional.

No one can take six seasons away from MG as the CEO of a well run self-sustaining club. Its is exceptional but now looks like it has finally run its course.

And therein lies the paradox of Mike Garlick and the others that no one can explain. Having stretched the impossible to 6 seasons why on earth did he think anyone else could achieve it carrying tens of millions worth of debt?

It makes no sense to me and thus far no one has been able to provide a serious answer.

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 » Thu Mar 24, 2022 8:21 am

Note 18 and 30 seasons out of 30 - that should say

ClaretTony
Posts: 67422
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32237 times
Has Liked: 5253 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretTony » Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:01 pm

IanMcL wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:04 am
Well all the club money was taken as part of the deal, so as major shareholder, he would be responsible for the majority.

The 2nd statement is suggestive as a possible thought pattern for those considering the issue.
You need to be very careful what you are posting on this board. If you continue to post potentially libellous comments your time on this board will come to an end.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Thu Mar 24, 2022 6:46 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:01 pm
You need to be very careful what you are posting on this board. If you continue to post potentially libellous comments your time on this board will come to an end.
Understood

I do believe all ok to date. Will not go further.

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 » Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:08 pm

As the initiator of this thread ,maybe it would be better to reflect in a non libellous manner , who has benefited most from the previous Chairman’s tenure
Mike Garlick or Burnley Football Club?

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 » Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:54 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:08 pm
As the initiator of this thread ,maybe it would be better to reflect in a non libellous manner , who has benefited most from the previous Chairman’s tenure
Mike Garlick or Burnley Football Club?
Or?

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17913
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Quickenthetempo » Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:58 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:08 pm
As the initiator of this thread ,maybe it would be better to reflect in a non libellous manner , who has benefited most from the previous Chairman’s tenure
Mike Garlick or Burnley Football Club?
Burnley football club benefitted from 6 years in the Prem and 2 promotion years in the championship under his reign I think.

I would say Burnley did.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:05 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:58 pm
Burnley football club benefitted from 6 years in the Prem and 2 promotion years in the championship under his reign I think.

I would say Burnley did.
I put that down to the manager and the team, with the Board ensuring we did not overspend.

All their good work was undone several yomes over at the end.

In the black big time to in the red, big time.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:11 am

IanMcL wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:05 am
I put that down to the manager and the team, with the Board ensuring we did not overspend.

All their good work was undone several yomes over at the end.

In the black big time to in the red, big time.

MG and SD did some brilliant things for BFC until the last 3(ish) years, then the wheels started falling off.
No point blaming either of them.

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by fidelcastro » Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:29 am

boatshed bill wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:11 am
MG and SD did some brilliant things for BFC until the last 3(ish) years, then the wheels started falling off.
No point blaming either of them.
Ian will be blaming Garlick for the war in Ukraine next.

Never mind though, his madge gifs are hilarious.

:roll:

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17913
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Quickenthetempo » Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:13 am

IanMcL wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:05 am
I put that down to the manager and the team, with the Board ensuring we did not overspend.

All their good work was undone several yomes over at the end.

In the black big time to in the red, big time.
So if you put all the success down to the manager then I presume all the failures must be down to him over the last 18 months?

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 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:48 am

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:08 pm
As the initiator of this thread ,maybe it would be better to reflect in a non libellous manner , who has benefited most from the previous Chairman’s tenure
Mike Garlick or Burnley Football Club?
The Club I'd say, but it's difficult to answer that one.
The risk was always with Garlick, like it is with any owner.
If the club had stayed in, our dropped out of, the championship, then financially Garlick would be worse off.
For example Simon Jordan was £40 million worse off for being the owner of Crystal Palace.

He worked hard to ensure the club prospered and looking at the improvements to the infrastructure during his tenure as chairman, not much else needs to be done for a good while yet.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:53 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:13 am
So if you put all the success down to the manager then I presume all the failures must be down to him over the last 18 months?
No. Owing to zero investment by chairman, in a uniform way.

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 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:55 am

IanMcL wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:53 am
No. Owing to zero investment by chairman, in a uniform way.
If the manager is unable to find a formation/style that gets us the required points then that isn't the fault of the owner.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:56 am

fidelcastro wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:29 am
Ian will be blaming Garlick for the war in Ukraine next.

:roll:
I hold him responsible for millions in bank and sound financial club, to total debt of almost £200m and banked funds no longer there...owing to being 'part of the price'.

Where did that money go?
Answers on a postcard.

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 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:17 am

Clearly IanMcl has seen the clubs accounts ahead of the rest of us
This user liked this post: fidelcastro

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:20 am

I think the club has made a total of £5m post tax profits over the last 3 seasons combined and a couple of seasons could have been a hell of a lot worse had they not been fulfilled and TV revenue may have been withheld.

Garlick built up some good cash reserves in his first few seasons as chairman but at the time this was actually lauded by most on here around being sustainable and safe guarding the future.

There is a fair argument we could have taken more risk and used some of the cash reserves to spend on players but even still the money in the bank at the time of the sale was not just spare cash doing nothing as wages needed to be paid and some contingency was needed to cover relegation.

There are in my opinion a few possible reasons why Garlick built those cash reserves and the answer is probably a combination of all 3. First of all I think Garlick always took the prudent approach and ensured that if relegation came we could survive it easily and have some potentially to challenge to get back up without a fire sale. Secondly you have Covid and Garlick probably rightly thought that summer wasnt the time to time to go eating in to cash reserves when so much was still up in the air around Covid. Finally it appears a strong cash position was probably essential to enabling the sale of the club and for various reasons (took the club as far as he could, may have wanted to get out whilst he could make a good profit, situation with Dyche) he wanted to sell and so did what he thought necessary for himself and probably the club.

This idea he has spent years storing money up at the clubs expense to run off into the sunset with all our clubs riches is just a ludicrous far fetched take and tends to be pedalled out by the posters who act like petulant little kids
These 11 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 Rileybobs taio RVclaret lesxdp boatshed bill Burnley Ace Lancasterclaret JohnMac fidelcastro Darnhill Claret

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:33 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:20 am
I think the club has made a total of £5m post tax profits over the last 3 seasons combined and a couple of seasons could have been a hell of a lot worse had they not been fulfilled and TV revenue may have been withheld.

Garlick built up some good cash reserves in his first few seasons as chairman but at the time this was actually lauded by most on here around being sustainable and safe guarding the future.

There is a fair argument we could have taken more risk and used some of the cash reserves to spend on players but even still the money in the bank at the time of the sale was not just spare cash doing nothing as wages needed to be paid and some contingency was needed to cover relegation.

There are in my opinion a few possible reasons why Garlick built those cash reserves and the answer is probably a combination of all 3. First of all I think Garlick always took the prudent approach and ensured that if relegation came we could survive it easily and have some potentially to challenge to get back up without a fire sale. Secondly you have Covid and Garlick probably rightly thought that summer wasnt the time to time to go eating in to cash reserves when so much was still up in the air around Covid. Finally it appears a strong cash position was probably essential to enabling the sale of the club and for various reasons (took the club as far as he could, may have wanted to get out whilst he could make a good profit, situation with Dyche) he wanted to sell and so did what he thought necessary for himself and probably the club.

This idea he has spent years storing money up at the clubs expense to run off into the sunset with all our clubs riches is just a ludicrous far fetched take and tends to be pedalled out by the posters who act like petulant little kids
Very well put.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by taio » Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:39 am

IanMcL wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:56 am
I hold him responsible for millions in bank and sound financial club, to total debt of almost £200m and banked funds no longer there...owing to being 'part of the price'.

Where did that money go?
Answers on a postcard.
Give over will you. This is absolute nonsense. No point saying any more because DA has smashed it with his post above.
These 2 users liked this post: RVclaret GodIsADeeJay81

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 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:55 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:20 am
I think the club has made a total of £5m post tax profits over the last 3 seasons combined and a couple of seasons could have been a hell of a lot worse had they not been fulfilled and TV revenue may have been withheld.

Garlick built up some good cash reserves in his first few seasons as chairman but at the time this was actually lauded by most on here around being sustainable and safe guarding the future.

There is a fair argument we could have taken more risk and used some of the cash reserves to spend on players but even still the money in the bank at the time of the sale was not just spare cash doing nothing as wages needed to be paid and some contingency was needed to cover relegation.

There are in my opinion a few possible reasons why Garlick built those cash reserves and the answer is probably a combination of all 3. First of all I think Garlick always took the prudent approach and ensured that if relegation came we could survive it easily and have some potentially to challenge to get back up without a fire sale. Secondly you have Covid and Garlick probably rightly thought that summer wasnt the time to time to go eating in to cash reserves when so much was still up in the air around Covid. Finally it appears a strong cash position was probably essential to enabling the sale of the club and for various reasons (took the club as far as he could, may have wanted to get out whilst he could make a good profit, situation with Dyche) he wanted to sell and so did what he thought necessary for himself and probably the club.

This idea he has spent years storing money up at the clubs expense to run off into the sunset with all our clubs riches is just a ludicrous far fetched take and tends to be pedalled out by the posters who act like petulant little kids
Again that argument only has a meaning if you can explain how it is good for the club. Where is the underlying business proposition to actually make the sale make sense?

The £5 million quid profit we make in the Premiership you allude to above will be wiped out by the MSD debt alone not to mention the other £140 million that is floating around.

Surely, that has to come into the reckoning somewhere in order to answer the question.
This user liked this post: IanMcL

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2057
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 25, 2022 10:05 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:20 am
I think the club has made a total of £5m post tax profits over the last 3 seasons combined and a couple of seasons could have been a hell of a lot worse had they not been fulfilled and TV revenue may have been withheld.

Garlick built up some good cash reserves in his first few seasons as chairman but at the time this was actually lauded by most on here around being sustainable and safe guarding the future.

There is a fair argument we could have taken more risk and used some of the cash reserves to spend on players but even still the money in the bank at the time of the sale was not just spare cash doing nothing as wages needed to be paid and some contingency was needed to cover relegation.

There are in my opinion a few possible reasons why Garlick built those cash reserves and the answer is probably a combination of all 3. First of all I think Garlick always took the prudent approach and ensured that if relegation came we could survive it easily and have some potentially to challenge to get back up without a fire sale. Secondly you have Covid and Garlick probably rightly thought that summer wasnt the time to time to go eating in to cash reserves when so much was still up in the air around Covid. Finally it appears a strong cash position was probably essential to enabling the sale of the club and for various reasons (took the club as far as he could, may have wanted to get out whilst he could make a good profit, situation with Dyche) he wanted to sell and so did what he thought necessary for himself and probably the club.

This idea he has spent years storing money up at the clubs expense to run off into the sunset with all our clubs riches is just a ludicrous far fetched take and tends to be pedalled out by the posters who act like petulant little kids
This would be a great post if ALK's business model hadn't been to send Garlick all the club's money and more to bugger off into the sunset.

I don't personally think Garlick acted with malice at any point and I think you sum up his motives well. But clearly there was a point when he decided to sell the club and then there was a point much later when he realised he couldn't do so in a way that wasn't severely detrimental to the club's future. He decided that was ok, as was his right. But he's been paid with the club's own money, and loans which ultimately will be reckoned against the club's assets, to hand the club over to a bunch of absolute chancers.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:09 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:05 am
This would be a great post if ALK's business model hadn't been to send Garlick all the club's money and more to bugger off into the sunset.

I don't personally think Garlick acted with malice at any point and I think you sum up his motives well. But clearly there was a point when he decided to sell the club and then there was a point much later when he realised he couldn't do so in a way that wasn't severely detrimental to the club's future. He decided that was ok, as was his right. But he's been paid with the club's own money, and loans which ultimately will be reckoned against the club's assets, to hand the club over to a bunch of absolute chancers.
Garlick may have thought that selling the club in the way he did was less detrimental to the club’s future than him retaining ownership.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:11 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:20 am
I think the club has made a total of £5m post tax profits over the last 3 seasons combined and a couple of seasons could have been a hell of a lot worse had they not been fulfilled and TV revenue may have been withheld.

Garlick built up some good cash reserves in his first few seasons as chairman but at the time this was actually lauded by most on here around being sustainable and safe guarding the future.

There is a fair argument we could have taken more risk and used some of the cash reserves to spend on players but even still the money in the bank at the time of the sale was not just spare cash doing nothing as wages needed to be paid and some contingency was needed to cover relegation.

There are in my opinion a few possible reasons why Garlick built those cash reserves and the answer is probably a combination of all 3. First of all I think Garlick always took the prudent approach and ensured that if relegation came we could survive it easily and have some potentially to challenge to get back up without a fire sale. Secondly you have Covid and Garlick probably rightly thought that summer wasnt the time to time to go eating in to cash reserves when so much was still up in the air around Covid. Finally it appears a strong cash position was probably essential to enabling the sale of the club and for various reasons (took the club as far as he could, may have wanted to get out whilst he could make a good profit, situation with Dyche) he wanted to sell and so did what he thought necessary for himself and probably the club.

This idea he has spent years storing money up at the clubs expense to run off into the sunset with all our clubs riches is just a ludicrous far fetched take and tends to be pedalled out by [deleted because petty insult adds nothing to the argument].
We don't know when Garlick decided that the best use of the club's money was to pay himself out, but we know that that was his decision on the day of the sale. Whether he built up the funds with a view to self-enrichment or whether he built it up for the club's benefit but saw the chance for self-enrichment later on, we don't know. And I don't think it's particularly relevant.
This user liked this post: IanMcL

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2057
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 25, 2022 10:11 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:09 am
Garlick may have thought that selling the club in the way he did was less detrimental to the club’s future than him retaining ownership.
I don't see any evidence that he's thick so that's hard to believe.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:20 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:11 am
I don't see any evidence that he's thick so that's hard to believe.
Not necessarily. We don't know whether the new owner's business model will be successful or not. Clearly it's a more risky approach than the previous ownership's, but then again it seemed like the vast majority wanted us to take a risk in order to move forward, did they not?

As DA intimates in his post, it seemed like it was a case of Garlick or Dyche. The majority of our fanbase would have chosen Dyche. Why would Garlick want to own a club who's fans were turning on him and would no doubt have got toxic had Dyche continued to air his dirty laundry in public and eventually walked?

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2057
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 25, 2022 10:27 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:20 am
Not necessarily. We don't know whether the new owner's business model will be successful or not. Clearly it's a more risky approach than the previous ownership's, but then again it seemed like the vast majority wanted us to take a risk in order to move forward, did they not?

As DA intimates in his post, it seemed like it was a case of Garlick or Dyche. The majority of our fanbase would have chosen Dyche. Why would Garlick want to own a club who's fans were turning on him and would no doubt have got toxic had Dyche continued to air his dirty laundry in public and eventually walked?
The vast majority, if they supported "a more risky approach" didn't and still don't understand what the purchase of the club by ALK entails. I understand and empathise with the fact that most Burnley fans don't want to believe in a situation where the club has been sold down the river, but it's not really relevant to Garlick or ALK's motives.

Garlick didn't want to own a club whose fans were turning on him and it did get toxic before he went. There is definitely room to debate whether he deserved it and as I say, I don't think he acted at any point with malice. That doesn't change anything I've said though, he decided he was happy to take the money and run and ALK were more than happy to facilitate him.
This user liked this post: IanMcL

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:34 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:27 am
The vast majority, if they supported "a more risky approach" didn't and still don't understand what the purchase of the club by ALK entails. I understand and empathise with the fact that most Burnley fans don't want to believe in a situation where the club has been sold down the river, but it's not really relevant to Garlick or ALK's motives.

Garlick didn't want to own a club whose fans were turning on him and it did get toxic before he went. There is definitely room to debate whether he deserved it and as I say, I don't think he acted at any point with malice. That doesn't change anything I've said though, he decided he was happy to take the money and run and ALK were more than happy to facilitate him.
Of course we don't know what the purchase of the club entails, which in many ways makes the criticism of Garlick even more unfounded. What we can be fairly confident of is that there were no viable and interested parties looking to purchase the club in a way that wouldn't have involved using the club's cash reserves.

And using terms like 'take the money and run' are hardly helpful to the discussion.

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2057
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 25, 2022 10:43 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:34 am
Of course we don't know what the purchase of the club entails, which in many ways makes the criticism of Garlick even more unfounded. What we can be fairly confident of is that there were no viable and interested parties looking to purchase the club in a way that wouldn't have involved using the club's cash reserves.

And using terms like 'take the money and run' are hardly helpful to the discussion.
The reason terms like take the money and run aren't helpful to the discussion is because a lot of people aren't being open to the truth. Whether you think it's good or bad, that is what happened.

I think the blame for what is going to happen lies solely on the shoulders of the current owners, but it's very clear that Mike Garlick's decision to sell was to the detriment of the football club and he was fine with that.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:46 am

When a business is sold, there are assets to be included.

However, it is the sellers decision as to the value of the business and how they would like that business to continue to flourish.

Take Wolves as an example of huge investment by an owner who decides it is time to hand over tge reigns. Instead of reclaiming any of the value of Wolvrs, that owner handed the club over, with guarantees of continued, huge future investment.

I am not saying our owners could afford to do that, however, there must surely be a point somewhere between breaking even and absolute extraction of every penny, where the club has a decent chance of ongoing, financially safe, success.

That is my discomfort, in this case.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:52 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:43 am
The reason terms like take the money and run aren't helpful to the discussion is because a lot of people aren't being open to the truth. Whether you think it's good or bad, that is what happened.

I think the blame for what is going to happen lies solely on the shoulders of the current owners, but it's very clear that Mike Garlick's decision to sell was to the detriment of the football club and he was fine with that.
Selling a business isn't to 'take the money and run'. Even more so as Garlick is still on the board of directors, so he hasn't run anywhere.

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2057
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 25, 2022 10:58 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:52 am
Selling a business isn't to 'take the money and run'. Even more so as Garlick is still on the board of directors, so he hasn't run anywhere.
But...you understand he decided to take the money, don't you?

There was a long and presumably very difficult time between the moment Garlick decided he wanted to sell the football club (which started before he had ever heard of Alan Pace or ALK) and the moment he decided the ALK takeover was acceptable to him. He forsook the future of the football club in order to get out and get paid.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Rileybobs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:07 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:58 am
But...you understand he decided to take the money, don't you?

There was a long and presumably very difficult time between the moment Garlick decided he wanted to sell the football club (which started before he had ever heard of Alan Pace or ALK) and the moment he decided the ALK takeover was acceptable to him. He forsook the future of the football club in order to get out and get paid.
Yes, of course I understand that he decided to take the money. He was remunerated for his shares at the market rate, that is quite normal practice.

He didn't forsake the future of the football club. I wholeheartedly believe that he believed in ALK's business model, as ALK clearly do. We don't have a clue whether or not it will be successful yet, so again using language like 'forsook' is completely unhelpful to the discussion. What Garlick did was put the club at more risk than when he owned it. But it couldn't have been sold whilst remaining at a similarly low level of risk due to the prudent way in which he ran the club, and got heartily criticised for.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by aggi » Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:13 am

IanMcL wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:46 am
When a business is sold, there are assets to be included.

However, it is the sellers decision as to the value of the business and how they would like that business to continue to flourish.

Take Wolves as an example of huge investment by an owner who decides it is time to hand over tge reigns. Instead of reclaiming any of the value of Wolvrs, that owner handed the club over, with guarantees of continued, huge future investment.

I am not saying our owners could afford to do that, however, there must surely be a point somewhere between breaking even and absolute extraction of every penny, where the club has a decent chance of ongoing, financially safe, success.

That is my discomfort, in this case.
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.

daveisaclaret
Posts: 2057
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 25, 2022 11:13 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:07 am
Yes, of course I understand that he decided to take the money. He was remunerated for his shares at the market rate, that is quite normal practice.

He didn't forsake the future of the football club. I wholeheartedly believe that he believed in ALK's business model, as ALK clearly do. We don't have a clue whether or not it will be successful yet, so again using language like 'forsook' is completely unhelpful to the discussion. What Garlick did was put the club at more risk than when he owned it. But it couldn't have been sold whilst remaining at a similarly low level of risk due to the prudent way in which he ran the club, and got heartily criticised for.
I hope your wholehearted belief in his belief in a business model will be of some comfort to you in the future, I suppose.

JohnMac
Posts: 7179
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:11 pm
Been Liked: 2367 times
Has Liked: 3781 times
Location: Padiham

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by JohnMac » Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:16 am

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!

Post Reply