Mike Garlick

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
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 9:10 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 3:41 pm
Agree with this.
What makes you think it was Garlik that refused to spend rather than Dyche not wanting to take a risk on the players that were available?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Mon May 23, 2022 9:19 pm

Perhaps the new owners will sell the club?
Exciting times ;)

Wokingclaret
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 292 times
Has Liked: 766 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Wokingclaret » Mon May 23, 2022 9:36 pm

Garlick didn't want to build a new CFS as lessons learn't from going down in the seventies, but sold us out with a massive big debt

elwaclaret
Posts: 8928
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2875 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by elwaclaret » Mon May 23, 2022 9:38 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
Suspect that is a typo CT ie. Club=clue?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Mon May 23, 2022 9:40 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:36 pm
Garlick didn't want to build a new CFS as lessons learn't from going down in the seventies, but sold us out with a massive big debt
i thought the club had money when he sold it.
It's the new owners who have created the debt, surely?

Bosscat
Posts: 25364
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8429 times
Has Liked: 18098 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Bosscat » Mon May 23, 2022 9:40 pm

elwaclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:38 pm
Suspect that is a typo CT ie. Club=clue?
Or a Freudian slip 😉
These 2 users liked this post: boatshed bill elwaclaret

Wokingclaret
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 292 times
Has Liked: 766 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Wokingclaret » Mon May 23, 2022 9:41 pm

Yes the Debt with the now owners, but Garlick would have known this

elwaclaret
Posts: 8928
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2875 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by elwaclaret » Mon May 23, 2022 9:43 pm

Bosscat wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:40 pm
Or a Freudian slip 😉
My other thought :D
This user liked this post: Bosscat

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Mon May 23, 2022 9:47 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:41 pm
Yes the Debt with the now owners, but Garlick would have known this
of course, we will never know what happened between buyer and seller.
But my understanding is that ALK borrowed the club's money to make the deal.

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 10:18 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:10 pm
What makes you think it was Garlik that refused to spend rather than Dyche not wanting to take a risk on the players that were available?
I think if you were able to view Garlicks bank balance or projected income you may fund that an easy puzzle to solve

Elizabeth
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Elizabeth » Mon May 23, 2022 10:25 pm

Hate him with a passion

NewClaret
Posts: 13225
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by NewClaret » Mon May 23, 2022 10:27 pm

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 10:18 pm
I think if you were able to view Garlicks bank balance or projected income you may fund that an easy puzzle to solve
Absolutely. At the time many lauded the sensible way he was running the club.

Never did they know that so much would be taken to the benefit of so few.

When you see the fans assemble like they did yesterday, praying for survival because they were scared to death of the ramifications (that simply wouldn’t have existed otherwise), it’s nothing short of criminal to treat a community asset like that.
These 3 users liked this post: randomclaret2 tiger76 Top Claret

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Mon May 23, 2022 11:12 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:47 pm
of course, we will never know what happened between buyer and seller.
But my understanding is that ALK borrowed the club's money to make the deal.
ALK borrowed the money, but Garlick knew exactly what they were going to do before he agreed the deal.

You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from. It's the same with £180m companies - you don't hand over the deeds until the source of funds is clear and certain. Garlick and Pace cooked up the deal between them.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by boatshed bill » Mon May 23, 2022 11:14 pm

dsr wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:12 pm
ALK borrowed the money, but Garlick knew exactly what they were going to do before he agreed the deal.

You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from. It's the same with £180m companies - you don't hand over the deeds until the source of funds is clear and certain. Garlick and Pace cooked up the deal between them.
You suggested that I read your mind yesterday, now you are reading mine.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 12:01 am

boatshed bill wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:14 pm
You suggested that I read your mind yesterday, now you are reading mine.
Sorry. It was a generic you, not you personally. I meant that no-one but a fool would sell their car or their house without finding out where the money was coming from.
These 2 users liked this post: boatshed bill tiger76

Oshkoshclaret
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:18 pm
Been Liked: 317 times
Has Liked: 83 times
Location: Dallas, TX & Jefferson, MD
Contact:

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Oshkoshclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 2:57 am

Here's the debate as I see it.

In pure business terms, Garlick has played an absolute blinder. He's made a huge profit out of a football club, something that has eluded and humbled so many (otherwise successful) businessmen. I doff my cap with respect.

In tribal terms, he's an absolute c*nt. Supposed to be "one of us" and sold us down the Swannee River.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Burnley Ace » Tue May 24, 2022 8:02 am

Longtimeclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 10:18 pm
I think if you were able to view Garlicks bank balance or projected income you may fund that an easy puzzle to solve
Nope, sorry that’s a rather blinkered view.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Burnley Ace » Tue May 24, 2022 8:04 am

dsr wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:12 pm

You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from.
You wouldn’t give it a seconds thought.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 9:22 am

Burnley Ace wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 8:04 am
You wouldn’t give it a seconds thought.
Really? If you were selling your house, you wouldn't expect to see the money before you hand over the keys?

I absolutely promise you - if anyone had gone to Mike Garlick and said they wanted to buy the club and would pay £180m, he would ask where the money was coming from, and if you said "I'm not willing to say but I'll find it from somewhere", he would not have sold. You only sell major assets if the money is already in your hand or if you have an exact knowledge of how you are going to get it. Garlick 100% knew where Pace was getting his money from.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 am

Are we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?

He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs

No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us

Its that simple
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

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 » Tue May 24, 2022 9:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 am
Are we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?

He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs

No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us

Its that simple
I don't think the other offer was ever even viable to be honest. It was sell to ALK or not sell at all and sack Dyche.

ClaretAL
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:39 pm
Been Liked: 1044 times
Has Liked: 815 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretAL » Tue May 24, 2022 9:29 am

Rather than get depressed and read through multiple threads looking at different angles of the financial situation, I seem to remember at the point of takeover it was muted that a clause had been added to the contract stating if we went down MG had the option to take the club back, or was that conjecture?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by joey13 » Tue May 24, 2022 9:31 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 am
Are we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?

He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs

No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us

Its that simple
And you know this how ?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:31 am

joey13 wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:31 am
And you know this how ?

Care to elaborate in all the information that I've missed out?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:32 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:27 am
I don't think the other offer was ever even viable to be honest. It was sell to ALK or not sell at all and sack Dyche.
Again, missing the crucial fact that Garlick was no longer interested in running the club

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:33 am

Just for clarity, I'm not defending ALKs record or purchasing plan at all, as its clearly raised lots of questions

Its just dealing with reality rather than the half truths and utter crap that this board absolutely specialises in whenever things go south

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 » Tue May 24, 2022 9:34 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:32 am
Again, missing the crucial fact that Garlick was no longer interested in running the club
Not missing it at all. Just those were the two options he had and I don't think the alternative would have been any more popular than selling it to the chancers.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by joey13 » Tue May 24, 2022 9:36 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:31 am
Care to elaborate in all the information that I've missed out?
You seem to know about all the parties that were interested in buying the club , no ?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:39 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:34 am
Not missing it at all. Just those were the two options he had and I don't think the alternative would have been any more popular than selling it to the chancers.
So what is your argument here then?

Garlick wanted to sell, and clearly wasn't interested in signing players that we needed, so we had to sell

The two options, one was unknown (ALK) and one was fronted by a very dodgy bloke with previous bad experience with a small football club punching above its weight

I'm not sure what else we could have done tbh

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 » Tue May 24, 2022 9:40 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:39 am
So what is your argument here then?

Garlick wanted to sell, and clearly wasn't interested in signing players that we needed, so we had to sell

The two options, one was unknown (ALK) and one was fronted by a very dodgy bloke with previous bad experience with a small football club punching above its weight

I'm not sure what else we could have done tbh
My argument is there's nothing else he could have done - not sure where you are finding any dissent to what you've said.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:42 am

daveisaclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:40 am
My argument is there's nothing else he could have done - not sure where you are finding any dissent to what you've said.
Sorry!

Must have misread your post, so we completely agree that there is nothing else we could have done and there is no point pretending that there was a valid alternative when they clearly wasn't?

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 » Tue May 24, 2022 9:44 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:42 am
Sorry!

Must have misread your post, so we completely agree that there is nothing else we could have done and there is no point pretending that there was a valid alternative when they clearly wasn't?
Yep.

I do think it's fair for people to think what he did was bad regardless, but it really was the only thing that could happen.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 9:45 am

joey13 wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:36 am
You seem to know about all the parties that were interested in buying the club , no ?
I know that two were interested

If you know of more that could have bought us and run us the same way Garlick did, but by spending money on players, and making sure we'd have enough money to be competitive if we went down then I'm all ears

I'd have thought if they existed, then they might have made themselves known by now tbh

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:25 am
Are we at the stage yet where everyone needs reminding of the reality of the sale and the interests of Mike Garlick in staying on?

He wanted out, the only two people who wanted in where ALK and someone fronted by someone who had a very dodgy CV when it came to football clubs

No billionaires (or even local millionaires) were interested in buying and running us

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

I don't doubt that if Garlick wanted to sell and pocket £100m, there were no other viable offers. But I'm sure there would have been viable offers if he wanted to settle for less. I'm not saying he should have settled for less necessarily, but rest assured that the reason he sold the club and took (with his associates) over £100m from the club, is not purely because he had no choice.

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 May 24, 2022 10:00 am

dsr wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:12 pm
ALK borrowed the money, but Garlick knew exactly what they were going to do before he agreed the deal.

You wouldn't sell your house, or your car, without first knowing exactly where the money was coming from. It's the same with £180m companies - you don't hand over the deeds until the source of funds is clear and certain. Garlick and Pace cooked up the deal between them.
Hi dsr, so, you are selling your house and you get an offer from someone who says they need to get a mortgage to be able to buy it. Are you going to turn them away? Or say that's great, let's get our solicitors to do the deal?

The only person who needs to check where your buyer is getting the money from is their solicitor for anti-money laundering regulations. Your solicitor just makes sure that the money is received before the keys are passed to the buyer.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 10:06 am

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

I don't doubt that if Garlick wanted to sell and pocket £100m, there were no other viable offers. But I'm sure there would have been viable offers if he wanted to settle for less. I'm not saying he should have settled for less necessarily, but rest assured that the reason he sold the club and took (with his associates) over £100m from the club, is not purely because he had no choice.
Is there any evidence that this was possible?

If there isn't, then its just wishful thinking, and its something that isn't going to help
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 10:33 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:06 am
Is there any evidence that this was possible?

If there isn't, then its just wishful thinking, and its something that isn't going to help
Is there any evidence that it wasn't?

Here's another option for Garlick. Buy it back. Dyche is no longer an issue, so if Garlick really didn't want to sell for £100m and was forced to reluctantly accept the money, he can buy the club back and we're back as we were before. (He may have to wait until ALK have chanced their arm for another year.)

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 10:34 am

dsr wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:33 am
Is there any evidence that it wasn't?

Here's another option for Garlick. Buy it back. Dyche is no longer an issue, so if Garlick really didn't want to sell for £100m and was forced to reluctantly accept the money, he can buy the club back and we're back as we were before. (He may have to wait until ALK have chanced their arm for another year.)
So there isn't any evidence

How is this helping anyone mate?

ClaretAL
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:39 pm
Been Liked: 1044 times
Has Liked: 815 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by ClaretAL » Tue May 24, 2022 10:35 am

For god sake, its like a school yard in here some times....
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret

Wokingclaret
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 292 times
Has Liked: 766 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Wokingclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 10:36 am

I wouldn't want Garlick back as Chairman

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 10:38 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:00 am
Hi dsr, so, you are selling your house and you get an offer from someone who says they need to get a mortgage to be able to buy it. Are you going to turn them away? Or say that's great, let's get our solicitors to do the deal?

The only person who needs to check where your buyer is getting the money from is their solicitor for anti-money laundering regulations. Your solicitor just makes sure that the money is received before the keys are passed to the buyer.
I'm not talking about checking where your buyer is getting the money from. I'm talking about checking where you are getting the money from.

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

Garlick did not sell his shares and then ask where the money was coming from. He knew where the money was coming from.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 10:42 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:34 am
So there isn't any evidence

How is this helping anyone mate?
There is no evidence that he had other options, and there is no evidence that he didn't. There is no evidence that he looked for other options, there is no evidence that he didn't. All suggestions that he had no choice are unsupported by evidence.

He took £100m from the club. (Or more precisely, he paid £100m out of the club and took a large proportion of it for himself.) Whether he did it from choice or from force majeure, we can discuss forever.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Nori1958 » Tue May 24, 2022 10:46 am

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

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

Garlick did not sell his shares and then ask where the money was coming from. He knew where the money was coming from.
I've a car for sale.. Someone wants to pay cash... Is that OK, or do I need to know where that cash has come from?

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue May 24, 2022 10:48 am

dsr wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:42 am
There is no evidence that he had other options, and there is no evidence that he didn't. There is no evidence that he looked for other options, there is no evidence that he didn't. All suggestions that he had no choice are unsupported by evidence.

He took £100m from the club. (Or more precisely, he paid £100m out of the club and took a large proportion of it for himself.) Whether he did it from choice or from force majeure, we can discuss forever.
Well no, of course there is evidence that he didn't have any other options

I refer you to the previous replies on the two people who wanted to buy it

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 288 times
Has Liked: 310 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by RicardoMontalban » Tue May 24, 2022 10:50 am

dsr wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:42 am
There is no evidence that he had other options, and there is no evidence that he didn't. There is no evidence that he looked for other options, there is no evidence that he didn't. All suggestions that he had no choice are unsupported by evidence.

He took £100m from the club. (Or more precisely, he paid £100m out of the club and took a large proportion of it for himself.) Whether he did it from choice or from force majeure, we can discuss forever.
It seems the apparent alternative to selling to either of the only two parties known to be interested was to not sell. Any other serious alternative would have been known at that point.

The received wisdom on that is that Dyche would have gone. We can only hypothesise what the response from the fan base would be in that event.

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by dsr » Tue May 24, 2022 10:53 am

Nori1958 wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:46 am
I've a car for sale.. Someone wants to pay cash... Is that OK, or do I need to know where that cash has come from?
No, you just need to know the cash is there. If the buyer says that he would like to pay you £5,000 cash, do you say "that's good enough for me, here are the keys"? Or do you say "show me the money"?

When Pace wanted to buy BFC, Garlick would certainly have told him to "show me the money". Pace couldn't have taken the money out of BFC in advance because Garlick was still MD, so "show me the money" would have meant that the legal agreement for selling the shares would have indicated how Garlick was getting his cash.

NewClaret
Posts: 13225
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by NewClaret » Tue May 24, 2022 10:53 am

To be honest lads, I’m not sure comparing a house sale to a multi-million £ football club is really a fair comparison.

As others have said, Garlick has proven himself to be a very shrewd businessman as part of this transaction. I admire that in some ways. The issue is it has been at the huge detriment of what should be a community asset. Profiteering like this at the detriment of a historic football club adored by a community really shouldn’t be allowed.

The PL have proven themselves to be completely inept at controlling such things, so I really believe it should be the Government and laws that prevent this type of behaviour.

I’ll add that when this happened, both he and Pace said all was fine. That there were safeguards in the deal or whatever. So I really hope he comes good now and sees the club right. I’m guessing he still has the money from the transaction so has the means. It’s now that we’ll see his true colours - just hope they’re claret & blue.

IanMcL
Posts: 30129
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8654 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by IanMcL » Tue May 24, 2022 10:57 am

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:36 pm
Garlick didn't want to build a new CFS as lessons learn't from going down in the seventies, but sold us out with a massive big debt
Yes talked of safety net in case of relegation, one eye on new stand etc.

We now know the other eye was staring at a bank account

Boss Hogg
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:34 am
Been Liked: 846 times
Has Liked: 1090 times

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by Boss Hogg » Tue May 24, 2022 11:11 am

The starting point of the current situation is the former chairman imo. The payments from tv are to help make the league competitive. If you play the cautious route and keep reserves to protect the club fair enough but to sell those cash reserves to a leveraged buyout and to line your own pockets ( whilst damaging necessary team strengthening) means you are not acting in the long term interests of the club and cannot be a true fan of the club.
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret

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

Re: Mike Garlick

Post by brexit » Tue May 24, 2022 11:23 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:32 am
Again, missing the crucial fact that Garlick was no longer interested in running the club
Actually Mike Garlick loves the club and hopefully will be back in charge.
It was intimated that he was backed into a corner by Dyche who had a list of players he wanted to bring in. Mike looked at the list saw they were expensive and had no long term resale value plus Dyche wanted to renew contracts for players who again were passed their prime. He allegedly refused to sanction the deals.
Allegedly he had a choice sell the club or sack Dyche . Theoretically he chose to sell the club because he believed Dyche was more important to the club than himself and he was also a shrewd business man.
In hindsight the fact that we had awful transfer windows under Garlick actually benefits us - we are not saddled with expensive players with no resale value. The current signings bear this out Lennon,Stephens - too old Cornet - defour like fitness, wout - a cheaper but less productive chris wood. Time will tell for collins and roberts - I think they will shine in the championship. Brownhill in my opinion has been the only signing that has increased in value. But again the potential decent signings, Vydra and Gibson Dyche had issues with.

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

Post Reply