Re: Mike Garlick
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 11:31 am
If that happens I fear an uprising in many quarters. Me for one I'm afraid.
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60899
Rightbrexit wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 11:23 amActually 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
Agree with this completelyBoss Hogg wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 11:11 amThe 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.
You would expect the money but you wouldn’t be concerned where it came from. Perhaps it’s a weak analogy comparing the sale of a house/car to a business. Has anyone ever said he didn’t know where the money was coming from or how they anticipated reducing the debt?dsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:22 amReally? 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.
So the OWNER of the club had a choice to either sell the club or sack the manager?brexit wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 11:23 amActually 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
It has been suggested that the club's debt is Pace/ALK's fault and nothing to do with Garlick. All I am saying is that Pace and Garlick did it jointly. They both wanted to put the club into this debt.Burnley Ace wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:16 pmYou would expect the money but you wouldn’t be concerned where it came from. Perhaps it’s a weak analogy comparing the sale of a house/car to a business. Has anyone ever said he didn’t know where the money was coming from or how they anticipated reducing the debt?
Perhaps it was more - there has been a total breakdown between myself and the manager and one of us has to go. I’ve had enough, I’m spending too much time focusing on the club (for no wage) and need to work at my actual business. The majority of fans want Dyche to stay and there is only one offer on the table, despite wanting to sell.ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:18 pmSo the OWNER of the club had a choice to either sell the club or sack the manager?
I somehow do not believe that.
I know it's strange but it's a bit like a divorce and you leave the kids (or in case of this messageboard the french bulldog) with the parent you think will enable the best future.ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:18 pmSo the OWNER of the club had a choice to either sell the club or sack the manager?
I somehow do not believe that.
Selling the club to someone else who couldn't afford the market value doesn't seem like a recipe for success either though.dsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 amDid 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.
The theory, and who knows how accurate it is, is that ALK/VSL expected to fairly quickly turn over more shares and get additional investment. Various accounts seem to suggest this was attempted but hasn't been overly successful.dsr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:38 amI'm not talking about checking where your buyer is getting the money from. I'm talking about checking where you are getting the money from.
If you are selling your house, you do not hand over the keys until you know where you are getting the money from. It will be your solicitor, who is getting or who has already got the money from the other party's solicitor, usually. But you have seen the money, you know it is there. That's the point.
Garlick did not sell his shares and then ask where the money was coming from. He knew where the money was coming from.
The question surely now is… are investors more likely to back a winning team bouncing back after relegation, with all the ‘good news’ of a winning team forging back. As opposed to a team fighting (and losing) above its weight after years of treading water? Relegation could actually help market the club as long as the bounce back is steady and sustained, time will tell I guess.
There was no vitriolic abuse aimed towards Mike Garlick, just a few murmurs of discontent on this board and the other social media outlets.brexit wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:26 pmI know it's strange but it's a bit like a divorce and you leave the kids (or in case of this messageboard the french bulldog) with the parent you think will enable the best future.
Given the vitriol against Garlick and the deification of Dyche on this board, I am inclined to think there maybe some truth to this.
There was some vitriol to Garlick, moreso frustration at his refusal to speculate to accumulate and wide reported resistance to exploring overseas markets. The former can be somewhat explained by the financial squeeze Europe caused us between qualification bonuses and a lower league finish, and Dyche's reluctance to sanction sales (which I'll add, most fans would also have rejected. Selling Tarks or McNeil would have had significant outcry at "lack of ambition" and complaints that we're still selling our best players even as an established side).brexit wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:26 pmI know it's strange but it's a bit like a divorce and you leave the kids (or in case of this messageboard the french bulldog) with the parent you think will enable the best future.
Given the vitriol against Garlick and the deification of Dyche on this board, I am inclined to think there maybe some truth to this.
Agree with the last sentence agree to disagree about the rest - it's opinion after allspt_claret wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:40 pmDyche is gone. Garlick is relegated to a minor boardroom role. I for one would much rather have Garlick in charge than Pace, and for Dyche to have not left, but the former is unlikely to be the case again unless we have serious problems, and the latter an impossibility.