Exciting times

[claretandbluesky]

Not sure if there should be a trade mark put after the title, but Mr Waine has at last got what he desired.
Now that the dust has settled we can see clearly we are heading into unchartered territory, with that comes anxiety but also anticipation and excitement.

Who will be the new manager.
What will happen to SD
Will we avoid relegation
How many players will leave.
Who will be sold
Will we be in the transfer market
Will ALK be bought out.
And of course the intrigue surrounding SD’s departure.

Difficult to imagine a time when this clubs future was more uncertain.

The next 6 months could truly see the shaking of our foundations.
It might usher in a period of renaissance or result in long term structural decline.

But one thing is for sure it most certainly will be exciting and intriguing

Might even have Paul clinging to his seat.

[Pearcey]

Are you blaming Paul for everything then?

[claretandbluesky]

Seems reasonable

[clarethomer]

Just what we need- another thread about the uncertainty of the club.

Not sure having a pop or singling out other users of this board is needed or adding value. Couldn’t this have been posted on to one of the several other threads already in place?

[gawthorpe_view]

I think 'Exciting times' was more of a prediction of things to come, good or bad, than a wishlist.

[Mattster]

There is a curse. They say: "may you live in interesting times"

[Paul Waine]

There is a curse. They say: "may you live in interesting times"

I understand that is a Chinese curse. I'm not Chinese, not that that matters. I don't "do" curses.

[bobinho]

Plenty more than Paul advocating the sacking of dyche…. Seems strange to single out just the one.

Actually, seems strange to single out any.

We’ve got what we’ve got, and it wasn’t BECAUSE of anything posted on here, so even if it fails catastrophically, it won’t be the fault of anyone on here.

There’s an internet “thing” where it has become more important to be right about something than the relevance of the thing itself.

[Paul Waine]

Not sure if there should be a trade mark put after the title, but Mr Waine has at last got what he desired.
Now that the dust has settled we can see clearly we are heading into unchartered territory, with that comes anxiety but also anticipation and excitement.

Who will be the new manager.
What will happen to SD
Will we avoid relegation
How many players will leave.
Who will be sold
Will we be in the transfer market
Will ALK be bought out.
And of course the intrigue surrounding SD’s departure.

Difficult to imagine a time when this clubs future was more uncertain.

The next 6 months could truly see the shaking of our foundations.
It might usher in a period of renaissance or result in long term structural decline.

But one thing is for sure it most certainly will be exciting and intriguing

Might even have Paul clinging to his seat.

I love it. Given me a big laugh. "Exciting Times" isn't trade marked or copyrighted. Everyone is welcome to "get on board" and enjoy our journey.

My "exciting times" has always been about our new owners taking on the challenge of owning a Premier League football club in a world of clubs owned by nation states and billionaires. It's how a town like Burnley, "our Burnley" (though, in reality I'm Accrington born and raised) can hold its place in the world of football, now a global world. That's my exciting times, putting Burnley FC out there in a global fan base market and in the same way that New York's Empire State Building is built on Accrington Nori bricks foundations.

I'll be cheering on the team to get the points to stay in the Premier League. If we end up going down I'll be cheering on the team to get back up.

Exciting times is all about how we handle the "bumps in the road." Parting with our manager is one such bump.

Let's see what comes next.

UTC

[Paul Waine]

Plenty more than Paul advocating the sacking of dyche…. Seems strange to single out just the one.

Actually, seems strange to single out any.

We’ve got what we’ve got, and it wasn’t BECAUSE of anything posted on here, so even if it fails catastrophically, it won’t be the fault of anyone on here.

There’s an internet “thing” where it has become more important to be right about something than the relevance of the thing itself.

Hey, steady. I've never advocated letting Sean Dyche go. But, we don't know what is going on inside the club. If the owners have decided that we have more chance of staying up with Sean Dyche gone, then let's give it a go.

[JohnMcGreal]

My "exciting times" has always been about our new owners taking on the challenge of owning a Premier League football club in a world of clubs owned by nation states and billionaires. It's how a town like Burnley, "our Burnley" (though, in reality I'm Accrington born and raised) can hold its place in the world of football, now a global world. That's my exciting times, putting Burnley FC out there in a global fan base market and in the same way that New York's Empire State Building is built on Accrington Nori bricks foundations.

We were already doing that long before ALK showed up.

[Sleeping Cat]

We were already doing that long before ALK showed up.

We were, and how many of the people who were at the club, throughout all aspects of the club, have now left. Coaching Staff, Physio, Scouting, Cheif Exec, Hospitality, Media, Ticket Office. All have been replaced.

[clarethomer]

We were already doing that long before ALK showed up.

We weren’t really though.

The old guard was playing at it but to their credit they did deliver better pitch and training ground and the corner stands and have laid good foundations for the club infrastructure with the academy etc.

Not sure the old regime had the same desire to globalise the Burnley brand that ALK talk about wanting to do. Not have they achieved either so I get the caution shown in terms of you need to do more than talk the talk..

The further modernisation of the ground and corporate/digital side of the business seems to be evolving and the corporate foundations being laid.

However this will not sit well with the traditional fan bas as a local team/community club can’t exist in the same way as it once did if they are to be successful.

It’s really hard to achieve and the attitude to debt by some fans (with good reasons for this too) makes all of this quite difficult to stomach when your not seeing the benefits of that debt on the pitch and performances.

It is exciting times for the club if the plan comes off. However the new owners are taking many of us out of our comfort zone with the way they are doing things and the queue of people who are waiting to say ‘we told you so’ is just something that everyone needs to accept.

I’m still on the fence with it all. I have the appreciation of what is being done and attempted but it’s not clear what the risk appetite is of the new owners as there is so much speculation and subjectivity to work through. It’s really easy to paint a picture of extremes in all of this.

Will be interesting reflect on where we are in a few months time

[JohnMcGreal]

We weren’t really though.

The old guard was playing at it but to their credit they did deliver better pitch and training ground and the corner stands and have laid good foundations for the club infrastructure with the academy etc.

Not sure the old regime had the same desire to globalise the Burnley brand that ALK talk about wanting to do. Not have they achieved either so I get the caution shown in terms of you need to do more than talk the talk..

The further modernisation of the ground and corporate/digital side of the business seems to be evolving and the corporate foundations being laid.

However this will not sit well with the traditional fan bas as a local team/community club can’t exist in the same way as it once did if they are to be successful.

It’s really hard to achieve and the attitude to debt by some fans (with good reasons for this too) makes all of this quite difficult to stomach when your not seeing the benefits of that debt on the pitch and performances.

It is exciting times for the club if the plan comes off. However the new owners are taking many of us out of our comfort zone with the way they are doing things and the queue of people who are waiting to say ‘we told you so’ is just something that everyone needs to accept.

I’m still on the fence with it all. I have the appreciation of what is being done and attempted but it’s not clear what the risk appetite is of the new owners as there is so much speculation and subjectivity to work through. It’s really easy to paint a picture of extremes in all of this.

Will be interesting reflect on where we are in a few months time

If the 'old guard' were merely 'playing at it' then how on earth would you describe the current guard?

I think taking out excessive loans at eye-watering rates in the hope that a proven manager (who has since been sacked) will enable you to keep the vast amounts of PL revenue rolling in by keeping you up on the cheap, in order make an easy buck, is exactly that; playing at it. Only they're not playing with their own money, they're playing with the club's money and the club's future revenue.

No amount of paint, screens or global initiatives is going to be enough to alter the fact that BFC is heavily indebted and is almost completely reliant on its PL status to avert a financial disaster.

The fact they appear to have sacked Dyche at this stage with nobody seemingly lined up suggests a desperate attempt to just change something, anything, in the hope it will be enough to avert disaster. It probably won't, and the **** will probably hit the fan soon enough.

[Paul Waine]

We were already doing that long before ALK showed up.

Hi John, don't you think the previous owners had reached the conclusion that they didn't have the money to take the club any further? Hence, them looking for new owners. My exciting times is someone else taking it on - and doing it without being a billionaire and not having "all the money in the world" to throw at it.

Premier League football clubs need "excessive" money, to borrow your phrase. It doesn't matter to me whether it is debt or equity, that's just a matter between the owners of the club and the other people who are prepared to lend them money. I think I'm not too far off if I say that Alan Pace and ALK, based on the lowest figures of ALK equity, will have put in as much of their own money as all the previous directors put in for their shareholdings. Yes, of course, the owners have got to make sure they can meet their debt obligations. If they don't they will lose all their own money that they put into the club.

UTC

[Lancasterclaret]

"May you live in interesting times"

[Paul Waine]

"May you live in interesting times"

Keep up, Lancs. Already been said higher up this thread.

UTC

[Lancasterclaret]

Keep up, Lancs. Already been said higher up this thread.

UTC

Thanks for pointing that out

Exciting times!

UTC!

[clarethomer]

If the 'old guard' were merely 'playing at it' then how on earth would you describe the current guard?

I think taking out excessive loans at eye-watering rates in the hope that a proven manager (who has since been sacked) will enable you to keep the vast amounts of PL revenue rolling in by keeping you up on the cheap, in order make an easy buck, is exactly that; playing at it. Only they're not playing with their own money, they're playing with the club's money and the club's future revenue.

No amount of paint, screens or global initiatives is going to be enough to alter the fact that BFC is heavily indebted and is almost completely reliant on its PL status to avert a financial disaster.

The fact they appear to have sacked Dyche at this stage with nobody seemingly lined up suggests a desperate attempt to just change something, anything, in the hope it will be enough to avert disaster. It probably won't, and the **** will probably hit the fan soon enough.

I think it’s been said since my post but the old guard realised the investment that it would take to try and take it further than where we had got to.

I don’t think ALK have moved it on either in any meaningful way but I can see that they have done things to make the ground more appealing to commercial lines of income outside season ticket sales with the digital boards and commercial activity etc.

However the debt is a concern when you compare to a debt free club v where we are now. It makes me uncomfortable as from the perspective that you would let necessarily run your own finances this way.

However the debt isn’t a problem as long as it’s manageable and the plan caters for worst case scenario. Having debt can afford various benefits in terms of taxation planning etc.

Apple as an example sits on pile of cash but still borrows money because the accountants know this is financially better to reduce profits/tax etc. Leveraging other peoples money is what the rich and wealthy do.

What I or others don’t know fully is the way these debts are structured or the impacts of things like relegation will have.

The need to bring a more global look to the business isn’t restricted by debt per se - look at Man Utd as an example.

However you do need the revenue to support the debt. If they can’t get that revenue and investment then it’s not good.

However I stand by my view that ALK are looking to be far more ambitious in this space and the old guard didn’t do anything other than the pick the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi John, don't you think the previous owners had reached the conclusion that they didn't have the money to take the club any further? Hence, them looking for new owners. My exciting times is someone else taking it on - and doing it without being a billionaire and not having "all the money in the world" to throw at it.

Premier League football clubs need "excessive" money, to borrow your phrase. It doesn't matter to me whether it is debt or equity, that's just a matter between the owners of the club and the other people who are prepared to lend them money. I think I'm not too far off if I say that Alan Pace and ALK, based on the lowest figures of ALK equity, will have put in as much of their own money as all the previous directors put in for their shareholdings. Yes, of course, the owners have got to make sure they can meet their debt obligations. If they don't they will lose all their own money that they put into the club.

UTC

There is a huge difference between debt used to improve a business and debt incurred to buy a business. There is a huge amount of difference between debt incurred by those who can visibly afford to fund it and do so in a manner that best serves the club as opposed to debt incurred to high interest equity lenders who secure it on the assets of the business.

Anyway basic financial stuff aside, is it your hypothesis that a club that decided it couldn't afford to compete with billionaires can do so with £60 million pounds of debt? I mean generally speaking the proposition is the £60 million quid would be used to generate additional revenue. No?

The reality is you can argue that Burnley will become a global brand and it is somehow exciting and noble to compete with billionaires with no money and huge debts but where else, apart from this site, would that view get taken seriously?

[ClaretPete001]

I think it’s been said since my post but the old guard realised the investment that it would take to try and take it further than where we had got to.

I don’t think ALK have moved it on either in any meaningful way but I can see that they have done things to make the ground more appealing to commercial lines of income outside season ticket sales with the digital boards and commercial activity etc.

However the debt is a concern when you compare to a debt free club v where we are now. It makes me uncomfortable as from the perspective that you would let necessarily run your own finances this way.

However the debt isn’t a problem as long as it’s manageable and the plan caters for worst case scenario. Having debt can afford various benefits in terms of taxation planning etc.

Apple as an example sits on pile of cash but still borrows money because the accountants know this is financially better to reduce profits/tax etc. Leveraging other peoples money is what the rich and wealthy do.

What I or others don’t know fully is the way these debts are structured or the impacts of things like relegation will have.

The need to bring a more global look to the business isn’t restricted by debt per se - look at Man Utd as an example.

However you do need the revenue to support the debt. If they can’t get that revenue and investment then it’s not good.

However I stand by my view that ALK are looking to be far more ambitious in this space and the old guard didn’t do anything other than the pick the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit.

Debt is normally used to grow a business not fund a purchase.

None of your examples about debt are relevant because the debt has not been used to grow the business.

And we do know what would happen if the club is relegated - it would lose £113 million out of £134 million of turnover over 3 seasons.

It's revenue would drop to below £20 million pounds funding debt of anywhere between £60 and £200 million pounds. And a £94 million wage bill would have to drop to something like £7 -8 million. Far less than even Rovers or PNE because those two club have billionaire owners who throw money at those clubs.

I'm beginning to repeat myself here.

[RVclaret]

Debt is normally used to grow a business not fund a purchase.

None of your examples about debt are relevant because the debt has not been used to grow the business.

And we do know what would happen if the club is relegated - it would lose £113 million out of £134 million of turnover over 3 seasons.

It's revenue would drop to below £20 million pounds funding debt of anywhere between £60 and £200 million pounds. And a £94 million wage bill would have to drop to something like £7 -8 million. Far less than even Rovers or PNE because those two club have billionaire owners who throw money at those clubs.

I'm beginning to repeat myself here.

We are just doomed aren’t we. Let’s just fold immediately and save the fuss.

[Burnley1989]

The ‘exciting times’ comment that seems to be rolled out every day by some posters to have a dig at those that dared to think the new board might change things for the better really is getting boring.

File under the price of a Twix and dry powder store, I’d be interested to know if it’s the same posters

[Newcastleclaret93]

The ‘exciting times’ comment that seems to be rolled out every day by some posters to have a dig at those that dared to think the new board might change things for the better really is getting boring.

File under the price of a Twix and dry powder store, I’d be interested to know if it’s the same posters

Come on it’s just a bit of banter.

It was a silly comment then it’s even sillier comment now.

[Burnley1989]

Come on it’s just a bit of banter.

It was a silly comment then it’s even sillier comment now.

I know, I shouldn’t let it annoy me but it does for some reason

My nicknames not the angry little man for nothing

[Paul Waine]

Debt is normally used to grow a business not fund a purchase.

None of your examples about debt are relevant because the debt has not been used to grow the business.

And we do know what would happen if the club is relegated - it would lose £113 million out of £134 million of turnover over 3 seasons.

It's revenue would drop to below £20 million pounds funding debt of anywhere between £60 and £200 million pounds. And a £94 million wage bill would have to drop to something like £7 -8 million. Far less than even Rovers or PNE because those two club have billionaire owners who throw money at those clubs.

I'm beginning to repeat myself here.

Hi Pete, I'll quote this post, but please also consider it a response to your other posts on this thread.

Yes, I get the difference between debt to buy an asset that can generate revenue on one hand and the debt taken on to give you ownership of the asset that you want to own and grow. But, it doesn't really make any difference why you have the debt. Of course, you need to service the debt, pay the interest according to agreed terms and manage the repayment obligations. Imagine if there was no change of ownership and the previous owners had taken on £60m debt? Imagine if they'd invested it all in new first team players? Or, perhaps spent the money on new Bob Lord and CF stands? Which ones of these two debt spends would "grow the business?"

If ALK have persuaded MSD to lend the club £60m don't you think MSD will have thought about ALK's ability to service the debt and meet their debt obligations? The security that's in place is "if things go wrong" not "I'm lending you this money knowing there's no way you can meet the debt obligations..."

I wish you would stop exaggerating the amount of debt. It's only the MSD £60m that counts, that's the only external debt involved in the acquisition. Other money owed to previous shareholders is just part of the deal between sellers and buyers - it's not external to the acquisition. Not something any of us should be worrying about. If ALK can't pay the previous shareholders, then Mike Garlick and co haven't managed to sell the club at the value they hoped for. There's no "money leaving the club" to cover that amount.

[clarethomer]

Debt is normally used to grow a business not fund a purchase.

None of your examples about debt are relevant because the debt has not been used to grow the business.

And we do know what would happen if the club is relegated - it would lose £113 million out of £134 million of turnover over 3 seasons.

It's revenue would drop to below £20 million pounds funding debt of anywhere between £60 and £200 million pounds. And a £94 million wage bill would have to drop to something like £7 -8 million. Far less than even Rovers or PNE because those two club have billionaire owners who throw money at those clubs.

I'm beginning to repeat myself here.

No need to repeat yourself for me.

Debt can be used in many different ways to fund businesses and the acquisition of businesses. I don’t want to turn this into another finance thread though.

The point of the thread is that the uncertain times ahead with ALK- It may be exciting for some and worrying for others but as an approach they are acting in way that is more akin to a way a global corporate would.

That may be a good, bad or indifferent feeling to fans depending on their outlook.

The old guard chose their approach and the new have chosen theirs.

It feels uncomfortable at times but they are trying to transform the club and whether they have it right or not is yet to be seen.

Some would just shut the doors and be done with the club because the thought of debt is scary and worrying. Some feel it’s not so gloomy and accept that they have no control over what happens so will be less worried.

No one will know if the approach is right or wrong because no one has all the facts and in business there are no guarantees.

[aggi]

Debt is normally used to grow a business not fund a purchase.

None of your examples about debt are relevant because the debt has not been used to grow the business.

And we do know what would happen if the club is relegated - it would lose £113 million out of £134 million of turnover over 3 seasons.

It's revenue would drop to below £20 million pounds funding debt of anywhere between £60 and £200 million pounds. And a £94 million wage bill would have to drop to something like £7 -8 million. Far less than even Rovers or PNE because those two club have billionaire owners who throw money at those clubs.

I'm beginning to repeat myself here.

If ALK manage to persuade people to lend them £200m to load onto the club then I think we probably need to acknowledge that they are finance geniuses and look forward to what else they can do.

[claretandbluesky]

The fact is suddenly we are in an exciting situation.

Exciting doesn’t mean good, it means we’re in a period of flux with a huge range of variables, many choices to be made and a completely uncertain outcome.

It’s the very uncertainty that brings the excitement.

But excitement and anticipation there definitely are.

You can feel it on this board.

Excitement always surrounds an incoming manager but more so given the long period of stability we have had.

Stability and certainty most definitely have a charm for a club such as ours

But just now and then a cathartic moment like we are now experiencing is needed.

Even for those who mourn the loss of SD the next few weeks are going to prove exhilarating.

When a club is in unstable times it can be both frightening and exciting.

That’s where we are.

[Jakubclaret]

If ALK manage to persuade people to lend them £200m to load onto the club then I think we probably need to acknowledge that they are finance geniuses and look forward to what else they can do.

Not really lenders are very comfortable with collateral the debt becomes secured.

[aggi]

Not really lenders are very comfortable with collateral the debt becomes secured.

If Championship Burnley has £200m of collateral then there's obviously nothing to worry about.

[Lancasterclaret]

I wish people would stop quoting the village idiot

[Paul Waine]

I wish people would stop quoting the village idiot

Hi Lancs, can you try and "tone it down" a little. No one that I've seen post on this thread merits you calling them out in that manner. Yes, not everyone has got the financial training that some of us, or our wives/partners have. That's no "biggy." Everyone can post. Let's keep it respectful on this thread, just as people have been trying to do on the "Russia invades" thread.

UTC

[Jakubclaret]

If Championship Burnley has £200m of collateral then there's obviously nothing to worry about.

If that doesn’t set the alarm bells ringing I’m not quite sure what to say I’m completely lost for words!

[Lancasterclaret]

Hi Lancs, can you try and "tone it down" a little. No one that I've seen post on this thread merits you calling them out in that manner. Yes, not everyone has got the financial training that some of us, or our wives/partners have. That's no "biggy." Everyone can post. Let's keep it respectful on this thread, just as people have been trying to do on the "Russia invades" thread.

UTC

I've blocked him, and when people quote him, I'm reminded that he exists

Exciting times!

UTC!

[Paul Waine]

If that doesn’t set the alarm bells ringing I’m not quite sure what to say I’m completely lost for words!

Hi Jakub, aggi isn't saying that BFC has £200 million debt and has been able to provide collateral (aka assets at least equal to or exceeding) £200 million, aggi is saying that BFC does not owe anyone, not MSD and not anyone else £200 million.

Yes, we can all agree ClaretPete's debt figure of £60 million. His other figure of £200 million is wrong by £140 million.

UTC

[claretandbluesky]

It was never going to be exciting times with SD again, he’d played himself out, in fact it was becoming anxious times.

It’s only his leaving which has opened up the agenda.
Given the club a chance to change.

It might be change we can’t handle.
I fancy the next 18 months could be perilous but without SD leaving it looked like slow decline.

Whatever happens now is likely to be radical, unpredictable and rapid.

The choices Pace &Co make over the next 2 months are going to have long-term implications for the club.

I think he wants to succeed and I don’t see him running away from the project but whether he has the know how and financial clout to bring about a radical re-set we are about to find out.

I wish him well, in the hope that his heart is really in the project.
Making Burnley into a 21st Century club.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi Pete, I'll quote this post, but please also consider it a response to your other posts on this thread.

Yes, I get the difference between debt to buy an asset that can generate revenue on one hand and the debt taken on to give you ownership of the asset that you want to own and grow. But, it doesn't really make any difference why you have the debt. Of course, you need to service the debt, pay the interest according to agreed terms and manage the repayment obligations. Imagine if there was no change of ownership and the previous owners had taken on £60m debt? Imagine if they'd invested it all in new first team players? Or, perhaps spent the money on new Bob Lord and CF stands? Which ones of these two debt spends would "grow the business?"

If ALK have persuaded MSD to lend the club £60m don't you think MSD will have thought about ALK's ability to service the debt and meet their debt obligations? The security that's in place is "if things go wrong" not "I'm lending you this money knowing there's no way you can meet the debt obligations..."

I wish you would stop exaggerating the amount of debt. It's only the MSD £60m that counts, that's the only external debt involved in the acquisition. Other money owed to previous shareholders is just part of the deal between sellers and buyers - it's not external to the acquisition. Not something any of us should be worrying about. If ALK can't pay the previous shareholders, then Mike Garlick and co haven't managed to sell the club at the value they hoped for. There's no "money leaving the club" to cover that amount.

Thanks for responding Paul.

I don't wish to sideline the debate but new stadium do generally attract bigger crowds and are more appealling to consumers. Generally speaking fixed assets are depreciable and accounted for over a period of time and become part of the running of the business. Not the same as paying off former owners. Albeit I take your point to an extent.

The point is the £68 million is material because it has to be paid up to the point it can't be.

You just can't wish it away. And there is another potentially £72 million (to make to £200 million quoted in the papers) we have no idea where it is or where it came from or how it is to be paid back...!

The problem we have (You and I), is you only ever talk about the deal. The deal is not the issue. Microsoft could pay £200 million and fit it into an ai sports portfolio and everyone would just go ....pocket change! No biggie happy days - we can see the point

What is the proposition? Because at this point in time BFC is a going concern. And the debt, including the £68 million will have to be repaid. And the holding company will have to pay whatever debt is not lodged against BFCs accounts.

All the debt is in play until it can't be paid back. It is only at that point how the debt has been structured becomes meaningful.

And the big picture is that it is material to what happens on the pitch because the money paid on debt does not go into players pockets and that is what then affects the ability of the club to improve the squad.

So, I am not exaggerating the issue I am merely reflecting the reality of running a business as opposed to the contractual obligations of buying one.

Anyway as always, I think I've had a fair shout on this thread. The points are there to counter balance views on the other side. Everyone can read and take their own position - the club isn't going to fold tomorrow and their will be other threads.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi Jakub, aggi isn't saying that BFC has £200 million debt and has been able to provide collateral (aka assets at least equal to or exceeding) £200 million, aggi is saying that BFC does not owe anyone, not MSD and not anyone else £200 million.

Yes, we can all agree ClaretPete's debt figure of £60 million. His other figure of £200 million is wrong by £140 million.

UTC

I think it is fair to say that the £60 million is what is held against the clubs assets.

However, it is financially naïve to presume that the figure of £200 million quoted by all and sundry does not materially affect the ability of the club to improve the squad.

I don't wish to trade insults Paul. In my view it is a little disingenuous to suggest I am exaggerating the figures or £140 million wrong without giving some credence as to why I am making these points.

And indeed confusing to anyone who has read the reported £200 million in the papers and on here.

We are here to give people a range of views not to gaslight debates....!

I am now really leaving this thread....!

[Paul Waine]

Thanks for responding Paul.

I don't wish to sideline the debate but new stadium do generally attract bigger crowds and are more appealling to consumers. Generally speaking fixed assets are depreciable and accounted for over a period of time and become part of the running of the business. Not the same as paying off former owners. Albeit I take your point to an extent.

The point is the £68 million is material because it has to be paid up to the point it can't be.

You just can't wish it away. And there is another potentially £72 million (to make to £200 million quoted in the papers) we have no idea where it is or where it came from or how it is to be paid back...!

The problem we have (You and I), is you only ever talk about the deal. The deal is not the issue. Microsoft could pay £200 million and fit it into an ai sports portfolio and everyone would just go ....pocket change! No biggie happy days - we can see the point

What is the proposition? Because at this point in time BFC is a going concern. And the debt, including the £68 million will have to be repaid. And the holding company will have to pay whatever debt is not lodged against BFCs accounts.

All the debt is in play until it can't be paid back. It is only at that point how the debt has been structured becomes meaningful.

And the big picture is that it is material to what happens on the pitch because the money paid on debt does not go into players pockets and that is what then affects the ability of the club to improve the squad.

So, I am not exaggerating the issue I am merely reflecting the reality of running a business as opposed to the contractual obligations of buying one.

Anyway as always, I think I've had a fair shout on this thread. The points are there to counter balance views on the other side. Everyone can read and take their own position - the club isn't going to fold tomorrow and their will be other threads.

Hi Pete, thanks, a good post. We both agree that ALK have borrowed money from MSD. We understand the amount to be £60m. We both agree that ALK has borrowed a further amount from BFC. We accept that that amount may be between £30m and £40m. (That second debt is internal). We both agree that ALK have further payments to make to the former directors. We've both quoted and agree (based on what we understand) that figure as £68 million. If we can do that, we also know that ALK and MSD can do a lot more than that. ALK is in the best place to get their head around their financial resources - and their ability to raise additional financial resources. MSD, before lending any money to ALK, will have required ALK to give them full information on their plans, their financial resources and their ability to raise additional financial resources in future as the plans unfold - and as they hit a bump or two in the road. Time will give us further insights. I'm ready to enjoy the ride.

UTC

[Jakubclaret]

Hi Lancs, can you try and "tone it down" a little. No one that I've seen post on this thread merits you calling them out in that manner. Yes, not everyone has got the financial training that some of us, or our wives/partners have. That's no "biggy." Everyone can post. Let's keep it respectful on this thread, just as people have been trying to do on the "Russia invades" thread.

UTC

You don’t have to be a financial whizz or even moderately intelligent to understand what’s going on, Simon Jordan’s as already explained about the takeover in simple terms & he knows more than you or anybody on this thread about the mechanics of the takeover & I'm inclined to believe him when he talks about the leveraged purchase & the risks involved.

[TheFamilyCat]

You don’t have to be a financial whizz or even moderately intelligent to understand what’s going on, Simon Jordan’s as already explained about the takeover in simple terms & he knows more than you or anybody on this thread about the mechanics of the takeover & I'm inclined to believe him when he talks about the leveraged purchase & the risks involved.

The same Simon Jordan who's been making up stories today?

[Jakubclaret]

I believe Jordan, wilder was known to some SUFC fans as not being completely truthful & left under a cloud, it makes sense we could have been hospitable towards wilder.

[dandeclaret]

I believe Jordan, wilder was known to some SUFC fans as not being completely truthful & left under a cloud, it makes sense we could have been hospitable towards wilder.

Now there’s a surprise

[Paul Waine]

You don’t have to be a financial whizz or even moderately intelligent to understand what’s going on, Simon Jordan’s as already explained about the takeover in simple terms & he knows more than you or anybody on this thread about the mechanics of the takeover & I'm inclined to believe him when he talks about the leveraged purchase & the risks involved.

Hi Jakub, have you got a link to what Simon Jordan has to say? Be interesting to see what he's said.

[Jakubclaret]

Hi Jakub, have you got a link to what Simon Jordan has to say? Be interesting to see what he's said.

https://youtu.be/N0smoOWCr0w

https://youtu.be/h3RawGcoDok

[superdimitri]

Just what we need- another thread about the uncertainty of the club.

Not sure having a pop or singling out other users of this board is needed or adding value. Couldn’t this have been posted on to one of the several other threads already in place?

Yes, no different from 99% of other posts on here at the moment.

[JohnMcGreal]

Hi John, don't you think the previous owners had reached the conclusion that they didn't have the money to take the club any further? Hence, them looking for new owners. My exciting times is someone else taking it on - and doing it without being a billionaire and not having "all the money in the world" to throw at it.

Premier League football clubs need "excessive" money, to borrow your phrase. It doesn't matter to me whether it is debt or equity, that's just a matter between the owners of the club and the other people who are prepared to lend them money. I think I'm not too far off if I say that Alan Pace and ALK, based on the lowest figures of ALK equity, will have put in as much of their own money as all the previous directors put in for their shareholdings. Yes, of course, the owners have got to make sure they can meet their debt obligations. If they don't they will lose all their own money that they put into the club.

UTC

Yes. I believe BFC had pretty much reached its limit, in the sense that we could just about afford to scrap and survive around the bottom 6 of the PL, using the income generated by being a PL club (sponsorship, TV revenue etc). The owners weren't overwhelmingly rich, but neither are the new ones, and they didn't need to be. We had, through hard work and earned success, become a well run, self-sufficient club. If we got relegated, it wouldn't have been a disaster. We'd have a good chance of promotion again. Financially we would have been sound.

I think the previous owners wanted to sell for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure not having the money was one of them. For example if Garlick's heart was still in it and he needed to take out a £60 million loan to fund new screens, new signs, painted turnstiles, new players etc, he wouldn't have struggled to do so. He could have easily taken out loans if that's what was required to 'grow the business'.

What my problem is, is that we've borrowed that money, and probably lost our cash reserves, not to fund new signings or to improve the team, but to change the ownership. Now, Alan Pace may have some amazing ideas and some may be a success, but is he worth £90 million?

Ultimately I believe the club has paid, and will continue to pay, a very high price for very modest, if any, benefits. The level of risk is far too high for the meagre returns on offer.

Not that the fans had any say in this. The previous shareholders did what they did. We were all pretty much powerless and still are. It's frustrating and we have to hope for the best, but I don't like what I'm seeing, and I'm sure many others don't either.

[paulatky]

https://youtu.be/N0smoOWCr0w

https://youtu.be/h3RawGcoDok

Jordan is spot on in those clips. The 1st one is from 12 months ago and outlines the effect relegation would have and that looks more than likely now.

Many of us thought, and said so, right at the outset

[claretandbluesky]

Relegation might have significant implications from the owners point of view, that is their problem, but it might enable us to transition to a more viable model, if we can start integrating players from our youth set-up into the side.

ALK have signed three quality players and are definitely looking outside the box as far as Burnley are concerned.

We desperately need a better recruitment team in the UK to identify talent in Scotland Wales and Ireland as well as the lower leagues.

I fancy ALK are in a better place to do this than Garlick ever was.

Yes the risk of a default or financial crises does exist but the direction of travel taken so far has some positives appearing to identify our weaknesses and address them

If ALK stick around for 5 years or so I fancy we might see our club in a better place and not quite so dependent on TV money.
If they don’t we might be in a dark place.

Exciting but understandably concerning times as the reality of relegation sinks in.