ChristheViking wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:13 pm

So I guess you don't have an alternate answer to how this 65m is going to be repaid then other than a firesale.

Who says the entire 65m needs to be repaid? That's not been said anywhere.

MSD make money from interest, giving them all the money back immediately doesn't make them any money.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:33 pm

What? Too busy to tell some blokes on a football forum that everything’s going to be fine?

Why would he have to tell blokes on a football forum anything

Raconteur wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:31 pm

Isn't he supposed to be at a emergency meeting with the premier league today. So maybe he is a tad busy today.

I dont think it will take Leeds too long to say "actually we stayed up as you may have noticed and we have had second thoughts about fighting this case. But good luck to Burnley"

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:13 pm

When does the transfer window open ?

Friday 10 June, but most business won't start in earnest until early July when contracts expire, closes on Thursday 1 September.

Clearly Pace or someone is calling the shots, as we've extended Cork and Jay Rod's contracts.

But until we get a new manager, or perhaps head coach in place I can't see any major transfer activity, of course I could be wrong.
.

warksclaret wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 5:34 pm

Agreed and being an avid reader of this Board I know Pace has a credibility issue with supporters. Its the easiest thing in the world to do sweet FA, and its ok posters saying that Norwich have not posted anything. But they dont have a credibility issue with their owners, and they have not recently fired their manager.Norwich fans know the club is financially strong, having made several lucrative sales recently. They are in good shape to push for promotion

I'm not sure if the Norwich fans are all quite as happy as you suggest

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... k-61376652

Football chairmen, as a rule, don't make that many candid statements so the fact that Pace hasn't isn't too surprising.

If he did make one it would be likely full of the usual platitudes for which he'd be equally condemned.

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:53 pm

Friday 10 June, but most business won't start in earnest until early July when contracts expire, closes on Thursday 1 September.

So if things play out as normal, our window will open somewhere around August the 22nd ?

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:37 pm

Who says the entire 65m needs to be repaid? That's not been said anywhere.

MSD make money from interest, giving them all the money back immediately doesn't make them any money.

You missed a bit out. MSD do make money from interest......as long as we can afford to pay that interest. And there are question marks against that which is presumably one of the reasons why they've called forward the debt repayment.

The Athletic is saying required to pay a “significant proportion” of the £65 million shortly after the end of this season, with the repayment schedule brought forward. If we'd stayed in the Prem we had another 3 years. MSD are clearly getting antsy - and who can blame them.

We don't know if they want 30m,40m. or 64.99 million. What we do know is that we don't have that kind of money and out future revenue stream has just been cut in half. That leaves player sales unless someone has another method (as yet unpublished) to pay off this level of debt.

Long Time Lurker wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:00 pm

So if things play out as normal, our window will open somewhere around August the 22nd ?

Well I'd expect us to sell before we buy that's for sure, and that's if we buy given the contract extensions being given out.

I assume there will be some incomings, but I wouldn't bank on many if funds are as squeezed as many posters suggest.

Our 1st Championship game will be late July, so you'd hope for some new arrivals before then, but given our previous history we'll leave it to the last minute and see what bargains are available, and by then I suspect a lot of the better few agents will have been long snapped up.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:37 pm

Who says the entire 65m needs to be repaid? That's not been said anywhere.

MSD make money from interest, giving them all the money back immediately doesn't make them any money.

Indeed which is why they have penalty clauses relating to all lost interest payments on early repayment (all clearly disscussed as part of the general business model in their accounts)

hopefully that penalty will discount to a NPV

for now it will be interesting to observe the TISE (The International Stock Exchange in Guernsey) to see what the early repayment value is under MSDUKH https://tisegroup.com/market/companies/8061 - just be aware that the reduction here will not include the penalty payment - that will be in next years accounts

All assuming that the recent report of a 12mth stay on the early repayment is not true

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:14 pm

Well I'd expect us to sell before we buy that's for sure, and that's if we buy given the contract extensions being given out.

I assume there will be some incomings, but I wouldn't bank on many if funds are as squeezed as many posters suggest.

Our 1st Championship game will be late July, so you'd hope for some new arrivals before then, but given our previous history we'll leave it to the last minute and see what bargains are available, and by then I suspect a lot of the better few agents will have been long snapped up.

The interesting one is that there are fixed price sales for Max and Vout (reportedly) but what happens if these prices are not met - reading between the lines of the accounts these two do not have relegation clauses on their salaries

ChristheViking wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:07 pm

You missed a bit out. MSD do make money from interest......as long as we can afford to pay that interest. And there are question marks against that which is presumably one of the reasons why they've called forward the debt repayment.

The Athletic is saying required to pay a “significant proportion” of the £65 million shortly after the end of this season, with the repayment schedule brought forward. If we'd stayed in the Prem we had another 3 years. MSD are clearly getting antsy - and who can blame them.

We don't know if they want 30m,40m. or 64.99 million. What we do know is that we don't have that kind of money and out future revenue stream has just been cut in half. That leaves player sales unless someone has another method (as yet unpublished) to pay off this level of debt.

It’s nothing to do with being antsy, it’s the terms of the loan. Because if we are not in the Premier League we will have a shorter window with increased revenue (parachute payments) and more sizeable assets (better players) to enable us to pay off the loan. If we are in the PL the loan is less risky so can be paid over a longer period.

In terms of revenue stream, I would like to think that our salaries are reducing roughly in line with the drop in revenue, although I don’t know how accurate that statement is. But of course we will need to sell players to pay off the loan. Player trading can be a positive thing though as we’ve seen in the past when we’ve sold our biggest assets.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:54 pm

I'm not sure if the Norwich fans are all quite as happy as you suggest

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... k-61376652

Thank you for that. Their unhappiness is down to some very poor results and thrashings. Our concerns now that we have been relegated are grave concerns about our general future, funding, a new manager,9 out of contract players , transfer policy etc. More far reaching than Norwich's issues

I said that MSD would probably have a clause like this in their contract months ago and I was politely mocked for making the speculation.

It makes perfect sense of MSD. We have all seen clubs that have risked it for a biscuit and directed all of their parachute payments towards sustaining a push for promotion back to the PL. Those that failed, like Middlesbrough, lost all of that money and failed to win their sought after promotion. For a club like Boro, with a rich owner backing the club, that was a tough hit to take. However, they rode it out.

If we went down that route and failed what would we pay MSD back with ?

So MSD have obviously inserted a clause to ensure that they get their money back and we don't have the freedom to fritter it away on a hit and hope promotion push.

But they won't make any money from interest ?

That may or may not be true. They've already earned some interest and safeguarding the principal sum through a return could be more appealing than exposing themselves and their money to an increased risk. However, contracts can contain many clauses.

The loan contract could contain a clause that guarantees MSD will receive their principal sum back in full, along with any interest that they would have accumulated over the full duration of the loan, in the event of relegation. That sounds harsh and it would be very problematic for us, but it would be a fair clause to insert in my opinion.

The truth is that none of us know what clauses they signed up to when they took out the loan, but I think we can guarantee that those clause were very favourable to MSD. ALK needed the money, MSD didn't need to lend them it, so the power in the contractual negotiations resided with MSD. If ALK had any real clout or any real alternatives they would have gone to a lender known to offer more favourable terms.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:17 pm

The interesting one is that there are fixed price sales for Max and Vout (reportedly) but what happens if these prices are not met - reading between the lines of the accounts these two do not have relegation clauses on their salaries

I guess if their prices aren't met, and we want or need them off the books we'll accept offers close to their fixed prices in exchange for ready cash.

We certainly can't afford to have players on PL salaries well we're in the Championship, as one it's bad for the books, but secondly there is always the potential for that to disrupt the dressing room.

TBH I'll be surprised if Cornet and Wout are still Burnley players come the end of the window, and I doubt either will be exactly eager at the prospect of Championship football, and if we're to rebound back we need the whole squad pulling together.

joey13 wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 5:32 pm

DAN , DAN , DAN , DAN , DAN DAN DAN DAN DAN

What?

Pickles wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 5:40 pm

Why do we need it? It wouldn't just be fans watching it. "Oh yeah, we're skint by the way." West Ham trim five million from their Pope bid. "We've almost agreed terms with X to be our manager." Y was under impression he was still in negotiations. Crude examples but you get the point. For similar reasons you never heard Dyche speak about transfers and he was roundly praised by Burnley fans for that cards close to chest stance.

Truth is, as fans we can never know as much as we want to know. And that's the way it should be.

I have no need right now to watch a three minute video of Alan Pace to appease my dissatisfaction in relegation.

I would say we need it because, even setting aside the disappointment of relegation, there is a lot of concern amongst the fan base at the moment. And rightly so.

We have the impeding £65m to repay, plus a lot of OOC players (including our captain), and we’re managerless with the season starting in 9 weeks or something.

I take your point that there will be limits to what he can say so as to not detriment us commercially, and whatever he does say will be construed by fans in the way they want to take it, but I think how we’ve supported the club (and him personally now I think about it) is deserving of some form of communication.

It may not make me feel any better about relegation though, even if I would hope it would be reassuring in some senses.

ChristheViking wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 pm

There's some real proper half-wits out there demanding he speaks and talking about their "rights" to know the financial position etc.

We're about to go into a firesale. The last thing we need right now is other clubs knowing the finer details on our financial position. We need to max our revenue and there are going to be some hard bargains that have to happen in various areas.

I hope we don't hear from Pace for a few days. I hope he's taking a breath and planning the next steps carefully and without worrying about some of our armchair business experts who wouldn't know one end of a balance sheet from the other.

Planning…… there’s a novel idea……

Long Time Lurker wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:00 pm

So if things play out as normal, our window will open somewhere around August the 22nd ?

A tad optimistic even LLL ?

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:17 pm

The interesting one is that there are fixed price sales for Max and Vout (reportedly) but what happens if these prices are not met - reading between the lines of the accounts these two do not have relegation clauses on their salaries

How’ve you deduced that mate?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:36 pm

How’ve you deduced that mate?

well for a start the previous statement of all players having salary reducing relegation clauses is no longer there it is replaced with this

Burnley FC Holdings Limited Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended July 31 2021
1. Accounting Policies
1.2 Going concern
(Para. 3) “In the event of relegation, the group will incur a significant reduction in turnover as full broadcasting revenue is replaced with parachute payments. The group will be required to take steps to reduce costs and borrowings to a level which are more sustainable for a championship club (se also note 18). In the event of a relegation the directors are satisfied that the group will continue to have the support of its lenders, with relegation prompting a loan balance reduction that is not required if the club remains in the Premier League, as described in note 18. In this scenario the group has forecast a significant reduction in wages and salaries, which will be largely achieved by contractual means existing in player and employee contracts. The group has also forecast that there will be a net inflow of cash arising from player trading, as is common for many clubs relegated from the Premier League. In the event that the group’s financial performance is less than that modelled, in a relegation scenario, the directors are satisfied that further cash can be generated, including by further player trading, if this was absolutely necessary.”

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 8:16 pm

well for a start the previous statement of all players having salary reducing relegation clauses is no longer there it is replaced with this

Burnley FC Holdings Limited Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended July 31 2021
1. Accounting Policies
1.2 Going concern
(Para. 3) “In the event of relegation, the group will incur a significant reduction in turnover as full broadcasting revenue is replaced with parachute payments. The group will be required to take steps to reduce costs and borrowings to a level which are more sustainable for a championship club (se also note 18). In the event of a relegation the directors are satisfied that the group will continue to have the support of its lenders, with relegation prompting a loan balance reduction that is not required if the club remains in the Premier League, as described in note 18. In this scenario the group has forecast a significant reduction in wages and salaries, which will be largely achieved by contractual means existing in player and employee contracts. The group has also forecast that there will be a net inflow of cash arising from player trading, as is common for many clubs relegated from the Premier League. In the event that the group’s financial performance is less than that modelled, in a relegation scenario, the directors are satisfied that further cash can be generated, including by further player trading, if this was absolutely necessary.”

Hi CP, I don't see anything in the "going concern" accounting policy that leaves anything to be read "between the lines" about any players not having relegation clauses. If, as we understand, Maxwel Cornet and possibly also Wout Weghorst have release clauses in their contracts it's not in lieu of wage reduction on relegation, much more likely because of wage reduction on relegation. If MC release is the level we've heard it's because he has a wage reduction on relegation, not because he doesn't.

UTC

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 7:17 pm

The interesting one is that there are fixed price sales for Max and Vout (reportedly) but what happens if these prices are not met - reading between the lines of the accounts these two do not have relegation clauses on their salaries

Nothing in the accounts suggests that to me. It may or may not be the case but you can't tell that from the accounts.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 8:16 pm

well for a start the previous statement of all players having salary reducing relegation clauses is no longer there it is replaced with this

There was never a statement that "all" players had a salary reduction.

Never mind any of this bo!!ocks, I want to know where the pre-season friendlies are.

Pace had my full support until it came out that he sanctioned more borrowing because he couldn't wait for Newcastle's second instalment for Wood .
He tried to hoodwink us that he was using all of the Wood money to bring in the Dutch striker and the other European player.
All of a sudden the European player decided to stay with his club but it turns out there was no money to buy him anyway .
Stick up for Pace all you want but it is now my firm opinion that he is a complete chancer who is using our club. He tried to bluff the banker and when asked to turn over his cards he was bust

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:58 pm

Football chairmen, as a rule, don't make that many candid statements so the fact that Pace hasn't isn't too surprising.

If he did make one it would be likely full of the usual platitudes for which he'd be equally condemned.

Absolutely this.... and it wouldn't matter one iota what was said, to some on here he will never be able to do anything worthy of any sort of praise. Usually it's the people who can't wait to jump all over other posters for singling out `scapegoats`. All a bit sad really...

bobinho wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 11:23 pm

Absolutely this.... and it wouldn't matter one iota what was said, to some on here he will never be able to do anything worthy of any sort of praise. Usually it's the people who can't wait to jump all over other posters for singling out `scapegoats`. All a bit sad really...

Tell you what, you list some of Pace's achievements at Burnley FC and we will give out the deserved praise.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 12:05 am

Tell you what, you list some of Pace's achievements at Burnley FC and we will give out the deserved praise.

We’ve got some fancy bright advertisement hoardings and we once came close to buying a Croatian guy…

Another article in the Mail just now about the club scrambling around for more loans..

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 8:34 pm

Hi CP, I don't see anything in the "going concern" accounting policy that leaves anything to be read "between the lines" about any players not having relegation clauses. If, as we understand, Maxwel Cornet and possibly also Wout Weghorst have release clauses in their contracts it's not in lieu of wage reduction on relegation, much more likely because of wage reduction on relegation. If MC release is the level we've heard it's because he has a wage reduction on relegation, not because he doesn't.

UTC

This, some people are just making stuff up to suit their narrative, Cornet wouldn't have a fixed fee clause if he didn't also have a wage reduction clause.

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 12:43 am

Another article in the Mail just now about the club scrambling around for more loans..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ation.html

Just linking it for you.

So they are looking to refinance the loan - great.

They will look to secure new loans on their own American based assets - great.

We will use the £42m parachute payment to pay the £65m loan? Why do I keep seeing this being mentioned? The accounts say player trading will be used.

Also keep seeing ‘football financial analysts’ they quote in these articles use Sunderland as a comparison, what they forget to mention about sunderland is the fact they were still paying Prem wages in the Championship with an already significantly larger wage bill. That’s not going to be the case for us.

If they want some better analysis they can feel free to reach out to me.

“As Sportsmail revealed in January, relegation will trigger an early repayment clause in a £65m loan from MSD which has so far been repaid on an interest-only basis — a payment that will account for all of the £42m parachute money they will get in their first year in the Championship.”

Forgive me for my naivety, but if the loan repayment accounts for the parachute payment, how are we meant to run the club?

And more to the point, what kind of idiot would sign us up to those terms?! I thought this was meant to be the best deal ever?

We’re so screwed

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 6:38 am

“As Sportsmail revealed in January, relegation will trigger an early repayment clause in a £65m loan from MSD which has so far been repaid on an interest-only basis — a payment that will account for all of the £42m parachute money they will get in their first year in the Championship.”

Forgive me for my naivety, but if the loan repayment accounts for the parachute payment, how are we meant to run the club?

And more to the point, what kind of idiot would sign us up to those terms?! I thought this was meant to be the best deal ever?

We’re so screwed

That’s my point - it makes no sense to do that.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 5:58 pm

Do you really not think other football clubs don’t know exactly what our financial circumstances are? Every football finance expert out there is talking about it

And yet the reality is different.

Blakesboots wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 6:56 am

And yet the reality is different.

Off course it is

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Mon May 23, 2022 6:53 pm

Friday 10 June, but most business won't start in earnest until early July when contracts expire, closes on Thursday 1 September.

Clearly Pace or someone is calling the shots, as we've extended Cork and Jay Rod's contracts.

But until we get a new manager, or perhaps head coach in place I can't see any major transfer activity, of course I could be wrong.
.

So Pace (or whoever) is basically doing what Dyche was lambasted for - extending the contracts of thirty somethings.

For what it’s worth the only player I’d have been remotely interested in signing back on (Tarky excluded) would be Ben Mee.

He seems to do everything else at the club so I fully expect the new manager to be Alan Pace

Let’s hope Pace does address the issues sooner rather than later. Getting ripped to shreds in the press today.

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:11 am

So Pace (or whoever) is basically doing what Dyche was lambasted for - extending the contracts of thirty somethings.

For what it’s worth the only player I’d have been remotely interested in signing back on (Tarky excluded) would be Ben Mee.

It appears as though Cork's was an automatic trigger on hitting 20 appearances in the season.

Jay-Rod makes sense as we were already losing Barnes and Vydra and wouldn't have the funds to replace 3 strikers in one window - 4 if anyone takes up Weghorst's alleged relegation clause

Who am I kidding, we don't have the funds to replace one!

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:17 am

Let’s hope Pace does address the issues sooner rather than later. Getting ripped to shreds in the press today.

Where is the ‘ripping to shreds’?

ripped to shreds in the press

What a frightening thought

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:23 am

Where is the ‘ripping to shreds’?

The times “Burnley need a fire sale to avoid becoming the next Derby”

Mail talking about further loans being required.

Talksport had at least 4-5 different people talk about the clubs finances.

5 live had at least 3 different people.

That’s what I have seen before 7.30 this morning.

Who were the “at least 4-5” people talking about it ?

Alan Brazil Carlton cole or some other genius ?

Talksport used to employ someone as thick as Darren Gough to pass on he expertise and still some loons hang on the stations every word

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:31 am

Who were the “at least 4-5” people talking about it ?

Alan Brazil Carlton cole or some other genius ?

Talksport used to employ someone as thick as Darren Gough to pass on he expertise and still some loons hang on the stations every word

Simon jones, Alex crook etc…

The usual people. Talksport have been pretty spot on about us since the takeover. Especially Jordan, looks like everything he said he is coming to realisation.

Talksport is an utter toilet who will not give a flying about us in a few days time. The coverage I’ve read has been ok - BBC saying there are a lot of uncertainties and we have to get the big decisions right in the summer, which is pretty much spot on. Sensationalism brings nothing to a debate.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:33 am

Simon jones, Alex crook etc…

The usual people. Talksport have been pretty spot on about us since the takeover. Especially Jordan, looks like everything he said he is coming to realisation.

So when you said at least 4 or 5 people talking about it you’ve named 2 and 1 is a sports reporter. No idea who Simon Jones is but if you mean Jordan isn’t he in later in the day ? If you did mean Jordan you’ve gone from claiming at least 4-5 to now naming 1 and an etc

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:25 am

The times “Burnley need a fire sale to avoid becoming the next Derby”

Mail talking about further loans being required.

Talksport had at least 4-5 different people talk about the clubs finances.

5 live had at least 3 different people.

That’s what I have seen before 7.30 this morning.

Yet not one of them provides any decent analysis.

(by decent analysis, I mean looking at player trading and matching it with 'substantial amount' payable of the 65m loan).

For example, how much is a substantial amount? No one knows - could it be 30m, possibly, could it be 40m, maybe, could it be 20m, sure?

If it's 40m, Pope + Cornet + McNeil sales more than cover this - plus, on the last accounts, there was at least 20m cash in the bank, who knows if that's more / less now? Also, has that extra Chris Wood sale money been used to pay off any amount yet? Its possible. None of the analysis in any article of Talks**** mention any of this. Instead they spin the most negative outlook, and you feed off it.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:33 am

Simon jones, Alex crook etc…

The usual people. Talksport have been pretty spot on about us since the takeover. Especially Jordan, looks like everything he said he is coming to realisation.

Alex Crook he knows nothing about any clubs away from the South Coast... Jordan was good when he started, but has fallen into the talksport way of saying anything to get calls or twitter headlines.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue May 24, 2022 7:33 am

Simon jones, Alex crook etc…

The usual people. Talksport have been pretty spot on about us since the takeover. Especially Jordan, looks like everything he said he is coming to realisation.

Simon Jordan yesterday compared pitch invasions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.