Transfer finances

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10088
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4161 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:41 pm

Jesus, when you back a wrong horse there is no shame in getting off

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:41 pm


claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10088
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4161 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:42 pm

He is that deep in Simon Jordan he will never believe anything else. Even if Jordan admitted he was wrong jakub wouldn't have it

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:04 pm

https://theathletic.com/news/new-newcas ... Ajb/?amp=1
He also remains tight lipped when questioned, why somebody wouldn’t just confirm if it was nothing untowards i don’t know.

Shaggy
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:30 am
Been Liked: 389 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Shaggy » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:08 pm

I don’t care what ever the case is. £25 m for Chris Wood at any time is snap your hand off stuff. We done really well to get that for him

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Big Vinny K » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:24 pm

Oh that factual statement from Jordan “that there’s a possibility” etc etc…..
This is the same talkSPORT that during the last few weeks is saying Brownhill is out of contract ?

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:37 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:24 pm
Oh that factual statement from Jordan “that there’s a possibility” etc etc…..
This is the same talkSPORT that during the last few weeks is saying Brownhill is out of contract ?
It simply boils down to whoever you believe, I believe SJ you believe the Club (AP) it really is as simple as that, but none of us can be 100% sure so it pointless arguing we won’t convince each other on either count.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10088
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4161 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:41 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:37 pm
It simply boils down to whoever you believe, I believe SJ you believe the Club (AP) it really is as simple as that, but none of us can be 100% sure so it pointless arguing we won’t convince each other on either count.
Or you could believe the player himself, I mean yeah it boils down to who you believe an ill informed failed club owner who now makes a living arse kissing and talking nonsense with Jim White or the player who the release clause actually involved.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:42 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:41 pm
Or you could believe the player himself, I mean yeah it boils down to who you believe an ill informed failed club owner who now makes a living arse kissing and talking nonsense with Jim White or the player who the release clause actually involved.
The player himself won’t clarify when questioned did you not read the athletic article I attached in my posting.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Tall Paul » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:50 pm

lol Jakub

Shaggy
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:30 am
Been Liked: 389 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Shaggy » Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:58 pm

Does anyone think that £25m for a 30 year old striker who bagged 2 goals up to Xmas was a bad deal for us the selling club?
This user liked this post: HandforthClaret

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:06 pm

Shaggy wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:58 pm
Does anyone think that £25m for a 30 year old striker who bagged 2 goals up to Xmas was a bad deal for us the selling club?
No but then again I don’t possess a crystal ball to tell me what the guy would have done had he hung around unfortunately.

Venkys4eva
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:24 am
Been Liked: 139 times
Has Liked: 183 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Venkys4eva » Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:09 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:06 pm
No but then again I don’t possess a crystal ball to tell me what the guy would have done had he hung around unfortunately.
Sweet FA like he had all season

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Big Vinny K » Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:57 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:37 pm
It simply boils down to whoever you believe, I believe SJ you believe the Club (AP) it really is as simple as that, but none of us can be 100% sure so it pointless arguing we won’t convince each other on either count.
How the feck would Simon Jordan know about a release clause ?
Talkshite and Jordan exist for headlines and controversy - the headline and narrative Jordan chose that day is that Burnley were holding up the white flag by selling a player who wanted to leave because he was being offered the contract of a lifetime for a player with his ability and at his age.
Only gullible idiots do not realise that using words like ‘heard from a source” and ‘possibly’ that it’s completely made up and purely so they can cause controversy.
Yes gullible idiots…..mmmmm ?

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Colburn_Claret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:59 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:41 pm
You think selling our best players and putting it towards ALKs £120m mortgage is good use? Really? How do you value ALK at £100m+? We're talking figures close to Harry Kane. ALK have seen us relegated, constantly looked to make profit on player sales for their own benefit to take money out of the club.

ALK selling players and taking money out of the club is absolutely in no way a benefit to the club, it's the complete opposite.
I haven't seen anyone show they are taking money out of the club. They took a loan out against the value of the club in order to buy it. I'm no happier about that than anyone, but it's a common enough practice.
We've made a lot of money on sales this window, and paid out relatively less for new players. It leaves us with a surplus. If that money is used to buy more players, good. If it's used to help reduce the loan that the owners took out, good because we don't want that monkey hanging around our necks for ever and a day. If they've taken that money and paid themselves a nice little backhander then that's wrong, and we'd all be fuming.
So where is the evidence that this is what they've done. How have they taken profit on sales for their own benefit and taken money out of the club, because reducing the debt is good for the club. I'm not arguing about how we got in this situation, it's an argument of how we get out of it, and as unpalatable as it might be to some, I think it's good for the long term of the club if we reduce the debt.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3116 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:04 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:59 pm
I haven't seen anyone show they are taking money out of the club. They took a loan out against the value of the club in order to buy it. I'm no happier about that than anyone, but it's a common enough practice.
We've made a lot of money on sales this window, and paid out relatively less for new players. It leaves us with a surplus. If that money is used to buy more players, good. If it's used to help reduce the loan that the owners took out, good because we don't want that monkey hanging around our necks for ever and a day. If they've taken that money and paid themselves a nice little backhander then that's wrong, and we'd all be fuming.
So where is the evidence that this is what they've done. How have they taken profit on sales for their own benefit and taken money out of the club, because reducing the debt is good for the club. I'm not arguing about how we got in this situation, it's an argument of how we get out of it, and as unpalatable as it might be to some, I think it's good for the long term of the club if we reduce the debt.
For the time being I suppose that depends on how you view the interest payments on the MSD loan, which is serving no purpose of investment benefit to the club

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:08 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:57 pm
How the feck would Simon Jordan know about a release clause ?
Talkshite and Jordan exist for headlines and controversy - the headline and narrative Jordan chose that day is that Burnley were holding up the white flag by selling a player who wanted to leave because he was being offered the contract of a lifetime for a player with his ability and at his age.
Only gullible idiots do not realise that using words like ‘heard from a source” and ‘possibly’ that it’s completely made up and purely so they can cause controversy.
Yes gullible idiots…..mmmmm ?
Simon Jordan will know people throughout the football world he didn’t land the job previously being a window cleaner, Simon Jordan will have it spot on or thereabouts you don’t divulge sources because people end up not trusting you & stop telling you things, Chris wood I suspect did want to leave but assuming SJs source is correct & I suspect he is we wasn’t obligated to sell & whether that would have made the difference to our PL prospects we’ll never know.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Colburn_Claret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:29 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:04 pm
For the time being I suppose that depends on how you view the interest payments on the MSD loan, which is serving no purpose of investment benefit to the club
I'm not happy about the way the club was bought, but the fact is it's done. There wasn't any big fight over who took over, it was a 2 horse race and the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. There was no point continuing with Garlick, because even though I thought he'd done ok, he couldn't take us forward, and he was getting dogs abuse from sections of the fan base.

The reality is where we are, and if we can reduce the debt, in order to reduce the interest payments, it has to be a good thing. It doesn't serve any purpose of investment benefit to the club today, I agree, but it will help with the windows to come.

We need a long term plan, and everything under the last regime appeared short termism. We did it right off the pitch, but on the pitch we failed. We invested in Gawthorpe, but the investment wasn't there for younger up and coming players, we just papered over the cracks.

I can fully understand people's angst with ALK, but I don't agree with it. We had to change something, and without a billionaire sugar daddy we didn't have a lot of options. There were positives in the last couple of windows, and a lot of positives in this one. I'd rather concentrate on the positives, than moan about something that can't be changed even if we wanted to.
These 2 users liked this post: Paul Waine Enola Gay

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by KRBFC » Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:32 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:59 pm
I haven't seen anyone show they are taking money out of the club. They took a loan out against the value of the club in order to buy it. I'm no happier about that than anyone, but it's a common enough practice.
We've made a lot of money on sales this window, and paid out relatively less for new players. It leaves us with a surplus. If that money is used to buy more players, good. If it's used to help reduce the loan that the owners took out, good because we don't want that monkey hanging around our necks for ever and a day. If they've taken that money and paid themselves a nice little backhander then that's wrong, and we'd all be fuming.
So where is the evidence that this is what they've done. How have they taken profit on sales for their own benefit and taken money out of the club, because reducing the debt is good for the club. I'm not arguing about how we got in this situation, it's an argument of how we get out of it, and as unpalatable as it might be to some, I think it's good for the long term of the club if we reduce the debt.
What's the difference between taking money out of the club to pay their personal debts and paying themselves a cheeky little backhander? Same thing, why does it matter if they pay their personal mortgage or the loan they took out to buy the club?

Reducing the debt is good for the club? That debt shouldn't be on the club in the first place, BFC isn't ALK's credit card. Maybe you can explain to me, how selling our best players and paying for ALK shares is a good thing for the club. You've been hoodwinked into believing BFC should be financing this debt for the good of the club.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Colburn_Claret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:03 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:32 pm
What's the difference between taking money out of the club to pay their personal debts and paying themselves a cheeky little backhander? Same thing, why does it matter if they pay their personal mortgage or the loan they took out to buy the club?

Reducing the debt is good for the club? That debt shouldn't be on the club in the first place, BFC isn't ALK's credit card. Maybe you can explain to me, how selling our best players and paying for ALK shares is a good thing for the club. You've been hoodwinked into believing BFC should be financing this debt for the good of the club.
I've already said I'm not happy about the debt on the club, but it's not as if we had a queue of people wanting to buy us.
If the alternative was selling to someone using their own money, then I'd agree with you, but the fact that people like yourself refuse to accept is there wasn't anyone. The alternative was dying a slow death of underfunding, as the cost of being in the Premier League outstripped what we were making.
So instead of bemoaning the fact that the club took on debt, let's just accept the reality, and look at ways that we can reduce it.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by ClaretPete001 » Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:12 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:03 pm
I've already said I'm not happy about the debt on the club, but it's not as if we had a queue of people wanting to buy us.
If the alternative was selling to someone using their own money, then I'd agree with you, but the fact that people like yourself refuse to accept is there wasn't anyone. The alternative was dying a slow death of underfunding, as the cost of being in the Premier League outstripped what we were making.
So instead of bemoaning the fact that the club took on debt, let's just accept the reality, and look at ways that we can reduce it.
You don't know this....

All you know is that only ALK and one other were prepared to pay £200 million for the club in a leveraged buyout.....!

If you approve of the club spending £47 million from it's own cash so far with another £45 million due to MSD and a further £68 million to the former owners then so be it.

And if you think that solution to the PL cost problem is to spend tens of millions on non-trading activities then so be it.

But let's be clear it was not the only option open to the former owners because they did not have to sell and as others have pointed out VSL/ALK did not have to buy.

We had £80 million or so in the bank at the point of sale and subsequently spent £47 million of it on shares. So, you can hardly say the finances of the PL was a problem.

I agree we have to make the best of a bad job but that is different from holding those accountable who have squandered so much or our club's money.....!

Guller Bull
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:01 pm
Been Liked: 763 times
Has Liked: 1001 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Guller Bull » Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:36 pm

Right I have asked higher up the thread, does anyone have a clear clue as to what the debt stands at now?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:12 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:12 pm
You don't know this....

All you know is that only ALK and one other were prepared to pay £200 million for the club in a leveraged buyout.....!

If you approve of the club spending £47 million from it's own cash so far with another £45 million due to MSD and a further £68 million to the former owners then so be it.

And if you think that solution to the PL cost problem is to spend tens of millions on non-trading activities then so be it.

But let's be clear it was not the only option open to the former owners because they did not have to sell and as others have pointed out VSL/ALK did not have to buy.

We had £80 million or so in the bank at the point of sale and subsequently spent £47 million of it on shares. So, you can hardly say the finances of the PL was a problem.

I agree we have to make the best of a bad job but that is different from holding those accountable who have squandered so much or our club's money.....!
Do you mind, Pete, if I also say "you don't know this..."

If Mike Garlick had put his shares in the club up for sale, what makes you claim that he didn't have to do it? From what we all understand Mike Garlick and the other directors had been trying to sell their shares for a few seasons. They'd all worked out that they didn't have the "financial clout" to take the club any further, particularly because being a Premier League club was becoming more expensive as every season went by.

Alan Pace and ALK saved the club from being bought by the Egyptian guy and his partner. Maybe they forced up the price that resulted in the need for the leveraged purchase? It's good that ALK had the credibility to be able to borrow £65 million from MSD to help fund their purchase. Having an obligation to a professional, 3rd party finance outfit ensures good financial disciplines are maintained by the club's owners - and safeguards the club from getting into serious financial difficulties as happens so many times when the wealthy owner throws money at the club before either dying and his family selling up or becoming bored and wanting to pull his money back out. A leveraged loan from MSD is always preferable to these situations.

You do know, of course, as we all do, that the £80 million cash you mention included the first instalment of the tv money for the 2020/21 season. Plus £10m of the £47m was loaned by the club to one of the other group subsidiaries part way through the 2021/22 season. Finances of the Premier League were a problem because all players expected high premier league wages, thus limiting, at the most optimistic view, the players who were prepared to play for the club. Such were the challenges that Mike Garlick understood and why he was selling his shares.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:26 pm

Guller Bull wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:36 pm
Right I have asked higher up the thread, does anyone have a clear clue as to what the debt stands at now?
Hi GB, we know from the accounts that the club had debt of £65 million to MSD. We also know that MSD list the back-to-back securities in an equivalent amount of the money on The International Stock Exchange, Guernsey. We additionally know that BFC borrowed an amount from Macquarie bank secured against the £12.5 million due as the second instalment of the Chris Wood transfer fee from NUFC, as described in the security document recorded as a charge in Companies House filing. A little later, TISE announced that MSD had withdrawn £15 million from the £65 million securities. Similarly, after Nick Pope's transfer to NUFC a transfer finance advance was received from Macquarie against £ 7 million due in 3 instalments from NUFC. Shortly afterwards, TISE announced that a further £5 million of securities had been withdrawn from listing by MSD.

So, based on all the public domain evidence, the MSD loan currently stands at £45 million.

It will be interesting to see if any further withdrawals of securities listed on TISE are announced by MSD.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:32 pm

Copy/paste from TISE

6/14/2022 7:00:00 AM
MSD UK Holdings Ltd
Partial Delisting
Provider: The International Stock Exchange Authority
Print
NOTICE OF PARTIAL DELISTING FROM OFFICIAL LIST

The following securities have been delisted from the Official List of The International Stock Exchange with effect from 14 June 2022 at 07:00.

MSD UK Holdings Ltd
GBP15,000,000 8% unsecured loan notes due 2031

GBP50,000,000 8% unsecured loan notes due 2031 remain listed on the Exchange.


The application was sponsored by Maples Listing Services (CI) Ltd.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:33 pm

Copy/paste 2 from TISE

7/14/2022 7:00:01 AM
MSD UK Holdings Ltd
Partial Delisting
Provider: The International Stock Exchange Authority
Print
NOTICE OF PARTIAL DELISTING FROM OFFICIAL LIST

The following securities have been delisted from the Official List of The International Stock Exchange with effect from 14 July 2022 at 07:00.

MSD UK Holdings Ltd
GBP5,000,000 8% unsecured loan notes due 2031

GBP45,000,000 8% unsecured loan notes due 2031 remain listed on the Exchange.

The application was sponsored by Maples Listing Services (CI) Ltd.

Guller Bull
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:01 pm
Been Liked: 763 times
Has Liked: 1001 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Guller Bull » Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:43 pm

Paul - simplify if you can.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:49 pm

Guller Bull wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:43 pm
Paul - simplify if you can.
£65m minus £15m = £50m

£50m minus £5m = £45m

see above
This user liked this post: Guller Bull

Notsosuperstevedavis
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 101 times
Has Liked: 31 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Notsosuperstevedavis » Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:37 pm

Hindsights a wonderful thing and I suspect theres a few on here, when looking back finally acknowledge the club needed new bllod and wished we’d took the West Ham money £40m? For Tarks.

Sure it could have resulted in relegation. But without the money and re-investment it was a certainty.

Selling wood for 25m (or 20m depending on who you believe)
Was absolutely the right thing to do.

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

Re: Transfer finances

Post by NewClaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:47 pm

Notsosuperstevedavis wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:37 pm
Hindsights a wonderful thing and I suspect theres a few on here, when looking back finally acknowledge the club needed new bllod and wished we’d took the West Ham money £40m? For Tarks.

Sure it could have resulted in relegation. But without the money and re-investment it was a certainty.

Selling wood for 25m (or 20m depending on who you believe)
Was absolutely the right thing to do.
Pretty sure it was no more than £20m - £25m offered. Then Brentford had a 27.5% sell on fee, so somewhere between £15m-£18m. We stayed up one more season than we would’ve done, imo, so probably worth it.

Absolutely right to sell Wood though, whether we had any choice or not.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:47 pm

What is interesting is that the club was apparently valued at £200m approx when it was sold and we are set to receive £100m in parachute payments plus £100m from the sale of 7 players (well, 5 actually, the others being frees). We probably have another £20m-£30m in player assets before reinvesting the sale proceeds plus other assets like the grounds.

Not as simple as that I know, but the numbers are interesting.

Probably the most interesting thing is that when the window closes we are likely to be fairly level in player valuation with Watford, Norwich, West Brom and Sheff Utd (I am assuming the first two will sell a couple). That would make it a 5 horse race which seems fair.

fatboy47
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
Been Liked: 2316 times
Has Liked: 2692 times
Location: Isles of Scilly

Re: Transfer finances

Post by fatboy47 » Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:53 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:59 pm
They took a loan out against the value of the club in order to buy it. I'm no happier about that than anyone, but it's a common enough practice.
So is importuning small boys outside the public toilets, but it doesn't make it acceptable to me.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:00 pm

Notsosuperstevedavis wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:37 pm
Hindsights a wonderful thing and I suspect theres a few on here, when looking back finally acknowledge the club needed new bllod and wished we’d took the West Ham money £40m? For Tarks.

Sure it could have resulted in relegation. But without the money and re-investment it was a certainty.

Selling wood for 25m (or 20m depending on who you believe)
Was absolutely the right thing to do.
You can say it was the right thing to do for sure but perhaps it could be understandable for some people to hold reservations about the uncertainty because the knowledge of what he could have potentially done had he stayed will never be known, the same could equally apply to SD had he also stayed, 100% conclusions can’t be reached because people weren’t there.

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1091 times
Has Liked: 300 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Transfer finances

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:41 am

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:35 pm
and are now selling players to pay this debt.
Now are you being serious? Players out of contract leaving. Those sold were not wanting to stay, relegation causes that believe it or not. Every player as a price, Pope, McNeil & Cornet capable of PL football, but we’ve only sold to pay Pace & CO’s debt?? :lol:

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by KRBFC » Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:47 am

RammyClaret61 wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:41 am
Now are you being serious? Players out of contract leaving. Those sold were not wanting to stay, relegation causes that believe it or not. Every player as a price, Pope, McNeil & Cornet capable of PL football, but we’ve only sold to pay Pace & CO’s debt?? :lol:
Where do you think the money is going to....

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Big Vinny K » Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:26 am

The players are being sold because other Premier League clubs want them and unfortunately the players want to leave.
They want to leave because they want to play in the Premier League and obviously because of the money too. Other than Dwight that’s how and why most of them joined Burnley isn’t it ?

What choice does a club have in this situation ?

And yes the money from the sales will be partly used to service our debt. But when has Burnley ever been a club that does not have to balance its books by selling players at a profit and trying to buy players cheaply that increase in value so we can sell them at a profit in the future.

Our current owners might not have invested any of their own money but it’s not like we have ever had an owner who has invested tens of millions of their own money or subsidised the club etc like we see with so many other clubs.

We thought our last owners were perfect for years because they never took any money out for themselves and balanced the books so we never went in debt.
And for a while this was pretty perfect because they picked a manager who worked miracles.
And then things changed and the owner decided that he could make a lot of money for himself by selling the club. Whether this was his plan all along not sure we will ever know - personally I don’t think it was.
But at the end of the day what Garlick effectively did was not that different to what Oyston did or even what Pace and co might be doing now or in the future. The difference was that Garlick took nothing for a few years and then took it all at once at the end.
If you can pull it off it’s actually the best way to do it because you manage to avoid the wrath and hatred of the fans and in fact it’s the opposite as you are seen as the perfect owner and example of how to run a football club. Then you sell at it, take the money and run off into the sunset and never have to face the fans again.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:33 am

KRBFC wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:47 am
Where do you think the money is going to....
It’s ok they know a few crumbs thrown back will be enough to satisfy most people.

Notsosuperstevedavis
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 101 times
Has Liked: 31 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Notsosuperstevedavis » Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:29 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:00 pm
You can say it was the right thing to do for sure but perhaps it could be understandable for some people to hold reservations about the uncertainty because the knowledge of what he could have potentially done had he stayed will never be known, the same could equally apply to SD had he also stayed, 100% conclusions can’t be reached because people weren’t there.
Wether its that situation or the next.
Its almost nailed on that if you hold on to the players you’ve got, they’ll age and decline. And then you’ll get relegated anyway.

Sure we dont know what would’ve happened if you sell.
But if you dont sell and recycle. The alternative will almost always result in relegation.

You gotta sell and re invest just to stay where you are.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:36 pm

A Garlick and Oyston comparison.....

That has to be up there for stupidest thing I've read on here and there's been some real competition.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Big Vinny K » Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:42 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:36 pm
A Garlick and Oyston comparison.....

That has to be up there for stupidest thing I've read on here and there's been some real competition.
Don’t try and be clever eh - it really doesn’t suit you. Especially on the finance stuff.

You know very well that it was not a comparison between the characters or integrity.
But as a matter of interest in your infinite financial wisdom which of the 2 do you made more out of their respective clubs ?
Do you need a clue ?

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:52 pm

Notsosuperstevedavis wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:29 pm
Wether its that situation or the next.
Its almost nailed on that if you hold on to the players you’ve got, they’ll age and decline. And then you’ll get relegated anyway.

Sure we dont know what would’ve happened if you sell.
But if you dont sell and recycle. The alternative will almost always result in relegation.

You gotta sell and re invest just to stay where you are.
That’s true but when you are at a critical stage of a season you don’t upset the applecart to save a few bob or cash in, I’m not pretending things were hunky dory far from it, wood had scored the goals previously despite the barren spell & SD had saved us before when deep in the poo there’s no guarantees of course that they could or couldn’t repeat what happened previously, I would have rather seen the season out & then assessed & made the changes accordingly rather than always wonder what could have been if this that & the other would have happened, it’s evident with what happened that the decisions made wasn’t for the best.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:58 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:42 pm
Don’t try and be clever eh - it really doesn’t suit you. Especially on the finance stuff.

You know very well that it was not a comparison between the characters or integrity.
But as a matter of interest in your infinite financial wisdom which of the 2 do you made more out of their respective clubs ?
Do you need a clue ?
You've literally stated what Garlick has done is not much different to Oyston, that's what you wrote.
Don't get upset when you're called out on it.

Let me know when you can prove Garlick took wages and made interest free loans to his own company from the football club...oh wait, he didn't.

Did Garlick sue any of the fans?

Our training ground far surpasses anything Blackpool have.
Same with the quality of the pitch at TM Vs Bloomfield.

Did Garlick lose a court case that proved he illegitimately stripped the club of millions of ££?

That's why your comparison was stupid.

Notsosuperstevedavis
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 101 times
Has Liked: 31 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Notsosuperstevedavis » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:04 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:52 pm
That’s true but when you are at a critical stage of a season you don’t upset the applecart to save a few bob or cash in, I’m not pretending things were hunky dory far from it, wood had scored the goals previously despite the barren spell & SD had saved us before when deep in the poo there’s no guarantees of course that they could or couldn’t repeat what happened previously, I would have rather seen the season out & then assessed & made the changes accordingly rather than always wonder what could have been if this that & the other would have happened, it’s evident with what happened that the decisions made wasn’t for the best.
Thats where we’ll differ. Though; I will concede that I maybe wanted to keep hold of the players we had myself.
But thats just resistance to change.

I see now with the benefit of hindsight, that a football club firstly has to be financially solvent for the club to thrive/grow.

We absolutely needed to sell and start a new crop.
Looking at from now with 20/20. It was always going to go this way.

Just look at the buzz the new players are creating. We needed this 12-18 months ago. For what ever reasons. Dyche and Garlick couldnt/wouldnt get their acts together.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:10 pm

Notsosuperstevedavis wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:04 pm
Thats where we’ll differ. Though; I will concede that I maybe wanted to keep hold of the players we had myself.
But thats just resistance to change.

I see now with the benefit of hindsight, that a football club firstly has to be financially solvent for the club to thrive/grow.

We absolutely needed to sell and start a new crop.
Looking at from now with 20/20. It was always going to go this way.

Just look at the buzz the new players are creating. We needed this 12-18 months ago. For what ever reasons. Dyche and Garlick couldnt/wouldnt get their acts together.
We had to rebuild with the ageing squad anyway I agree there thats indisputable carrying too much deadwood no pun intended, my argument is we would have been better placed carrying out the necessary overhaul in the PL & not the championship, it seems to me with some people an acceptance steadfast belief that we could only rebuild the team in the championship & this relegation had to happen for this to take place.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Big Vinny K » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:18 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:58 pm
You've literally stated what Garlick has done is not much different to Oyston, that's what you wrote.
Don't get upset when you're called out on it.

Let me know when you can prove Garlick took wages and made interest free loans to his own company from the football club...oh wait, he didn't.

Did Garlick sue any of the fans?

Our training ground far surpasses anything Blackpool have.
Same with the quality of the pitch at TM Vs Bloomfield.

Did Garlick lose a court case that proved he illegitimately stripped the club of millions of ££?

That's why your comparison was stupid.
The comparison was about how they both made money from their club - and it was clear that it was in the context that one took money out along the way and one took it out at the end……that was what virtually all my post referred to. I also mention the way Garlick did it was a perfect way of doing it - for him and the club. But the similarity remains (and the only similarity I have mentioned) is that both ended up taking a lot of money out of the club that was generated on the back of the clubs respective periods in the Premier League.

You choose to read it as you do because you are trying to be clever and wanted to have an argument.

Introducing comparisons between training grounds, court cases etc is just pathetic. You forgot to mention one of them was not a sex offender……

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:20 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:18 pm
The comparison was about how they both made money from their club - and it was clear that it was in the context that one took money out along the way and one took it out at the end……that was what virtually all my post referred to. I also mention the way Garlick did it was a perfect way of doing it - for him and the club. But the similarity remains (and the only similarity I have mentioned) is that both ended up taking a lot of money out of the club that was generated on the back of the clubs respective periods in the Premier League.

You choose to read it as you do because you are trying to be clever and wanted to have an argument.

Introducing comparisons between training grounds, court cases etc is just pathetic. You forgot to mention one of them was not a sex offender……
One was found guilty of misappropriation of money etc, the other legally sold the club.
They're two very different things.

I included the relevant comparisons because they were two very different owners, not pathetic at all.
That label can be attached to your comparison of the two.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by Big Vinny K » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:42 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:20 pm
One was found guilty of misappropriation of money etc, the other legally sold the club.
They're two very different things.

I included the relevant comparisons because they were two very different owners, not pathetic at all.
That label can be attached to your comparison of the two.
You really just want an argument don’t you ? Happy to oblige since you are not exactly the sharpest.

I have not referenced once which was more justified, legitimate, legal or anything else.
Oyston took a massive and well reported at the time dividend out of the club from the Premier League money as he felt he was simply repaying himself for all the money he had put into the club……he is a despicable and corrupt person that I have the misfortune of coming across in my work. At virtually the first opportunity he could he took millions out of the club from their short stay in the Premier League.
Garlick took his money by selling the club rather than along the way and he did it in a perfectly legitimate way which as I have said was better for him and better for the club.

But the only comparison I made was that one took a big chunk of money out along the way and another took an even bigger chunk of money out at the end….and the only reason I referenced Oyston as a comparison is that he was the first one who came to mind as an owner who so blatantly took out such a big dividend as soon he could when his club was promoted to the Premier League

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:57 pm

Still a stupid comparison no matter what way you're trying to present it now.

Only one of the men were found guilty of illegitimately taking money from a club by a court.

Not much else to say to you tbh, you're determined to carry on with this stupidity and I've got better ways to waste my time.

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1091 times
Has Liked: 300 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Transfer finances

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:42 am

Oyston didn’t sell anything at Blackpool. He just decided to pay himself a massive dividend.

Garlick sold his shares, shares he bought off Kilby, shares that were issued for loans to the club. He SOLD his shareholding. He didn’t TAKE the money like you say they both did. Your comparison is silly at best.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Transfer finances

Post by RVclaret » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:07 am

Just bumping this so KRBFC can fantasise around black holes here rather than on the transfer rumour thread.

Post Reply