BREAKING: Manchester United Available

[elwaclaret]

The Glazers have just announced they are willing to look at selling the club. Breaking from SKY

https://twitter.com/skysportsnews/statu ... HE6U2Tqf6Q

[Zlatan]

Ronaldo will buy them

[GodIsADeeJay81]

They've seen what Chelsea went for, same with Liverpool's owners, and they feel the time is right.

They've made a fair few quid out of the club.

[elwaclaret]

Ronaldo will buy them

MMm… I certainly think he has finally convinced them they don’t understand football, and want nothing more to do with it. How many millions have they paid out to be trashed in front of the world again? Morgan must be wetting himself, at the money pouring in, too. Glazers might buy Morgan (they wont be the first to do so, some might say.)

[ALP]

They'll be partying with that news, London will be busier for sure

[Bosscat]

Will ppp put in a cheeky bid seeing as he is a multibusiness owner

[Bordeaux]

Cannot make more cash without European super league, so bailing out?

[conyoviejo]

Wish I could afford to buy them.

If I could I would knock it down and build a sewage works there. As it's full of Sh!thouses..

[dsr]

MMm… I certainly think he has finally convinced them they don’t understand football, and want nothing more to do with it. How many millions have they paid out to be trashed in front of the world again? Morgan must be wetting himself, at the money pouring in, too. Glazers might buy Morgan (they wont be the first to do so, some might say.)

The Glazers have paid out very little - that was the point of buying the club. They did what ALK did at Burnley - bought the club for next to nothing cash down, and used club funds to pay for the rest. The difference being that they have since used year-on-year profits to feather their nest even more, and whatever they get when they sell the shares will be pure profit.

[elwaclaret]

The Glazers have paid out very little - that was the point of buying the club. They did what ALK did at Burnley - bought the club for next to nothing cash down, and used club funds to pay for the rest. The difference being that they have since used year-on-year profits to feather their nest even more, and whatever they get when they sell the shares will be pure profit.

I was not saying it came out of their pockets, but Manchester Uniteed’s money is theirs, as they’ve proved.

[Chester Perry]

The Glazers have paid out very little - that was the point of buying the club. They did what ALK did at Burnley - bought the club for next to nothing cash down, and used club funds to pay for the rest. The difference being that they have since used year-on-year profits to feather their nest even more, and whatever they get when they sell the shares will be pure profit.

An interesting comparison which while correct on the methodology is wildly wrong on the numbers

The Glazers used around £270m of their own money in the takeover whose final price for 100% of the shares came in at circa £800m

That £270m is substantially greater than the £202.5m which the ALK takeover valued the club - the subsequent purchase of shares from small shareholders valued the club at £208.2m

Even if we consider that the Glazers paid just over a third of the Man Utd takeover price by comparison we can only demonstrate that ALK contributed £10m of their own monies which is 5.9% of the 83.97% shareholding sold in the original sale agreement or slightly less than 5% of the takeover valuation of the whole club

ALK don't have Payment-in-Kind notes and persuaded the original sellers to take over 40% of the payments staggered over the following 2-3 years in 4 separate payments - interestingly 2 years on ALK have used around £125m of the club's own money to help fund the acquisition and have almost halved the debt - this rate of extraction while less in monetary numbers is much higher than the Glazers managed if you consider it in ratio to revenues in the period - it is probable that it is over 50% of Burnley's revenues in that same period.

[dsr]

An interesting comparison which while correct on the methodology is wildly wrong on the numbers

Same principle. (If "principle" isn't the wrong word in this sort of deal!) I didn't mention numbers, but yes, ALK have pushed it to the extreme.

[Taffy on the wing]

Who are these Morgans?

[bfcjg]

Americans selling Liverpool and Man United, must be something coming.

[NottsClaret]

Americans selling Liverpool and Man United, must be something coming.

As suggested above, it's already happened with the rejection of the Super League.

[Cirrus_Minor]

Maybe the beginning of the end of the magic money tree. The Premier league House of cards about to fall?

[Quickenthetempo]

Sounds to me like the Glazers want out before the money sapping renovations start at Old Trafford.

[FeedTheArf]

An interesting comparison which while correct on the methodology is wildly wrong on the numbers

The Glazers used around £270m of their own money in the takeover whose final price for 100% of the shares came in at circa £800m

That £270m is substantially greater than the £202.5m which the ALK takeover valued the club - the subsequent purchase of shares from small shareholders valued the club at £208.2m

Even if we consider that the Glazers paid just over a third of the Man Utd takeover price by comparison we can only demonstrate that ALK contributed £10m of their own monies which is 5.9% of the 83.97% shareholding sold in the original sale agreement or slightly less than 5% of the takeover valuation of the whole club

ALK don't have Payment-in-Kind notes and persuaded the original sellers to take over 40% of the payments staggered over the following 2-3 years in 4 separate payments - interestingly 2 years on ALK have used around £125m of the club's own money to help fund the acquisition and have almost halved the debt - this rate of extraction while less in monetary numbers is much higher than the Glazers managed if you consider it in ratio to revenues in the period - it is probable that it is over 50% of Burnley's revenues in that same period.

Really makes my blood boil when I see figures like this. It should be illegal and likely will be banned when the recommendations of Tracey Crouch's report come into effect. It's just a shame ALK managed to get this through beforehand.

[Chester Perry]

Really makes my blood boil when I see figures like this. It should be illegal and likely will be banned when the recommendations of Tracey Crouch's report come into effect. It's just a shame ALK managed to get this through beforehand.

From the 1890's through to 1981 it was impossible to do something like a leveraged buyout because there was an FA rule which stopped owners extracting more than 5% of the club's value - the fear back then was dividends and director pay. In 1981 the level was raised to 15% to allow for 'better, more professional management' as the FA vaguely put it.

Historically, while clubs could become limited companies, which our club did on 29th September 1897, their directors couldn’t be paid or distribute dividends of more than five per cent to shareholders. The FA imposed rules on clubs preventing them from operating as ‘normal’ commercial entities. These rules were codified as Rule 34

It all changed in 1983 when Irving Scholar at Tottenham persuaded the FA to effectively ignore rule 34 and allow him to float the club on the stock market by placing the club under a Holding Company - it was the Holding Company which was floated not the club.

If you look at all the big changes in football with relation to finances since 1960 and you will find Tottenham Hostspur front and centre - they are historically a very innovative club in that sense (just look how quickly they jumped onto the BoE's 0.5% cheap loans during Covid) The finance that they have on the stadium rebuild is the cheapest (possibly in Western History (circa 2.9%).

Our club has been allowed to follow this course of action because the monies extracted has so far been in the form of loans not payments - notionally at least the club is to be repaid the monies. The most likely way this is to happen is for Burnley FC Holdings Limited to issued dividends which can either be a paper exercise in relation to the related company loan repayments of a cash distribution which in VSL's instance (they are not the only shareholders) would like return to the club as a loan repayment to Burnley Football and Athletic Club Limited.

You will notice that it was the creation of the Holding Company in 2012 - formed to return Longside Properties Limited (created by John Sullivan and Barry Kilby before being sold to Lionbridge in 2009) which had bought Turf Morr Gym,Turf Moor and Gawthorpe between 2004 and 2006 to help deal with the ITV Digital fallout back under the group ownership utilising the funding vehicle Turf Moor Properties Ltd - that allows for such large dividends as are likely to be necessary for Pace and Co to make their loan repayments to the club.

As always it is the desperate need to get out of financial messes that football often finds itself in that these rules are slackened or just circumvented, the games authorities simply forgetting/ignoring that there were and remain very sound reasons for such rules in the first place.

[timshorts]

Family of leeches. The us football "star" is even older than Ronaldo (and substantially so), so the profits will be dropping over there too. He'll be off at the end of the season. The game plan over there is
A) be relevant occasionally, every 20 years or so
B) pick up some famous player every now and again to sell a load of replica shirts.
C) the rest of the time, just suck, show no ambition to win the thing, and pocket cash.
Only, that doesn't work in the Premier league very well.

They are over valuing their product. Chelsea are relevant as a top 4 club and have invested in the ground etc. Presumably, they are hoping some consortium of oil barons will overpay for reputation and potential.

[IanMcL]

An interesting comparison which while correct on the methodology is wildly wrong on the numbers

The Glazers used around £270m of their own money in the takeover whose final price for 100% of the shares came in at circa £800m

That £270m is substantially greater than the £202.5m which the ALK takeover valued the club - the subsequent purchase of shares from small shareholders valued the club at £208.2m

Even if we consider that the Glazers paid just over a third of the Man Utd takeover price by comparison we can only demonstrate that ALK contributed £10m of their own monies which is 5.9% of the 83.97% shareholding sold in the original sale agreement or slightly less than 5% of the takeover valuation of the whole club

ALK don't have Payment-in-Kind notes and persuaded the original sellers to take over 40% of the payments staggered over the following 2-3 years in 4 separate payments - interestingly 2 years on ALK have used around £125m of the club's own money to help fund the acquisition and have almost halved the debt - this rate of extraction while less in monetary numbers is much higher than the Glazers managed if you consider it in ratio to revenues in the period - it is probable that it is over 50% of Burnley's revenues in that same period.

Rape of a football club?

[Dark Cloud]

Who are these Morgans?

Same as you. Absolutely no idea!

[ClaretPete001]

I think comparing the Glazers with ALK is very harsh on the Glazers in terms of business.

The Glazers have transformed their business in terms of its value.

However, the Glazers have turned out to be very poor stewards of the footballing side of the business.

Of course, when I say good I don't necessarily mean ethically good but good as in it has been within the boundaries of what is acceptable because they have added value to the business.

I do not see that ALK will increase the value of the business nor create new revenue streams for the business.

Of course, as it turns out, ALK seem to be able to run the footballing side of the business much better than the Glazers but the quality of the product is not going to transform the business model unless they can commoditise players and with 5 loanees on the pitch I think the reality of ALK's proposition has met with the reality of football's inflationary marketplace.

The only good outcome for ALK is that they will sell the business and make lots of money. The best outcome for the club is that ALK will spend over a £100 million on shares and get away with it because at the end of them the club will not be any manifestly different than it was before them.

Unless, of course, one or two are on here are correct and they are in for the long haul in which case I tend to think they are in for a chastening experience sooner or later. Few, if anybody, has been able to achieve what the previous board and their manager managed to achieve.

[Chester Perry]

Rape of a football club?

we will see in time if that is what it is - for now the vast majority of it is loans that are, perhaps notionally, to be repaid. The only money that has definitely left club for good is the interest payments to MSD plus any penalties that were paid in respect of having to pay almost half the loan back early as a result of relegation - all that adds up to around £12m-£16m

The one surprise is the relatively free ride that the fans are giving the Pace on the issue. It is amazing what a team's on field performances can do to the collective mindset, even if it is at a lower level than what they have become accustomed too.

[IanMcL]

we will see in time if that is what it is - for now the vast majority of it is loans that are, perhaps notionally, to be repaid. The only money that has definitely left club for good is the interest payments to MSD plus any penalties that were paid in respect of having to pay almost half the loan back early as a result of relegation - all that adds up to around £12m-£16m

The one surprise is the relatively free ride that the fans are giving the Pace on the issue. It is amazing what a team's on field performances can do to the collective mindset, even if it is at a lower level than what they have become accustomed too.

Thanks. Yes. Although .only may not have left the club, in one respect, all the debt is as a result of previous owners extracting all the funds and that being largely, replaced by a debt on itself, for which interest (not paid previously) is now a constant. To get back to the previous position, that debt should be paid. However, more likely, it will just become higher interest payments.

[ClaretPete001]

we will see in time if that is what it is - for now the vast majority of it is loans that are, perhaps notionally, to be repaid. The only money that has definitely left club for good is the interest payments to MSD plus any penalties that were paid in respect of having to pay almost half the loan back early as a result of relegation - all that adds up to around £12m-£16m

The one surprise is the relatively free ride that the fans are giving the Pace on the issue. It is amazing what a team's on field performances can do to the collective mindset, even if it is at a lower level than what they have become accustomed too.

Very surprising but you do tend to think that if they brought back hanging Witches o'er Pendle quite a number of Clarets would be down Ladbrokes betting against the Witch drowning week in and week out.

[elwaclaret]

Very surprising but you do tend to think that if they brought back hanging Witches o'er Pendle quite a number of Clarets would be down Ladbrokes betting against the Witch drowning week in and week out.

Sadly, I tend to agree.

However, as for the takeover, had it not happened with Garlick and Dyche immovable, Burnley was on the point of imploading. It looked like we were heading for another spell dropping divisions. A chairman sulking as his investment dwindled, flogging everything he could make a bob on.

While Pace continues to provide Burnley with a profile around the top Burnley will forgive a lot. If Pace is, as he suggests is here for the long hall, on that perspective at least the club is far more stable now. The club is more secure than it was before it went into debt… and so long as we keep winning we have no more right to complain than we would have had when Bob Lord was sending Burnley to dizzying heights. So far their long term plan is looking like it will benefit everyone… to be honest pretty much what Pace said when he first landed.

Few are blind enough not to have been worried sick when we dropped. They handled it better than I dare believe. Credit where it is due.

[Chester Perry]

Sadly, I tend to agree.

However, as for the takeover, had it not happened with Garlick and Dyche immovable, Burnley was on the point of imploading. It looked like we were heading for another spell dropping divisions. A chairman sulking as his investment dwindled, flogging everything he could make a bob on.

While Pace continues to provide Burnley with a profile around the top Burnley will forgive a lot. If Pace is, as he suggests is here for the long hall, on that perspective at least the club is far more stable now. The club is more secure than it was before it went into debt… and so long as we keep winning we have no more right to complain than we would have had when Bob Lord was sending Burnley to dizzying heights. So far their long term plan is looking like it will benefit everyone… to be honest pretty much what Pace said when he first landed.

Few are blind enough not to have been worried sick when we dropped. They handled it better than I dare believe. Credit where it is due.

not sure I can agree with much of that, apart from the strong position that VK finds himself in - I certainly would not say that the club is more secure now
.
It seems that if the takeover had not happened then Dyche would have left the club in the summer of 2021, possibly having seen us relegated given the pervading toxic atmosphere, a large number of players would have left as they would have been out of contract and we would have accepted a bid for Tarks and possibly Pope and McNeil- our financial position would have been exceptionally strong with likely £100m+ cash in hand for a rebuild, zero debt and parachute payments to follow- though who the new manager would have been is anyone's guess. We can assume that most of the infrastructure works we have seen since the takeover would have gone ahead as they were part of an established roadmap

[elwaclaret]

not sure I can agree with much of that, apart from the strong position that VK finds himself in - I certainly would not say that the club is more secure now
.
It seems that if the takeover had not happened then Dyche would have left the club in the summer of 2021, possibly having seen us relegated given the pervading toxic atmosphere, a large number of players would have left as they would have been out of contract and we would have accepted a bid for Tarks and possibly Pope and McNeil- our financial position would have been exceptionally strong with likely £100m+ cash in hand for a rebuild, zero debt and parachute payments to follow- though who the new manager would have been is anyone's guess. We can assume that most of the infrastructure works we have seen since the takeover would have gone ahead as they were part of an established roadmap

Genuine question Chester. If you were stuck employing a bloke you couldn’t even talk to because your customers would turn on you if you sacked him… and as a result saw your investments value plummet over night… just how much are you going to pump back in… oh and by the way you’ve been looking to get out of the business for a while, with a nice pile for your trouble… how stable would your business be?

[Chester Perry]

Thanks. Yes. Although .only may not have left the club, in one respect, all the debt is as a result of previous owners extracting all the funds and that being largely, replaced by a debt on itself, for which interest (not paid previously) is now a constant. To get back to the previous position, that debt should be paid. However, more likely, it will just become higher interest payments.

Whilst most of the monies extracted from the club's cashflow have indeed ended up in the former owner's pockets it is wrong to say they have deliberately extracted it all, I know some are very uncomfortable with how the stage payments have been sourced - in my latest article for the London Clarets magazine 'Something to write home about' I said this

"For many Burnley supporters, Mike Garlick became and remains a target of deep distrust and resentment. From the perspective of these supporters, Garlick broke the model to greedily translate his and the club’s success into personal gain. It is true to say he has profited substantially from the sale of the club, and while he was almost certainly aware that the club would bear the cost and repayment of the MSD loan – perfectly manageable with regular and sustained membership of the Premier League – it is very much more difficult, if not impossible, to make a reasoned case that he knew that all other share payments would come from the club’s coffers.

Currently, Alan Pace and his business partners are going through a period of high credibility and popularity with the supporters, courtesy of Vincent Kompany’s efforts, much like Garlick did in his early tenure with Sean Dyche at the helm. For now, the debt and truly huge volume of cash extraction from the club (more on that next time) is, at best, in the back of most supporters’ minds, wrapped up as they are in the joy of what they are seeing on the pitch. Yet, we know that success in English football never really lasts, and this is a truth more powerful and resonant to those that are continually having to punch above their weight – just look at Burnley’s long, occasionally illustrious history. The popularity of owners ebbs and flows with that success, particularly if fans feel the club is being or has been mismanaged."

[Funkydrummer]

Sadly, I tend to agree.

However, as for the takeover, had it not happened with Garlick and Dyche immovable, Burnley was on the point of imploading. It looked like we were heading for another spell dropping divisions. A chairman sulking as his investment dwindled, flogging everything he could make a bob on.

While Pace continues to provide Burnley with a profile around the top Burnley will forgive a lot. If Pace is, as he suggests is here for the long hall, on that perspective at least the club is far more stable now. The club is more secure than it was before it went into debt… and so long as we keep winning we have no more right to complain than we would have had when Bob Lord was sending Burnley to dizzying heights. So far their long term plan is looking like it will benefit everyone… to be honest pretty much what Pace said when he first landed.

Few are blind enough not to have been worried sick when we dropped. They handled it better than I dare believe. Credit where it is due.

Great post.

[Chester Perry]

Genuine question Chester. If you were stuck employing a bloke you couldn’t even talk to because your customers would turn on you if you sacked him… and as a result saw your investments value plummet over night… just how much are you going to pump back in… oh and by the way you’ve been looking to get out of the business for a while, with a nice pile for your trouble… how stable would your business be?

But Garlick would never have seen his investment plummet - unless you perceive his investment was the return given to him by Pace and his mates.

when Barry Kilby joined the board there were 14,357 shares in the club, when the clubs was sold there were 122,478 shares - all those new shares raised a total of £16.1m and Garlick owned just under half of them. He likely paid £6m - £7m for his shareholding, he was never going to lose his investment.

As for Garlick's management of the club, he was absolutely consistent in his approach, investment in the squad would have happened because there would be room in the wage and transfer budget under the circumstances I have described

[Funkydrummer]

Wish I could afford to buy them.

If I could I would knock it down and build a sewage works there. As it's full of Sh!thouses..

Even better post.

[Taffy on the wing]

Whilst most of the monies extracted from the club's cashflow have indeed ended up in the former owner's pockets it is wrong to say they have deliberately extracted it all, I know some are very uncomfortable with how the stage payments have been sourced - in my latest article for the London Clarets magazine 'Something to write home about' I said this

"For many Burnley supporters, Mike Garlick became and remains a target of deep distrust and resentment. From the perspective of these supporters, Garlick broke the model to greedily translate his and the club’s success into personal gain. It is true to say he has profited substantially from the sale of the club, and while he was almost certainly aware that the club would bear the cost and repayment of the MSD loan – perfectly manageable with regular and sustained membership of the Premier League – it is very much more difficult, if not impossible, to make a reasoned case that he knew that all other share payments would come from the club’s coffers.

Currently, Alan Pace and his business partners are going through a period of high credibility and popularity with the supporters, courtesy of Vincent Kompany’s efforts, much like Garlick did in his early tenure with Sean Dyche at the helm. For now, the debt and truly huge volume of cash extraction from the club (more on that next time) is, at best, in the back of most supporters’ minds, wrapped up as they are in the joy of what they are seeing on the pitch. Yet, we know that success in English football never really lasts, and this is a truth more powerful and resonant to those that are continually having to punch above their weight – just look at Burnley’s long, occasionally illustrious history. The popularity of owners ebbs and flows with that success, particularly if fans feel the club is being or has been mismanaged."

Some people are never happy!........Relax.

[Chester Perry]

Some people are never happy!........Relax.

I am very relaxed thank you

arise sir charge is always saying you shouldn't worry about what you cannot influence, often in relation to my posts and I do understand where he is coming from on that, though football is a strange beast for many on that front.

my comments are observations not inflamed/impassioned treatises and in regard to the London Clarets that is what they get and for the most part what they actually want, I am very clear with the editors about my not wanting to take sides on the subject matter. The quotation is a very small element of a subsection of a much longer article.

[Taffy on the wing]

......it's a bit of a downer.

[Chester Perry]

......it's a bit of a downer.

it is just the nature of things - fans are happy at the moment and will be while the relative success lasts - I also go on to point out that if Pace and co turn out to be half as successful as Garlick it means we, as fans, will have enjoyed a number of years of relative success on the pitch - and I know that for many that is all that counts

[RVclaret]

it is just the nature of things - fans are happy at the moment and will be while the relative success lasts - I also go on to point out that if Pace and co turn out to be half as successful as Garlick it means we, as fans, will have enjoyed a number of years of relative success on the pitch - and I know that for many that is all that counts

Surely the happiness of the fans right now can also be credited somewhat towards Pace? He is the one that secured Kompany when no one, not even the most positive fans, expected it. Kompany has spoken how he was very impressed with the owners, their transparency and how their visions aligned. I personally love the new model of playing style - young player development - sell for a profit (while hoping we go up this or next season), as I think it’s the most sustainable (and also most enjoyable).

You were adamant we must get promoted this season or we are in big trouble, again, this is a picture which both Pace and Kompany have dismissed. Many suggested there wouldn’t be a plan to manage the debt (including your constant forecast of payments to be made) and we’d implode as we wouldn’t be able to build a new team, well, less said about that the better.

It was then common on here to jump on his back for sacking certain staff behind the scenes, yet, as an example, the social media side of the club has improved significantly in the past year and communication with fans has probably never been as good.

It’s a shame that all your posting is angling against Pace and it seems not wanting people to be happy for our success (which he has contributed to), even though you say your view is impartial, hmmm.

[Big Vinny K]

Garlick undoubtedly brought us a great deal of success. But he also had a massive role in our relegation by denying Dyche transfer funds as he clearly laid the foundations for selling the club. And ultimately Garlick then made a lot of money from the club in the sale. I still think the way Garlick did this by taking all of his profit at the end was a better way of doing this than taking dividends or directors salaries or burdening us with debt during his tenure. We may not for example of invested in building the training ground without the approach he took.

Of course the current financial model is very different and it’s a simple fact that it carries significantly more risk carrying our current debt levels than having no debt. That’s not even up for debate.
But Pace like Garlick deserves credit for his managerial appointment.
The football at the moment is great and very enjoyable - as it was under Dyche in the championship let’s not forget.

There’s a growing gulf between the championship and the premier league and if we do go back up then it’s pretty likely that it will be back to being less enjoyable as it is when you only win a small percentage of your games.

Personally I’m just glad that the last 13 years since 2009 have had so many good times as a Burnley fan and in success terms a lot better than my previous 30 years supporting the club !!

Linking back to Man United I suspect as Burnley fans we have enjoyed the last 13 years a lot more than United fans have !

[Chester Perry]

Surely the happiness of the fans right now can also be credited somewhat towards Pace? He is the one that secured Kompany when no one, not even the most positive fans, expected it. Kompany has spoken how he was very impressed with the owners, their transparency and how their visions aligned. I personally love the new model of playing style - young player development - sell for a profit (while hoping we go up this or next season), as I think it’s the most sustainable (and also most enjoyable).

You were adamant we must get promoted this season or we are in big trouble, again, this is a picture which both Pace and Kompany have dismissed. Many suggested there wouldn’t be a plan to manage the debt (including your constant forecast of payments to be made) and we’d implode as we wouldn’t be able to build a new team, well, less said about that the better.

It was then common on here to jump on his back for sacking certain staff behind the scenes, yet, as an example, the social media side of the club has improved significantly in the past year and communication with fans has probably never been as good.

It’s a shame that all your posting is angling against Pace and it seems not wanting people to be happy for our success (which he has contributed to), even though you say your view is impartial, hmmm.

So, in general order of your questioning

- I have not been dramatically negative on this board, or elsewhere about our playing style or the fact that it is enjoyable to watch - even the quote above allies the introduction of Kompany to Pace

- The model of buy, develop, sell is old Burnley - Originating with Bob Lord, revived most successfully under Garlick until Dyche used his right of veto and destroyed by Covid induced budgets - no team in this country has every made it last for very long and certainly not as long as it did under Bob Lord

- as for being adamant about promotion - what I actually did was question how takeover/share buying related obligations, commitments and desires could be met if we are not promoted - where are VSL going to find the £21m final instalment to pay the original sellers and the circa £20m in capital repayments including penalties to MSD if they are not promoted - those two sums are greater than the Parachute Payments for next season

- yes certain aspects at the club are greatly improved, Social media in particular, but what about the Academy where we also know that since a number of staff left/were sacked it has dropped in status -there are still issues in ticketing and other areas of the business - and no-one has yet demonstrated that the infrastructure developments were not part of the Garlick roadmap

- with regards to Pace, I do indeed find a number of issues with him, in fact I posted one on the takeover thread this morning, and it is far from unreasonable for me to have issue with what I posted there

- as for not wanting people to be happy, well if you say so, though I think you will struggle to find evidence of that - I would prefer them to be informed and then make their choice

[Chester Perry]

Surely the happiness of the fans right now can also be credited somewhat towards Pace? He is the one that secured Kompany when no one, not even the most positive fans, expected it. Kompany has spoken how he was very impressed with the owners, their transparency and how their visions aligned. I personally love the new model of playing style - young player development - sell for a profit (while hoping we go up this or next season), as I think it’s the most sustainable (and also most enjoyable).

You were adamant we must get promoted this season or we are in big trouble, again, this is a picture which both Pace and Kompany have dismissed. Many suggested there wouldn’t be a plan to manage the debt (including your constant forecast of payments to be made) and we’d implode as we wouldn’t be able to build a new team, well, less said about that the better.

It was then common on here to jump on his back for sacking certain staff behind the scenes, yet, as an example, the social media side of the club has improved significantly in the past year and communication with fans has probably never been as good.

It’s a shame that all your posting is angling against Pace and it seems not wanting people to be happy for our success (which he has contributed to), even though you say your view is impartial, hmmm.

As for the article itself the quote needs to be taken into context, the piece is 7 pages long comprising of almost 3800 words and looks at the financials of the club from when Barry Kilby joined the board in 1998 until he left at the point of the takeover, paying attention to boardroom changes and the regular share issues amongst a number of other things. It is titled
'Mind the Gap': Leaping the financial chasm to become the model club.

the title was inspired by a statement Kilby made in his first financial report as chairman and a Miguel Delaney article in the Independent

Kilby
“…this strategy of investment is imperative in order to achieve success on the pitch and the Company’s short term goal of promotion to Division One. This is a priority if we are to secure the ultimate well being and financial stability of the club. The financial chasm between the First and Second Division is growing ever wider and we must make the leap before the distance becomes too wide. Without investment the likelihood of promotion and the subsequent increased revenues are only a remote possibility.”

Delaney
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=48329

there are three main sections to my article titled:

- Acting on the fear of missing out carries great risk
- Financial models in football do not and cannot last for ever
- There is a new model in football and its most successful exponent has already checked out

[Spijed]

Surely the happiness of the fans right now can also be credited somewhat towards Pace? He is the one that secured Kompany when no one, not even the most positive fans, expected it. Kompany has spoken how he was very impressed with the owners, their transparency and how their visions aligned. I personally love the new model of playing style - young player development - sell for a profit (while hoping we go up this or next season), as I think it’s the most sustainable (and also most enjoyable).

You were adamant we must get promoted this season or we are in big trouble, again, this is a picture which both Pace and Kompany have dismissed. Many suggested there wouldn’t be a plan to manage the debt (including your constant forecast of payments to be made) and we’d implode as we wouldn’t be able to build a new team, well, less said about that the better.

It was then common on here to jump on his back for sacking certain staff behind the scenes, yet, as an example, the social media side of the club has improved significantly in the past year and communication with fans has probably never been as good.

It’s a shame that all your posting is angling against Pace and it seems not wanting people to be happy for our success (which he has contributed to), even though you say your view is impartial, hmmm.

Isn't it simply because we now have a leveraged buyout the relies purely on PL football, and if we don't sustain that we are in deep financial trouble as there isn't any money to be made outside of the Premier league?

And for a club like ours we can never guarantee top flight football like a club like Man U.

[Nori1958]

not sure I can agree with much of that, apart from the strong position that VK finds himself in - I certainly would not say that the club is more secure now
.
It seems that if the takeover had not happened then Dyche would have left the club in the summer of 2021, possibly having seen us relegated given the pervading toxic atmosphere, a large number of players would have left as they would have been out of contract and we would have accepted a bid for Tarks and possibly Pope and McNeil- our financial position would have been exceptionally strong with likely £100m+ cash in hand for a rebuild, zero debt and parachute payments to follow- though who the new manager would have been is anyone's guess. We can assume that most of the infrastructure works we have seen since the takeover would have gone ahead as they were part of an established roadmap

Great having 100m cash..... However if you are not allowed to spend any of it, its pointless.
Had the spending continued in the same vein we could have suffered more than one relegation

[Chester Perry]

Great having 100m cash..... However if you are not allowed to spend any of it, its pointless.
Had the spending continued in the same vein we could have suffered more than one relegation

Many people miss the point that there has to be room in the annual football budget to bring new players in - players outgoing, either as a result of sales or contract expiry create that room - Covid reduced the budget and Dyche prevented any room being created by insisting on contracts being extended and vetoing the sales of players others wanted to pay for, of which none were purchased by our club from the summer of 2018 onwards - Gibson was forced out by Dyche at a significant loss when wages are added which is relevant in this instance given his very few on-field contributions.

[RVclaret]

Isn't it simply because we now have a leveraged buyout the relies purely on PL football, and if we don't sustain that we are in deep financial trouble as there isn't any money to be made outside of the Premier league?

And for a club like ours we can never guarantee top flight football like a club like Man U.

Not sure it relies on PL football. By the end of next summer, even without promotion, I’d expect more player sales and more incomings, in the same vein as the summer gone where we bring in a lot more than we spend, reducing our external debt (MSD) to very low amounts (currently at 33m I think) if not all fully cleared.

You are right that it’s tough outside the PL income wise, though perhaps the newly proposed incentivised payment structure may help. But other than that, that’s why I believe it’s been so important to use the funds we’ve had so far to bring in lots of younger players who can develop, and have resale value. Many other clubs who fell down the leagues / went into trouble did not follow this model and instead stacked their team with overpaid has beens (look at Rovers signings when they first came down).

[Big Vinny K]

The point is Garlick built up the cash pile in preparation of the sale and at the same time denied Dyche transfer funds.
Prior to the last 2 years or so of his tenure this is not how Garlick operated.
He backed Dyche in the transfer market within the boundaries of what he could.
He took no money out of the club via interest, dividends or directors salaries.
Our cash at the bank was nearer to £25m for most of the time (and cash at the bank is remember a point in time figure and subject to various timing issues in relation to Sky tv money etc so can be an artificial number - it does not mean it’s a war chest for transfers)
He backed Dyche with our the wage bill and bonuses and ultimately with Dyche’s own salary. Our wage bill increased to upwards of £90m and it’s not all about transfer fees.
He backed Dyche in building the fantastic training ground.

It’s very easy for judgement to be clouded on what happened in the last 18 months of so when their relationship had clearly broken down and Garlick was preparing to cash in. But before that we were lauded as a club around the world for how we managed our finances and how we stayed in the Premier League for so long without any debt and without the rich owners that virtually every other club had. Has any other club done what Burnley did with our resources for such a sustained period in the last couple of decades ?

How anybody can say our current financial model is better than the last one I have no idea. In every single aspect it is more expensive and far riskier.

But yes the football is fantastic. The manager is fantastic. And our new players our fantastic. No Burnley fan wants it to fail but there is more chance of it failing under the current model than the one we had for most of the previous one.

[Chester Perry]

The point is Garlick built up the cash pile in preparation of the sale and at the same time denied Dyche transfer funds.

The cash pile was built up as a result of the budgetary model, which was the same model used by Garlick in from Dyche's first full season in charge. The cash pile was hugely accentuated in the last two years of Garlick's reign by the lack of players leaving the club and then by the actual and potential impacts of Covid. Did Garlick have secondary motivations (i.e. the sale) quite possibly even probably but the model he applied while in charge was very consistent throughout, as has been demonstrated a number of times. That model was stretched to breaking point as the churn of players out of the club decreased primarily on the insistence of Dyche. When the cost of football is consistently over 90% of budget there is little scope for movement given all the other overheads the club has to deal with to operate on a day-to-day business.

For those who don't understand this, ask yourself why this is the target of UEFA's new model for football club sustainability, and then consider that UEFA believes (after years of testing other models) that true sustainability can only be achieved when total football costs are 70% or below of a club's revenues.

[elwaclaret]

But Garlick would never have seen his investment plummet - unless you perceive his investment was the return given to him by Pace and his mates.

when Barry Kilby joined the board there were 14,357 shares in the club, when the clubs was sold there were 122,478 shares - all those new shares raised a total of £16.1m and Garlick owned just under half of them. He likely paid £6m - £7m for his shareholding, he was never going to lose his investment.

As for Garlick's management of the club, he was absolutely consistent in his approach, investment in the squad would have happened because there would be room in the wage and transfer budget under the circumstances I have described

Of course Garlick would have seen his value plummet as Burnley were relegated. If he couldn’t find buyers in the Premier how are investors going to pay the same for a Championship club?

You say Garlick would have re-invested… based on what? He was trying to offload the club before relegation, had he not sold what on earth makes you assume he would start the re-building process and re-invest? He wanted out not to have to wait another few seasons… and there was no guarantee he could summon another gene for manager.

You seem to forget by the end Garlick was invisible and clearly had decided his concern for Burnley Football Club had changed.

The takeover was not ideal, the debt was not ideal; but I do think your vision of life under Garlick is a little blinkered by your genuine concern about whether Pace et al takeover. Where as before Pace arrived I thought the club was in a real mess and was heading one way. Just differences of opinion, but there is no crystal ball or omnipotent view.

[HitchinClaret]

Hypothetically speaking... If (big if) Burnley manage to pay off the loan through player sales and promotion, and remain in the Premier league for at least 1 season, would you consider this a success for Burnley?

I think I would... Pace (I know you are not a fan) obviously saw huge untapped potential and is squeezing the juice and growing a brand to far beyond what our previous owners could ever dream of.

[Big Vinny K]

The cash pile was built up as a result of the budgetary model, which was the same model used by Garlick in from Dyche's first full season in charge. The cash pile was hugely accentuated in the last two years of Garlick's reign by the lack of players leaving the club and then by the actual and potential impacts of Covid. Did Garlick have secondary motivations (i.e. the sale) quite possibly even probably but the model he applied while in charge was very consistent throughout, as has been demonstrated a number of times. That model was stretched to breaking point as the churn of players out of the club decreased primarily on the insistence of Dyche. When the cost of football is consistently over 90% of budget there is little scope for movement given all the other overheads the club has to deal with to operate on a day-to-day business.

For those who don't understand this, ask yourself why this is the target of UEFA's new model for football club sustainability, and then consider that UEFA believes (after years of testing other models) that true sustainability can only be achieved when total football costs are 70% or below of a club's revenues.

That’s an over complicated way of saying that Garlick stopped giving money to Dyche to buy players CP !!
I realise it’s more nuance than that but it’s hard to believe that the sale of the club was not part of his plan.

As for UEFA’s new model for football club sustainability I think we are best treating that with a very large pinch of salt. They can bring all the models in they want but that will not stop the likes of PSG, Real Madrid, Barca, Man City and many others getting round these rules and doing exactly what they want. There have been models and so called rules in place for years but what’s the worst that has happened to any club ? A one season transfer embargo ?