ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[Chester Perry]

Interesting breakdown of the share ownership in the club from the Athletic today - this must reflect the share ownership in ALK (at least proportionately) which says that Alan Pace is very much in charge of the whole shebang - though I do not know where they got this information from because it is not registered at Companies House

BURNLEY

Who owns what?

US-based ALK Capital took over Burnley last December. The firm acquired 83.97 per cent of the shares which are broken down between the three main directors Alan Pace (50.382 per cent), Michael Smith and Stuart Hunt (16.794 per cent each).

The remaining 16.03 per cent are owned by others, including approximately six per cent by the club’s supporters. This month, ALK Capital offered to buy the fans’ shares.

Board members and their roles

Alan Pace — chairman

Michael Smith — director/head of day to day football operations

Stuart Hunt — director

Dave Checketts — director

Antonio Davila — director

Mike Garlick — director

John Banaskiewicz — director

[ClaretTony]

Interesting breakdown of the share ownership in the club from the Athletic today - this must reflect the share ownership in ALK (at least proportionately) which says that Alan Pace is very much in charge of the whole shebang - though I do not know where they got this information from because it is not registered at Companies House

BURNLEY

Who owns what?

US-based ALK Capital took over Burnley last December. The firm acquired 83.97 per cent of the shares which are broken down between the three main directors Alan Pace (50.382 per cent), Michael Smith and Stuart Hunt (16.794 per cent each).

The remaining 16.03 per cent are owned by others, including approximately six per cent by the club’s supporters. This month, ALK Capital offered to buy the fans’ shares.

Board members and their roles

Alan Pace — chairman

Michael Smith — director/head of day to day football operations

Stuart Hunt — director

Dave Checketts — director

Antonio Davila — director

Mike Garlick — director

John Banaskiewicz — director

I spotted that over the weekend in The Athletic. That shows that Checketts and Davila don't have any shares so the requirement of 4,000 shares to be a director has gone through the window. Not even Bob Lord reached 50% of the shares, nor Mike Garlick although both were close.

[IanMcL]

One day Barry Kilby became ill and had to step down as chairman. In some innocuous at the time agreement, he had to sell his shares to a particular director, when he became 75. Something he obviously regrets, although he us only 72 currently!

Of the other 'local' businessmen directors, 2 step forward to be co-chairman. Later there can be only one!

The one talks of saving for a new stand and limited funds for transfers.

No new stand materialises and eventually not only do new players not get recruited, the chairman insists on releasing some players, despite the squad being insufficient for the task ahead.

A miracle is worked and Prem status retained, even though cardboard cut outs formed most of the subs bench.

The chairman speaks of only being a millionaire and that billionaires were needed to be successful.

The club is packaged and sold to a company which has to borrow the funds, including from the club assets, to pay the outgoing chairman and the other 'local' businessmen.

So despite allegedly being in safe hands and a "well run club", as stated many times, ultimately, the biggest decision placed the debt onto the club's future success.

The only winners are the outgoing chairman and his fellow directors, who have taken multiple millions for their investment and failed to leave tge club in a 'sound financial position- in the black'

They actually took all the powder out of that metaphorical cupboard they guarded so closely and much more besides.

Until I see something which proves differently, this is the poor financial position of our club, I believe to be true.

I have nothing anti to say about the new people, who say the right things and have increased the debt in an attempt to preserve their assets.

I no longer have any reason to feel any warm thoughts towards the outgoing chairman. I thank the outgoing board for their initial investment, in precarious times.

They choose to leave a debt far greater than when they arrived and appear to have pocketed many millions themselves.

Does not sit well.

[NewClaret]

They actually took all the powder out of that metaphorical cupboard they guarded so closely and much more besides.

Until I see something which proves differently, this is the poor financial position of our club, I believe to be true.

I have nothing anti to say about the new people, who say the right things and have increased the debt in an attempt to preserve their assets.

I no longer have any reason to feel any warm thoughts towards the outgoing chairman. I thank the outgoing board for their initial investment, in precarious times.

They choose to leave a debt far greater than when they arrived and appear to have pocketed many millions themselves.

Does not sit well.

Exactly how I feel, until I know differently. I’m, perhaps naively, hoping they didn’t allow the situation to be as bad as reported (or there’s further developments planned we don’t know about yet).

[aggi]

Interesting breakdown of the share ownership in the club from the Athletic today - this must reflect the share ownership in ALK (at least proportionately) which says that Alan Pace is very much in charge of the whole shebang - though I do not know where they got this information from because it is not registered at Companies House

BURNLEY

Who owns what?

US-based ALK Capital took over Burnley last December. The firm acquired 83.97 per cent of the shares which are broken down between the three main directors Alan Pace (50.382 per cent), Michael Smith and Stuart Hunt (16.794 per cent each).

The remaining 16.03 per cent are owned by others, including approximately six per cent by the club’s supporters. This month, ALK Capital offered to buy the fans’ shares.

Board members and their roles

Alan Pace — chairman

Michael Smith — director/head of day to day football operations

Stuart Hunt — director

Dave Checketts — director

Antonio Davila — director

Mike Garlick — director

John Banaskiewicz — director

Strange, I'm sure the shares are held by various holding companies and Companies House has those as controlling interests.

If the shareholders are as above then Alan Pace would be flagged on Companies House.

[aggi]

I spotted that over the weekend in The Athletic. That shows that Checketts and Davila don't have any shares so the requirement of 4,000 shares to be a director has gone through the window. Not even Bob Lord reached 50% of the shares, nor Mike Garlick although both were close.

That 4,000 share requirement is still there. It's a bit more convoluted because (I assume, until the Athletic clarifies where their figures come from) the shares are held by various companies and we don't know who owns them ultimately.

[aggi]

I posted this on another thread the other day. It seems relevant

There's Burnley FC Holdings which owns the ground, the men's team and the women's team (each a separate company).

They're owned by Calder Vale Holdings Limited who are owned by Kettering Capital Limited. It isn't clear who own them, either because no one has control (i.e. multiple small shareholders) or they're owned by an overseas company. However, it seems possible that they're owned by Velocity Sports Ltd who are based in Jersey.

There are also Velocity Sports Partners Ltd and ALK Capital Ltd who are owned by Velocity Sports Partners, LLC and ALK Capital, LLC respectively (both based in Delaware) and controlled by Alan Pace.

[KRBFC]

I posted this on another thread the other day. It seems relevant

There's Burnley FC Holdings which owns the ground, the men's team and the women's team (each a separate company).

They're owned by Calder Vale Holdings Limited who are owned by Kettering Capital Limited. It isn't clear who own them, either because no one has control (i.e. multiple small shareholders) or they're owned by an overseas company. However, it seems possible that they're owned by Velocity Sports Ltd who are based in Jersey.

There are also Velocity Sports Partners Ltd and ALK Capital Ltd who are owned by Velocity Sports Partners, LLC and ALK Capital, LLC respectively (both based in Delaware) and controlled by Alan Pace.

I don't quite understand the possibilities, I thought it was clear Pace owned the lot?

[KRBFC]

So Pace, Smith, Checketts, Davila and Hunt didn't have £180m+ to buy the club, so they used MSD loans against the club and it's assets and money from the club. It was reported they still owed several payments to Garlick, how do they plan to pay for those without the personal wealth to cover it?

Do we know the approx figure owed to Garlick in the 3 payments combined?
Is this going to be even MORE money either taken out of the club or leveraged against the club? Are we going to sell Mcneil to pay Garlick?


6% of shares are owned by fans, the half club credit means one day the club is going to have to cover that cost too, income will take a hit on tickets with many using credit to secure free tickets. Can we really afford to take such a big financial hit in the Championship with this whole club credit?

[KRBFC]

If we got relegated and sold our best players to pay off debts from this takeover I'd be ******* livid. All Dyche's hard work over 9 years wiped out in weeks to cover debt owed to Garlick/MSD. All for what too? I'd understand if we got ourselves into debt over new transfers, i'd understand the need to pay it back.

A football club should NEVER have to pay for new owners like new players.

[KRBFC]

Hopefully Pace has some wealthy contacts in Egypt and we can turn the PL into country v country.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Love a bit of good old fashioned drama queenary.

We won't sell the crown jewels if we get relegated.
Our players have relegation clauses, Dyche is on a new deal, we'd also have parachute payments etc so bouncing back at the first attempt is a viable belief.

But yeah, let's assume the club will sell everyone

[KRBFC]

Love a bit of good old fashioned drama queenary.

We won't sell the crown jewels if we get relegated.
Our players have relegation clauses, Dyche is on a new deal, we'd also have parachute payments etc so bouncing back at the first attempt is a viable belief.

But yeah, let's assume the club will sell everyone

I didn't say we would, I said it's a possibility down the line hence the word ''IF''.
Maybe you could tell me how we will service the debt to Garlick? ALK's pocket?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I didn't say we would, I said it's a possibility down the line hence the word ''IF''.
Maybe you could tell me how we will service the debt to Garlick? ALK's pocket?

It wasn't aimed at solely you.

As for servicing the debts and paying off Garlick, do we need to go over old ground again?
If you don't get it now then you never will and me explaining it again isn't going to help.

It's all about growing the club's revenue streams, it always has been.
The club under Garlick etc failed to capitalise on many things to improve revenue, maybe because they didn't have the time, or they didn't understand them.
It's more likely the other senior staff at the club didn't have a clue either but that's life.

The new lot are making many key changes, we've all seen and/or spoken about it on here.
Some aren't impressed by them, but they aren't being done for the benefit of fans, it's being done for the benefit of the long term future of the club.

[taio]

It wasn't aimed at solely you.

As for servicing the debts and paying off Garlick, do we need to go over old ground again?
If you don't get it now then you never will and me explaining it again isn't going to help.

It's all about growing the club's revenue streams, it always has been.
The club under Garlick etc failed to capitalise on many things to improve revenue, maybe because they didn't have the time, or they didn't understand them.
It's more likely the other senior staff at the club didn't have a clue either but that's life.

The new lot are making many key changes, we've all seen and/or spoken about it on here.
Some aren't impressed by them, but they aren't being done for the benefit of fans, it's being done for the benefit of the long term future of the club.

I'm afraid that I think the passage of time will show that you have significantly exaggerated the club's ability to increase its commercial revenues. In any case it's certainly not just about such growth.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I'm afraid that I think the passage of time will show that you have significantly exaggerated the club's ability to increase its commercial revenues. In any case it's certainly not just about such growth.

We shall see in regards to financial growth.

We don't know the repayment terms the debts, but that hasn't stopped people making very wild assumptions about how the club is going to sell everything apart from the fans to repay it

The club needs to go back to buying and selling like we did very well with Keane and Grey and also producing better quality players from the academy.
For example, if Cornet turns out to be our Saint-Maximin then we will easily make a profit on him in the future, especially as he has a long contract.
Dwight will also learn a lot from him and improve, thus making his value increase.

Same can also be applied to Collins and potentially Roberts.

We all agree the club stood still for a number of windows, now they're showing a willingness to move forwards again with getting younger players in.
The players we sign are a key area for financial growth moving forwards, it isn't just commercial revenue that needed improving.

[joey13]

We shall see in regards to financial growth.

We don't know the repayment terms the debts, but that hasn't stopped people making very wild assumptions about how the club is going to sell everything apart from the fans to repay it

The club needs to go back to buying and selling like we did very well with Keane and Grey and also producing better quality players from the academy.
For example, if Cornet turns out to be our Saint-Maximin then we will easily make a profit on him in the future, especially as he has a long contract.
Dwight will also learn a lot from him and improve, thus making his value increase.

Same can also be applied to Collins and potentially Roberts.

We all agree the club stood still for a number of windows, now they're showing a willingness to move forwards again with getting younger players in.
The players we sign are a key area for financial growth moving forwards, it isn't just commercial revenue that needed improving.

So in the space of a couple of posts you’ve stated we won’t sell the Crown Jewels to we will easily make a profit on Cornet if he turns out to be decent, care to explain ?

[TsarBomba]

We shall see in regards to financial growth.

We don't know the repayment terms the debts, but that hasn't stopped people making very wild assumptions about how the club is going to sell everything apart from the fans to repay it

The club needs to go back to buying and selling like we did very well with Keane and Grey and also producing better quality players from the academy.
For example, if Cornet turns out to be our Saint-Maximin then we will easily make a profit on him in the future, especially as he has a long contract.
Dwight will also learn a lot from him and improve, thus making his value increase.

Same can also be applied to Collins and potentially Roberts.

We all agree the club stood still for a number of windows, now they're showing a willingness to move forwards again with getting younger players in.
The players we sign are a key area for financial growth moving forwards, it isn't just commercial revenue that needed improving.

Yep.

And as fans we need to realise this. And if not already, I’d say Dyche does too.

Leicester have done it very well in recent seasons, and to a lesser degree, we need to start doing the same.

We need to be selling Tarkowski when he is worth £30M+ and West Ham come calling.

We can’t rejuvenate a squad without selling a star player once a season. We have to accept it.

This isn’t selling our Crown Jewels by ALK.

[ClaretTony]

So in the space of a couple of posts you’ve stated we won’t sell the Crown Jewels to we will easily make a profit on Cornet if he turns out to be decent, care to explain ?

He means we will sell the Crown Jewels. It doesn't take much working out that we'll need to if we went down, but apparently we won't go down, Pace said last week that we'd be in the Premier League for years to come.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So in the space of a couple of posts you’ve stated we won’t sell the Crown Jewels to we will easily make a profit on Cornet if he turns out to be decent, care to explain ?

I was on about if we get relegated, we will be under no pressure to sell, despite the outlandish claims on here that we will.

In regards to Cornet, I've specifically stated if he's as good as Saint-Maximin, then we can easily make a profit on him if we wish to sell.
Same applies to McNeil, if he wishes to go we have to ensure we maximise what we get for him.
There is a bizarre need on here to undervalue our players for whatever reason, but the club cannot think the same way and I don't believe they do thankfully.


Academy players - we need to get into the habit of getting them into the first team squad where possible and make reasonably quick decisions about if they're worth keeping, or moving onwards for reasonable money.

We got £1 million for Benson I believe, that's a good start and we need more of the same and to increase the amounts we get, especially as we now have Cat 1 status, but the amount we get is also, to a degree, linked to us retaining our PL status as this helps us attract better players.
We won't reach Chelsea or City income from academy sales, but they're the template for what we need to do.
Those two clubs also tend to include sell on clauses and I'd hope we will be doing the same, look at Brentford, they got a decent little lump when we sold Gray, as did Luton who sold Gray to Brentford.

[bf2k]

…but apparently we won't go down, Pace said last week that we'd be in the Premier League for years to come.

That sounds rather similar to a quote we heard a good few years back from certain new owners 10 miles down the road!

[taio]

We shall see in regards to financial growth.

We don't know the repayment terms the debts, but that hasn't stopped people making very wild assumptions about how the club is going to sell everything apart from the fans to repay it

The club needs to go back to buying and selling like we did very well with Keane and Grey and also producing better quality players from the academy.
For example, if Cornet turns out to be our Saint-Maximin then we will easily make a profit on him in the future, especially as he has a long contract.
Dwight will also learn a lot from him and improve, thus making his value increase.

Same can also be applied to Collins and potentially Roberts.

We all agree the club stood still for a number of windows, now they're showing a willingness to move forwards again with getting younger players in.
The players we sign are a key area for financial growth moving forwards, it isn't just commercial revenue that needed improving.

Well we can certainly agree that we will need to sell some of our best players if we go down. Of course their valuation will be less in the Championship though. And the club would need to find the right balance between player sales and maximising our chance of promotion. I remain concerned at the financial model caused by the leveraged buy out, especially if relegation occurs sooner rather than later.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

He means we will sell the Crown Jewels. It doesn't take much working out that we'll need to if we went down, but apparently we won't go down, Pace said last week that we'd be in the Premier League for years to come.

I like it when Pace shows his positive mental attitude.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That sounds rather similar to a quote we heard a good few years back from certain new owners 10 miles down the road!

Venkys had absolutely no prior history of being involved in football, or sports, in anyway shape or form.

Pace and co have past experience and it shows because instead of sacking the man who can keep us up, they've done their best to prove they can meet his ambitions.

Venkys biggest mistake was potting BFS and putting Kean in charge.

[Devils_Advocate]

Whilst the academy is being discussed how much does it cost to run and if we went down and stayed down would we be able to afford to keep it at Cat 1?

[Quickenthetempo]

We haven't been a 'improve a player and sell for profit' type club since Dyche has been here Sid.

Both Keane and Gray simply wanted to move on to bigger things.
There's not much evidence of it in 9 years though.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Well we can certainly agree that we will need to sell some of our best players if we go down. Of course their valuation will be less in the Championship though. And the club would need to find the right balance between player sales and maximising our chance of promotion. I remain concerned at the financial model caused by the leveraged buy out, especially if relegation occurs sooner rather than later.

I suspect Dyche would convince most of them to give him a season to win promotion back into the PL, but we'd probably have one or 2 who'd want to leave.

We've had similar before, wasn't it Jay who had signed a deal on the proviso the club got promoted or they sold him?
Off he went when the club failed to get promoted.

In regards to the buyout and it's terms, it is what it is, the owners would've factored in relegation into their future plans.

[KRBFC]

As for servicing the debts and paying off Garlick, do we need to go over old ground again?
If you don't get it now then you never will and me explaining it again isn't going to help.

I don't think you quite understand the question, it was reported at the time, ALK owed Garlick 3 instalments. They weren't long term 5+ years down the line and they were payments that had to be made (unlike the MSD debt that could be paid off with an eventual sale).

So I will ask a genuine question again (one you probably don't have the answer to)

Where is the money coming from to pay Garlick the 3 remaining instalments? further loans against the club? ALK's pockets?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

We haven't been a 'improve a player and sell for profit' type club since Dyche has been here Sid.

Both Keane and Gray simply wanted to move on to bigger things.
There's not much evidence of it in 9 years though.

We signed them, improved them and as a result sold them on for profit, in the case of Keane a very large one.

That's what we need to do more of.

The club had the chance to do the same with Tarks but decided the risk of losing him and getting relegated outweighed the money we could've gotten for him, because we didn't have a suitable replacement lined up.
If we'd gotten Collins in January then I suspect Tarks could've been sold in the summer.

[KRBFC]

He means we will sell the Crown Jewels. It doesn't take much working out that we'll need to if we went down, but apparently we won't go down, Pace said last week that we'd be in the Premier League for years to come.

How would you feel if we sold the crown jewels built upon for 9 years (before ALK arrived) to service debts for ALK's shares? to me, it seems morally wrong.

[taio]

I suspect Dyche would convince most of them to give him a season to win promotion back into the PL, but we'd probably have one or 2 who'd want to leave.

We've had similar before, wasn't it Jay who had signed a deal on the proviso the club got promoted or they sold him?
Off he went when the club failed to get promoted.

In regards to the buyout and it's terms, it is what it is, the owners would've factored in relegation into their future plans.

The owners have already initmated relegation would be problematic. The buy out and its terms might be what it is, but that won't stop some supporters being understandably concerned at the levels of debt and exposure to financial risk.

[KRBFC]

I was on about if we get relegated, we will be under no pressure to sell, despite the outlandish claims on here that we will.

I don't understand this, a £60m debt over our heads, a PL wage bill (that will drop with clauses but still be high), we owe Garlick £50m+, our income will be cut from club credit handed out.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don't think you quite understand the question, it was reported at the time, ALK owed Garlick 3 instalments. They weren't long term 5+ years down the line and they were payments that had to be made (unlike the MSD debt that could be paid off with an eventual sale).

So I will ask a genuine question again (one you probably don't have the answer to)

Where is the money coming from to pay Garlick the 3 remaining instalments? further loans against the club? ALK's pockets?

What's to understand?

The owners and Garlick have a legally binding contract in regards to outstanding monies owed from the sale of the club.
None of us know the terms of the deal, the payment schedule or amounts.
It hasn't stopped people making up things to suit their negative agenda though.

The club has to expand all its revenue streams though, commercial, match day and player sales.
I can speculate that the growth of all of those will provide the money to pay off Garlick etc

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don't understand

I've shortened that for you.
I'm not going to go over this again and again and again, I've already said that.
If you don't understand anything, then re-read the takeover threads, it's all there.

[KRBFC]

Not to mention we just signed Dyche to a new 4 year contract and he's apparently the highest paid person at the club. He must be on close to £70,000 a week. Over 4 years that's a boat load of money, he absolutely deserves every last penny for what he's achieved but it's a huge financial commitment in uncertain times.

[aggi]

I don't quite understand the possibilities, I thought it was clear Pace owned the lot?

He's certainly the public face. Whether he's the actual owner isn't categorically clear.

[CFS]

Cornet is our Saint maximan love it lol one has just come to the league and the other is tearing it up how you can compare the 2 is looool

[KRBFC]

What's to understand?

The owners and Garlick have a legally binding contract in regards to outstanding monies owed from the sale of the club.
None of us know the terms of the deal, the payment schedule or amounts.
It hasn't stopped people making up things to suit their negative agenda though.

The club has to expand all its revenue streams though, commercial, match day and player sales.
I can speculate that the growth of all of those will provide the money to pay off Garlick etc

If we go off what was reported, it was 3 instalments pretty imminent ones too.
On one hand you're telling me ''what's not to understand'' and the next you say ''non of us know the answer'' to the question I posed.

It's interesting you say expand revenue streams for matchdays, 2 weeks after fans with 6% of shares were offered humongous amounts of club credits/free tickets.

[dsr]

What's to understand?

The owners and Garlick have a legally binding contract in regards to outstanding monies owed from the sale of the club.
None of us know the terms of the deal, the payment schedule or amounts.
It hasn't stopped people making up things to suit their negative agenda though.

The club has to expand all its revenue streams though, commercial, match day and player sales.
I can speculate that the growth of all of those will provide the money to pay off Garlick etc

You're speculating that we will have to sell players to pay off Mike Garlick? There's no need for other people to make things up for a negative agenda. That's a huge negative in itself.

[KRBFC]

You're speculating that we will have to sell players to pay off Mike Garlick? There's no need for other people to make things up for a negative agenda. That's a huge negative in itself.

I speculated we would potentially have to sell players like Mcneil to pay off Garlick further down the line. Basically the exact same thing he just said lol

[Quickenthetempo]

We signed them, improved them and as a result sold them on for profit, in the case of Keane a very large one.

That's what we need to do more of.

The club had the chance to do the same with Tarks but decided the risk of losing him and getting relegated outweighed the money we could've gotten for him, because we didn't have a suitable replacement lined up.
If we'd gotten Collins in January then I suspect Tarks could've been sold in the summer.

I agree it's the way we should go but I'm not convinced Dyche agrees.

Garlick tried selling Tarky to Leicester with it nearly being done. Until Dyche threatened to resign.
Most of his players stay too long until we have to give them away.
It works for Dyche but it doesn't improve the club much.

[KRBFC]

He's certainly the public face. Whether he's the actual owner isn't categorically clear.

Interesting, you're pretty clued up on the financial side and I like reading your posts, so i'll ask you the same question. Do we know an approx figure still owed to Garlick in the reported 3 imminent instalments? How is that likely to be funded?

[Quickenthetempo]

Interesting, you're pretty clued up on the financial side and I like reading your posts, so i'll ask you the same question. Do we know an approx figure still owed to Garlick in the reported 3 imminent instalments? How is that likely to be funded?

There's no proof anywhere they have paid any of the installments off yet.

[AndyClaret]

Not to mention we just signed Dyche to a new 4 year contract and he's apparently the highest paid person at the club. He must be on close to £70,000 a week. Over 4 years that's a boat load of money, he absolutely deserves every last penny for what he's achieved but it's a huge financial commitment in uncertain times.

He was on that during his last contract, new one is more than 100k a week.

[Father Jack]

“I thought rather innocently, that they were paying for it themselves and not putting the impetus on the club which worries me a lot.”

I assume there would be an NDA in place but even so I’m surprised that one of the major departing shareholders wouldn’t be made aware of the impending debt that was going to be placed on the club.

Are buyers duty bound to reveal the source of funds?
Would Mike and John B have known?

[joey13]

He means we will sell the Crown Jewels. It doesn't take much working out that we'll need to if we went down, but apparently we won't go down, Pace said last week that we'd be in the Premier League for years to come.

Phew there was me fretting , if he’s said that there’s nothing to worry about

[joey13]

What's to understand?

The owners and Garlick have a legally binding contract in regards to outstanding monies owed from the sale of the club.
None of us know the terms of the deal, the payment schedule or amounts.
It hasn't stopped people making up things to suit their negative agenda though.

The club has to expand all its revenue streams though, commercial, match day and player sales.
I can speculate that the growth of all of those will provide the money to pay off Garlick etc

There you go again mentioning player sales ,as for expanding other revenue streams , the market simply isn’t there , I just don’t understand your defence of what is probably the worst ever football club takeover .

[jojomk1]

What's to understand?

The owners and Garlick have a legally binding contract in regards to outstanding monies owed from the sale of the club.
None of us know the terms of the deal, the payment schedule or amounts.
It hasn't stopped people making up things to suit their negative agenda though.

The club has to expand all its revenue streams though, commercial, match day and player sales.
I can speculate that the growth of all of those will provide the money to pay off Garlick etc

One thing's for sure

If we get relegated, commercial and revenue streams (inc Premiership money) will plummet so player sales will be our main source of revenue

As for ALK wanting to buy all remaining shares, just a short story

I was working for a substantial, family owned company who sold all of their interests to a pair of private investors for around £750m

The following year the company produced profits of approx £680m and the new owners announced they would be keeping that money for themselves

Just shows what you can do when you are the sole owners

[aggi]

Interesting, you're pretty clued up on the financial side and I like reading your posts, so i'll ask you the same question. Do we know an approx figure still owed to Garlick in the reported 3 imminent instalments? How is that likely to be funded?

For this kind of thing I try and stick to what's in the public domain, can be put together from Companies House filings, etc

As such, I've no idea. There has been enough talk of instalments that it is likely that's how the deal is structured but what has been paid, what's outstanding, what's missed, that all seems to be rumour and hearsay.

I'd expect at least half to have been paid up front given the level of the MSD loan and the expectation that the new shareholders would have had to commit financially to some extent to get MSD onboard. £98m seems like a possible figure given that's the amount of capital rasied in Kettering Capital.

It's worth considering why it's being paid in instalments. If it's a matter of financing then you'd expect reasonable gaps between the instalments or some form of event taking place to allow the finance to be raised.

There was talk of a further round of fundraising, I can't remember where that came from or whether that was based on something or just rumours (I think it was a reliable source but didn't explicitly name Burnley), which would suggest that at least some of the money is to be raised externally. ALK can sell shares in Burnley without anyone knowing about it by selling off shares in the holding company.

Personally I fully expect Pace to be the public face of a consortium of investors, not the sole owner, but I don't think we'll ever know about that (until the next set of Paradise Papers maybe).

[gawthorpe_view]

“I thought rather innocently, that they were paying for it themselves and not putting the impetus on the club which worries me a lot.”

I assume there would be an NDA in place but even so I’m surprised that one of the major departing shareholders wouldn’t be made aware of the impending debt that was going to be placed on the club.

Are buyers duty bound to reveal the source of funds?
Would Mike and John B have known?

Pretty sure that due diligence by the FA require the funding source(s) be disclosed before the sale is ratified.