Mike Garlick
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
- Been Liked: 48 times
- Has Liked: 18 times
Mike Garlick
Where are we now Is largely in my view , down to the greed of the previous Chairman and the reluctance to invest in various windows prior to the sale of the Club to ALK
When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
These 5 users liked this post: IanMcL THEWELLERNUT70 Gibbo AotearoaClaret Top Claret
-
- Posts: 16906
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6967 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Mike Garlick
Mmmmm, garlic cheese.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Mike Garlick
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret
-
- Posts: 1853
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:30 am
- Been Liked: 301 times
- Has Liked: 28 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Yeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
This user liked this post: AotearoaClaret
-
- Posts: 6907
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2759 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Lifelong fan apparently...Iloveyoubrady wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pmYeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
-
- Posts: 67905
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32549 times
- Has Liked: 5281 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Mike Garlick
Do you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?Iloveyoubrady wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:37 pmYeah, I’m not a fan of what Garlick did in the end. Think he ran the club well and actually delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club, but he completely neglected the transfer windows leading up to the sale in order to secure himself a few million more. Understandable but doesn’t strike me as a true Burnley fan.
This user liked this post: Spike
-
- Posts: 16906
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6967 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Mike Garlick
Sounds like a recipe for heartburn.
-
- Posts: 2115
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Re: Mike Garlick
If Mike Garlick ran the football club in such a way as to get as much money as possible when he sold it, is his greed not exactly mirrored by the new owners who were happy to buy the club without actually spending their own money on it in hopes of making a profit?
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Like all Americans, they worship at the alter of profit.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Re: Mike Garlick
Does he stand to lose a few quid if we're relegated? Sure I read he will. My thoughts on him are covered by others above.
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:36 pm
- Been Liked: 108 times
- Has Liked: 16 times
Re: Mike Garlick
I’d like to think that Pace and ALK can and will be good for our club, but I’m yet to be convinced CT. What I can say with certainty is that Mike Garlick did what was best for Mike Garlick. I don’t think the way he exited his position was done in any way to spite the club, but he had his best interests at heart for some time. There were signings he could have got over the line and didn’t, and it is hurting us big style now.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
Mike Garlick may be from Burnley, but he has carved out a very lucrative life, and well done to him, in London. We just happen to be the club from where he was born, not where his life is now.
-
- Posts: 3072
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1102 times
- Has Liked: 857 times
Re: Mike Garlick
He fattened the goose long enough to get out but to stay in. Where we are now is on him.
These 8 users liked this post: IanMcL Rodleydave Rumpelstiltskin bobinho THEWELLERNUT70 Stayingup AotearoaClaret Top Claret
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
This old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:29 pmWhere are we now Is largely in my view , down to the greed of the previous Chairman and the reluctance to invest in various windows prior to the sale of the Club to ALK
When you consider the tenure of Barry Kirby and his love for the Club, and compare that with Garlick it’s chalk and cheese
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Mike Garlick
I was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pmThis old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
There was a point, when Garlick as chairman, should have sacked Dyche, but I realised that if he sacked Dyche he would have "lost" the players for a new manager.
I don't think he had any option but to sell.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill
-
- Posts: 67905
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32549 times
- Has Liked: 5281 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Mike Garlick
Why did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?Nonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:59 pmI was / am a Garlick fan and thought he did wonders for our club.
There was a point, when Garlick as chairman, should have sacked Dyche, but I realised that if he sacked Dyche he would have "lost" the players for a new manager.
I don't think he had any option but to sell.
-
- Posts: 15275
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 6770 times
Re: Mike Garlick
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pmWhy did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
When they fell out publicly?
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
this is a great questionClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
my take has long been he couldn't find someone to do that so had to go with someone who he thought the manager would work with from the options that were on the table at that time - I think he understood the urgency of having to go, if he didn't leave the manager would.
there is a kicker in all this in that he has not really left yet, and may still be a major stakeholder for some way into the future (just not quite as big and certainly not as visible as that stake is likely to be in VSL.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
- Been Liked: 48 times
- Has Liked: 18 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pmThis old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
The facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
These 6 users liked this post: Gibbo Rumpelstiltskin THEWELLERNUT70 Stayingup AotearoaClaret Top Claret
-
- Posts: 2680
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
- Been Liked: 781 times
- Has Liked: 1437 times
- Location: Mostly Europe
Re: Mike Garlick
Parts of the fan base wanted him out as we weren’t spending beyond our means. I really doubt there was a long line of buyers.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that he delivered in finding owners who seem to care about the club?
That’s how I see it.
Last edited by Burnleyareback2 on Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Mike Garlick
The option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager. I can't recall the timing, but will have a look back to find the related incidents.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:01 pmWhy did he have no option and at what point should he have sacked the manager?
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
so shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrongLongtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pmThe facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
no doubt he may make a lot of money if the whole plan from VSL comes together - but we have to that happen yet in the meantime the money has to remain on call should the worst happen
Last edited by Chester Perry on Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Mike Garlick
They fell out because Mr D could see what Mr G was doing.
Garlick turned out to be a liar "We have to have large reserves for a new stand and to cushion any relegation, so we can get back up" (paraphrased)
He took all that money for himself and those other trusted directors and left the club, irreparably in debt, unless we manage to stay up, by hard work and sudden good fortune.
Garlick turned out to be a liar "We have to have large reserves for a new stand and to cushion any relegation, so we can get back up" (paraphrased)
He took all that money for himself and those other trusted directors and left the club, irreparably in debt, unless we manage to stay up, by hard work and sudden good fortune.
These 2 users liked this post: Stayingup AotearoaClaret
-
- Posts: 67905
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32549 times
- Has Liked: 5281 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Mike Garlick
The urgency was trying to sell for around four years but, as you say, he's not gone, he's still there as a director although I doubt he has much clout.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:03 pmthis is a great question
my take has long been he couldn't find someone to do that so had to go with someone who he thought the manager would work with from the options that were on the table at that time - I think he understood the urgency of having to go, if he didn't leave the manager would.
there is a kicker in all this in that he has not really left yet, and may still be a major stakeholder for some way into the future (just not quite as big and certainly not as visible as that stake is likely to be in VSL.
-
- Posts: 15275
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 6770 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Actually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:05 pmThe facts are blindingly obvious.I am an Accountant by profession,and find your input largely tedious, but anybody with any common sense can work out it for themselves..No need for smart arse micro economics, the bloke has made a mint at our expense
Spent most of it.
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 pm
- Been Liked: 48 times
- Has Liked: 18 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pmso shred me then with these facts - I am always willing to learn and ready to say I got it wrong
You got it wrong.Are you an MG friend or family member?
-
- Posts: 6907
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2759 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Didnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .boatshed bill wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pmActually you don't need to be an accountant to see that Burnley FC made a mint during Mike Garlick's tenure.
Spent most of it.
-
- Posts: 15275
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 6770 times
Re: Mike Garlick
no idea. you'd have to ask him.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pmDidnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
But we've been grossing in excess of £100 million in the PL.
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
the search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020ClaretTony wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:08 pmThe urgency was trying to sell for around four years but, as you say, he's not gone, he's still there as a director although I doubt he has much clout.
it came when the manager demanded new contracts for players and more players but wasn't prepared to sell the ones other clubs wanted to buy, to pay for it, There was also the issue that a number of major signings had been devalued by the manager not using them, questions remain as to who actually signed them. The club chose to manage it's way through Covid as it had through the better years by trying to budget for operational breakeven - you do not have to agree with it to understand that was the option chosen.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill
-
- Posts: 67905
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32549 times
- Has Liked: 5281 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Mike Garlick
Was it about four years ago that the prospectus was issued.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:21 pmthe search was for at least four years the urgency was in 2020
it came when the manager demanded new contracts for players and more players but wasn't prepared to sell the ones other clubs wanted to buy, to pay for it, There was also the issue that a number of major signings had been devalued by the manager not using them, questions remain as to who actually signed them. The club chose to manage it's way through Covid as it had through the better years by trying to budget for operational breakeven - you do not have to agree with it to understand that was the option chosen.
Yes it did become more urgent and it wasn't just with the manager that Garlick had issues. There were always suggestions that the manager wasn't signing the players and I think that might continue to apply now.
Re: Mike Garlick
Certainly isn't a fan of this club, nobody who seriously cared about this club would leave us in the absolute financial mess he did by selling to ALK.
We've gone from £60m(ish) in the club coffers, to -£50m(ish) taken by Garlick, a further -£60m(ish) owed to Garlick still and £60m(ish) loaned secured against the club assets to pay Garlick.
How does a Championship club find £110m? £6m a year interest?
We've gone from £60m(ish) in the club coffers, to -£50m(ish) taken by Garlick, a further -£60m(ish) owed to Garlick still and £60m(ish) loaned secured against the club assets to pay Garlick.
How does a Championship club find £110m? £6m a year interest?
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
that was just from Clarets go Large limited - by Jan 2026 Garlick could potentially walk away with almost £100m for all his shareholding, he has not received all that yet and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails, so has to keep a large chunk reasonably accessible in case it is required.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:11 pmDidnt CP quote the numbers elsewhere a few days ago on here ?...didnt Mr Garlick buy his shares for c.£6m and sell them for c.£50m ? Thats some profit .
The profits Garlick made on the Clarets go Large shares are substantially less than those fans who took a share in lieu of a season ticket and he also risked more and worked at the club for the last decade or so for free. There is no doubt that he is one of the few to get much richer as a result of owning a club (effectively he has doubled his wealth if it all comes off
-
- Posts: 6907
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2759 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Thanks CPChester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pmthat was just from Clarets go Large limited - by Jan 2026 Garlick could potentially walk away with almost £100m for all his shareholding, he has not received all that yet and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails, so has to keep a large chunk reasonably accessible in case it is required.
The profits Garlick made on the Clarets go Large shares are substantially less than those fans who took a share in lieu of a season ticket and he also risked more and worked at the club for the last decade or so for free. There is no doubt that he is one of the few to get much richer as a result of owning a club (effectively he has doubled his wealth if it all comes off
-
- Posts: 6907
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2759 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: Mike Garlick
I would say working at the club " for free " is somewhat offset by the near £100m
-
- Posts: 67905
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32549 times
- Has Liked: 5281 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Mike Garlick
He was a director, then joint chairman and then chairman but throughout that period we employed senior people to run the club so I'm not sure how much work he did at the club.
This user liked this post: THEWELLERNUT70
-
- Posts: 18028
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
- Been Liked: 4075 times
- Has Liked: 1853 times
Re: Mike Garlick
Jesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:29 pm... and he is involved in agreements that will prevent insolvency if the Pace plan fails...
How likely is that scenario in the event of relegation?
I suppose I'm asking is it more likely if we go down?
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:38 pmI would say working at the club " for free " is somewhat offset by the near £100m
no doubt, and it is not all profit of course - he has the opportunity to make a lot from it, and that has also been the opportunity for all the shareholders of have sold up, I suspect not one of them though they would get so much return
-
- Posts: 4075
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1508 times
- Has Liked: 581 times
Re: Mike Garlick
What on earth is this based onNonayforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:07 pmThe option of sacking Dyche wasn't really an option at all because the players would have downed tools for a new manager.
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
It is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.ElectroClaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:42 pmJesus, that's a worrying phrase, Chester.
How likely is that scenario in the event of relegation?
I suppose I'm asking is it more likely if we go down?
Re: Mike Garlick
Lots of Burnley fans were wanting that unicorn. An owner who was morally sound but also willing to invest a load of money (and we're talking upwards of £100m) with no reward.
Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.
There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.
There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 10974
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5188 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Mike Garlick
Never liked him (a thought long before he sold us) he has absolute dodge pot written in his eyes and smile.
Re: Mike Garlick
Is this fact or your supposition? I've not seen anything to suggest it is the case.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pmIt is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
-
- Posts: 30717
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11060 times
- Has Liked: 5663 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Mike Garlick
when we spent 800K (or whatever) on Stephens - how much money was in the bank ?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:49 pmThis old tale - I am still waiting (it has been over a year now) for someone to show me evidence of this, preferably with an understanding about the accounts throughout his tenure (or at least or current run in the Premier League) taking in the overall costs of running a football club (you know the 250 or so people it employed on permanent contracts, the likely £1m plus on pitch maintenance a year, or the likely £5m+ annual cost of the Academy), and investing in all aspects of it (the millions spent on infrastructure including several £m on new dressing rooms players and manager's lounges).
do come on justify your claim with a reasoned and evidential argument, presenting facts not moaning about the players in the squad that the manager appeared to refuse to trade to move it forward.
Re: Mike Garlick
What does "effectively acting as guarantors" mean? It seems an unusually woolly definition of what is normally a precise legal term.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:51 pmIt is a prevention measure - so it is there to ensure insolvency cannot happen - it is him (and John B) effectively acting as guarantors on the MSD loan, possibly even the clubs money that was used to buy shares - it doesn't mean he takes over the club again - I have taken it that he becomes a partner in VSL and Pace still stays as the frontman - if he does get called on we may not even hear about it.
-
- Posts: 12373
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5211 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Mike Garlick
^^^^^^^100% This^^^^^^^aggi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:55 pmLots of Burnley fans were wanting that unicorn. An owner who was morally sound but also willing to invest a load of money (and we're talking upwards of £100m) with no reward.
Plenty, including some posters on this thread, were suggesting that Garlick's position was untenable and he had to go for the good of the club and are then surprised when the next owner doesn't turn out to be that unicorn.
There's no denying that Garlick made a good return but it's not like it was a guaranteed return when buying the shares. Investing in a football club is a hugely risky thing. 9 times out of 10 it doesn't pay off when it does pay off then the returns match the risk. For it to pay off you have to have been doing something right.
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
the offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
answer contained above - I have been asked not to quote directly from the letter
Last edited by Chester Perry on Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Mike Garlick
I don't believe in guarantee by supposition. Guarantees have to be recorded in the accounts and at Companies house, for UK companies at least. Let's see those.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 amthe offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
Re: Mike Garlick
I should probably have a look at the letter I guess. Sounds more interesting than I expected.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:11 amthe offer letter to the small share holders has a paragraph about it, specifically talks about preventing an insolvency process enforcement in the case of default or other problems arising from seeking to meet the terms of the acquisition - there is some supposition built on that -
answer contained above - I have been asked not to quote directly from the letter
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
I agree - just that is how it appears to me from what I have seem - I may have read too much into it, I may not have
-
- Posts: 19431
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3166 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Mike Garlick
there are times when I just wish it was out there, given that probably 2000 or more people have seen it - there is much that is open to interpretation though in regards to their statements (5 paragraphs) on the takeover