Mike Garlick

[ClaretPete001]

It was quite commonly known at the time. From board members family the board was a little frustrated with Dyche for not spending. Dyche has done wonderful things for this club but this thread is about money and Garlick.

But none of what you have said actually makes sense.

In the first year back in the Premiership, we spent over 40 million quid and in the second over £30 million. Thanks to astute work in the transfer market we were also able to sell over £40 million worth of players in year 2 in the Premiership. Apart from Nakhi Wells and Jonathan Walters most of the other significant purchases played a big part in keeping us in the Premiership.

in year 3 we spent just under 30 million (also made 7 on Sam Vokes). So, in the first 3 years in the Premiership we spent £100 million quid and recouped £50 million of it from selling assets.

Excellent business.

It was only in 18/19 when you say the chairman started buying players that things started to go wrong. To be fair to Dyche I hardly think Vydra could play in from of Wood and Barnes - both scored a hat full that season and Gibson could hardly start ahead of Tarkowski and Mee.

In the first three seasons in the Prem we spent £100 million and bought: Robbie Brady, Jeff Hendrick, Stephen Defour, Ashley Westwood, JBG, Nick Pope, Chris Wood, Jack Cork, Charlie Taylor, Aaron Lennon and Phil Bardsley.

What more do you want?

[Quickenthetempo]

2014-15 season taken from wiki

27 June 2014 Michael Kightly Stoke City Undisclosed [44]
2 July 2014 Matt Gilks Blackpool Free [45]
4 July 2014 Marvin Sordell Bolton Wanderers Undisclosed [46]
4 July 2014 Matthew Taylor West Ham United Free [47]
7 July 2014 Steven Reid West Bromwich Albion Free [48]
15 July 2014 Lukas Jutkiewicz Middlesbrough Undisclosed [49]
15 August 2014 Stephen Ward Wolverhampton Wanderers Undisclosed [50]
1 September 2014 George Boyd Hull City Undisclosed [51]
8 January 2015 Michael Keane Manchester United Undisclosed [52]
10 March 2015 Fredrik Ulvestad Aalesund Free

[IanMcL]

It came across to me, more as the Chairman doing deals to assist his fellow chairmen mates,crasher than building anything.

[Chester Perry]

Chester you wrote "We know that he has signed up to agreements to re-invest in the club if the plans create a serious financial struggle, or threaten to create a default to MSD ."
Is this something new, or just another way of saying if ALK cannot make the repayments to directors, the club reverts back to Garlick et al.
I understand ALK have another payment of app £11million to make to directors on March 31.

It is based on a statement in the Offer Letter to shareholders around preventing an insolvency action - it says nothing about payments to the sellers ( the former board of directors) and neither have I in that context. It seems apparent, and you seem to know much more about this, that the payment schedule to the sellers is open to being much more flexible than the original transaction intended. That in itself can be viewed as a form of investment and move not to ultimately damage the club in the short term. If the sellers were truly just fixated on the money, they could have made life much more difficulty for VSL by now if the stories of late payments/ altered schedules are true.

Your knowledge and statements suggest you have first account knowledge of certain things regarding the takeover and Garlick's reign, are some of the sellers unhappy with him and did that go back to his years in charge.?

[ClaretPete001]

It is based on a statement in the Offer Letter to shareholders around preventing an insolvency action - it says nothing about payments to the sellers ( the former board of directors) and neither have I in that context. It seems apparent, and you seem to know much more about this, that the payment schedule to the sellers is open to being much more flexible than the original transaction intended. That in itself can be viewed as a form of investment and move not to ultimately damage the club in the short term. If the sellers were truly just fixated on the money, they could have made life much more difficulty for VSL by now if the stories of late payments/ altered schedules are true.

Your knowledge and statements suggest you have first account knowledge of certain things regarding the takeover and Garlick's reign, are some of the sellers unhappy with him and did that go back to his years in charge.?

The usual reason why people don't pay on time and do not get chased is because there is no money to chase and to do so would risk any future possibility of payment.

[Chester Perry]

The usual reason why people don't pay on time and do not get chased is because there is no money to chase and to do so would risk any future possibility of payment.

we all know that, the key is that if the Sellers were just focused on the money they would make life very much more difficult for VSL. The fact that is not happening, shows there are other thoughts and drivers (however minor in some peoples eyes) influencing the situation.

[Chester Perry]

It came across to me, more as the Chairman doing deals to assist his fellow chairmen mates,crasher than building anything.

can you elaborate? is this on post takeover reflection or was it at the time?

I can accept that they might not be Dyche's choice but buying the previous seasons Championship's best players had become a standard approach by then, as was our ability to play very different looking versions of 442 depending on who the 11 on the pitch were - it was proving quite effective too, particularly when pace was added to the mix.

[ClaretPete001]

we all know that, the key is that if the Sellers were just focused on the money they would make life very much more difficult for VSL. The fact that is not happening, shows there are other thoughts and drivers (however minor in some peoples eyes) influencing the situation.

When you say VSL - do you mean Velocity Sports Partners Ltd?

[IanMcL]

can you elaborate? is this on post takeover reflection or was it at the time?

I can accept that they might not be Dyche's choice but buying the previous seasons Championship's best players had become a standard approach by then, as was our ability to play very different looking versions of 442 depending on who the 11 on the pitch were - it was proving quite effective too, particularly when pace was added to the mix.

To keep it short...
Drinkwater

[Chester Perry]

When you say VSL - do you mean Velocity Sports Partners Ltd?

No, I mean Velocity Sport Limited based in Jersey who 100% own Kettering Capital Limited which 100% owns Calder Vale Holdings Limited which now owns (thanks to recent sales from the small shareholders) likely over 88% maybe 89% of Burnley FC Holdings Limited

The company details page on the clubs website states that the ALK Three own almost 84% of VSL - we presume that Morgan Edwards, John Dewey, Dave Checketts and Antonio Parra are among the owners of the other interests in VSL possibly also Malcom Jenkins and just possibly, and it is a remote and highly speculative possibility, Mike Garlick.

[Chester Perry]

To keep it short...
Drinkwater

no quibbles on the fact it appeared Dyche did not want him- but as people keep saying on here central midfield has needed something different for a long time and we did not have the money for Kalvin Philips (even Villa couldn't get him) - you could easily put that one at Riggs door - and that was part of his remit {(recruitment)

and your answer avoided the questions

[Rodleydave]

Chester I have tried to contact you via Phil Whalley at London Clarets.

[ClaretPete001]

No, I mean Velocity Sport Limited based in Jersey who 100% own Kettering Capital Limited which 100% owns Calder Vale Holdings Limited which now owns (thanks to recent sales from the small shareholders) likely over 88% maybe 89% of Burnley FC Holdings Limited

The company details page on the clubs website states that the ALK Three own almost 84% of VSL - we presume that Morgan Edwards, John Dewey, Dave Checketts and Antonio Parra are among the owners of the other interests in VSL possibly also Malcom Jenkins and just possibly, and it is a remote and highly speculative possibility, Mike Garlick.

Velocity Sports limited is a new company as well. What makes you think there is any assets in that, which someone could pursue if payments were late?

[Chester Perry]

Chester I have tried to contact you via Phil Whalley at London Clarets.

I have emailed Phil to tell him he can pass on my email address to you

[Paul Waine]

No, I mean Velocity Sport Limited based in Jersey who 100% own Kettering Capital Limited which 100% owns Calder Vale Holdings Limited which now owns (thanks to recent sales from the small shareholders) likely over 88% maybe 89% of Burnley FC Holdings Limited

The company details page on the clubs website states that the ALK Three own almost 84% of VSL - we presume that Morgan Edwards, John Dewey, Dave Checketts and Antonio Parra are among the owners of the other interests in VSL possibly also Malcom Jenkins and just possibly, and it is a remote and highly speculative possibility, Mike Garlick.

Velocity Sports limited is a new company as well. What makes you think there is any assets in that, which someone could pursue if payments were late?

I'd expect all the "ALK investors" to be placed in Velocity Sports Partners LLP (Delaware) and flow from there to VSL (Jersey).

It doesn't matter that all of Calder Vale, Kettering Capital and VSL are new companies and had no funds before ALK/VSP bought shares in them. It's a very standard US to UK corporate investment structure.

[IanMcL]

no quibbles on the fact it appeared Dyche did not want him- but as people keep saying on here central midfield has needed something different for a long time and we did not have the money for Kalvin Philips (even Villa couldn't get him) - you could easily put that one at Riggs door - and that was part of his remit {(recruitment)

and your answer avoided the questions

No it did not. Chester.P. if you read my initial input again, hopefully that will be apparent.

No issues with you asking.

[Chester Perry]

No it did not. Chester.P. if you read my initial input again, hopefully that will be apparent.

No issues with you asking.

Am I to take it you think Garlick was trying to enhance his relationship with Bruce Buck?

Why would that be?

[IanMcL]

Am I to take it you think Garlick was trying to enhance his relationship with Bruce Buck?

Why would that be?

I have no idea, other than folk to strange things, when they are trying to plan for one thing and not drop themselves in it.

[Quickenthetempo]

I have no idea, other than folk to strange things, when they are trying to plan for one thing and not drop themselves in it.

Or judging by this messageboard, if any fan was in charge of the club (say won the Euro millions) they would certainly interfere and buy a midfielder now to improve us. Even if Dyche didn't like it

That looks like What Garlick to me and a lot more rational explanation.

[ClaretPete001]

Or judging by this messageboard, if any fan was in charge of the club (say won the Euro millions) they would certainly interfere and buy a midfielder now to improve us. Even if Dyche didn't like it

That looks like What Garlick to me and a lot more rational explanation.

I can't barely remember Drinkwater but he came and went in a season we came tenth.

[boatshed bill]

The only thing Mike Garlick has done to offend is not to give all his money to the football club

[Jakubclaret]

The only thing Mike Garlick has done to offend is not to give all his money to the football club

He built the nest egg up with some people naively thinking the money was getting squirrelled away towards the betterment of the club when it wasn’t, he’s done nothing wrong it’s his money which he’s entitled to do whatever he wants to do with it, Fans/supporters have a proper connection owners ruthlessly making money don’t.

[tiger76]

The only thing Mike Garlick has done to offend is not to give all his money to the football club

No the only thing Mike Garlick has done to offend is not investing our PL funds in new signings.

And now the lack of investment is becoming increasingly stark as we head towards the Championship with an ageing squad.

And that's even before we get to all the debt the club has been lumbered with for no return.

[Quickenthetempo]

I can't barely remember Drinkwater but he came and went in a season we came tenth.

He didn't play much, but got the fans very excited about such a high calibre player signing for us.

A 40m signing that had won the Premier league 2 years before.

It didn't work out through injuries, a night club brawl and Dyche not playing him.

[Quickenthetempo]

No the only thing Mike Garlick has done to offend is not investing our PL funds in new signings.

And now the lack of investment is becoming increasingly stark as we head towards the Championship with an ageing squad.

And that's even before we get to all the debt the club has been lumbered with for no return.

That's the thing though Tiger. We don't know of any instances where Garlick stopped Dyche spending? Apart from the out of contract players not renewed (Hendrick, Lennon etc..) but we do know of instances where he invested when Dyche didn't want it.

[IanMcL]

The only thing Mike Garlick has done to offend is not to give all his money to the football club

Actually, he has taken all the clubs money.
That could be considered as morally bankrupt theft.

[IanMcL]

He didn't play much, but got the fans very excited about such a high calibre player signing for us.

A 40m signing that had won the Premier league 2 years before.

It didn't work out through injuries, a night club brawl and Dyche not playing him.

Nor any other club since!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Actually, he has taken all the clubs money.
That could be considered as morally bankrupt theft.

You're probably skating quite close to libellous comments there, I know you don't care but even so maybe you should take care with what you're saying because it would cause an issue for this forum.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Nor any other club since!

23 appearances for reading this season

[aggi]

Actually, he has taken all the clubs money.
That could be considered as morally bankrupt theft.

I'd be intrigued to see the evidence you have for this.

Although at a wild guess you don't have any.

Admittedly it's nothing new, I remember posters complaining about Barry Kilby taking all the club's money in the past. They had a similar amount of proof.

[IanMcL]

Well all the club money was taken as part of the deal, so as major shareholder, he would be responsible for the majority.

The 2nd statement is suggestive as a possible thought pattern for those considering the issue.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

No it's just you making libellous accusations because you're currently feeling very bitter

[IanMcL]

No it's just you making libellous accusations because you're currently feeling very bitter

Not libellous Mr Garlick. Examine the club's bank account, pre and post the sale. Then consider what people may conclude.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Not libellous Mr Garlick. Examine the club's bank account, pre and post the sale. Then consider what people may conclude.

Yes it is, sitting there calling him a morally bankrupt thief is libellous.

So maybe just tone it down, I get you're bitter and twisted, but your comments endanger this forum.

[dsr]

I'd be intrigued to see the evidence you have for this.

Although at a wild guess you don't have any.

Admittedly it's nothing new, I remember posters complaining about Barry Kilby taking all the club's money in the past. They had a similar amount of proof.

You really think after all these months and years of discussion, that there is no evidence of money being taken out of the club to buy Mike Garlick's shares? I think it's certain that the club's cash has been used for that purpose as has the loan guarantee.

Don't you believe that Barry Kilby ever had his loan repaid, in spite of Companies house accounts saying it was? What people were complaining about was the amount of interest and whether his loan should have been repaid. If you're trying to argue that the loan wasn't repaid and he didn't get any interest, I think you might be onto a loser.

[dsr]

Well all the club money was taken as part of the deal, so as major shareholder, he would be responsible for the majority.

The 2nd statement is suggestive as a possible thought pattern for those considering the issue.

"Morally bankrupt" could be called fair comment, but it isn't theft. Theft is a criminal offence and this isn't (in law) criminal.

[aggi]

You really think after all these months and years of discussion, that there is no evidence of money being taken out of the club to buy Mike Garlick's shares? I think it's certain that the club's cash has been used for that purpose as has the loan guarantee.

Don't you believe that Barry Kilby ever had his loan repaid, in spite of Companies house accounts saying it was? What people were complaining about was the amount of interest and whether his loan should have been repaid. If you're trying to argue that the loan wasn't repaid and he didn't get any interest, I think you might be onto a loser.

I don't believe that:
Actually, he has taken all the clubs money.
As IanMcL posted. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that is the case and I'd be very surprised if it was.

No, there were some real batshit posters who were insistent that Barry Kilby was somehow funnelling money out of the back door and lining his pockets.

[KRBFC]

Well whichever organisation does the fit and proper owner test

Gary Neville questioned Richard Scudamore on the finances around the deal and how on earth the PL allowed it, I remember watching the interview, can't remember Scudamore's exact response.

[Chester Perry]

I don't believe that:
Actually, he has taken all the clubs money.
As IanMcL posted. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that is the case and I'd be very surprised if it was.

No, there were some real batshit posters who were insistent that Barry Kilby was somehow funnelling money out of the back door and lining his pockets.

And if all the money was taken we would not have been able to get through the rest of the season without paying wages - which given there had never been a peep on that front - we did pay - there was also money to pay for all the work in the hospitality suites last summer and the flashing advertising boards - plans that in the most part we know for certain were made under Garlick's tenure and had funds ringfenced for them under his tenure.

We have no doubt that club money was used in the takeover - VSL have confirmed that in the Offer Letter, in the same letter they confirm they intend to pay it back and even how that it is to be funded (same with the MSD principal) - though it appears they have yet to be successful on that front. VSL indirectly confirmed that the club is paying the interest on the MSD loan, by saying the club had assumed responsibility for it.

It is interesting that the focus is on Garlick when their were 7 sellers - 3 of whom, Garlick, John B and Flood are believed to have been very happy to sell - that is the vast majority of shares sold in that initial deal. and for it to be completed it needed them to be on board.

The real questions should be focussed on the unknown of who is paying for the staged payments on the original transaction, the ringfenced offer for the remaining Sellers shares and the shares for the small shareholders - that maybe over £100m depending on what you believe the Upfront payment was (I think it is safer to think it was £98m - the sum in Kettering Capital). There has never been any indication as to who will be responsible for that - and that is where the club come come to the fore in footing the bill, at least in part, hopefully not all. What we do know is that far more than 7 people will be benefitting from those purchases.

[KRBFC]

Or judging by this messageboard, if any fan was in charge of the club (say won the Euro millions) they would certainly interfere and buy a midfielder now to improve us. Even if Dyche didn't like it

That looks like What Garlick to me and a lot more rational explanation.

I agree with this, and agree with Garlick's decisions more than Dyche's when it comes to transfers. I agreed with Garlick's stance not to offer Hart, Lennon etc new deals.

Football is a game of contacts, Dyche wasn't a glamourous international footballer, he's not Spanish/Portuguese with the knowledge of those leagues, he's not a Steven Gerrard who Coutinho was desperate to sign for, we aren't Wolves and in bed with a hugely influential agent, we don't have the moneyball approach of Brentford.

Our transfer policy has long been a joke, British brexit only signings (the British market is the most overpriced in the world with the English premium), a scouting team who haven't been further south than Stoke. There's a reason PL teams are full of mainly foreign players, the British players (bar the very very best) just aren't as good and aren't worth paying the premium for.

I don't know who is responsible for our transfer business for the last 7 years but it's been pretty atrocious, so bad infact the team hasn't really changed. I believe genuinely, I could do a better job recommending players than whoever signed Jay Rod for £10m on 50 grand a week. I think Opta scoring is revolutionary, it's a very detailed scoring system used in fantasy football games like SoRare, it counts details and adds points for small things like a successful pass. soraredata.com for anyone wanting to track opta scores used in SoRare, it's very detailed and stat heavy. Gone are the days of scouts sat in the stands, all information is available online, we should cancel Ian Butterworth and Martin Hodge's Stoke season tickets instantly.

[KRBFC]

The real questions should be focussed on the unknown of who is paying for the staged payments on the original transaction, the ringfenced offer for the remaining Sellers shares and the shares for the small shareholders - that maybe over £100m depending on what you believe the Upfront payment was (I think it is safer to think it was £98m - the sum in Kettering Capital). There has never been any indication as to who will be responsible for that - and that is where the club come come to the fore in footing the bill, at least in part, hopefully not all. What we do know is that far more than 7 people will be benefitting from those purchases.

Sidney said I should trust your opinion and apparently once we are relegated, you believe Garlick will not require any further payment? So the instalments of £58M still owed will disappear? Doesn't sound likely to me, neither does Garlick regaining full control.

[KRBFC]

VSL indirectly confirmed that the club is paying the interest on the MSD loan, by saying the club had assumed responsibility for it.

Of course it is, the club is paying all of their debts, no doubt ALK are also being paid to be here by the club. What a generous little cash cow we are, the club loses out on £178m to fund new owners, we cover yearly interest of 5-7 million £ and pay them a wage on top.

These must be some ridiculous additions to the club to be costing close to £200m. Have we signed Harry Kane and Mo Salah?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Sidney said I should trust your opinion and apparently once we are relegated, you believe Garlick will not require any further payment? So the instalments of £58M still owed will disappear? Doesn't sound likely to me, neither does Garlick regaining full control.

If you're going to outright lie then at least make it convincing
I've said the payment structures will change, completely different to the garbage you've just written.

Maybe you should stop taking part in these discussions until you learn to read properly.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Of course it is, the club is paying all of their debts, no doubt ALK are also being paid to be here by the club. What a generous little cash cow we are, the club loses out on £178m to fund new owners, we cover yearly interest of 5-7 million £ and pay them a wage on top.

These must be some ridiculous additions to the club to be costing close to £200m. Have we signed Harry Kane and Mo Salah?

The cost of buying a PL club will always rise.
Factor in the lack of debt at the time, a manageable wage bill, the lack of work required on facilities, ground, training centre and youth set up and it's easy enough to understand why the club cost so much.

[Chester Perry]

Sidney said I should trust your opinion and apparently once we are relegated, you believe Garlick will not require any further payment? So the instalments of £58M still owed will disappear? Doesn't sound likely to me, neither does Garlick regaining full control.

not what i said and I do not believe they will disappear

there are plenty who would argue against trusting my judgement - that list may include myself at times - I present a take and offer my reasoning - (which can and has been proved incorrect in the past) - that reasoning tends to be why people give my opinion credence, mainly because it is much more than most offer and gives me nowhere to hide if I am wrong - which I take the slap in the face when it comes. I also try to differentiate between statements of fact and supposition, with fact supported by evidence and supposition identified for the most part

[Chester Perry]

Of course it is, the club is paying all of their debts, no doubt ALK are also being paid to be here by the club. What a generous little cash cow we are, the club loses out on £178m to fund new owners, we cover yearly interest of 5-7 million £ and pay them a wage on top.

These must be some ridiculous additions to the club to be costing close to £200m. Have we signed Harry Kane and Mo Salah?

The sale price of the club was £170m a fact confirmed by VSL in the Offer Letter

VSL have committed to paying the principal of the MSD loan and the money borrowed from the club for the initial transaction - which from the records in Kettering Capital to probably amount to £88m with what appears to be another £10m of VSL funding - that suggests a minimum VSL commitment of £98m of the £170m.

I would be interested to see a different set of reasoning as to how that costs the club £200m even with the up to £32m of additional share purchases.

[ClaretPete001]

The sale price of the club was £170m a fact confirmed by VSL in the Offer Letter

VSL have committed to paying the principal of the MSD loan and the money borrowed from the club for the initial transaction - which from the records in Kettering Capital to probably amount to £88m with what appears to be another £10m of VSL funding - that suggests a minimum VSL commitment of £98m of the £170m.

I would be interested to see a different set of reasoning as to how that costs the club £200m even with the up to £32m of additional share purchases.

As far as we know the MSD load is interest only. To whom have they committed to paying the capital because the loan with MSD is not the business of anyone else once VSL owns the club.

[dsr]

As far as we know the MSD load is interest only. To whom have they committed to paying the capital because the loan with MSD is not the business of anyone else once VSL owns the club.

The point of a guarantee is that if the borrower can't pay the loan back, the guarantor has to pay it. So if VSL don't have the cash, BFC have to repay the loan even though the club hasn't had any benefit.

[ClaretPete001]

The point of a guarantee is that if the borrower can't pay the loan back, the guarantor has to pay it. So if VSL don't have the cash, BFC have to repay the loan even though the club hasn't had any benefit.

I understand what a guarantee is but Chester seems to be suggesting that in some way VSL have funded £98 million of the £170 million by guaranteeing the MSD loan. I can't quite see his point and yours above seems to be saying something else again.

[Chester Perry]

The point of a guarantee is that if the borrower can't pay the loan back, the guarantor has to pay it. So if VSL don't have the cash, BFC have to repay the loan even though the club hasn't had any benefit.

isn't there some mention of a guarantor on the Charge registered against Calder Vale Holdings Limited - no names mentioned as that would be in the loan agreement which is not normally an item of public record. Paul Waine believes there are interesting statements in that document on the debenture agreement - I was planning to look at it again later.

Pure speculation on my part
- I have a feeling that the guarantor is more likely to be Garlick, than any other individual that could be named - nothing to really support that beyond what I posted the other day.

- There is a chance that Garlick could come out of the other side of all this with most of his shareholding intact and his outlay on shares down the years since 2006 (when he first became a director - before Flood even) returned with interest. If that happens and the club is in a poor state (irrespective of the league it is in, long term Premier League survival has always been unlikely) then that would be a more appropriate time to make the accusations of him. For now he has tried something different (not what I would have done - but then I would not have put my money in the club), there is no doubt that the buoyancy of the takeover helped lift the club to survival last year.