Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Burnley - was a Farnell & El Kashashy story, now a leveraged US takeover.
Comments
-
@ShootersHillGuru On a recent podcast, Kieran Maguire (Price of Football) was asked by a listener to name clubs whom he considers to actually be well run, financially. His top answer was Burnley, followed by Spurs, whiche acknowledged would sound controversial. He said the Burnley owners have not invested any money at all since getting promoted. They run a very tight ship, salary wise, he said, there isa very small difference between the top earning players and the rest of the squad (circa 5k/week I think he said). The implication of that is that its a going concern, with a bit of money sloshing around for wrong'uns to finance a new Range Rover or Maserati. Unlike us, Kashashy would not need to dig deep into his 9.6billion just to keep the ship afloat. They will get relegated, but then there will be 3 years parachute money, and doubtless the current squad all have relegation clauses.
On the other hand source and sufficiency of funds proof would seem to me to be a dealbreaker for those two.2 -
As for the fans, well I understand that our dossiers have reached the Burnley boardroom, so if they do go ahead with Farnell after that, and all the other media questions, then certainly more fool them, but I really doubt it. Being a going concern as a biz, Garlick and co are not under that much pressure to sell.23
-
Very plausible and I’m not saying it’s wrong but Garlick wants out for a reason. A going concern that doesn’t really lose money ? Could be as a fan he wants to pass on the baton (no pun) but I hope he does his homework better than Murray did.PragueAddick said:@ShootersHillGuru On a recent podcast, Kieran Maguire (Price of Football) was asked by a listener to name clubs whom he considers to actually be well run, financially. His top answer was Burnley, followed by Spurs, whiche acknowledged would sound controversial. He said the Burnley owners have not invested any money at all since getting promoted. They run a very tight ship, salary wise, he said, there isa very small difference between the top earning players and the rest of the squad (circa 5k/week I think he said). The implication of that is that its a going concern, with a bit of money sloshing around for wrong'uns to finance a new Range Rover or Maserati. Unlike us, Kashashy would not need to dig deep into his 9.6billion just to keep the ship afloat. They will get relegated, but then there will be 3 years parachute money, and doubtless the current squad all have relegation clauses.
On the other hand source and sufficiency of funds proof would seem to me to be a dealbreaker for those two.0 -
I believe the issue is that he is worth "only" £50m, and he cannot therefore take the club forward in terms of its salary levels, or transfer policies. At those levels relegation will always be a constant threat. So he runs into conflict with the manager, and the fans. Personally, I'd have a lot of sympathy with him for that POV. He's done a fantastic job getting them there.ShootersHillGuru said:
Very plausible and I’m not saying it’s wrong but Garlick wants out for a reason. A going concern that doesn’t really lose money ? Could be as a fan he wants to pass on the baton (no pun) but I hope he does his homework better than Murray did.PragueAddick said:@ShootersHillGuru On a recent podcast, Kieran Maguire (Price of Football) was asked by a listener to name clubs whom he considers to actually be well run, financially. His top answer was Burnley, followed by Spurs, whiche acknowledged would sound controversial. He said the Burnley owners have not invested any money at all since getting promoted. They run a very tight ship, salary wise, he said, there isa very small difference between the top earning players and the rest of the squad (circa 5k/week I think he said). The implication of that is that its a going concern, with a bit of money sloshing around for wrong'uns to finance a new Range Rover or Maserati. Unlike us, Kashashy would not need to dig deep into his 9.6billion just to keep the ship afloat. They will get relegated, but then there will be 3 years parachute money, and doubtless the current squad all have relegation clauses.
On the other hand source and sufficiency of funds proof would seem to me to be a dealbreaker for those two.7 -
Before we start biting back at Burnley fans and wishing them the worst, are those posts really coming from dyed-in-the-wool Turf Moorians? Or people pretending to be so?14
-
Both I imagineValley11 said:Before we start biting back at Burnley fans and wishing them the worst, are those posts really coming from dyed-in-the-wool Turf Moorians? Or people pretending to be so?1 -
Burnley's chairman is probably a year away from Richard Murray's situation (circa 2008-10). I bet he's already made statements about not selling to anyone who's not got the club's best interests at heart but in reality he's not going to be picky.
0 -
Coming from a Club that sells Bene 'n Hot by the bucket load on match days I do find the shandy drinking digs amusing.3
-
Can’t blame the Burnley fans for wanting a genuine £ billionaire to buy them. They’ve done brilliantly since going up but can see that just slipping away. We have very recent experience of willingly jumping onto Southall’s and Nimer’s dubious express. Football fans are desperate for success. They are blinded by hope just like we initially were.24
-
I can see them following a Blackpool model.
There's plenty in Burnley to milk.0 - Sponsored links:
-
As ShootersHillGuru points out a lot of us were guilty of riding the "We're rich" train at the first mention of TN. It took a while before the lack of any real depth to his portrayed image and wealth rang alarm bells with the many. The few with concerns received early pelters on here. I admit I was firmly in the naïve group looking to better times than under Roland.
I wouldn't wish the pain of the period before TS rescued us on any other group of fans.
I can't for the life of me see where El K and Terrible Typo CF are going to raise the proof of funds required for an EPL club.7 -
Good . Let them suffer for their ignorance. We can only tell them the truth , it’s up to them what they want to do with it.J BLOCK said:The Burnley fans are now calling us bed wetters and we have no proof that Farnell and co will be bad for their club.
Football fans are fickle but this is straight up stupidity. Unlucky chaps, you've got a world of trouble coming your way,4 -
Harsh I think.Bedsaddick said:
Good . Let them suffer for their ignorance. We can only tell them the truth , it’s up to them what they want to do with it.J BLOCK said:The Burnley fans are now calling us bed wetters and we have no proof that Farnell and co will be bad for their club.
Football fans are fickle but this is straight up stupidity. Unlucky chaps, you've got a world of trouble coming your way,6 -
The more I think about it the more I suspect there's no plan for Kashashy and Farnell to go any further than the bidding phase.4
-
How would they make their money back?BowSelecta said:
If they stay in the premier league they’ll make money. So one theory could be that they’ll invest (say £50m) in Jan, using a loan secured against the club.ShootersHillGuru said:
But they still must have an angle. Still not seen an explanation of what it iscafc999 said:
Do you think they care about the club and what league they are in?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Could sell Pope, Tarkowski and McNeil and probably bring in 80-100m but the huge danger of course is relegation. They can't sell those players, because they actually need to invest in the squad in January to give themselves a chance of survival. If not then Burnley in the championship are probably worth about 50-60m tops and the investment is fucked.ShootersHillGuru said:What is their angle ? Obviously not to buy and run a football club. They can’t. Can’t even see how they can make their bid and credibility float. What’s the angle ? At Charlton they saw a flip that could be done quickly and the monthly costs could just about be found through just enough incoming funds and what was left in the till. At Turf Moor the monthly outgoings are likely to be impossible to find and I assume Garlick is desperate to get out for that reason. What’s their angle, because if it’s a flip then it’s a hell of a risk.If they stay up, great. They can absorb the TV revenue, cut costs and cash in on players.If not, they have £40m in parachute payments +the ability to sell £50m+ worth of talent to easily make their “money” back and then sell the club into another of Farnell’s cronies.
Either way, I expect we’ll be seeing the Nick Pope sell-on fee sooner rather than later.
For arguments sake let's assume they do spend 200m on the club but were relegated. They get 40m of parachute payments + (again for arguments sake) make 60m in transfer sales.
To then make their money back they'd have to sell a northern championship club with heavily reduced income for 100m, to get to the 200m purchase price. And this doesn't take into account the 7m+ a month they'd be spending between now and the summer on the wage bill. So that's another 50-60m shortfall to make up.
If (and it's a big if) they did buy for 200m, there's not a hope in hell they'd recoup their money if Burnley were relegated. There's also a very real chance they could buy the club, invest in players.........and still get relegated. I just don't see how they make money at all, which is why i'm convinced it's all part of some wider plan. I don't think they intend to buy Burnley at all and will be amazed if this all goes through.
2 -
I can see the Burnley fans really being mad at us if Garlick & Co pull the plug on Farnell and explains to the press that it was because of a "dodgy dossier" that they had received from the Trust. They'd be calling us allsorts as we had wrecked their dream of being in the Champions League within 2 seasons.PragueAddick said:As for the fans, well I understand that our dossiers have reached the Burnley boardroom, so if they do go ahead with Farnell after that, and all the other media questions, then certainly more fool them, but I really doubt it. Being a going concern as a biz, Garlick and co are not under that much pressure to sell.
However, I'm in the "its all bollox" camp & that Farnell & Co have no real interest in owning Burney and it will all fall apart as soon as the EPL ask for proof & source of funds.0 -
That’s my assumption tooSantaClaus said:The more I think about it the more I suspect there's no plan for Kashashy and Farnell to go any further than the bidding phase.0 -
Can I just point out in the interest of clarity that from what I have seen it is only *some* Burnley fans that seem aggrieved by Charlton fans imparting their knowledge of Farnell et all.
The majority of Burnley fans to me either seem cautious, or totally worried.2 -
SantaClaus said:The more I think about it the more I suspect there's no plan for Kashashy and Farnell to go any further than the bidding phase.Yes said this last week, it's like Bassini at Bolton, throw their hat into the ring & never follow it up. With the whole Covid situation, sooner or later there's sure to be a league 1or2 club in difficulty where they can take over close it down & sell the ground to developers but a premier club ? I doubt it.
This seems to have gone a bit quiet, is this where they withdraw having stoked up some publicity & move on to a lower division club ?0 -
Did we all believe the Standard Liege fans when they warned us about RD?19
- Sponsored links:
-
I think we did .ross1 said:Did we all believe the Standard Liege fans when they warned us about RD?6 -
I didn’t.Bedsaddick said:
I think we did .ross1 said:Did we all believe the Standard Liege fans when they warned us about RD?3 -
EventuallyBedsaddick said:
I think we did .ross1 said:Did we all believe the Standard Liege fans when they warned us about RD?
4 -
Can someone send this back to tit claret in a years time when Dave Jones is director of football and they are bottom third in the championshipJ BLOCK said:Top Claret wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:28 amCharlton fans coming on our board spouting about Farnell appear to have little or no evidence in their allegations that he is a wrong un.
These hissy fitting southern shandy boys need treatment with a pinch of salt2 -
This.Elthamaddick said:
Let them take over then and we'll sit back and watch...J BLOCK said:The Burnley fans are now calling us bed wetters and we have no proof that Farnell and co will be bad for their club.
Football fans are fickle but this is straight up stupidity. Unlucky chaps, you've got a world of trouble coming your way,
Our fans have contacted their fans and warned them, so it's up to them if they want to listen.7 -
In the end it's nothing to do with their fans what Garlick and co do, any more than we could affect Roland selling to ESI or ESI trying to sell to Elliott.
I very much doubt Kashashy has the money, but if he does and the deal goes through then all will be fine. If on the other hand he doesn't have the money, then the current owners surely won't sell. They're not going to sell a PL club allegedly worth £200m to new owners based on IOUs or without real evidence of funds.2 -
SantaClaus said:The more I think about it the more I suspect there's no plan for Kashashy and Farnell to go any further than the bidding phase.Yes said this last week, it's like Bassini at Bolton, throw their hat into the ring & never follow it up. With the whole Covid situation, sooner or later there's sure to be a league 1or2 club in difficulty where they can take over close it down & sell the ground to developers but a premier club ? I doubt it.
This seems to have gone a bit quiet, is this where they withdraw having stoked up some publicity & move on to a lower division club ?
It's not just publicity they're stoking.
0 -
Either I deserve a whoosh or you’ve got a very selective memory. As late as the winning run under Luzon those who opposed RD were routinely mocked and goaded on here.Bedsaddick said:
I think we did .ross1 said:Did we all believe the Standard Liege fans when they warned us about RD?9 -
But every time one of these chancers does a bit more than tip their hat in the ring, surely they must accrue some form of costs? Due diligence etc? I get that standard lawyer costs could be saved from Farnell’s potential slice, but the outlay involved must be more than insignificant, surely?1
-
Yep. It makes no sense to me.AFKABartram said:
But every time one of these chancers does a bit more than tip their hat in the ring, surely they must accrue some form of costs? Due diligence etc? I get that standard lawyer costs could be saved from Farnell’s potential slice, but the outlay involved must be more than insignificant, surely?KentishAddick said:
He is on twitter @riccosrantHenry Irving said:
I'm not convinced they actually intend to buy Burnley.ShootersHillGuru said:
But they still must have an angle. Still not seen an explanation of what it iscafc999 said:
Do you think they care about the club and what league they are in?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Could sell Pope, Tarkowski and McNeil and probably bring in 80-100m but the huge danger of course is relegation. They can't sell those players, because they actually need to invest in the squad in January to give themselves a chance of survival. If not then Burnley in the championship are probably worth about 50-60m tops and the investment is fucked.ShootersHillGuru said:What is their angle ? Obviously not to buy and run a football club. They can’t. Can’t even see how they can make their bid and credibility float. What’s the angle ? At Charlton they saw a flip that could be done quickly and the monthly costs could just about be found through just enough incoming funds and what was left in the till. At Turf Moor the monthly outgoings are likely to be impossible to find and I assume Garlick is desperate to get out for that reason. What’s their angle, because if it’s a flip then it’s a hell of a risk.
Maybe the angle is to put themselves out there as megarich POTENTIAL buyers which both sticks two finger up to Charlton fans and will perhaps in future get them into a lower league and much cheaper club which they can then asset strip.
John Richardson, the Mirror journalist who ran the story doesn't seem to be on twitter so hard to ask him what his source is although I think we can all guess.0
