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
-
It says Burnleys Billionaire Battle, which I took to refer to the bit about there being 17 billionaires in the Premier League that Burnley have been competing with in the transfer marketJ BLOCK said:
I don’t think it’s a balls up. The headline is battle of the Billionaires.MattF said:That mirror article also has Roman Abramovich's wealth listed at £9.65 billion, so either there's a cute little coincidence there, or the mirror have made a huge balls up in their writing
The basic lack of any due diligence is a consistent theme in sports writers.0 -
That's fucking laughable. Absolutely laughable. Geezer hasn't got a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
9.65 Billion 😂😂😂
3 -
Looks like a few Burnley fans may be waking up to the reality here. Farnell’s PR is awful, at least make it believable.1
-
So his supposed net worth would put him in line with Abramovich but it never came up all the while he was going to our games. Instead we heard how Paul Elliot(t) is worth £12m...6
-
Thanks for posting it. This is incredible.J BLOCK said:
My bad, he's worth 9.65 Billion not 9 Billion - Journalist standards in Football are a jokeChris_from_Sidcup said:
Do you have a link to this, can't see it anywhere.J BLOCK said:'The Mirror' today is stating that El Kashashy is work £9 Billion. He's done some job going from junior roles at Coca-Cola and P&G 10 years ago to being worth £9 Billion...
It definitely wouldn't be Farnell leaking lies to the press though, of that i'm 100% sure.
So a guy who based on checks that many Charlton fans have done, seemingly doesn't have a pot to piss in is suddenly worth more than anyone except Mansour. He's worth more than John Henry, Mike Ashley and the Glazers combined!! Absolutely laughable article.
Looking past the ridiculousness of what they think he's worth though, that table shows you what it takes to compete at PL level these days. And why if we do make it there i'm convinced that TS will need to take on outside investment from either Barclay or the Aussies.1 -
The prices on the menus at the various restaurants he owned must have been astounding to net that personal fortune. Either that or each freehold was built on top of an undiscovered diamond mine.6
-
Of course it's the same guy. He and Farnell set up a limited company called Staunch Partners a year ago, which does not trade. If you have money you do not need to do that before buying an English football club, and you certainly don't need to share the equity with a bent lawyer. Nor, if you have money, do you have a LinkedIn profile which lists your early corporate career, allowing some pesky headhunter to drive a coach and horses through it, causing you to take the profile private. Nor if you have money, would one of your corporate employers (Mindshare) maintain an embarassed silence about his time there, when another Mindshare director, from Europe, asks for references on him.eastterrace6168 said:
Maybe not a spelling mistake, are we sure it is the same guy?KentishAddick said:
They've just chucked that detail out there as if it's a well known fact, no supporting evidence. Absolute joke of a story.J BLOCK said:
My bad, he's worth 9.65 Billion not 9 Billion - Journalist standards in Football are a jokeChris_from_Sidcup said:
Do you have a link to this, can't see it anywhere.J BLOCK said:'The Mirror' today is stating that El Kashashy is work £9 Billion. He's done some job going from junior roles at Coca-Cola and P&G 10 years ago to being worth £9 Billion...
It definitely wouldn't be Farnell leaking lies to the press though, of that i'm 100% sure.
And they've spelt his name wrong...
Straight up fraud.37 -
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,22 -
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.2
-
Based on this i'd love it if they did take over so we could then see the chaos ensue.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,
But realistically their bid will fail or they'll pull out somewhere down the line and the other mob (ALK?) will take over. How are they going to show proof/source of funds? Wave that Mirror article in front of the PL?3 -
Sponsored links:
-
That's horrible, I'm going to tell my mum.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.22 -
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.1 -
All of a sudden, two or three posters have popped up on UTC slagging us off and demanding evidence on Farnell and his activities.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,
It's an MO we've seen from Farnell and his PR cronies before and is the reason I was pleased this site had a temporary suspension on new accounts and they were stuck with their fake twitter accounts.30 -
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,6 -
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.3 -
Fools. What would be the motivation behind us giving them info if it wasn't true. They'll kick themselves in a few months time.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,
£9.65bn is amazing though, I suppose if you're gonna lie you may as well go the whole hog7 -
WTF!?!?!?!?!?! You would wan't to see another club in chaos, because their fans are sceptical about something our fans have told them.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Based on this i'd love it if they did take over so we could then see the chaos ensue.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,
But realistically their bid will fail or they'll pull out somewhere down the line and the other mob (ALK?) will take over. How are they going to show proof/source of funds? Wave that Mirror article in front of the PL?4 -
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.1 -
Are we absolutely sure a premier league club doesn't "make money".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.
I'm sure there's lots of juicy invoices running through the books to directors, consultants and agents etc Much of this somehow ends up back with the owners and investors.
The clubs finances may look bad but not necessarily the finances of the owners and other hangers on. This is how you milk money out of the fans. (Both live and on TV).
It's a scam that's simple no one believes it.
5 -
If they're ignoring countless warnings and a mountain of evidence and calling us 'bedwetters' then let them get on with it.Stig said:
WTF!?!?!?!?!?! You would wan't to see another club in chaos, because their fans are sceptical about something our fans have told them.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Based on this i'd love it if they did take over so we could then see the chaos ensue.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,
But realistically their bid will fail or they'll pull out somewhere down the line and the other mob (ALK?) will take over. How are they going to show proof/source of funds? Wave that Mirror article in front of the PL?5 -
Sponsored links:
-
Is it ALL Burnley fans or just some?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
If they're ignoring countless warnings and a mountain of evidence and calling us 'bedwetters' then let them get on with it.Stig said:
WTF!?!?!?!?!?! You would wan't to see another club in chaos, because their fans are sceptical about something our fans have told them.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Based on this i'd love it if they did take over so we could then see the chaos ensue.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,
But realistically their bid will fail or they'll pull out somewhere down the line and the other mob (ALK?) will take over. How are they going to show proof/source of funds? Wave that Mirror article in front of the PL?
5 -
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 salt
24 -
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.4 -
Not many businessmen sell an asset when it’s making them money.stevexreeve said:
Are we absolutely sure a premier league club doesn't "make money".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.
I'm sure there's lots of juicy invoices running through the books to directors, consultants and agents etc Much of this somehow ends up back with the owners and investors.
The clubs finances may look bad but not necessarily the finances of the owners and other hangers on. This is how you milk money out of the fans. (Both live and on TV).
It's a scam that's simple no one believes it.0 -
At the end of the day all CAFC can do is warn them that something might be going on. At the end of the day it is nothing to do with CAFC and we cannot stop anything happening. We should just be glad that we got rid of them before they killed our club9
-
Knowing modern hyperbole, it's a single 15 year old on Twatter who somehow magically represents ALL BURNLEY FANS WHO EVER LIVEDHenry Irving said:
Is it ALL Burnley fans or just some?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
If they're ignoring countless warnings and a mountain of evidence and calling us 'bedwetters' then let them get on with it.Stig said:
WTF!?!?!?!?!?! You would wan't to see another club in chaos, because their fans are sceptical about something our fans have told them.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Based on this i'd love it if they did take over so we could then see the chaos ensue.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,
But realistically their bid will fail or they'll pull out somewhere down the line and the other mob (ALK?) will take over. How are they going to show proof/source of funds? Wave that Mirror article in front of the PL?10 -
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.14 -
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.3 -
That’s as good an explanation as I’ve seen.Henry 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 -
I wonder whether or not the more sceptical (of CAFC fans and their motives) Burnley supporters appreciate that Mr Farnell has been (is) under investigation by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA)?
Talking of which any further information anybody?2
