More thoughts on the takeover

[1959_60]

From the BBC.

I hope that I'm worrying about nowt!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56089037

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I'm working on the assumption we will kick off next season as an EPL team with a few players in and a few players out.

I see no real reason to think otherwise 59er.

[sinkov]

"they had zero debt and £41.65m cash in the bank, a figure that is now thought to be higher."

"The unease comes from the structure of the deal, which, as was the case when the Glazer family took control at Manchester United, involves borrowing money that will be repaid through club funds."

As often, I'm more confused now than before I read it. The above two statements seem to be contradictory, it says we have more cash in the bank than before, but how can we have if the club's own money is being used to finance the deal ? And the headline, 'why are there concerns' ? FFS, if Simon Stone has to ask that question, if he doesn't know, he shouldn't be writing about BFC.

What has started to dawn on me is why we, the fans and the manager, have spent the last 3 summer transfer windows pleading for Garlick to spend some money on an ageing team, and been ignored. We were told it was to protect the long term financial status of the club, no I don't think so, the money was kept back to be used in a takeover situation, which would protect, not the financial interests of BFC, but those of Mike Garlick and John B.

[1959_60]

"they had zero debt and £41.65m cash in the bank, a figure that is now thought to be higher."

"The unease comes from the structure of the deal, which, as was the case when the Glazer family took control at Manchester United, involves borrowing money that will be repaid through club funds."

As often, I'm more confused now than before I read it. The above two statements seem to be contradictory, it says we have more cash in the bank than before, but how can we have if the club's own money is being used to finance the deal ? And the headline, 'why are there concerns' ? FFS, if Simon Stone has to ask that question, if he doesn't know, he shouldn't be writing about BFC.

What has started to dawn on me is why we, the fans and the manager, have spent the last 3 summer transfer windows pleading for Garlick to spend some money on an ageing team, and been ignored. We were told it was to protect the long term financial status of the club, no I don't think so, the money was kept back to be used in a takeover situation, which would protect, not the financial interests of BFC, but those of Mike Garlick and John B.

Aye, i don't think the full details of the takeover have been made public. Even if they had I doubt that I would understand the consequences.

It seems like BFC are now responsible for paying off the debt of the deal - this makes me feel uneasy.
It's similar to the Glazers at Man Utd. But while they may be able to pay their debts of easily the same doesn't apply to us. If we get relegated, no matter what they say, a reported £10M per annum loan repayment would potentially flatten us. No Sky money, reduced commercial payments and gate receipts which are, even now, less than £7M per annum....yuk.

The new owners tell us that they intend to be open and upfront with us. They could start by telling us exactly how the buyout was structured. The fact that they haven't has set off alarm bells for me.

[sinkov]

The new owners tell us that they intend to be open and upfront with us. They could start by telling us exactly how the buyout was structured. The fact that they haven't has set off alarm bells for me.

I thought they had told us, it's just the BBC reporter sowing confusion I would think. I have no problem with Pace, I think he's been open about how it's being funded, and he's admitted the club are funding much of it. Fair enough, it seems a good deal for him, but why would he not negotiate the best deal he could for himself and ALK.

The problem I have is with Garlick and John B, it seems to me they've starved the manager of money to strengthen the team for three years so they could use that money to feather their own nests. If the club is in a dodgy place now, it's entirely down to those two, not Alan Pace. They've conned the fans and conned the manager, and if I'm wrong about that, I'd be quite happy to be put right.

[outwoodclaret]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56085128

Maybe they just paid the Asda price to take over BFC.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

"they had zero debt and £41.65m cash in the bank, a figure that is now thought to be higher."

"The unease comes from the structure of the deal, which, as was the case when the Glazer family took control at Manchester United, involves borrowing money that will be repaid through club funds."

As often, I'm more confused now than before I read it. The above two statements seem to be contradictory, it says we have more cash in the bank than before, but how can we have if the club's own money is being used to finance the deal ? And the headline, 'why are there concerns' ? FFS, if Simon Stone has to ask that question, if he doesn't know, he shouldn't be writing about BFC.

What has started to dawn on me is why we, the fans and the manager, have spent the last 3 summer transfer windows pleading for Garlick to spend some money on an ageing team, and been ignored. We were told it was to protect the long term financial status of the club, no I don't think so, the money was kept back to be used in a takeover situation, which would protect, not the financial interests of BFC, but those of Mike Garlick and John B.

I agree with your sentiments sinkov, but I have to hold the notion that Mormons don't lie.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Aye, i don't think the full details of the takeover have been made public. Even if they had I doubt that I would understand the consequences.

It seems like BFC are now responsible for paying off the debt of the deal - this makes me feel uneasy.
It's similar to the Glazers at Man Utd. But while they may be able to pay their debts of easily the same doesn't apply to us. If we get relegated, no matter what they say, a reported £10M per annum loan repayment would potentially flatten us. No Sky money, reduced commercial payments and gate receipts which are, even now, less than £7M per annum....yuk.

The new owners tell us that they intend to be open and upfront with us. They could start by telling us exactly how the buyout was structured. The fact that they haven't has set off alarm bells for me.

Non Disclosure Agreements mean just that 59er.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I thought they had told us, it's just the BBC reporter sowing confusion I would think. I have no problem with Pace, I think he's been open about how it's being funded, and he's admitted the club are funding much of it. Fair enough, it seems a good deal for him, but why would he not negotiate the best deal he could for himself and ALK.

The problem I have is with Garlick and John B, it seems to me they've starved the manager of money to strengthen the team for three years so they could use that money to feather their own nests. If the club is in a dodgy place now, it's entirely down to those two, not Alan Pace. They've conned the fans and conned the manager, and if I'm wrong about that, I'd be quite happy to be put right.

Sadly sinkov you are spot on. They've conned the fans and conned the manager. End of.