Question about finances after takeover

[doggert]

Fellow Clarets.
When Garlick was chairman the club shares were worth X. I remember them being sold for £100 a few years ago. When ALK bought Garlicks and John Bs shares, they probably got more than £100 per share. I know that ALK bought with loaned money, how does that actually affect the clubs economy? (Apart from the obvious with a loan and montly payments). In terms of funds available, I understand that e.g. matchday-income, player-sales, sponsor-deals etc. can be made available as transfer-kitty, but does the "new" value of the club affect that in any way?

When it comes to new signings, we're linked with half of the Championship and 1/8 of Europe. Is it realistic to expect big money-signins having in mind that the corrupt donkeys at FFP and PL/FA made rules where clubs can't spend more than X% of the yearly revenue/turnover? City did well in going around that part with the sale of the stadium-name and sponsor-deals. Looking at the transfers the recent years, the club was most active when Gray and Keane were sold.

[kritichris]

It still baffles me that you can borrow money to buy a club then transfer the debt to the club. I think I'll make a bid for Man U, it worked for Glazer.

[doggert]

Good point, Chris. Their formula did allow them to bring in quite expensive players compared to the time before Glazer, hence the reason for my question. Utd went from spending 25-30m on a body to a several 50-, 60-, and 80m-players in a few years.