The Robins Nest Forum

Realistically could supporters have hoped for anyone better than guy?

this guy

Delighted with this development. Well done CTFC Board.

I’m expecting to see Garlick Bread provided for every new signing, and with every main meal ordered in the Bar.

Henceforth it will be said that CTFC is running on Garlick Bread.

You heard it here first.

Cirencester-based photographer, Mike Garlick, should probably brace himself for a sudden and perplexing slew of enquiries about a small football club just to the north.

https://www.mikegarlick.com/about/

Excellent news. Really optimistic. Well done to the board and hopefully everything goes smoothly. Happy days.

CTFC.Harry wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 23:03 Excellent news. Really optimistic. Well done to the board and hopefully everything goes smoothly. Happy days.

Yep,much preferable to some Billy big boots

So, if what I've looked up is correct, assuming that the period of exclusivity began on Saturday when we were told about it, and assuming Mike Garlick decides to proceed, the sale could be signed, sealed and delivered anywhere between 14th July and 15th September.

The shortest period for the period of exclusivity is usually 2 weeks, or could be as long as 8 weeks. How long it is should be written into the agreement between CTFC and Mike Garlick but given JP has said he believes he's hopeful of investing during this transfer window, you'd hope it's 2-3 weeks max.
The EFL checks usually take an average of 3 weeks, but anything between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on how complicated the buyer's history is. As we have seen, Mike Garlick has a good record with business, so this should hopefully be straightforward and take no more than 3 weeks - hopefully quicker.

I'm going to plump for somewhere around 1st August, which would at least give us a month with a bit of extra in the budget, even if most of the better players are gone by then (wonder if we'd have enough to actually purchase a player or two?!).

Great research Shade, our recruitment is going to be very interesting these next few weeks, do we sit and wait knowing we might have a bit more for wages but with risk of a smaller pool to select from or do we push the boat a bit more now and if delayed look to move players on in August...

But of a gamble isn't it, spending money we might not have, on a promise. I'm assuming this will have been spoken about between the board and Garlick - I'd understand if he didn't want to, but it would be nice if he gifted the club a bit of dough in the meantime

Shade wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 16:34 So, if what I've looked up is correct, assuming that the period of exclusivity began on Saturday when we were told about it, and assuming Mike Garlick decides to proceed, the sale could be signed, sealed and delivered anywhere between 14th July and 15th September.

The shortest period for the period of exclusivity is usually 2 weeks, or could be as long as 8 weeks. How long it is should be written into the agreement between CTFC and Mike Garlick but given JP has said he believes he's hopeful of investing during this transfer window, you'd hope it's 2-3 weeks max.
The EFL checks usually take an average of 3 weeks, but anything between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on how complicated the buyer's history is. As we have seen, Mike Garlick has a good record with business, so this should hopefully be straightforward and take no more than 3 weeks - hopefully quicker.

I'm going to plump for somewhere around 1st August, which would at least give us a month with a bit of extra in the budget, even if most of the better players are gone by then (wonder if we'd have enough to actually purchase a player or two?!).

Really interesting. Thanks.

It does feel that we've actually stumbled into a fairly acute and urgent need for this deal to be concluded quickly. I wouldn't have expected us to be in this position only a few weeks back. It's clear that our financial situation, compared to others in the league, has deteriorated hugely in the past year and we are now likely occupying the L2 relegation places in terms of financial muscle. The Bradbury and Haynes departures confirm we are basically fishing in a non-league pool without quick investment.

JSC that's very well articulated.

The gradual decline and fear of the inevitable increases each year.

Did I read on here Oldham just bought a £800k player?!

I fear more for this season than the last few.

MK Dons have paid around £850k for Aaron Collins.

They're officially "going for it" this summer by the looks of things.

MK were taken over by a middle eastern investment group that want to bring premier league football. Yes they spent a huge fee for Collins but they also offered offered Dan Crowley a rumoured £4k a week in wages in January to get him out of Notts County and offered £150k for an aged Crewe defender. Point is they have stupid financial resources for this level currently and no other team can come close.

Jerry St Clair wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 19:54

Shade wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 16:34 So, if what I've looked up is correct, assuming that the period of exclusivity began on Saturday when we were told about it, and assuming Mike Garlick decides to proceed, the sale could be signed, sealed and delivered anywhere between 14th July and 15th September.

The shortest period for the period of exclusivity is usually 2 weeks, or could be as long as 8 weeks. How long it is should be written into the agreement between CTFC and Mike Garlick but given JP has said he believes he's hopeful of investing during this transfer window, you'd hope it's 2-3 weeks max.
The EFL checks usually take an average of 3 weeks, but anything between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on how complicated the buyer's history is. As we have seen, Mike Garlick has a good record with business, so this should hopefully be straightforward and take no more than 3 weeks - hopefully quicker.

I'm going to plump for somewhere around 1st August, which would at least give us a month with a bit of extra in the budget, even if most of the better players are gone by then (wonder if we'd have enough to actually purchase a player or two?!).

Really interesting. Thanks.

It does feel that we've actually stumbled into a fairly acute and urgent need for this deal to be concluded quickly. I wouldn't have expected us to be in this position only a few weeks back. It's clear that our financial situation, compared to others in the league, has deteriorated hugely in the past year and we are now likely occupying the L2 relegation places in terms of financial muscle. The Bradbury and Haynes departures confirm we are basically fishing in a non-league pool without quick investment.

They didn't leave for money but for other reasons from what I can tell. There are ten clubs with lower attendances than us so if we we are low in the budget range (I do not believe for a moment that we are bottom two) then it's due to a) lack of investment and b) lack of revenue vs other clubs at this level which results from lack of investment over time for example still not electronic advertising boards, no fan zone, no revenues from training ground facilities.

Robin wrote:MK were taken over by a middle eastern investment group that want to bring premier league football. Yes they spent a huge fee for Collins but they also offered offered Dan Crowley a rumoured £4k a week in wages in January to get him out of Notts County and offered £150k for an aged Crewe defender. Point is they have stupid financial resources for this level currently and no other team can come close.

But FFP should come into it too and the FA need to grow a pair.

Robin wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 07:57

Jerry St Clair wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 19:54

Shade wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 16:34 So, if what I've looked up is correct, assuming that the period of exclusivity began on Saturday when we were told about it, and assuming Mike Garlick decides to proceed, the sale could be signed, sealed and delivered anywhere between 14th July and 15th September.

The shortest period for the period of exclusivity is usually 2 weeks, or could be as long as 8 weeks. How long it is should be written into the agreement between CTFC and Mike Garlick but given JP has said he believes he's hopeful of investing during this transfer window, you'd hope it's 2-3 weeks max.
The EFL checks usually take an average of 3 weeks, but anything between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on how complicated the buyer's history is. As we have seen, Mike Garlick has a good record with business, so this should hopefully be straightforward and take no more than 3 weeks - hopefully quicker.

I'm going to plump for somewhere around 1st August, which would at least give us a month with a bit of extra in the budget, even if most of the better players are gone by then (wonder if we'd have enough to actually purchase a player or two?!).

Really interesting. Thanks.

It does feel that we've actually stumbled into a fairly acute and urgent need for this deal to be concluded quickly. I wouldn't have expected us to be in this position only a few weeks back. It's clear that our financial situation, compared to others in the league, has deteriorated hugely in the past year and we are now likely occupying the L2 relegation places in terms of financial muscle. The Bradbury and Haynes departures confirm we are basically fishing in a non-league pool without quick investment.

They didn't leave for money but for other reasons from what I can tell. There are ten clubs with lower attendances than us so if we we are low in the budget range (I do not believe for a moment that we are bottom two) then it's due to a) lack of investment and b) lack of revenue vs other clubs at this level which results from lack of investment over time for example still not electronic advertising boards, no fan zone, no revenues from training ground facilities.

We do have electronic advertising on the scoreboard. If you mean pitch side , which you have brought up before, there is no room. You seem to have forgotten that the fan zone is coming on the Parklands area. The training ground gets revenue support for the Academy as well as being rent free so a net asset.

Jerry St Clair wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 19:54

Shade wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 16:34 So, if what I've looked up is correct, assuming that the period of exclusivity began on Saturday when we were told about it, and assuming Mike Garlick decides to proceed, the sale could be signed, sealed and delivered anywhere between 14th July and 15th September.

The shortest period for the period of exclusivity is usually 2 weeks, or could be as long as 8 weeks. How long it is should be written into the agreement between CTFC and Mike Garlick but given JP has said he believes he's hopeful of investing during this transfer window, you'd hope it's 2-3 weeks max.
The EFL checks usually take an average of 3 weeks, but anything between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on how complicated the buyer's history is. As we have seen, Mike Garlick has a good record with business, so this should hopefully be straightforward and take no more than 3 weeks - hopefully quicker.

I'm going to plump for somewhere around 1st August, which would at least give us a month with a bit of extra in the budget, even if most of the better players are gone by then (wonder if we'd have enough to actually purchase a player or two?!).

Really interesting. Thanks.

It does feel that we've actually stumbled into a fairly acute and urgent need for this deal to be concluded quickly. I wouldn't have expected us to be in this position only a few weeks back. It's clear that our financial situation, compared to others in the league, has deteriorated hugely in the past year and we are now likely occupying the L2 relegation places in terms of financial muscle. The Bradbury and Haynes departures confirm we are basically fishing in a non-league pool without quick investment.

New signings coming today. Hopefully we will also fish non league and land more like Thomas and Archer.

Horlick we had electric advertising boards for the Man City so it can definitely be done at least behind the goals until the new main stand is built. They are expensive but definitely pay back over time. Will fan zone be in Parklands or Cakebridge place, that's unclear.

Given the club have a lease on Cakebridge Place and absolutely nothing at Parklands, I don't think it could be much clearer to be honest.

ctfc-fan wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 09:18

Robin wrote:MK were taken over by a middle eastern investment group that want to bring premier league football. Yes they spent a huge fee for Collins but they also offered offered Dan Crowley a rumoured £4k a week in wages in January to get him out of Notts County and offered £150k for an aged Crewe defender. Point is they have stupid financial resources for this level currently and no other team can come close.

But FFP should come into it too and the FA need to grow a pair.

It's the EFL responsible for financial governance in L2, not the FA, and there is no FFP. We have the Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP) in L2. That basically limits clubs from exceeding 50% of their turnover on player expenditure but only players over 21.

The catch is that "turnover" can include cash injections, so a sugar daddy owner can simply pump money in and that's absolutely fine. The rules are being tweaked this year to try and limit equity injections. Also, u21s who are considered established first team players will no longer be exempted. These are pretty minor tweaks though.

Basically, in the modern world of wealthy owners even in the basement division, the SCMP rules are pretty weak.

Robin wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 10:14 Horlick we had electric advertising boards for the Man City so it can definitely be done at least behind the goals until the new main stand is built. They are expensive but definitely pay back over time. Will fan zone be in Parklands or Cakebridge place, that's unclear.

Can you publish your costing and definite pay back time and figure please. The Man City was a one off. Our regular advertisers boards would be obscured and no room left for the frost covers to be left pitch side in the winter so your idea is not workable. As well as the lease issue explained by Si Parklands is not viable for a fan zone with the car park entrance and safety issues mixing traffic and large groups on foot.
There is also no proven interest in a fan zone. We still await the results of the survey done by the Trust.

Jerry St Clair wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 11:03

ctfc-fan wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 09:18

Robin wrote:MK were taken over by a middle eastern investment group that want to bring premier league football. Yes they spent a huge fee for Collins but they also offered offered Dan Crowley a rumoured £4k a week in wages in January to get him out of Notts County and offered £150k for an aged Crewe defender. Point is they have stupid financial resources for this level currently and no other team can come close.

But FFP should come into it too and the FA need to grow a pair.

It's the EFL responsible for financial governance in L2, not the FA, and there is no FFP. We have the Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP) in L2. That basically limits clubs from exceeding 50% of their turnover on player expenditure but only players over 21.

The catch is that "turnover" can include cash injections, so a sugar daddy owner can simply pump money in and that's absolutely fine. The rules are being tweaked this year to try and limit equity injections. Also, u21s who are considered established first team players will no longer be exempted. These are pretty minor tweaks though.

Basically, in the modern world of wealthy owners even in the basement division, the SCMP rules are pretty weak.

Essentially the reason rich foreign investment is now going into unfashionable lower league clubs rather than those up the pyramid who have established fan bases but huge amounts of debts.

horlickfanclub wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 11:38

Robin wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 10:14 Horlick we had electric advertising boards for the Man City so it can definitely be done at least behind the goals until the new main stand is built. They are expensive but definitely pay back over time. Will fan zone be in Parklands or Cakebridge place, that's unclear.

Can you publish your costing and definite pay back time and figure please. The Man City was a one off. Our regular advertisers boards would be obscured and no room left for the frost covers to be left pitch side in the winter so your idea is not workable. As well as the lease issue explained by Si Parklands is not viable for a fan zone with the car park entrance and safety issues mixing traffic and large groups on foot.
There is also no proven interest in a fan zone. We still await the results of the survey done by the Trust.

Why are almost all other clubs using electronic adverts if it's not profitable? Same with fan zones. I don't want to be demeaning but if we want to progress we have to get with the times and be more towards the forward end of the curve rather than last too everything.

Robin wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 12:15

horlickfanclub wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 11:38

Robin wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 10:14 Horlick we had electric advertising boards for the Man City so it can definitely be done at least behind the goals until the new main stand is built. They are expensive but definitely pay back over time. Will fan zone be in Parklands or Cakebridge place, that's unclear.

Can you publish your costing and definite pay back time and figure please. The Man City was a one off. Our regular advertisers boards would be obscured and no room left for the frost covers to be left pitch side in the winter so your idea is not workable. As well as the lease issue explained by Si Parklands is not viable for a fan zone with the car park entrance and safety issues mixing traffic and large groups on foot.
There is also no proven interest in a fan zone. We still await the results of the survey done by the Trust.

Why are almost all other clubs using electronic adverts if it's not profitable? Same with fan zones. I don't want to be demeaning but if we want to progress we have to get with the times and be more towards the forward end of the curve rather than last too everything.

Robin. I did not say using electronic adverts was not profitable. Please read my post again. I did not say anything about profit relating to fan zones. Please read post again.
Your comment about us being last to everything is not accurate. We are well ahead with solar panels on the away stand roof. We capture rain to help supply the water sprinklers. We own our training ground. Our Community involvement is highly rated . We are moving towards an ownership structure that many clubs would wish for. Players seem to like it here. There are positives but sometimes people are not happy acknowledging them.

Robin wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 07:57

Jerry St Clair wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 19:54

Shade wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 16:34 So, if what I've looked up is correct, assuming that the period of exclusivity began on Saturday when we were told about it, and assuming Mike Garlick decides to proceed, the sale could be signed, sealed and delivered anywhere between 14th July and 15th September.

The shortest period for the period of exclusivity is usually 2 weeks, or could be as long as 8 weeks. How long it is should be written into the agreement between CTFC and Mike Garlick but given JP has said he believes he's hopeful of investing during this transfer window, you'd hope it's 2-3 weeks max.
The EFL checks usually take an average of 3 weeks, but anything between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on how complicated the buyer's history is. As we have seen, Mike Garlick has a good record with business, so this should hopefully be straightforward and take no more than 3 weeks - hopefully quicker.

I'm going to plump for somewhere around 1st August, which would at least give us a month with a bit of extra in the budget, even if most of the better players are gone by then (wonder if we'd have enough to actually purchase a player or two?!).

Really interesting. Thanks.

It does feel that we've actually stumbled into a fairly acute and urgent need for this deal to be concluded quickly. I wouldn't have expected us to be in this position only a few weeks back. It's clear that our financial situation, compared to others in the league, has deteriorated hugely in the past year and we are now likely occupying the L2 relegation places in terms of financial muscle. The Bradbury and Haynes departures confirm we are basically fishing in a non-league pool without quick investment.

They didn't leave for money but for other reasons from what I can tell. There are ten clubs with lower attendances than us so if we we are low in the budget range (I do not believe for a moment that we are bottom two) then it's due to a) lack of investment and b) lack of revenue vs other clubs at this level which results from lack of investment over time for example still not electronic advertising boards, no fan zone, no revenues from training ground facilities.

Fair point. I used the term relegation figuratively rather than literally. I suspect you can count the number of clubs we could compete with financially in L2 in the fingers of one hand. I'd say those are Accrington and Barrow (who we could probably outmuscle), and Bromley and Harrogate (who we are probably on a par with).

Everyone else in League Two can probably out-compete us significantly on fees and wages.

Newport have a noticeably lower budget than us and are consistently in the bottom 2-3 because although their crwods are similar to ours they have to rent their ground and training with no revenue.

Add Barnet too (unless they are backed), Harrogate, Bromley probably a couple of others. There will be 6-8 teams in a similar range and Accrington right down the bottom by some way who are probably no more than middle of national league budget wise.

Edit Crewe will also be in the same range we are and Walsall/Grimsby not much better. Teams at the top probably have double or treble us and the teams Ive mentioned.

We cannot have digital advertising due to the height of the boards. It's a not starter at our ground.
I was told by the company that handles our advertising when negotiating sponsorship space last season.

Garby74 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 21:07 We cannot have digital advertising due to the height of the boards. It's a not starter at our ground.
I was told by the company that handles our advertising when negotiating sponsorship space last season.

What's so different with our ground that any other? Can it be fixed with the new main stand (whenever it's built).

The walls are higher than the boards though. That doesn't make sense. There are a lot of gaps though, which would need to be sorted somehow.

I'm no expert but I presume these boards have to be fitted as a continuous panel? In which case, behind the goals is fine - but on the side of the existing main stand, you have the Canteen area that is set deeper towards the pitch than the rest plus at least five 'gaps' to somehow bridge. I don't know how thick these boards are, but let's say they're 6". That brings the Canteen protrusion close to the pitch, limits access via the gate and also limits the walkway between the Paddock and Tunnel where the dugouts are. There would be little advertising benefit to having a run in front of the CF as the lone camera position would never see that. Designing the new stand correctly should fix these issues. Maybe it could incorporate a second camera position to make building a wall and fitting boards on the other side an option? Talking of which, isn't it surprising that we don't have to have a barrier in front of the CF...?

And before anyone says "well we had them for the Man City game" - there were no fans in the ground for that game so many of the access issues were negated.

asl wrote: ↑26 Jun 2025, 07:48 I'm no expert but I presume these boards have to be fitted as a continuous panel? In which case, behind the goals is fine - but on the side of the existing main stand, you have the Canteen area that is set deeper towards the pitch than the rest plus at least five 'gaps' to somehow bridge. I don't know how thick these boards are, but let's say they're 6". That brings the Canteen protrusion close to the pitch, limits access via the gate and also limits the walkway between the Paddock and Tunnel where the dugouts are. There would be little advertising benefit to having a run in front of the CF as the lone camera position would never see that. Designing the new stand correctly should fix these issues. Maybe it could incorporate a second camera position to make building a wall and fitting boards on the other side an option? Talking of which, isn't it surprising that we don't have to have a barrier in front of the CF...?

And before anyone says "well we had them for the Man City game" - there were no fans in the ground for that game so many of the access issues were negated.

Probably being even less of an expert - I would question why they had to be continuous ? Surely with modern optical systems and cabling, it would be possible to run one screen into another even if they were a distance apart? Nothing to do with the other restrictions however.

There must be space to run these at the away end at the very least, maybe that doesn't justify the cost.

They probably need to run in front of the main stand so that they are in full view of the camera.

We must remember to ask at the next fans forum or as it can't be too commercially sensitive , Dave Beesley our Fed.

Back to the potential new owner - I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned any of this stuff but it gives me hope regarding the ground and training facilties. The takeaway is he doesn't splurge but, indeed, invests in the club for it to be able to take care of itself:

Mike Garlick was a significant figure at Burnley Football Club for nearly two decades, serving as a director from 2006 and then as chairman and majority shareholder from 2012. He remained on the board as a director until June 2023, even after ALK Capital's takeover in 2020.

Regarding his investments in the club's infrastructure:

Re-acquisition of Turf Moor and Gawthorpe: In 2013, as co-chairman, Mike Garlick was instrumental in a plan to re-acquire ownership of Turf Moor (the stadium) and the Gawthorpe training base. These assets had been owned by an external company since 2004. This was achieved through setting up a new holding company, Burnley FC Holdings Ltd, and issuing a bond secured against the properties. This move was aimed at protecting the long-term security of the club and its assets, ending rental payments, and putting the club on a firmer financial footing.

Development of the Barnfield Training Centre (Gawthorpe): The development of the Barnfield Training Centre, Burnley's training ground, was a key infrastructure investment under Garlick's stewardship. This facility was identified as a crucial club building block and has been credited with helping to attract players and benefit Academy progression into the first team. Plans for a full indoor training facility at Gawthorpe were in motion by December 2014, seen as essential for achieving Category Two status for the Elite Player Performance Plan.


Investment in talent identification and analysis: In 2018, the club appointed Mike Rigg as Technical Director, with a stated aim to "oversee a new, large investment programme in growing the talent identification and analysis teams at the club." This indicates a focus on strengthening the club's scouting and data analysis capabilities as part of its infrastructure.

Garlick's overall approach was described as ensuring Burnley was a "sustainable football club," and his tenure saw the club become profitable in every Premier League season while he was chairman. He emphasized maintaining a progressive approach to training and player development, which included having a quality infrastructure.