Funny isn't it? When its a case of trying to protect their own "interests" they can respond swiftly and with more than 21 words!
At the end of the statement, is it confusing the owner (BFC Investment Company Ltd) and the club (Barnsley Football Club Ltd), because Oakwell Holdings Ltd (the Cryne Company) is suing BFC Investment Company Ltd (80% owner of Barnsley Football Club Ltd - the club) and not Barnsley Football Club Ltd.
Wouldn't the earlier option be registered against the land and visible from the title docs? I'm not sure how its existence would come as a shock...
This. I thought he said stadium to be honest which is why I agreed with him. If it is indeed the council that bought the other half, I’m not particularly happy about a cash-strapped Barnsley Council spending what seems to be £3.5 million on that.
From the day the stadium/land was separated from the club I thought it would one day lead to trouble.
Come on, you can’t have it both ways. They make a swift and, in the circumstances, relatively detailed statement and you criticise them for that? They apologised and recognised what went before wasn’t right. They are right to make a statement on this. How it ends up panning out we don’t know; neither do we know if we should be in the corner of the Honk Kong based consortium or the Cryne’s (and possibly the council). Time may prove these owners to be asset strippers and a nightmare. It might though prove that they were only ever interested in growing the club. We don’t know. And I’m not going to criticise them for not making a 21 word statement when I know for a fact that if they did it would be WW3 on here.
The deal in 2017 to buy the club was on the understanding that they could purchase 50% of the ground, now it appears the crynes had also promised it to someone else earlier on. Makes the whole deal on shaky ground possibly?
Looks dodgy from the crynes if they've purposely kept from chien lee and co the fact that they had an agreement in place with another party
Are you not happy that they've given a statement to stop the rumours? Even saying how much they bought the club for.
So the £2.75m - is that part of the £8m purchase that the owners aren't parting with until this is resolved? The statement suggests Chien etc wouldn't have bought if they knew they couldn't eventually buy the ground. Since the Crynes told them they can't buy the stadium, are they now not paying the money owed? Only other interested party I can think of would be the council, unless the Crynes possibly gave a third party right to purchase as part of an outside investment/loan?
Whichever way this is spun, it is not good at all for the club. I have no idea who is in the wrong so not pointing any fingers. To say it has got to the point of legal action is worrying too. I wonder if this is going to impact upon our recruitment in the meantime given the Cryne family hold a stake?
So "the club" wouldn't have wanted to buy us if they didn't have an option in place to buy the ground. Of course we feel safer with it owned by the council and Cryne family, but any of us buying a Football club we'd want to own the ground they play in as well and if it means it can be modernised then it would be a positive. They aren't going to want to invest in a new west stand, a physical supporters club building etc somewhere they don't own. The statement is clearly from the 80% so we should wait and see if the Cryne family release a statement giving their side.
I’m not too proud to say I haven’t got a f.cukin clue what any of this means. Inception is easier to understand.
The statement, frankly makes no sense. We (Conway et al) paid the Crynes some money.... now they are suing us. On what planet does that make any sense at all?
The danger part from the obvious of owners walking away is they have just been given perfect reason to move to another location of their choice, which they will own outright etc