then you might build yourself a new house somewhere else. And put all your furniture in that house. for the sake of this analogy let’s call the players the furniture.
Given the extreme financial difficulties many local authorities are facing it'd be a bit surprising if the council found the money to buy the ground imo. But if they have then their motive may be a) to protect the future of the club or b) they are so strapped for cash that they want to sell the land for development to raise many more millions than they've paid for it. But they wouldn't do that surely - it'd alienate thousands of local people. And why would the Cryne's not sell to the owners when they thought it a good idea to do so three years ago? I guess that's at the heart of this.......
Do Chien and Co have a long term lease of Oakwell though or are they merely temporary tenants paying rent to a landlord?
The owners "The Club" want to exercise their option to buy 50% of the land from The crynes "Holding club". Crynes told them already promised it "to someone else " (whoever that is). Several attempts have been made to resolve this.... But now the Crynes are suing the owners "Club". Why?? Would be the other way round wouldn't it?
That's how I read it. I assume either Cryne or the council (or both), had an option to buy the other 50% from the other when the original takeover by Patrick was done. It may be the Crynes are buying the council 50%, whilst selling the 50% they hold as agreed, in an aim to stop the consortium taking it over. The council may need the money, so be willing to sell.
Or the Investors had an option to buy Crynes 50% with a value of let’s say £3.5m , BMBC already had an option to buy the 50% at a much lower amount say £2m so told Cryne if you are selling we want it .So the Investors had agreed to buy something which had a third party option on it and that’s what the arguments about
Thank you for that mate. Opinions maybe split but it that's the case. Crynes are wrong. They shouldn't pump money into something that's not theirs
Surely if that was the case then the statement wouldn't have insinuated a third party wanted it and have just accused the Crynes of wanting it? IMO it is either the council going for it or someone else... both of which are a bit bizarre in this current climate.
So 50% of oakwell is owned by BMBC and the crynes so will there be a guaranteed purchase price of the 50% or will it be on market value if it is swillsboro was valued at £80m (by stevie wonder)at that value oakwell must be near a value of £50 mill
So it could be even worse with us playing home games maybe at Wednesday or United. Sounds a long shot but Coventry fans won't have thought they would end up at Northampton and Birmingham.
Shambles this. We go around giving the impression that we're the squeakiest clean, most well run football club around. We make threatening statements in the press regarding other football clubs, yet we haven't got our own house in order. Can't wait till the rest of the EFL react to this. Complete laughing stock.
Doesn't really warrant it's own thread but the Supporters' Trust have released the below just now. Business as usual from a day to day perspective. www.bfcst.co.uk/bfcst-update-on-legal-proceedings/
Well i seem to remember Patrick's fortune coming from something similar. So wouldn't surprise me with this sale either
Well on the one hand we got an unexpected statement on the situation, which is a positive. The content is concerning, in particular because we have have one party in the argument already claiming the name of 'the club' in their communication. As far as I'm aware, James Cryne remains a director of Barnsley Football Club Limited, so is an officer of the company along with the other directors. As directors, there's a collective and fiduciary duty upon them to act in the best interests of the company, so the reference to the 'club' within this is both confusing and unhelpful. Trying to look at things objectively, the existence of a pre-existing option to purchase the share of the ground is something that should have been picked up within the due diligence exercise surrounding the takeover, so unless details have been knowingly concealed from them during this process, then the default position is 'buyer beware'. The biggest concern is that there's clearly a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between the parties controlling the football club, and it seem inevitable that this will lead to some sort of separation of the two at some point. The fact that the Cryne family retained an interest post-takeover has always been a comfort for me that we'd have some protection against 'rogue ownership' doing something to damage its existence. I'm not quite sure what to make of the various 'we did / they did' within this, especially as we've only heard one side of the story, but I'd feel a lot more uneasy about a future ownership which doesn't have that protection in place. I suspect this is going to be an unhelpful distraction to our season preparations, but hopefully the coaching team will be able to plough ahead as best they can. I fear that it is going to adversely affect our incoming and outgoing transfer policy while ever this very public breakdown in relationships exists.