Maybe but it'd be a bit surprising (at least to me) if his wife and son chose to do something Patrick didn't want back then. I would've thought they'd want to maintain his legacy. Unless something has substantially changed in the meantime of course that has led them to believe Patrick's view would now be different?
They paid an instalment, when push comes shove the crynes don’t have the right to give “the club” the 50% of the ground so “the club” have said you’re not getting the rest of the money then, or something like that.
No Barnsley Fc Ltd is the ‘club’ in that it runs the day to day business and the Crynes own 20% of that. Investments own 100%
Sorry fo being dumb but how can investments own 100% of the club and the crynes also own 20% of the club?
"A new holding company called BFC Investment Company Ltd was created to hold 100% of Barnsley Football Club" If BFC Investment Company Ltd hold 100% of Barnsley Football Club and the crynes own 20% of Barnsley Football Club, but 0% of BFC Investment Company Ltd, that's 120%.
So how do the Cryne family own their stake in BFC Investment Company Ltd? I posited that it was through Oakwell Holdings because that's the logical way for 'The Family' to own the shares, rather than an individual.
Reading it back I’ve not explained that well. I’m gonna give up cos everytime I write it reads the same...
BFC Investment Company wholly owns the football club (Barnsley Football Club Ltd). Oakwell Holdings Ltd (Cryne’s company) owns 20% of BFC Investment Company Ltd. The remaining 80% shareholding in BFC Investment Company will be spread amongst members of the consortium, Chien Lee, etc.
So you can’t or won’t? It seems you have listed some on old threads though, as someone has eluded to, so I’ll look for those to gain context. I’m not arguing or even necessarily disagreeing by the way, just wanting to know the context under which you have drawn your conclusions.
No this was the agreement between Patrick and BMBC as part of the Oakwell Community assets Limited when the ground was purchased. Put into this structure to stop any rogue investors (cough) trying to leverage the asset. Where each party owned 50% of the ground and the club paid an annual rent As part of this, I believe the agreement was that if the council wanted to sell their share of the ground then they had to give Patrick first refusal and vice-versa. Im guessing that is what has happened. Why that is the case would be interesting to know.
One thing I can’t fathom out is why on earth the owners would go to such extravagant expense and investment in the ground such as the New hand dryers if they didn’t know they would be assured the sale of the the final 50% Seems a tad reckless to me.