That's how I understood it. The Cryne lot own (via holdings Holdings ltd) 20% of the Hong Kong Company
As a Director. That doesn't prove shares, just that he's on the board. The Club Is a 100% subsidiary of BFC Investment Company. As seen below. https://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/company-details/ The only way for 'The Cryne Family' to have shares in that is for them to be through another company. Otherwise they'd be listed as individuals.
Can't be arsed. You're welcome to search the BBS to find them if you want. I'll give you a few starters though. Best transfer window in clubs history. Complete ******** that was. Club record transfer broken. Complete ********. Can't give any info regarding stendels sacking for legal reasons. Magically changed to out of respect after he blabbed to Scottish papers. Utter ********.
Would seem that way BFC Limited details of shareholders Cessation of Oakwell Holdings Limited as a person with significant control on 19 December 2017
You forgot when they used to appear in the away ends and conway told fans at burnley away exciting transfer window coming etc and bulling it up.... we the sold brad potts and signed green and miller.... I honestly dont know what yo make to all this obviously more to it than this statement and it's only one side of the story, but if conway told me it was raining outside I'd have to go and have a look before believing him.
If he told me it was raining I wouldn't bother to check, I'd slap on the factor 5% and go out in a pair of Speedo's.
This is my guess also, although there are a few things that don’t add up. If you look at the Articles of Association of Oakwell Community Assets Limited (they’re on Companies House) you can see that there is a right of first refusal written into Article 9. This means that if either shareholder wants to sell their shares they must first be offered to the other shareholder for the same price (and even if the other shareholder doesn’t agree to this price, they can still acquire the shares for “fair value“). What may have happened is that Chien and Co exercised their option, but under the Article 9 the shares must first be offered to BMBC and BMBC exercised its right of first refusal. This would then take priority over the option agreement (given the articles are a binding agreement between all shareholders). However, what confuses me is that this set of articles were executed at the same time as the sale of the club. The statement says that this option was in place for a number of years, but the previous set of articles makes no reference to the right of first refusal. So perhaps BMBC have separate option that is more than just a right of first refusal. The other part that confuses me is that rights of first refusal are commonplace, so it would be very surprising if any party had overlooked this. Again, this suggests that perhaps it’s something a little more complex.
Exactly - something doesn’t quite ring true about it being a complete shock - something that is so elementary would have been picked up via due diligence and disclosure surely
I seem to recall someone either on here or Facebook saying that Patrick told James not to sell their share of the ground just before he passed on. Could it be that James or his mum as an individual - and distinct from the family company - is the 3rd party that has first dibs? This would explain 'the club' statement saying they had tried all avenues to reach an agreement with the family. It might also explain why it was overlooked when the sale to the consortium went through.
I'm thinking along those lines as well. It would be much more attractive proposition to a buyer if the ground option has been taken.