Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Newsbot, Aug 18, 2020.
Read "prosecute" as "pursue".
I didn’t see it as that I saw it as they will defend the claim and perhaps counter sue claiming PC etc hid the other pre existing agreement which would have devalued any offer. That claim would be against the 20% group not the ground.
Sounds like we have a big miss understanding boys. Like my sewing are lass because she wont give half of chairs we bought for table.
The word Prosecute in this instance means to continue with it's action through to completion, so you could replace the word prosecute with " carry out".
Not a political comment in sight either!!!!
Can't pick a winner in a fight I don't understand. But the bottom line is football continues to be played at Oakwell and not some godforsaken brownfield site.
until the crynes lock the doors and stick 2 fingers up to Lee and Conway
Reads to me like Chien et al want the rest of Oakwell and believe that they had an entitlement to it in the form of the option.
They wouldn't have gone ahead with the initial acquisition/investment had that option not been in place.
To be fair to them, I do recall them referencing the option at that first press conference.
The "other party" with an option would presumably be the Council?
If Cryne Snr had granted the Council an option that should have been known to the investors at acquisition. The statement suggests "for the first time" that they had no knowledge of the other parties option.
So presumably Chien et al will be saying this was kept from us, we want damages.
What I am struggling with is the suggestion that the Cryne family are entitled to further payment from the investors for the further share - if another person has already taken that share.
On the one hand the Council protecting Oakwell is something we should always be grateful for. On the other hand if anything was concealed at the time of acquisition, that's not cricket and the investors probably have a legitimate complaint.
All of the above is nothing but conjecture on my part based on the statement - not a suggestion that either party has done that to the other.
As someone else posted - the one thing that is certain from this is that there's a clear breakdown in relationship between the Crynes and investors. Which is a shame.
On the field, it really shouldn't matter, this is more a resale value issue as we're obviously worth less with a third party hand in the ground.
We’ve never been at greater risk of not playing at oakwell than of today.
Conway has shouted legal action numerous times in different instances. You'd think if he'd been legally wronged he would have been the one making a claim first wouldnt you? And quite a lot of time has passed since 22nd Jan 2020. But why did they not exercise their option before in the 6-12 month time period?
This is very very bad. Not just for the club, but the town in general
Chien and co bought the club and 50% of ground. With an option to buy the remaining 50%
The council own the other 50% ( possibly along with cryne)
The other party (council and cryne) actively pursuing the 50% back off chain and co?
But chein and co want to buy it?
This about right?
I think one thing which isn't often considered, is that maybe the current owners do actually want what's best for the club, and aren't, as you say, trying to strip assets.
Since they took over, there's always been this notion that because they have no affinity to the club, town or even the country, they're going to put as little in as possible to get the most out, and then do one. That's contrary to what they pledged when they took the club over. Conway has his critics, but I do honestly think he has an interest in improving the infrastructure of the club. To do that, they're going to need to own the land. Don't get me wrong, the end goal is probably to sell the club for more than what they paid for it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be at the expense of the clubs long term future.
I didn’t think they initially bought any of the ground and surrounding areas?
So the squabble is over 50% of who's share of the gound....
That's what I'm missing.
Club want the 50% from Cryne, but the council or Cryne excersing right for 100% ownership
That about it?
My view is this.
Oakwell and surrounding land should remain in the ownership of Barnsley Council and the Crynes.
A long term lease hold for a annual minimal charge can then be arranged with the people that own the football club.
This lease would allow the football club to develop the ground to gain revenue from it.
It would also ensure Barnsley Football Club stays at Oakwell.
What’s complicating about that ?
At this point - without understanding why the football club wants to buy the ground - if I was supporting any side of the argument then I would be supporting the Crynes.
Reason being that Patrick could have taken full control of Oakwell - but he didn’t.
He sold half to Barnsley Council to ensure that football stayed at Oakwell.
A man of substance.
They didn't. The ground is owned 50/50 by the council and the Crynes.
So in your scenario what’s stopping the club just moving to a new stadium?
as I said in a previous post, could this be the begining of the end at Oakwell. Could it herald the football club leaving.
No. They bought the club with an option to buy the ground in a 6-12 month window which they didnt try to exercise til January this year.
The council own half, the crynes own half.
We don't know who the other party is, but it is probably most likely to be the council.
And yes, it seems Conway and Lee very much want the ground and land!
THE BARNSLEY FC
BBS FANS FORUM
Separate names with a comma.