[Official Site] CLUB STATEMENT

While I can't argue with any of that, it would seem to me that in such circumstances it would be the new owners pursuing the Cryne group for breach of contract.

 

Donny would be the better option as they are in a different division.

 

It seems some are desperate to conclude that the Crynes are to blame...maybe because the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

 

I think we can all reserve judgement until both sides of the story is told - but what we can say is that it's a **** show either way.

 

Apologies, I wasn't accusing you of it, or saying that you were against Chien Lee et al. I do see how my post might come across that way though.

 

Is it a flat-pack stadium?

 

When they took over there was a statement on the BFC website saying amongst other things
The new owners investors had a 6 month option first dibs to buy the ground
They failed to do that for whatever reason presume they didn't have the money available at that time

I made a post on here saying now that 6 month period is over can anyone now buy the 50 % ground etc
Supporters , the council , another investment company
I presume that was the case and someone has Offered to buy it and that offer has been accepted whoever that buyer may be council cryne or other partys.

So not sure what they are crying about if that is the case.

They should have bought it when they had the 6 months exclusive rights.


In a further plot twist !! Stir the pot

They want out of a bad investment that is not going the way they anticipated
They know full well what the details were
And have brought this up as a excuse to sell the club and save face in future
business dealings

 

Why would they? It would make no sense providing the location and plans are suitable.

 

Maybe they see Wigan as a better bet?

 

If things don’t go there way i could easily see them selling up

 

My take and a few questions.

Why do they always refer to 'the Cryne family'? What does that mean legally? Can shares be in the name of an entire family? Everyone assumes it's James and Jean but 'the Cryne family' could contain uncles, cousins, uncles wife etc. Surely the 20% is owned by either James or Jean or by a company formed by the the two?

The statement says that the hong kong based bfc investment company ltd and 100%, does that mean that 'the Cryne family' own 2% of the hong kong company?

When they took over the club they DEFINITELY mentioned 6 months because my the time frame to buy the ground. I have repeatedly asked this question but never been given a satisfactory answer. Why did they neglect to do so at that point? Why have they not made any attempt to do so for 25 months rather than the 6 months they told us about? I have a theory for that which I believe may explain the entire situation.

As Gally says, Patrick did indeed once say that the council has an option to buy the other 50% and he had the same option for their 50%. I'm not sure of the details of that but I think this from a 2015 supporters meeting may be relevant: (courtesy of @Gally )

Now my opinion on everything.
Firstly I think the use of the words 'the club' is bang out of order. They state that 'the Cryne family' own 20% of the club and then repeatedly try to distance them from the club they support and part own by referring to our new owners as being the club and the Cryne family' as not being. How can 'the club' which the Cryne family' part own sue the Cryne family' for not selling themselves the ground? Makes no sense. Let's just call it what it is, Chien/Paul v the crynes. Not the club versus the crynes.

What really does piss me off is why is it that ever since these clowns came to this club there has been controversy and threats of legal action almost constantly? WE ARE A COMMUNITY CLUB!! If you are constantly involved in legal action or threats of legal action perhaps you should take a step back, look at yourself and think maybe you aren't such a nice person.

Now my theory on what may have sparked all this. I'm sure Conway and co have previously brushed off questions of land ownership by saying 'we are in discussions to buy' blah blah blah. As they have now shown that the agreement to purchase the Cryne half was a set figure then this cannot have been the share they were in discussions to buy so here's what I think. I think they've spent two years trying to buy the council half for a bargain price and have always been knocked back but that they have just before January this year agreed a figure with the council for that 50% which is higher than the figure the council had agreed with Patrick Cryne for his half.
Could it be possible that the council are the ones here who were playing it smart? Sell their 50% for (I'm making figures up here) £10m to Conway and Lee and simultaneously take up their agreed option of £5?m for the Cryne half. Net gain £5m for the council whilst still maintaining their 50% to protect the club (that's the actual club not some ******** propaganda use of the words)?
Chien and con way then got all upset that they still wouldn't end up with 100% of the land and refused to pay 'the Cryne family' the rest of the money owed?


Also a message to Conway etc. Move the club elsewhere and you will most likely find yourselves owning a club with no fans. I'd rather watch a new club playing at Oakwell and working its way back up than I would a conway owned club that treats fans like **** in a shiny new stadium next to the motorway.

 

Would not be able to use Donny would we don’t we have more season ticket holders than their capacity

 

This sounds a very likely scenario to me.

 

The reference to the Cryne family is, in my opinion, a reference to Oakwell Holdings. The directors of the company being James and Jean Cryne.

The last set of accounts for Oakwell Holdings show a holding valued at £2m, which represents their investment in Barnsley Football Club.

The accounts also show a further £3m owed to Oakwell holdings over the next three years, representing the staged payments from BFC investments for the purchase of the club. I think it would be a simple step to assume that because of the dispute over the ownership of the ground BFC investments have refused to pay Oakwell Holdings the remaining £2.75m as part of the purchase price hence the legal action to attempt to enforce that payment.

Interestingly £5.7m was repaid to the Directors of Oakwell Holdings over the course of the year.

 

Brilliant plot for a film but I really can't see Barnsley MBC either being that clever or having the testicles to carry it off......

 

Harrogate town are playing their.

 

Are we? You sure?

We are a club which is important within its community yes, but we are also a multi million pound business with a complex ownership model for its various bits and pieces, spread across several limited companies registered both in the U.K. and Hong Kong.

To respond to the rest of your post - how are you drawing such negative conclusions against the owners? Why is them being stronger and not letting folk tickle their bellies necessarily a bad thing?

For years our club has just accepted whatever the bigger boys say as gospel, sometimes competing with them on the field but never having the ******** to say boo to a goose off the field.

I’ve no problem with showing a bit of backbone.

I do, however, reserve judgement as to who, if anyone, is to blame and the main cause of this issue. You seem to have concluded that Chien Lee, Paul Conway et al are the issue, but where is the evidence to suggest anything of the sort?

Patrick Cryne did a hell of a lot to save this club and we should be thankful, but his business dealings away from the club were questionable at times. We’ve nothing to suggest James and Jean have anything like the same affinity for the club - in fact James didn’t want to take it on - so is it not just as possible that they have tried to pull a fast one on the owners here? We don’t know. To pull the major shareholders to shreds based on wild assumptions isn’t right; they may be completely in the right, the Cryne’s may be, but we don’t know.

What I can’t fathom is why if the council already own half the stadium and land, they’d want to own the other half ‘to protect the ground for the fans’ as some have suggested. As skint as the council is, I can only think they’d want a 100% share so they can knock it out for a big profit to a developer. We don’t actually know it is the council buying it - but who else would? Unless it’s a developer directly and bmbc are selling their half too.

My continued support isn’t dependent on playing solely at oakwell - I don’t have any desire to leave but that choice might not be made by the club or its current owners if they don’t get the opportunity to buy it, and the Cryne’s with the council sell it elsewhere from under them.

We don’t know any of the details as to who has done what; the council might want Oakwell to sell for development land. The owners might want to do that and put a flat pack up next to the M1. The owners might want it to improve it. The Cryne’s might be scared for the future of the club. Or might be interested solely in lining their pockets and pissing off Lee et al.

All may or may not become clear in due course - but it certainly isn’t clear now.

 

Banking investors don’t care about saving face, they care about making money.
No way would they deliberately devalue a business.

 

I think Lee and Conway would sell the club before do that. Seems like a lot of hassle and expense when they could just flog us and go and buy a different club without these kinds of issues.

 

Or withhold payments due to the Cryne family as they felt aggrieved. As such the Crynes then go to court for this money and this allows the investors to counter sue for being misled, any money owed could be substantially reduced. By not initiating the court action they present as the more reasonable party. Can you imagine to how it would have looked if the new investors had gone to court against the Crynes. Now they can defend their position.