The Sale of Barnsley FC - More or Less Likely?

I feel a right dick for buying a house now it's been pointed out that there's no value to owning property.

 

And how do you do that?

 

The land and buildings and club were split into two for the laudable and very specific reason that Cryne did not want someone to come in and asset strip, or be able to saddle the club with a load of debt secured against the land and buildings. This has worked precisely according to plan.

HOWEVER, the knock-on impact of that is that it has made the football club less attractive to an outside investor. I don't see how you can't see that.

Ask yourself - would Glazer have bought Man United without Old Trafford given how he has used it for leverage. Now, I tend to agree with you and Cryne that we don't really want investors of that nature, but on the other hand, would he have invested without the stadium and all the rest of it? No chance. We're talking about the attractiveness of the football club as a proposition to all investors here.

 

Correct. It's not as if you'd ever want to extend it, or sell it to fund moving to a better property more appropriate to your needs, or hold events in it, or borrow money against it at some future point to fund investing in other things, much better to keep paying money to a single landlord, especially one where you can't move to an alternative.

 

I think you're just being obtuse now.

http://bbs.barnsleyfc.org.uk/showth...-FC-More-or-Less-Likely&p=1908803#post1908803

There's TM's response here - but as an aside - I assume you've seen the houses/flats that have been built adjoining the Ponty end car park ? Do you think they made OCA any money or not ?

 

Re: Benefits of owning the stadium

1. The land is owned in partnership between the Council and the Cryne family. The club is charged rent, but it is not exorbitant. Any change to the ownership would have to be agreed by both parties and since both have an interest in the continued well being of the football club, I feel this is unlikely. The £6m that the ground would cost a new owner has to be found from somewhere, either by taking it from an existing deposit account or by borrowing the money. Either way, there is a cost associated with buying the land which offsets the rent that has to be paid to the existing owners.
2. The green belt area is just the training pitches. It is very unlikely that the council would grant planning permission for any change of use of the rest that was not football related, but even if the did allow anything, the club still has to play somewhere and any move away from Oakwell would be fought tooth and nail by the fans.
3. As far as I am aware, there are no restrictions upon the use that the club makes of the land when it is not being used for football. If an alternate use was a viable proposition, there is no reason for not doing so now.
4. The loan finance could not be as great as the sum invested to buy the land and buildings by the new owner. If loan finance were required, the club would need to ensure that it could afford the interest or it ends up in Administration. If loan finance is required do we have any guarantees that it is not being taken out simply to repay the owner what he originally invested in buying the business asset.
5. He could move somewhere else, but it would be over a lot of dead bodies.
6. There is nothing to stop the current stadium being extended other than the fact that it is only half full most of the time.
7. There is nothing to stop the club selling naming rights, and in fact all of the stands are currently named.
8. There is no evidence that any third party has obstructed the club.

Sorry, but I see nothing here to change my mind. Have you got anything else?

 

I assure you that I am not being deliberately obtuse. I just do not understand and I have not yet received any explanation that I feel hold any water at all. Please treat me like a 4 year old and explain it again.

 

From what I have read about American Sport, they never own the stadium. Their sport is based on teams being a franchise. They bribe cities to build them a stadium and they move on when the agreement runs out, changing the team name from one city to the next. I do not think that Glazier had any interest in Old Trafford for the reasons that I have already stated. He bought Man U for the name and for the marketing potential associated with it.

Cryne's reasoning is no more wrong today than it was 15 years ago. I do not see your point for the reasons that I have already stated.

 

To be fair I think we've reached a point where you are determined that your view is not to be changed - TM's response to you outlined the ways in which a new owner of BFC could leverage use of the land - if you think that there is no point in that then I could talk all day long and you'd still not accept. In pretty much the same way that nothing you've said makes any sense to me as purchaser of businesses and assets.

 

I'm surprised RR is still contributing to this thread.

Normally he flounces off saying he can debate with people if they fail to understand his point of view. By which he means if they don't agree with him.

 

Don't know about anyone else but I'm knackered.

 

Myg Rain strikes again. His narcissism knows no bounds.

 

Sorry, run that one by me again. I am supporting a decision made by Mr Cryne and I am narcissistic. Please explain.

 

As I have explained many times, we debate on here not to change minds but in order to get the other person to think. The replies of yourself and Tyketical Masterstroke have caused me to think, and for that, I thank you. However, I do not find anywhere in this thread any powerful argument that persuades me that I am wrong. Furthermore, I am simply supporting the position taken by Patrick Cryne when he took over the club and split the playing side from the property. The decision taken then and the reason behind it are as valid now as they were then.

 

I don't think anyone would disagree what Cryne did re: separating the club from the land to prevent mishaps in the future - the argument is that the club minus its assets is a poorer prospect for a purchaser other than a wealthy Barnsley fan.

 

The club with assets (ground, land ect) is a wealthy prospect to someone who would want to run up debt and borrow on those assets see bury for example a disaster in the making we don't want to go down that route. Like already said Notts County have just got american owners, look at brentford and Bournemouth they both get less support than us and have rich investors. Hopefully this doesn't need to happen Mr Cryne gets his health back and decides to carry on where he has left off or passes the baton on to his lad if he wants it.

 

If I was someone with an ego, which I am not, and wanted to own a Championship Football club, which I do not, would I rather spend say £2m to buy Barnsley FC without any land and buildings, or £8m to buy Barnsley FC with land and buildings. You see to spend £2m on a football club, you need to be seriously rich, but if that same football club costs you £8m, you seriously reduce the number of people who might be interested, especially as that is probably not the end of your spending.

The argument seems to be that a Barnsley fan might be interested at a cost of just £2m, but if you increase that cost to £8m, then a whole lot more people from beyond Barnsley become interested, even if there is nothing that they can do to obtain a return on their increased investment. When I ask for an explanation, I am called names (sorry not by you), but I am simply asking for an explanation of why that makes sense.

To summarise,

If there is no land in the club, it cannot pledge it in support of an unaffordable loan, which is good for the fans because we do not get into the mess that caused Administration.

If there is no land, the club does not attract potentially the wrong sort of owner.

If there is no land, the new owner has not tied up £6m in an asset that he cannot manage, which potentially allows him to invest that money into the playing side.

Honestly, I see no down side.