Yep another truth that summer, along with the Kieffer Moore, demanding to go story.. But in way Kieffer did keep us up that year,with Wigans point deduction for over spend
I'd rather see actual facts than "facts" extrapolated from a very narrow selection of sources. Look, I'm not saying you're wrong, but my Stendel comment is no less wrong than any one else's version of whatever particular narrative they're peddling on here. Because no one actually knows anything, aside from the people directly involved.
Not a great example. There is hard evidence in the club accounts that £750,000,000 has been used inappropriately. The club initially implied that the reason for closing the West Stand was it failed a safety inspection something that is demonstrably not true. So there is good reason not to take everything the club says at face value It’s enough to at least make someone question the clubs version of events around Stendel All we have as evidence is a statement from the owners but nothing to support it Now if you have any evidence to support your claim that changes things a lot
Don’t agree mate based on the fact that hardly a penny was spent in the Championship this Summer, and Val’s style of football meant some clubs were just off limits. Nobody was throwing around £2 million on a Head Coach so none of those dominoes would have led to us. This was the only job that was realistic, but it relied on 3/4 people turning it down first. Obviously I could be wrong, but I don’t think he was ever in contention at Palace. Even Viera wasn’t first choice and they never spoke to Val.
How am I loyal to the owners? Read back through my posts lately, I'm as jaded about this as anyone else. But what differs from me and a lot of people is that my anger isn't solely aimed at the 80%ers, it's every single party involved, it's a mess from top to bottom and it makes my heart sink to see the club in the state it's currently in.
The 750k thing isn't illegal or fraudulent or whatever. They own the club, they can pay for it how they like. I would rather that they were transparent about it that's all. It's just evidence of more lying.
We’ll never know, but if he was here at the start of the season and we were doing ok, it would’ve been hanging over the club because we weren’t in control of keeping him. Ultimately, the sort of staff turnover that happened in the summer with people moving to various clubs shouldn’t be happening in one hit. Means the work done over a number of years to build the structures has been thrown away. And I’ll never understand how Murphy was still actively working as CEO just a few weeks before his contract expired. That’s the one that makes me think the board took their eye off the ball with BFC.
Actually it might be. I’m not a expert but reading the views of those that are implies it may be against the rules to do it they way they have. Had they paid all the directors a divided and then used that to pay off that’s legal, but to just take cash direct from the club to pay off part of the purchase isn’t right. But in any case you main point stands they certainly aren’t transparent
But it should be. They are the majority shareholders. The Crynes can't improve anything, they only own 20% of the club. And the Council/Crynes are simply the joint landlord, they're not responsible for the success or failure of the company renting the stadium.
Maybe, but while the stadium stays in its current state, even with the west stand open. We’ll always end to gravitating to the bottom of the championship or league 1, unless somebody is prepared to bankroll the club to an unsustainable extent.
He'd done such a despicable and disloyal thing that they re-employed him at a sister club Yes, fully aware sacked again now.
Why are all your blanks filled in pro Conway though? What has he and his cronies done to make you believe a word they say? There is so much evidence to show them as liars who we shouldn't trust yet you have taken the opposite stance and decided that every word they say is gospel. I can't tell if it's you deliberately trolling and taking the opposite view for the sake of it or if you genuinely believe every bit of ******** they come out with. By the way no official complaint was ever lodged with the fa/EFL regarding Huddersfield town tapping up a club employee. That's not an opinion it's a fact.
The Crynes believe that Barnsley Football Club Ltd should not have paid £750k of the purchase price of the club to them out of company funds. They believe that the 80%ers should have paid it. For what it is worth, I agree with them. The matter will be decided in court, and until then, the whole thing is based upon opinion because a judge will decide definitively. His decision will cover the £750k already paid, and the £2.75m that is due to be paid.
Whether the 80%ers have paid all of the agreed price for the club yet is not known, let alone the increased price resulting from the club achieving the agreed target that was built into the purchase agreement. The 80%ers really do not care whether they are popular with the supporters or not. They bought 80% of the club in order to make money. The only way that they can do that is to sell it on for a profit. That means that they have to find a buyer who is willing to pay a premium on the price that they paid (plus the increase for achieving the target). There are a number of ways of doing that. They can improve the club so that it becomes a more attractive investment opportunity for another party, or they can become such an unpopular owner that someone stumps up a premium just to get rid of them. I know what my money is on, if only because that is exactly what they did previously.
I'm pro-Barnsley Football Club. I'd be happy if all parties involved in the ownership of it fuc ked off never to return.
That makes more sense and slightly different to what I asked for clarification on. For what it’s worth it does seem odd as effectively the Crynes are paying themselves partly.