Why A Chinese-American Investor Brought Moneyball To A Sleepy English Town

So if in our case it makes very little difference if they own the stadium then why does it seem to bother you so greatly that they don't?

12 months ago the stadium was owned by oakwell community assets and 50% of that was owned by cryne and 50% by the council. Barnsley FC rented the ground

Today the stadium is owned by oakwell community assets and 50% of that is owned by cryne and 50% by the council. Barnsley FC rent the ground.

It was never an issue for you before that the ownership of bfc only owned a share in the ground but now it is a reason not to trust them that the ownership of bfc only owns a share in the ground.

 

I think it's a very good set of points made. I'm not as much concerned by the structure and ownership, or the price paid, that's down to the individuals and their respective agreements.

It would however be nice, and perhaps the summer is the best time for this once they are well settled and have gotten ore familiar with people and surroundings, that something of more detail was put forward.

My personal view of where their return is going to come from is not so much the club itself, but from spin off activities and other business interests. Barnsley is an area that has passed it by in many ways. A risky but maybe interesting place to invest and try and skill up a local area for industries its not yet skilled in. They have business interests in tech, leisure and hospitality. From film to media to hotels. The local area has very little of that if any, there are huge swathes of land around us and its very close to Leeds Manchester Sheffield and Nottingham. I can see from that aspect why someone may take a punt to invest in a town and the football club be the starting point of that.

This doesn't feel like a vanity project, a tax write off or someone massaging their ego in buying something that could put them in the public eye.

I'd be very surprised if come next season we don't have more connections with India and China through sponsorships and try leveraging the new digital deal into those markets. That strikes me as the obvious way to increase revenues, overseas viewers through player allowing live football to be streamed and from overseas sponsorships... if they feel they can buy out the CK Beckett final year.

 

Current capacity is about 23,000, averaging 11/12,000. I'd be surprised at being asked about redevelopment.

And your 2nd point ? What on earth are you on about ? If it's not 'necessary' to own it then why are you so exercised about it ? I imagine the new owners have an idea or two about asset development so either way, unless you're out to try and reinforce an original (groundless) view then I really don't know why you're off on one.

 

Think you've missed the point. With no "customers" they would soon start to care.

 

I actually thought it a good thing previously that the club did not own the ground because the ground could not be mortgaged if they did not own it. But our new owners have so much capital that that is not going to be a problem.

It is perfectly possible for them to run the football club without owning the stadium, and the stadium ownership it not at the core of my concern about them, although I do wonder how redevelopment is financed in that case. I was really only responding to Extremely Northern who seemed to perceive it as a weakness in my argument. What I would say though is that if they do not own the stadium, when they come to a time when they want to sell, they are not looking for a new owner who has enough capital to buy both football club and stadium. All they need to find is an owner with enough capital to buy the football club

 

So exactly the same as patrick cryne then. I still don't see your point. I also don't understand the mortgage thing. Patrick had enough money that he didn't need to mortgage the ground either so why was it a good thing for him and bad thing now?

 

The ground is not core to my argument. It is you who has tried to make it so. The only things that ground ownership does affect is the initial cost of ownership and the potential amount of capital required to buy the club if it is sold on again. I am more interested in motives, and principally what the motives were for 3 investment companies to come together (American, Chinese and Indian) to buy a Championship club with limited potential.

 

So you're speaking for everyone as a collective? In your last post you used 'I', which meant yourself.

Simple question, do you think if it's been a busy day in the box office or club shop they talk about serving lots of customers, or lots of supporters?

 

Woah tiger. You're off again, altering history to suit. You've made the issue of ground/stadium ownership (not owning it = they could be off soon) a tenet of your reasoning behind doubting the new owners motives. I've shown you that you held a contradictory view to ground ownership (owning it = loading with debt to raise finance) when it suited your argument at the time.

It's quite clear how you view their motives, and so again - I refer you to the original precis. Once again you've used a 1000 words when a dozen would have done.

 

Hard to disagree Conan.

 

Patrick Cryne knew that he would be owner for just a short time. He always saw himself as a custodian, and said so many times. He wanted to make sure that the mistakes of the past were not made again, even when his time as custodian was over. He saw that placing the land under join ownership, with equal stakes and with both stakeholders having an interest in the continuation of football in Barnsley would be the best way to ensure that it was guaranteed.

I will illustrate the mortgage thing. Let us say that I own a house worth £1m (I do not by the way). Let us say that I would love to own a Ferrari and a speed boat, and that I could do that if I mortgaged my house. I have no chance of owning those things other than through a mortgage because my only income is a pension. So what is the down side. I still get to live in my house and I have my luxuries. The down side is of course that on my income, I cannot possibly afford the interest and loan repayments on the mortgage, let alone the running costs of the Ferrari and the speed boat.
I will illustrate the mortgage thing. Let us say I own a house that is worth £1m (I don't by the way). I would really like a Farrari and a speed boat, and if I mortgage my house to the hilt, I can afford said luxuries t

 

I have not argued two different things. I have explained why the consequences are different in the two cases.

How do you view their motives?

 

5:15 onwards

"we have an option for 6 months to bring 50% of the ground that's controlled by the Cryne family back into the club, and that's something we expect to do within a reasonable amount of time".

I can't see no surprise at all.

 

I would say 99.9 of supporters of any club would describe themselves as supporters or fans and never as "customers". I took umbrage with your use of the term "customers".

It's irrelevant what the club shop describes people as. It only matters how we define ourselves. As I say, if I see myself as a customer I won't be giving my custom to an enterprise that of late has given so little return.

 

I'll give you 10/10 for creativity. aka waffle.

Considering that a lifelong Barnsley fan who dedicated the final years of his life to ensuring that the club he loved was secure and had a future, after much investigation entrusted that club to our new ownership then in the absence of James Cryne disappearing in mysterious circumstances and Oakwell being knocked down to build a Chinese cultural centre and our players sold off to Billy beane incorporated then I will trust in Patrick Cryne and assume that their motives are decent and honest.

Anything else is quite blatantly disrespectful to both Patrick and his family, and the other well respected international figures that constitute our new ownership.

Shame on you. Basically.

 

It is a mystery to me how you have interpreted anything that I have said in the way that you have. I have always been a firm supporter of Mr Cryne and you can go back over the full term of his ownership and you will not find an unsupportive or disrespectful word said by me about Mr Cryne. I would not wish to be associated in any way with the things that you have written about him and I will not discuss the matter with any further. Your wind up has gone too far.

 

I suspect the buy back of the ground is all about priorities. If we retain our championship status, my bet is on them exercising the option to buy that 50%. If the club did fall into the league one, you would then have the loss of revenue to factor in, so why would you focus on the 50% option at that time. It's probably why they negotiated that option which naturally coincides with the end of the season.

 

No wind up, it's just a pity you don't think about the deeper implications before you go spouting unfounded theories.

 

I really can't fathom, understand or see why you'd support BFC with a comment like that.

 

It's a bigger pity that he isnt as positive about anything pre 2003 and post 2017 as he was about every single decision made in the years between. I find it amazing how somebody can praise so highly when one person does something yet be so ferocious in their criticism of everything else.