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

But they aren't from Barnsley so must be crooks

 

There is no doubt that some owners have bought football clubs as hobbies, as status symbols, as a way of their names associated with the Premier League, the biggest league in the world and with world wide reach. However, our owners are different. They are a consortium of 3 different investment companies from three different countries plus the Cryne family (20%). Investment companies are in the business of investing for profit. That is what they do. They buy and sell companies. With it being a consortium, the proportions invested into the project by the members of the consortium will have to be closely aligned and new investment drawn off in the same proportions and only as agreed by all members of the consortium. We know nothing of the proportions of their original investment, let alone what they have agreed about further investment, aims and strategy. All we know is that they are not going to do anything "crazy". I am not just worried because they are not from Barnsley, although you are right that I do wonder what the motivation is for someone outside my country, let alone outside my town, wishing to own my football club. My primary worry is because of the business they are in, and whether it reconciles to the principles of benign custodianship as outlined under Patrick Cryne.

I will be watching BFC for the rest of my life, no matter what league we are playing in, and membership the Premier League is not something that exercises me in the way that it does others on here. However, I do want my football club to continue and I do get worried about major change, especially when I do not understand it fully.

 

Whilst I have often been an outspoken poster on Mr Cryne's operation of the club it is blindlingly obvious to me that he will have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the new owners will as closely as possible, have motives close to his own. Whilst there are no guarantes post sale and of course beyond his sad death, I'd imagine that the fact they made the purchase happen without the ground says they are serious about a long term relationship with the club and the town.

You've not responded on the wider possibilities that their investment brings. it is not just about the football club. in any case, Mr Lee says that he does not necesairlyfollow the herd with his purchases. He might just know what he is doing.

 

He clearly does know what he is doing, but are his motives ones of self interest or is he looking after my interests too. As for the rest of your opening post, I have absolutely no idea.

 

Look he's not Patrick but you could still give him a chance.

 

Seriosly, you have no idea? Come on. If Mr Cryne hadnlt wanted to make sure the next owner was honest in their intentions he could have sold it years ago, I'm sure!

That depends if there is any similarity between your interests I suppose. So likely as not, not.

 

What Barnsley has almost uniquely is significant untapped Chinese tourism potential in the shape of the Hudson-Taylor link. Meat and drink to Chien Lee.

 

I have no alternative, given the consortium has bought my football club but to give them that chance.

But I think you mistake my motives. I have not written anything in this thread in the hope of turning people against our new owners. I ask questions that interest me in the hope of provoking debate in order to gain a greater understanding of a subject. There are lots of things that I do not understand about this takeover, and I have tried to get others talking constructively about the things that I do not understand. I do not understand the structure of ownership, the aims and motivations of the consortium that has taken us over, how long they propose to own the club or what would trigger another sale. There are lot more things as well. The consortium could have referred to the flip chart at their press conference, where the ownership structure was apparently laid out, or having realised that it had been missed, they could have released it though our web site. They have not. Now you may have answers to all these questions, or alternatively the questions may not interest you, but they do interest me, because as far as I can see, there is no good reason to hold that information back. They have not even completed the "Persons with significant control" section under the "people" tab at Companies House. It still says Patrick Cryne and Oakwell Holdings.

You often attack me personally because of the questions I ask, as do others. I deliberately do not rise to such attacks because I do not want to make these things personal. I want people to deal with the substance of the question and not the person behind it. I hope that I ask interesting questions and that I stimulate debate, and that is all I try to do.

 

The problem is you present your opinions as facts, your guesswork as facts and ignore anyone who disproves what you are saying.

 

To be perfectly honest there are a LOT of unanswered questions about Patrick's tenure as club owner but for some reason they never seemed to bother you at all. I won't go into what those questions are because I do not wish to draw criticism of a dead man but there are a lot of things that many didn't understand and which weren't ever really explained.

 

Sadly, Mr Cryne knew that he had little time remaining. Are you absolutely sure that at the end he was still motivated to tick all his boxes, or would his motivation have been his imminent demise. I do not know, and I suspect neither do you.

 

I can guarantee that if any of the new consortium had the same "legal situation" has Patrick people would be calling them a pig to a dog and saying there is no way we would want them in charge of our club.

 

But every time you say this, I tell you that I know nothing that is not public knowledge. I have no doubt that I have an irritating style. If that were not so, I guess that I would not polarise opinion in the way that I do, but that is why I ask people to deal with what I say rather than the way in which I say it.

 

I always explain my reasoning for holding a particular view. John Dennis and Danny Wilson took us to the promised land and there was no-one happier than I was at that unexpected turn of events. Since then, both of those heroes have done their reputations no good at all. I thought Danny Wilson was justifiably sacked, and that comes from someone who was still supporting Lee Johnson after 9 defeats. The first duty of any company chairman is to make sure the company stays in business. Most posters accept John Dennis' excuse for not carrying out that primary duty. I do not, and it is as simple as that.

Our new owners could easily come clean on the questions I have asked. Until they do so, I shall continue to be concerned.

 

Sorry, but I will not go there.

 

What questions have you actually asked? You want to know the precise breakdown of exactly how many shares each individual owns? Let's remember that at the start Patrick was very cagey about what he owned with other people holding the shares. In fact wasn't that the case towards the end too?

You want to know why they haven't bought the ground? The ground is still owned exactly as it was when Patrick didn't own it all either but it never bothers you then.

You want to know why Barnsley? They have answered you

What else do you need to know? It's hard to really remember everything you say in your essays, a lot of your key two or three sentences and questions get lost in the chapters of text

 

I would like to know

1. What is the current share ownership structure.
2. How does the consortium propose to provide further funding if required.
3. What are their short and long term aims for the company.
4 How do they hope to get a return on their investment.
5 Why did they chose Barnsley in preference to another club with perhaps greater potential.

That lot will do for now.