Barnsley Chronicle and Matthew Murray: Answers Needed

He's not a board member. He's an employee of the club, just like Stokes, the reception ladies etc. What Cryne does with his property is nothing to do with anyone other than Cryne and he has no need to consult or inform what so ever.

 

Maybe so.

The point still stands - I doubt Ben will have been anywhere near negotiations of Mr Cryne's shares. Now, Maurice probably has...

 

The Chief Executive Officer & Chairman will be working hand in glove with the owner with regards to any potential takeover. Patrick Cryne will not be undermining Messers Mansford & Watkins by dealing with any interested parties unilaterally.

 

Well no Matthew, actually. You still don't state the source of your story, which in some respects I can understand. But nor do you give us any further clue as to it's authenticity - particularly given the "firm denial" which the club has issued. Having previously indicated that Mr Cryne would listen to reasonable offers "from the right people", I don't see why the club would feel the need to deny the story if there were any substance to it. I also agree with JLWBL that it is unlikely that Mr Cryne would be negotiating without the the knowledge of Ben Mansford or Maurice Watkins.

So I am still wondering what the credibility of your article is. The Chronicle still doesn't carry it on it's website, and there appears to be no further comment from the Yorkshire Post or Radio Sheffield, who earlier discounted the story. I'll be interested to see what (if anything) develops. In the meantime, please pardon my scepticism.

 

His name's Jay. Unless you're being 'funny' or summat?

You say Matthew doesn't name his source. Why would he?

The club HAVE NOT issued a 'firm denial'. They've not issued anything. You're taking the word of Radio Sheffield/Yorkshire Post over the Barnsley Chronicle, yet they've also failed to name their 'source'.

The Chronicle never carry every article from their printed copy, on the website. Never.


And please remember, Radio Sheffield presenters were adamant at one point last Summer that COG wasn't coming to Oakwell. They also tried to pass off the appointment of Maurice Watkins as some sort of 'exclusive', yet Matthew Murray first revealed he was to be brought in by Cryne about six months previous.

 

Interesting. The story being true or not, i'm sure the paper sold a few thousand more than usual.

 

That was kinda my view n'all Gally...the club aid that said...they had not spoken...not Patrick... Its statements that someone aint willing to put their name too. that should be veied with caution, not the other way round..

 

If any discussions on a possible sale of the club had taken place, they would have been preceded by a detailed confidentiality and exclusivity agreement protecting both sides and requiring both sides to remain silent on the discussions. There would be severe legal implications if either side breached confidentiality, if it could be proven who it was.

If despite the agreement a "leak" occurred and got into the press, both the club and its senior staff, and the other party, would be legally bound not to comment. Depending on the terms of the confidentiality agreement, this may mean they cannot comment at all, not even to deny the rumours. That's why it all appears to be "smoke and mirrors" to us mere fans.

 

Didn't think it would be somehow, like I've said throughout.

Do you genuinely think I'm Matt Murray or are you truing to be funny? You know, I stood up for him, so you'll call me Matt Murray in future? Side splitting if so.

There's been no firm denial from the club, simply two different media organisations offering conflicting reports to The Chronicle. Neither of which put a name to their source. That, my friend, is not a firm denial. Doesn't mean the story is right, as I've explained elsewhere, just what you're clinging to has no more credibility than the original Chronicle article yet you take the denial as fact and dismiss the original.

As I've said all along, I've no idea if the article in The Chronicle is factually correct, I just don't know that it isn't.

I've never said otherwise. I'd be very surprised too.

I've no problem with your scepticism, what I said was that there would be no point Matt Murray replying to your thread. He's already confirmed he believes it to be true by putting his name to it the original article and everything he knows is in that. Even if he did come on here and reiterate it was factually correct to the best of his knowledge, you still wouldn't believe him.

 

People are rubbishing the story because they don't want it to be true. It would be different if Matt Murray was reporting that an Arab or Russian oil tycoon was in negotiations.

 

I'm not sure how much of a toss I really give about all this. But one thing, I'm a football fan on a chat forum about BFC - not a diplomat. I have to sit on enough fences in my work, toe the company line, bite my lip at things I don't agree with and smile while being pissed about by clients and bullshitters.

If a journalist is attempting to hawk a story that the club is denying, I think a Reds fan has every right to be suspicious and question it's validity and substance. Haven't we been fed and swallowed enough flannel and ******** over this last 10-15 years and endured enough stress and worry over the future, nay - the existence of OUR club? While the money men - none of whom have the cleanest of reputations - go cloak and dagger at each other behind closed doors, leaving the poor supporter sitting outside wondering what the fck is going to become of their football club?

Some will remain calm and see how this pans out and I admire their patience. I'm not like that and I would suggest history is on the side of the doubters.

 

But isn't what you've got here a journalist trying to give the fans the truth, exactly the opposite of the money men trying to conceal it from you? Isn't he trying to stop you having to 'sit outside wondering what the fck is going to become of their football club?' He's trying to open up this world of sales and takeovers, not hide them away.

 

Who does Murray follow on Twitter ? Anyone who could have let owt slip ?

 

The Yorkshire Post claims so, via a 'spokesman'. Should we believe one paper over another?

 

Thought in the YP it said 'no sale imminent' - that's at the very least open to interpretation, not a denial in any form.

 

Possibly, but it just thickens the plot rather than bringing any genuine transparency to these processes. Any news/rumours will send the fan-base into varying states of uncertainty and that is what is going on here. This is the shared experience most of us have of the changing ownership of BFC in recent times. It is how we have been conditioned to react, after multiple periods of uncertainty and threatened extinction. Some have perhaps learned to cope with it better that others, some run for the hills.

That doesn't necessarily ally to my opinion of how such things should be conducted, it is just how it has been and it has formed our reception to change. Ben Mansford suggested a new era of greater transparency and communication between club and fan-base and so far he has been good to his word, to the greater degree.

I'm actually of the opinion that initial negotiations should be private, I think the majority of people trust Patrick to do the right thing. If there is anything to tell, then tell it. For all we know, there may have been several enquiries in recent times regarding a takeover, but none progressed to a point where it was worth relaying to the supporters. The same applies to transfer rumours, pies etc.

The fan-base is evidently sensitive to such issues and if I were on staff at Oakwell, I'd want to keep a calm sea right now and concentrate on not being bottom of the league.