Things getting nasty at Blackpool

And Patrick Cryne was guilty of that?!?!?!?

 

You could ask me mam.

 

I have the administrator's statement at the time of entering admin. It states what BFC's assets were at the time, and they were in my opinion substantial. The problem as I understand it was that the structure of the club at the time did not allow for those assets to be readily realised. I think, and I am quoting from memory, that the administrators put the sum of assets at around £3m. Maybe more, as I say, haven't looked at the document for a while.

 

I don't know the particulars of how the deal was worked out or how the club was separated from its assets, I was just stating that we cannot be asset stripped as it has already been done.

I believe the land and stadium is owned by Barnsley council and Patrick Cryne in a joint venture contract, each with a 50% share.

 

As I understand it, the separation of the land/stadium etc from the club was to safeguard the club from being 'evicted' and the land being built upon by a.n.other new owner in the future.

I am told that BMBC made it clear during the admin process that they would not allow development at Oakwell which compromised or harmed the football club.

 

The only problem I have with that is they made that promise under a Labour government when the economy was probably as good as it has ever been. Since then we've had the world-wide economic crisis of 2008 and a Tory government slashing funding to councils at an alarming rate. Barnsley council has suffered massive job losses and had to cut many vital services. How long before a councillor with no interest in football looks at our 23,000 capacity stadium and all the land surrounding it, then sees the attendance figures of 9,000, and suggests developing that land for much needed housing, creating jobs and income for the council and moves BFC to a small ground on a brownfield site out of town?

 

I understood that the playing side and the assets re land, stadium, were split into two companies for protection. Further, the land side is co owned with the local authority for further protection, effectively putting it in trust.

 

They'd have to convince/force the other 50% owner first ?

Dunno.

 

I was talking about Oakwell.

 

I guess so.

 

They would. That's why it was done like that

 

I liked the part where you backed up a bold and completely unsubstantiated claim.

 

For some reason, and I haven't a clue why it has come about, people are treated as liars unless they can provide proof to back up their word. It's a ******* shitty state of affairs. Personally, I take people at their word as it offers them the same respect I would wish to be afforded myself.

I've never brought this to the BBS before, but I'm not having the word of a mate of mine being ridiculed. I've still got all the solicitors letters from when I was threatened with court action. Do you need me to actually post them or are you going to take my word for it?

 

Houses on carpark. Planning application. Convinced

 

********. Your mums got them all hasnt she?

 

http://applications.barnsley.gov.uk...es/Skins/Barnsley/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

 

Oakwells safe as houses !!

 

and lets be honest I'm sure the council would sell it so it can be developed into a mini meadowhell........................... even though the council are spending millions on redeveloping the town centre and markets

 

I had no idea he was your mate. Therefore, no idea that it was you who he was on about. Therefore, had absolutely no reason to believe that it was anything other than someone on the internet making a bold claim and waiting for people to go "who, what, where, when?" And then providing no evidence anyway. No different to saying "I've heard we're signing Player X from Club Y."

Apologies if I've offended you.

 

You haven't.

And it wasn't solely or even primarily aimed at you, it's just that it seems to be accepted practice these days to disbelieve people as a matter of course. There are a small percentage of people who write ***** on this forum just for attention, but the vast majority are genuine people who will only tell us what they believe to be right. They won't always be right, but when they post it to this forum they believe it to be so. Back in the day we used to get a number of people posting stuff that turned out to be correct. We very seldom get it any more. The main reason behind that is they are questioned, harassed, asked to provide proof and basically called liars, so they can't be arsed with the hassle.

I understand why people are sceptical, but all this shooting the messenger business has had an extremely detrimental effect on what used to be the first place to get BFC news but now seldom is as we've killed the golden goose.