Could this sudden reversal of a stated plan and the flash sale be for a reason

Patrick cryne has got cancer. Has he realised that the club is actually in a pretty poor position financially without his input (as many have said many times) and is still reliant on handouts. Could the thinking now be that he needs to sell all the assets in order to put as much on the balance sheet in case the worst happens so that the club won't go tits up if his bankrolling were to stop?

Essentially, is this a panic move to try to stop from happening what many have feared would happen in a worst case scenario due to the land and stadium being split from the club and it being run at a loss for years and subsidised by PC loans and gifts?

 

I'm logging off.... It's gonna get really depressing now.....

 

That's life isn't it? It isn't always unicorns, rainbows and roses with little drops of sugar in its petals. Life can be **** and it is wrong to pretend it isn't.

 

Think he meant all these conspiracy theories depressing him tbh ,especially with no foundation.

 

No. We've sold one striker.

 

It wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was a question, a possible reason for the madness we are seeing.

Also there is only one reason that people are speculating and that is the absolute radio silence from the club just like last time when things went wrong and Ben Mansford his in a bunker till we won a few games

 

Correction, we've sold our top scorer who just a few months ago the owner stated explicitly would not be sold and would be kept until his contract expired. We have also got our captain and the owner of Aston villa adding each other on twitter where they can talk in private.

 

No, my statement was correct.

 

As was mine. The difference is you have walked into weight watches and said you have had potatoes for your dinner. I've told them you actually had a big bowl of chips and have got a chocolate cake defrosting for when you get home

 

way to go fella..... hope this helps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

 

No, it is part of the on going policy of identifying potentially undervalued talent, buying that talent, improving them as individuals and selling them on at the right time, or when they have refused the offer of new contracts. This is merely the "selling them on bit" of that policy.

Our club operates in a small town. It has some good fans, but not enough of them and they are not willing to pay the price of watching a good team in the second tier of English football. As a result, in normal trading, the club will lose money. In the long term, it needs to be self sustaining, that is, it must operate policies that mean that it can continue. You can phrase it in the way that you have, but none of us are here for ever and I personally hope that the club will continue after I am gone.

It is just short sighted to believe that the players that we have are here for ever. They are not. They get old, they retire, we get new ones. This has been happening continuously for the last 130 years, and it happens at every club, one way or another. There is no conspiracy, there is no unstated plan, the club does not need to continually make statements about its policies.

 

No mate, I look in the mirror and accept me for what I am, a 40 something with a dad-bod. I no longer imagine I'll ever be an Adonis.

Can we stop the **** analogies now please?

PS My spuds were boiled.

 

Things change. Who's to say Winnall didn't throw his teddy out and demand to be sold (ala Payet). What's the point of keeping a bad egg in the camp, when we can get him off the wage bill, get some money in (turn a profit) and put that money towards investing in a replacement who will bring positivity into the squad, rather than negativity.

It's a no brainer.

The only thing that annoyed me, was the way it was all conducted and the club in which he joined.

 

Good work.

 

That's very likely. I was just questioning whether the other could be happening. It isn't as negative a post as it sounds, I am certainly not saying that Patrick is about to leave us or anything. What I am saying is that perhaps his health scare could have made him change his long game plan. Originally he planned to make the club self sufficient which he himself has said that isn't yet and will take more time to become so but after a health scare like this has he realised that he isn't immortal and anything could happen and he needs to make sure there is cash at hand in case the worst happened tomorrow. He could get hit by a bus walking out of his front door so it is entirely plausible that he is making sure that if that were to happen there would be a healthy bank balance to keep us going.

In a similar way I have got a will and mortgage death protection (whatever it's called) in case I die. It doesn't mean I expect to die any time soon but after something happened to someone close I realised it COULD so I put plans in place that previously I hadn't done

 

I understand that and I agree with everything you post but Patrick DID state his policies regarding winnall and hourihane and selling them is contrary to that policy so surely it warrants discussion as to what has caused the deviation from policy?

Had no policy and plan been stated a few months ago by PC then sure, we would all assume that selling them is part of the unstated policy and ethos but when a policy is stated and actions are taken contrary to that policy then you have to expect questions don't you?

 

Forgive me, but didn't Patrick Cryne say he'd be happy for both Winnall & Hourihane to see out this last year of their contract and if they were to sold, it'd only be on terms the club were happy with?

 

this. Now stop bairning.

 

I do not think that when Mr Cryne said that there was no plan to sell players, that it was a change of policy. It was a short term plan. Since he made that statement, it has become obvious that neither Hourihane nor Winnall intended to sign another contract. Furthermore, it has become obvious that they both intended to let their contracts run out and go shopping for a better deal than Barnsley could offer during the summer.

So, we have a current situation as follows. Barnsley FC is in 10th position, 7 points off the play-offs. As we proved last year in a lower division, that is not an insurmountable obstacle. But nevertheless, it is a fairly short term bet. The bet is £2million transfer fee against the possibility of promotion to the Premier League. Now I know that the fans would bet the £2m and probably a lot more of the money that we got for Stones and Mawson. But it is not the fee that will be worrying the management at Oakwell. It is the on going wages, not just for the current season, but also future seasons when we might not have any windfall to give us a cushion. Administration and the near failure that Ridsdale presided over have taught the directors a valuable lesson. That lesson is that the football club must stay in control of player wages, that the total player pay costs for any year must not exceed budgeted gate receipts. That is how I see it, and that is how I explain the reluctance to set on long term commitments that may not be affordable in the future. It also explains the reliance on short term loans.

When viewed as I have described, the directors have no alternative. They must cash in and look for the next opportunity at an affordable long term cost.

 

I thought he had said that they wouldn't sell because we didn't need to sell them and they were more value to us on the pitch than they would be in the bank (that seems to be what most people are saying). But I can't remember a single time that you have remembered a past event incorrectly so I will take your word for it. If you can remember what minute our 2nd substitute was brought on on Thursday night in October 1956 then I'm sure you can remember what somebody said a few months ago. I on the other hand can never remember my own phone number