I wouldn't take as strong a stance or view point but I know where you're coming from. It's only greed if they start taking money out of the club though, and we have no proof they've done that yet.
No but I'd be amazed if Conway has relocated to the other side of the world without being paid a penny. I'm still to hear anyone explain why Billy beane paid money to a football team thousands of miles way, has absolutely nothing to do with the club but insists he isn't going to take any back out. Doesn't that mean he has essentially just donated money to a random company in another continent?
Don't actually answer this as nobody seems to know, but surely he has other business ventures as well? I'm sure his business expenses could have been put through one of the companies they have. Billy Beane's name has been quoted numerous times in interviews as being involved in an advisory role around the business and recruitment strategy side of things. I don't think he has 'absolutely nothing to do with the club'.
Isn't that even weirder though? He's giving his time to advise people at the other side of the world yet claiming to get absolutely nothing out of it. Why would someone do that?
I haven't seen anything where he claims to get nothing out of it? My basic understanding was he's part of the consortium, he just isn't on the board (or is he?) and isn't officially involved as a director, but has been noted in an advisory role
But they've all said they aren't going to take a penny out haven't they? Doesn't that mean they're all getting nothing out of it? And don't you also think it's appalling that nobody knows who owns us, how much they own and what their actual roles are? I think that's a disgrace and is a big part of why nobody trusts them
Honestly, I'm not sure if that's why nobody trusts them. I can't remember what was said when they bought the club but I thought the percentage split between them and the Cryne family was pretty clear? I'd said the majority of fans probably do think they know who owns us. The reason the majority, as it seems it is right now, don't trust them/like them is because they've sold star players and signed way too many youngsters. As I said in an earlier post, my biggest gripe is why we didn't just add one or two proper Championship footballers or ones with some form of experience in English football, and why we went from being an U25 side to being an U23 side.
Wouldn't know. Our owners have been very secretive over their intentions. It's been asked by fans many times but no answers have been given. We don't even know who owns our ground anymore
No. It means they will try and appreciate the asset and sell for a profit. Thats when they get their reward. See Nice
Isn't the club 100% owned by a holding company based in Hong Kong? So the owners have shares in that company, not in BFC directly?
We know that James and "the Cryne family" (whatever that means) owned 50% and the council owned the other 50% Did James sell his 50% to the new owners meaning he now owns 20% of 50%? Or did he retain that 50% meaning the owners dont own any of the land? They stated they had an option to buy the land after 6 months (is that James share or the council's share?) They have since said that the position is still the same and they still intend to buy the land. Which part? How is the position the same when 6 months has expired? I've never seen anyone clarify who owns what and it's been asked several times on here
Maybe I'm being simplistic, but I've always assumed the football and the council owned 50% each and that hasn't changed. Our share was never owned by the Cryne family per say.
But Oakwell community assets doesn't have any directors linked to our club owners since Patrick passed away. Surely if they had taken over his share they would have some representative on the board?
Its the shareholding that’s important though not the directors. I dont think that had changed up to last March at least. The Cryne estate and BMBC
So does that mean that our owners don't own any of the land at all? And what I have never understood is that they said they had the option to buy after 6 months. Doesn't that mean that set figures were in place in a signed contract which they could choose to invoke after six months? I don't understand how later they can say that they're still negotiating or whatever claptrap they've said when they get repeatedly asked. See what I mean though about the confusion? Loko seems to be under a different impression to you. Why can't they just answer the questions openly? They know people have asked and yet chose to disregard the fans wishes to know what the ownership structure of our club is for two years now. Can't ever have people's respect or trust if you treat them like mushrooms
The new investors didnt at least up until last March. That may have changed since. Obviously, James Cryne owns 20%, I think, via Oakwell community holdings ltd
