One thing I find very odd about the whole thing

If the ground sale was so fundamental to the deal, why wasn’t due diligence done on it to the n’th degree.

sounds a bit schoolboy to me if it wasn’t.

 

All this talk about due diligence. What about the vendors telling the investors the truth about what they were buying?

 

We could now end up with owners of the footballing side that could just walk away because they can't buy the whole kit and caboodle.

 

They can't just "walk away." The club is being run by a CEO. They can be involved or not. What they could do seeing as there are retained profits is pay dividends taking cash from the company. But, if that led to failure, (and someone can go into more detail who has more insight of company law), they would be breaching their duties as company directors.

 

Difficult to do due diligence on information you don't know about. Or at least now claim not to have known anything about. The Crynes will have signed it all off saying they have disclosed all information that would/could impact the investment.

 

Given Crynes court appearences re the Isoft sale and questionable accounting practices at Isoft I'd be very surprised if the Conway Lee consortium didn't go over every detail of the BFC sale with a fine tooth comb if they didn't more fool them.

 

The due diligence is carried out both sale and purchase side, and its each party that is responsible for it to enable them to progress and get heads of agreement and balance out the finer detail.

The only way there is an issue is if the purchase side asked for information that wasn't provided accurately or falsehoods were declared.

If they didn't ask for information or obtain proof of a particular matter as part of the transaction, its their own fault.

 

You mean like what occured during the Isoft sale overseen by a Certain Mr P Cryne for which he was charged with various offences a fact some of our fans like to pretend never happened.

 

No, its absolutely nothing like that. Conflating two very different situations doesn't give indication of what has happened in this instance either.

There is obviously disagreement that has led to the Crynes taking legal recourse. If it were so seriously the other way, why isnt it the investment group taking legal action against the Crynes?

 

Too very different situations really!!! two company sales where both buyers alledge material facts affecting the sale weren't disclosed both sales have one thing in common a certain Mr P Cryne. You say why aren't the investment company taking court action well maybe they are planning to but haven't reached the stage were it can be made public yet. What they have made public is the allegation they weren't told about the third parties rights over Oakwell the fact they've gone public suggests they are pretty sure they can't be sued for making that claim because it's true.

 

Well if the amounts still owed by the investment group to the Crynes from the sale are greater than the value of the option then they presumably took the line of "f*ck you then, we're not paying unless you honour the option and if you sue us for the money owed we'll defend it and/or issue a counterclaim"

 

The FRC probe was for alleged accounting irregularities relating to a potential overstating of future revenues, which was dropped after initial investigation but reopened some years later but never taken forward.

Maybe you could elaborate as to why the Crynes are the ones taking legal action for alleged breaches by the HK investment company?

 

It seems thats exactly where we are. Maybe a mix of naivety and desperation in terrible times for the Crynes to receive such small proceeds over such an extended period of time.

 

Due diligence, based upon my experience, is anything but. I was involved in a management buyout some years ago where a very significant amount of money was spent on the 'due diligence' process. It was only when the skeletons came rattling out of the cupboard a few months down the line that we realised we'd wasted our money.

 

There is some good news in all this speculation. IF the owners walked away, the debt situation would Make it easier for a new owner to come in.

 

Innocent until proven guilty. A fact that some our fans like to ignore

 

that would depend on who the new owners where !

 

dont misinterpret Me btw, the good news is ‘it would be easier’ not that any new owner would be good news.

 

Do we know they didn't? And surely if it wasnt explicit, taking it to court will expose this?

 

No, we don't, but why should it have to come to this is beyond me.