The Cryne’s side

It's libellous, unless the person writing it is very, very sure they can prove it.

 

I think this is bang on the money.

 

They were the stance if needed Helen. 2 sorted themselves out. Don’t know about the others. May have been settled amicably. Guess looking at the Diaby issue and Barton incident. Things are taking time to come to fruition.

 

Where’s Dom Littlewood when you need him?

 

I have a red and a blue corner in front of me.

Our former saviour's family will not totally be like Patrick, but given it is his wife & son, I'm fairly confident they have the club's interests at heart.

Given the lack of investment & dealings with loads of other clubs in the last 2 years, the sales of players last year, the 21 words, the failure to follow through on any promises regarding the "match day experience", I think I'm entitled to my views. Time will tell.

 

You mean like Tories?

 

Thing is, a lot seems to get threatened but I'm not so sure about whether they get followed through.

 

If its Conway.... theres not enough mindbleach in the world to cope with that!!!!

 

If it was part of the whole, why was it informed to us as "an option". And why did they let the 6 month clause lapse? if they wanted the Cryne stake they had the chance in those 6 months.

The Crynes have been beyond reasonable to allow reduced payments and extend the term. All the more galling when they see them throwing cash at clubs all across Europe and seem to be intent on increasing their holding.

I very much hope there comes a point where owners are limited to their holdings. You have to worry looking at the Wigan situation as to who would actually own that and how the true ownership structure could be concealed.

 

I like it.

"Conway and his consortium has failed to make payments on the agreed dates on more than one occasion...."

"But what about Cryne..."

 

Nowhere near as childish as spending the last 6 months starting posts saying how our best player isn’t good enough & needs replacing

 

Player transfer sales are part of the income of the football club, so fall within Barnsley Football Club Limited ("football club").

The money being chased by the Cryne's are the debts relating to the purchase of the above company from a separate entity, BFC Investment Company Ltd ("holding company"), so are entirely separate to the running of the club. If the owners wanted to use the funds from the footballing operations to pay their debts they would have to extract money from the football club in the form of dividends payable to the holding company. Realistically, this isn't going to happen, as Oakwell Holdings (the Cryne's company) has a 20% stake in the holding company.

I can understand all the confusion around this, but the operation of the football club sits outside the legal debt being chased, which is essentially the payment related to having the right to own and run that company.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Didn't they suggest challenging the Scottish League after they were blocked from a stake in.... was it Partick Thistle?