I the truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle, and I don't believe that either party is acting maliciously. This is a legal disagreement that will need a legal resolution. The land at Oakwell isn't particularly valuable, if you were going to spend £8m given the current redevelopment in the town I can think of much better investments. People need to calm down.
Possibly a hotel/restaurant/retail centre? Or a mix of all 3. Can think of a few stadiums with on-site/adjacent hotels etc so not totally impossible.
I totally agree with this. It is a legal matter that the courts will decide and they should be allowed to get on with it. The only thing that bothers me is the time that it takes to get the judgement. We don’t want it dragging on and distracting attention from important things like winning the league.
Who owns the land the old school was on? That would be a logical area to 'develop' i.e Hotel, extended / new West Stand / parking? Maybe they hold the say?
https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/article/third-party-claim-from-100-years-ago-and-not-relevant I think we've more chance of getting a new West stand with a 365 days a year supporters bar and hotel complex, with the chance of Oakwell having summer gigs if the club own the ground not the Cryne family.
We bought a house in 95 that had a covenant that the owner had to pay £100 a year to the nearby farm owner who sold the land. When we queried(with our Solicitor) it we was told whilst it was still in place, he couldn’t find a record of anyone having paid it in the last 50 years and as a result it was unlikely we could be forced to pay it(dated back to late 1800’s). Does that sound right and could it be applicable to this?