I cannot believe that we would move to another stadium outside Barnsley purely for economic reasons. The loss in match day revenue would far outweigh Oakwell’s running costs. I recall when Rotherham temporarily moved from Millmoor to the Don Valley stadium their attendances were well down even though it wasn’t that far for their fans to travel
Thank you very much for putting us in a much clearer picture. Imho a proffesional group of international businessmen, who dont do their due dillegence! mmmm, just who are these people. Can you imaging purchasing something and beacause you found something out later not to your liking (because you didnt look into it properly) you stopped paying for it but continued to use it!
£1m maintenance each year yet the biggest maintenance project undertaken by the club in recent years, replacing the guttering, soffits, gable ends, media gantry, replacing seats, updating the media facilities and painting the west stand wall etc was reported to be just £300k.
There is no way in this world that their Legal team would have missed the original RC. People need to remember the people they would use are used to do complex legal negotiations/checks all the time, it’s not like they would have used a back street Solicitor.
This isn't a Rotherham situation, it's an MK dons situation. Our owners have no affinity with Barnsley, we weren't their first choice club to buy and I doubt Chien Lee could even find barnsley on a map. I think the supporters mean very little to them or their investment model. As long as they've got ownership of a football league share so they can buy cheap Austrians and sell them for a right they don't care what they call that club, where it plays or if anyone watches
Thanks for posting this info. If nothing else it proves again how bad the 80% mob are at negotiating - little wonder our outgoing transfer fees are always so derisory.
And of their legal team didn't know about it then that is solely their fault. And if in the two years they owned the club by one of them thought 'oh I'll read this book by the ex chairman of the company I own and see what the history of the club is' then frankly they've shown they care not one bit.
I think that's a little far fetched. The situation is more like Coventry's. If the 80% mobs intentions were moving the club outside of Barnsley permanently then why would they allow a deal to let the crynes retain 20%?
You are making an argument just to suit your anti Conway agenda as with your post re ground costs. These are most rental than maintenance based on what I’ve seen and the £1m sum is speculation
Because it's the best offer they got. Every other club told them to piss off but sadly Patrick didn't have the luxury of being able to do that.
That bits "believed" And again, did these new owners of ours use a legal team? Or have accountants? Those running costs haven't appeared out of thin air.
Oh they would have known for sure, it’s more likely 80% decided they wanted to pay less money and asked their team to find an excuse and they came up with this.
I find it very hard to believe they wouldn’t have known about such a covenant. Also imagine it would be difficult to enforce and much easier to remove.
Spot on....which eludes to the fact they did know (or some of it) and thought... a. We will get away with not paying for it. b. Lets play this and use some business style manouvering to get our way. Unproffesional it is at least and unbecoming of alledgedly proffesional international business people.
And the maintenance costs may be higher than the rent because the rent was made artificially low to take account of the maintenance costs, thus making the total costs somewhere near market value. If BFC could either lose the maintenance costs all together or get them reduced significantly, it could make Oakwell stadium a financial “steal “.