Court Case / Move from Oakwell - Further BFCST Update

I should think the value did drop and was re-negotiated. How were the consortium to know Heckingbottom would tell all the players they were ***** in pre-season after signing 7 number 10's and playing 4-5-1 and go 17 matches without a win.

 

Thank you for pointing this out as it needs emphasising.

The investment from the Crynes over the years to the upkeep of the club and ground, transfers and player salaries etc will be high enough that all they're able to do here is recoup their costs. Something they probably won't be able to do.

Fans saying the Crynes are profitting from BFC could be way off the mark. They're certainly the only ones involved here who have put their own money into developing and running the club (over merely acquiring the assets).

 

All parties need to get darn t'Mount one neet n get this shitshow settled ovver a few pints.
I bet Jean could outsup them Yanks

 

The more I read this thread and the tykesmad equivalent I can't help thinking due diligence had been made by the new owners and they're a bunch of Charlatans just wanting things cheaper and they intended to pull a fast one all along.

 

Didn’t Patrick waive aside a loan for around £8m to be replayed only in the event of the club being promoted to the Premiership, or have I dreamt that one up?

 

The more I read the more I realise that without all the hard facts and evidence it’s difficult to point the blame at anyone.

 

That's not one I know of myself, but certainly could be the case yes.

I remember hearing it said that it needed c.£1million per year to be put into the club from Cryne to keep the club going at the levels it was sustained at. That would equate to about £13million from the time of purchase in 2003/04 to the sale to Conway/Lee. Add the money spent on buying the club and the ground in the first place... and you soon get up over the £16million mark that was agreed (on retaining Champ status) with Barnsley Investment Group.

It has also been said that Cryne stopped putting money in the same way around the Hill era, moving to a model of sustainability. But I just can't see there being a profit-making motive in the family's involvement in the club. They're lucky if they can recoup what the family have put in.

 

My take on it.
I can't help thinking we still have no idea why these people bought the club/option for ground etc. Nearly three years on and the whole thing has trod water. I think they had an idea to replicate what they did at Nice and stumbled upon a club ticking over in our second tier with no debts, a relatively cheap price and a history of youth development that owned (or could own) its own ground for around the base value of the real estate that could be leveraged or sold to re-locate.
It's also worth noting the covenant issue didn't crop up when they had the chance to buy half the ground, its cropped up because the Crynes want the money they are owed and have sued. However, forget some distant covenant that was always there to be found even if it does affect their plans, I think it speaks to a bigger picture.
I think they have got cold feet because they didn't reckon on the size of the player investment to get a club into the premier in England compared with France. The championship is ridiculous in its finances with clubs on a three-year cycle of having one gamble at getting in the premier and then virtually imploding if they fall short. I wouldn't put money in it but then again I wouldn't buy a football club even if I had the money.
In any event, any issue with the ground would not justify backsliding on the £2,750,000 (of their own money) for the club to the Crynes. As they are now trying to make clear, the club and the ground are two different entities. £13,500,000 gets you (in descending order of value) a share in the league, the player contracts and goodwill (us)

 

oh, I nearly forgot, the stock in the club shop and the five-year-old liveried up community Polo

 

It’s going to come down to what was disclosed by Crynes at the time of the purchase of the club, it seems the option to buy the ground was part of that agreement. Therefore if Conway can prove that the covenant wasn’t disclosed then they might have a good argument for the rest of the purchase is null and void. It comes down to what was disclosed and what can be proved imho.

 

The more I read in this thread I seem to know less about the takeover and new and old owners than I did before it started and admittedly that wasn’t a lot .

 

Not unless the Crynes covered up all knowledge in a deliberate attempt to deceive any prospective purchasers. There is also the obvious question as to why their 50% wasnt purchased when the club passed from Patrick s ownership.?

 

Yes, it comes down to what they disclosed- if it can be proven they knew about the covenant but didn’t disclose it, then I don’t think it matters how much you argue that conways legal team should have found it - I think the onus would have been in disclosure first.

 

Can someone in the know confirm the exact details of the covenants that we’re aware of?

I’ve heard the one about the land only being used for sporting purposes. I’ve also heard something about the Doyle’s owning the car park or something. Did the club own the land at the bottom of the car park where the flats were built?

It would be good to confirm what’s true and what isn’t.

 

Where did Sean Lewis fit in to all this? I know he came before the Ridsdale/Cryne takeover but had Peter Doyle passed the reins over to Sean Lewis?

 

I thought he claimed he had the monies to buy the club from Mr Doyle, but in the end couldn't supply the appropriate details to prove it. Which was what Mr Cryne was able to do.

 

When they were interested in buying the club the club would have opened the books to them correct.
So they would have known exactly what the running costs per year of the club were based on countless back years.
The onus is on them to check everything isn't it that's what due diligence is all about.
i presume you never take anybody or any company trying to sell you anything on face value.
Don't believe anything they say check everything.
Not a slur on anybody its commonsense ,if someone is trying to get rid / sell something they are going to sell it to you talking about it showing you it
tell you all its great points ....maybe slide over or not mention its bad points.

Trying to get out of not paying making the payments due to this over a year later should be laughed out of the courts.
are they just trying to cover up or delay the fact they haven't the external funding available to make those payments.
when they say they are not interested in buying the ground anymore if you ran that through goggle translate would it translate into we haven't got the funds to buy the ground.

was there intent there plan to use the same modus operandi as at OGC Nice and they have been blocked or thwarted internally by Crynes/ legal team getting a loan against assets or T.V money and selling players to pay that loan back
costing them nothing personally

As far as maintenance costs go i am sure there are people here better qualified to answer this but surely most or all of these maintenance costs painting repairs upgrades will cost them nothing and can be knocked off your tax bill ?

What is there end game what are they really trying to do find a excuse to back out of the deal leave
They do not want to buy the ground anymore ,they are refusing to make payments.
lets just say the courts agree with them (incredibly unlikely as that may be)
what happens then
They will try and make the deal null and void and there purchase money has to be repaid ?
i have posted before i believe they are trying to find a way out, a excuse to leave.
then they will say well its not our fault they told us this and that kept things from us ,we couldn't work with that etc

 

Fans saying the Crynes are profitting from BFC could be way off the mark. They're certainly the only ones involved here who have put their own money into developing and running the club (over merely acquiring the assets).[/QUOTE]
Equally it could be spot on , we don’t know

 

It’s also worth noting that the covenant could be seen as a different level of risk from the Council and the Cryne’s to the consortium. The Council and the Cryne’s ultimately bought the ground to save the club and probably had little plans to develop. The consortium clearly have different intentions and the covenant could pose a much bigger risk to any investment.

 

Can I ask what is the difference between the covenant and lease on the ground. If If there’s still a lease would it not have to be bought from the owners in its present Form or extend. 8 yrs left on the lease.

The covenant as I see (trying to educate missen.) Is a positive or restrictive one (think I’ve grasped the difference.) and has to be removed by those using it. know I’m probably way off the mark. I’ll stick to Tricianing.