The Facts (from the Land Registry at least)

I’m sure it was said somewhere, that part of the agreement was that if someone bought one of the 50% shares of the ground, that it then gave them the option to start negotiations over the other 50% too. On this forum somewhere I believe.

 

Pretty standard really, cant impute anything into that alone

 

I’ve just been on the Hardrof website.

Lord Harrison, for want of a better way of putting it, comes across as a chancer looking to cash in on ancient ‘rights’.

Does the ground definitely sit within the Barnsley ‘manor’?

 

"Option to start negotiations"?

That seems a meaningless term unless you add something else to it.

 

Sounds more like a bit of a Count to me

 

i'm sure that bmbc would sell their share at the right price as ownership has done what it set out to do. ie; not letting it go up for grabs to POSSIBLE developers for a mini meadowhell and scupper the councils £200m regeneration of the town centre

 

The club posted that there was an option to purchase that someone could excercise. That was stated to be the Chien brigade problem.

Options to purchase don't operate for descendants. Covenants are not options to purchase.

You don't threaten to move a football team from thieir ground just in case a bloke over 100 might still be around to buy Oakwell.

There's something else to all of this.

 

If what I've been told by a third party who was involved in the club, there was also a long ransom strip on the land which had the same restriction(it only applied to x generations of the owners' family, of which they doubted there was any left). We might be talking about the same thing in different terms though...

 

??

 

Come on Durkar red, thought you'd manage to spell a four letter word

 

One thing that I did draw from my research on Land Reg is that the existence of restrictive covenants is well documented in the main title records, which I got for a £3 search. One presumes the new owners had someone do this for them and were well aware of these and felt they could be worked around for what they had planned. Either they are using the covenants as an excuse (which wouldnt fly in a Court at all) or there is something else. We have focused on the bloke who bought the mineral rights in dec 2017 but perhaps the question is who sold them to him? Another point, although I fell asleep during the property law bit at university, covenants are rarely in favour of an individual. They operate on the land and can indeed vest in sucessors. The last of the direct line of the Seniors may have passed but once you start looking for sons of cousins etc you will have successors in title. Genealogists make a living reuniting people with inheritances from people the benefactors have never even heard of. BUT, this is all common knowledge and any prudent buyer would have been aware of the covenants and their ramifications. I still come back to it being something else. So far the mineral rights are all I have uncovered

 

The NewCo bought the club, not the stadium.

So whilst due diligence will have been done on the club, it depends on how much diligence was done on the ground itself.

Like you say, if the same amount of diligence was applied to the ground, then Covenants are basics which all solicitors will pick up - it’s a normal check.

Perhaps they made a few general enquires, and these were answered in 2017. It’s only when due diligence was entered into this year, was the issue noticed.

 

Dub tyke mate, that's a thought that crosses my mind. If the purchase of the club was linked to the purchase of the ground in any way, one could assume some due diligence (like £3 worth) was done on the ground itself. However, and here is where the timing of the sale of the mineral rights is crucial, it is possible that occurred in the "sweet spot" between after the due diligence was done but before the purchase occurred.

 

Exactly. It does take time for deeds to be updated. Which is why it’s possible both sides are telling an element of truth each.

Covenants are basic in terms of property purchases - if they are there, they’ll be picked up.

It either wasn’t there, or minimal due-diligence was done on the ground side of matters. Also, in fairness, our owners are not from this country, so may not fully understand how in practice these covenants are rarely an issue. Of course they will have been advised they’re not, but perhaps they think they are....

 

I also think the issue of a search from 5m of previous plans, is that it covers a lot of possibilities. The full perimeter of the ground and training facilities.

If you Google ‘Barnsley Site AC13’, you’ll find the 2015 consultation and plans for the development of the old Brewery site. It’s a big site and no doubt will also have many covenants on it too.

 

Mineral rights wil have nothing to do with this spat.

It's about the option to purchase.

 

The club/ground has changed hands multiple times over 133 years, without issue, now there’s a massive problem all of a sudden which means the club may have to play somewhere else.........really?

 

Only if that Mail article has substance.

If it has, it seems to me to be a despicable act by our 80% owners to use the threat of moving BFC matches to another ground, in their attempt to reduce the costs of their investment in our club.

What consideration are they giving to the home based fans who would have to arrange transport to watch these games elsewhere? Fans who would have to change Saturday habits, often going back a lifetime.

What consideration are they showing to the local businesses who benefit from and sometimes depend upon match day trade?

What about the people employed on the turnstiles, the marshals, the ones behind the counters?

What right do they have to disrupt so many people's lives and livelihoods? Do they care at all about this?

If their legal arguments regarding payments owed, covenants, options to purchase etc. are correct then they have nothing to worry about - they'll get their own way through legal process. Without threatening the lives of their essential fanbase.

If their arguments are wrong then it's their own fault. Arrange to move on, after they've got back as much money as they can.

Our ground at Oakwell should be there for us to watch our team play. Not a variable to be used in an argument about money.