The Facts (from the Land Registry at least)

My concern is if Conway n Co don't want to buy the ground now... What happens next

 

if the consortium wants to buy the crynes 50% or bought a part already ( and at a later date bmbc's 50% ) but a 3rd party has come in on some legal technicality then surely its not the crynes or the consortiums fault. also if the consortium are paying rent then why should they be responsible for the upkeep of a rented property surely that should be down to the owners ? so the "we'll move then scenario" might be down to the fact that the consortium dont fancy being responsible for the up keep of someone elses property, hence we'll pay someone else rent and they can be responsible for the upkeep of their property and you can do what you want with your empty stadium until you sort out who owns what, then we can move forward............................ just a theory

 

Commercial rent requires you to maintain the buildings and this would have been clear at the time.Sounds like a lot of it is tax deductible too.

 

Co-incidentally, this appeared this morning on the BBC news website..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54209977

 

but to what standard, i'm not arguing or disputing this, but is this just making it look pretty or major repair work stuff ?

 

Generally speaking most commercial contracts are generic and pretty much just say the tenant is responsible for all repairs.

 

I dont know in all honesty but presumably there will be insurance for any major crisis. The fact still remains that a lease must have been signed agreeing the rent and maintenance responsibilities?
If you think about if you lease a shop you can completely gut it and put your own layout in, in a way you cant if you rent a house.
I would imagine major structural repairs would still rest with the landlords though in terms of health and safety legislation being breached.

 

the plot thickens
https://www.racingpost.com/profile/owner/256244/lord-david-harrison

 

Isn't this because he and his wife were given the rights to the manors after lady Diana died and so they changed their titles (correctly) to lord and lady of the manors?

The question really is what connection did they have to Diana miller or her daughter that led to them acquiring the manors rather than them staying in the family?

 

this is the point the consortium say they pay rent but do they or is it leased ?. i understand both sides, crynes want their money for the sale agreed the consortium want to stop paying rent and buy but the 3rd party thing f**ks everyone up, so the consortium are using the only leverage they have (?) we'll move to donny/rotherham/bury/frickley pay them rent ( and they pay for the upkeep of their ground) so with the facts THAT ARE AVAILABLE i cant blame the crynes, bmbc or the consortium but it does seem some "carpetbagger" is trying to make a fast buck at bfc's expense ( when i say bfc i mean bmbc,crynes, consortium and the supporters )

 

Not sure about the blame on the carpet bagger either. OP found all this out very quickly and cheaply, why didnt our owners? I'm still getting the feel it's cold feet on the part of our owners. Think about it, they ve to find the money to actually purchase the ground and then would be solely responsible for the stadium. Surely that would cost them even more money?

 

Who sold the mineral rights 11 days before the consortium deal was finalised?

 

but havent they already paid so much ? and how is the income split from the club on match days, pies,ale,programs etc, does that go to the owners or the renters/leasers, and is there a difference between if they lease the ground or just rent it liability wise, jeez it makes me dizzy just thinking about the ins and outs of all the "legalese" and i thought tacograph laws were complicated hehe

 

I don think they were actually sold. The mineral rights were always (hundreds of years) owned by the lord of the manor. There was a change to the law a few years ago so that owners of rights had to register their right (in the past they didn't have to, it was just assumed)

I think that lord Harrison is lord of the manor of Barnsley after somehow acquiring the rights after the death of the previous title holder lady Diana miller and as such they have set about registering the mineral rights on all the land that is part of the manor. Its not just the area near Oakwell that's had them registered, they've been done in lots of places

 

Barnsley football club have Oakwell on a 25 year lease (of which there is around 9 years left). The club is responsible for all maintenance as part of the lease but also get all revenue from money's generated from the use of the land and buildings.

 

So Pat Cryne sold himself the lease , getting rid of his and the Councils liability to maintain the ground

 

This is the crucial bit for me. The title registered is qualified and states it preserves the rights of the previous owner. (No idea who that is). It is the timing of this registration which I believe to be significant. It could have gone under the radar of the consortiums due diligence. We are of course speculating on the basis of what was found at the land registry. I hope now gally is aware he can discuss this with his source and see if this is the right tree to bark up. On the chance it may be, it diminishes the consortiums standings as the villains of the story IMHO. The threat to move is a sensible ploy to drive down the price of buying out a nuisance claim on the land

 

He didn't get rid of his liability though did he. He was the leash older and simply transferred the liability.

Look at it another way. Patrick owned it all but wanted the council's help. The agreed to give a large sum of money to become shareholders in the land but in return for their help and significant investment Patrick agreed to take on the maintenance costs himself and free the council of the burden.

 

The club are responsible and that’s why no substantial redevelopment happened under Cryne , where this Hardrof Ltd comes into it a week before the club sale is finalised anyone’s guess is