It's not falling down according to the safety certificate that's been issued... It's dated there's no denying that and in my opinion should have been replaced years ago ...yes we are in limbo but after today's announcement of extra tickets for the blades and no doubt others to follow you can see from an operational point of view it makes financial sense to close it but from fans point of view it doesn't make it right....its the way they've gone around it all blaming the council on the stand not fit for purpose when that's not the case and then lying to us all again...like I've said previously clear as treacle....
What the owners are saying is that if they owned the ground they would invest in a new stand or at least redevelop it and make it usable outside of the match day experience . They are renting a stadium that’s not up to what they want to use it for . If you lived in a-rented house and the landlords couldn’t afford to bring it up to decent standards would put want to stay there?
I voted for somebody to buy out the 80% ers, I don't have a problem with the Crynes, I think they have the club in their hearts. The other lot clearly don't give a flying wotsit.
Not voted Personally if the 750k is put back in the club, and all parties stop arseing about and resolve the ground ownership so we can move on, then I'll leave as is. As it's an extremely common phrase on here which I personally hate, I'm gunna repeat it. Just be careful what you wish for. The 80% ers piss off and then what.....
I know it’s a completely different scenario, but I wonder if Man City fans ever have issues with the club leasing the ground of the council. Apparently pay around £4 million a year for it.
It's not as if the consortium will be able to knock down Oakwell and build houses on it because the council would never give them permission.
Chansiri, Ashleigh, another investment group. No thank you, ownership of the ground offers a level of protection imo.
My money would be get us started on a new stadium, say Oakwell is too unsafe to play at, ground share with Rotherham and then persuade council to let oakwell be sold with relevant planning permission. At that point we won't see them for dust.
Different scenario altogether there’s no dispute with state of the stadium . Probably stadiums worth it to them and maybe our owners don’t . Not saying any of this is this case but some of the accusations are crazy, probably brought it on themselves with things the way they are but no ones waiting in wings to bail us out imo.
I was interested in how many other teams leased and had forgotten about Man City, another difference as well is that apparently when it was converted to a Football stadium, the Council paid £20 million and City paid the rest estimated to be between £20-24 million. Another quirk I came across is that according to Wiki, Oostende also don’t own their stadium.
They didn't. PC doesn't want to buy it.And tbh, even if they did want to it looks like Barnsley council tax payers would pay rwice, once when the council acquired it and then again through those of us who pay to watch matches!
It beggars belief that there are people who think the Cryne's and Barnsley should sell the club to the consortium should the Cryne's just gloss over the fact the consortium have evaded payment for 4 years to the tune of around 4 million pounds and rising to them. which has resulted in ongoing court action. Lets just say for the sake of it the council and the Cryne's agree to do this, what happens next. The group of people in the consortium (not BFC) take out a loan to buy the land and the ground .off the council and the Cryne's Then once they own the ground and land . BFC take out a loan against the ground and land and with that they pay back the individual loan they took out. Now the debt is on BFC books and will be paid back using the clubs finances resulting in them literally acquiring the ground and land for nothing 3 months later they sell the club leaving the new owners with the debt on the books to pay back.