It's the covenant...

While the discussion relating to the covenant is fascinating for the details and intricacies, I've been told that it's a red herring and largely irrelevant top the ongoing dispute, though of course my 'source' may be as reliable or unreliable as anyone else's!

As I understand it the 80% had the option to buy out OCAL within 6 months but let it lapse, subsequently citing the covenant. It's worth remembering that the covenant didn't stop the purchase by OCAL in the first place. Yes I suppose it's entirely possible that the limitations of the covenant are more relevant to the current owners' intentions than OCAL's, but I don't personally think that's the issue here.

I ask myself why they would let their option lapse, if purchasing the ground was what they ever wanted. There are two reasons I can think of:
1. They didn't (and perhaps still don't) have sufficient funds to take up the option
2. They thought they could negotiate a better deal after it had lapsed.

I think there are plenty of signs that either could be true. The court case relating to withholding of payments for the purchase of the club might indicate #1, while the closure of the West Stand and leaks about potential ground shares might be considered as 'negotiating tactics' relating to #2.

I may well be wide of the mark and am speculating just as much as anyone else, but as others have said, none of the logical explanations for these ongoing issues bode well for our future under the current owners.

 

Yes but that isn't weird really either. A law change that meant all mineral right owners had to register before a certain date explains why they did it when they did and it wasn't just for oakwell it was for about a third of the land in Barnsley or something like that as it was the land for the old manor of Barnsley I think

 

JC is in the unenviable position of being a minority shareholder (20%) in BFC investments, if the others agree to an action he has no ability to block it.

 

Just suggesting (as I've no idea how it fairs in other countries). That this "can't get clean title" could quite easily be because of this.

Amongst the original covenant

In either case, 3 parties exist. And 3 parties need to resolve it.

 

Think the extraction on minerals depends on a government licence and or permission from council .
Otherwise anyone could buy anywhere and start ripping it up .

 

THat sums it up really

 

And as pointed out before, nobody owns above 50

Chein has to hold between 20 and 50 as the largest holder.

So given JC holds 20, he is likely the 2nd largest holder. And owns 50 of the ground

So he has a big steak compared to everyone else

 

Only if the council and the Crynes were daft enough not to let somebody else play football at Oakwell until the covenant ran out, it just says football has to be played at Oakwell but it doesn't specify by who

 

But as it is being used for football it can't be enforced.

 

How does he like it cooked!?

 

Is it possible that the party trying to enforce the covenant is actually a supporter, trying to prevent the 80%ers getting hold of the ground and selling it off?

 

I meant implied that they would if it became necessary.

 

Rugby has regulations.

Well, the RFU has regulations.

World Rugby has laws.

Of course, this is only Rugby Union.

Rugby League doesn't have any rules, regulations or laws.

 

Probably one of the more interesting threads of recent times.

If anyone is really bored.

 

There’s a third reason as well, Conway has claimed they couldn’t get Insurance to cover the Covenant, perhaps the Covenant stops them borrowing money against it?

Not sure if this is relevant or not but in the 90’s we bought a house, when going through the paperwork I noticed there was a stipulation saying we had to pay £250 every year to the Church, when I questioned this our Solicitor said it was an old one and not enforceable as so long had passed.
Fast forward to last year my Daughter bought a house in similar area, this time Mortgage company and Solicitor raised it and Mortgage company basically said they would not lend the money without an Insurance policy(it wasn’t a lot of money for the insurance).

 

So was Angus MacDonald having an iron deficiency.

 

Well, I've not been on for a few days and this thread has just blown my mind.
Who stands to lose out if Barnsley FC moves the club from Oakwell? Other than the fans, it appears that only the Council/Oakwell Holdings will lose out if the alleged covenant can be enforced. I'm not sure what the council paid for their 50% of the ground, but it's bound to be a lot more than half of £1200 or £10k or whatever the covenant value is.
Seems to me, whoever controls the club has the absolute bargaining power over the council and Oakwell Holdings, because if they choose to ground share elsewhere, the Council/Oakwell Holdings will have to subsidize a much smaller club to play football there to avoid the Senior family being able to buy the land back at a fraction of the cost.
In this case, it wouldn't surprise me if Conway et al were promoting the covenant as a reason for not buying the ground whilst simultaneously using it to drive down the price of the club. Perhaps, Conway is the one fighting to say that it can be enforced by the female line, and Council/Oakwell Holdings are saying it can't and that's why there is dispute. Imagine a scenario where PMG are fighting for equal rights for women! What a murky world we live in!

 

Yes I’m bored.
Get the flipping thing sorted. Ffs.

 

Just a way to get more money.

 

The Angus case wasn't about iron deficiency, it was about our breach of a warranty within the transfer agreement by not disclosing information regarding symptoms with no diagnosed cause at that time.