So we're currently bottom

So they paid Cryne junior with Cryne seniors money not much better than paying him with season ticket money really is it, morally. Patrick left money in the club to benefit the club not for
a bunch of supposedly rich people to pay a debt to his son.

 

I've been saying this for a while now, snake oil salesman taking out all the money from our club with their greedy fat fingers. We have players with hearts of peas that are going to be sold on to line the owners pockets further.
If we all stop going then they will have to go, there will always be a BFC as someone will come in and invest millions to give us what we deserve. These foreign coaches out of their depth with their fancy tactics, we only coach the players to make more money on them to sell on not win football games. Get Colin in or bring back hoof ball and scare the players in to winning. Players coming here taking their £7 grand a week from us hard working paying fans they should expect to take abuse.
Conway out.

 

A bit like Bury

 

In that event, the club's accounts would have included (and would still include) a significant debtor/liability. So either the club's accounts are incorrect or someone has successfully pulled the wool over your eyes. Which do you think it is?

 

@Loko the Tyke I think you are right in terms of of the value calculation of the club. However, the source of the funds is the contentious part.

The value of the club was determined at roughly £8m plus cash on balance sheet at the time of the transaction. The transaction was structured with £6.4m (80% of £8m) being paid along with a further £1m from BFC investments with Oakwell holdings receiving a £2m holding in BFC investments. The further £1m represented the annual agreed payments over the next four years covering the value of cash on balance sheet. These proposed payments are clearly documented in Oakwell Holdings’ accounts. Subsequently £4m was negotiated to £3.5m.

As I have said before if Barnsley Football Club were to be making these payments then the accounts of the club would show an equal debtor to the creditor shown in Oakwell Holdings accounts. Furthermore, if the club were responsible for making the payments why was a loan to BFC investments created to facilitate the payment to Oakwell Holdings? That would imply that the debt fell on BFC investments.

All this information comes from publicly available documents.

 

You mean like the Blackpool fans who flocked back once their old owners left?

 

After a large percentage boycotting the club and eventually seeing the back of the Oystons they will, in a few weeks, be in a higher division than us.

 

Yep, Marc. I get that. I know there's not a direct comparison with Blackpool and I'm not even certain the correlation between fan boycott and the Oystons leaving is direct either. My point is though that a large scale boycott does not mean the club dies.
Anyway, let's hope our bunch of idiots have an epiphany over the summer and we can start moving in the right direction for a change.

 

I may not know much about many things but accounts are something I do understand.

The numbers are from Oakwell holdings’s accounts at 30 November 2018. At that time BFC were fifth in the league. Seems a strange thing to do at that point, negotiate a promotion bonus.

You reference £6m being negotiated to £3.5m. Oakwell Holdings accounts show £4m outstanding in 2018. The debtor in 2020 had reduced to £2.75m. These are accounts audited by BDO. Are you suggesting these are fraudulent? @Sheriff any comment here?

I very much doubt that this is the first time BFC haven’t always been exactly truthful regarding the finances. It really depends on what you want to believe, I use accounts and you use alternative sources. Who knows which is correct and indeed we may never know.

Great to hear that you have insight in to the transfer fees the club pays and receives.

 

Makes sense why we probably bumped his deal to stay rather than selling and making next to nothing and then having to invest again.

 

I've only just seen this as I don't seem to have received a notification that I was mentioned in a post, which is unusual.

The £6m down to £3.5m reference comes directly from BFCST's summary of facts around the court case and dispute. Based on the likely sources of information regarding it, I have no reason to doubt it's accuracy. Your analysis, via a review of the accounts, tells the same basic overall story (i.e. a deferred amount of consideration to be paid in the period after purchase) but with differences in the amounts and timings. Again, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy, and haven't looked into why the two are different beyond this. The differences didn't materially impact the issues I was raising around the £750k, and I was happy to rely on details from the Trust sources and the Crynes in their public statements.

I'm also conscious of the more recent version of events regarding the £750k which Gally has suggested (i.e. this being an agreed payment from the Club, and there being some sort of agreement that payments can be made in this way). I have no reason to doubt Gally, or his source, but accepting this version of events would require me to accept that the audited financial statements are inaccurate, so I have the same overall concerns as you, but directed towards a different area of the financial statements. There is simply no logic that I can think of that would give rise to the transactions being shown in the accounts as a debt from BFC Investments, subsequently paid by BFC Ltd and then written off, if the agreement existed as stated. Until such time as someone is able to articulate why this is the case then I will always rely on what is stated in the audited accounts. The disclosures regarding the £750k will have no doubt been included within the Management Representation letter signed on behalf of the full board, so I have no doubt that they are accurate as disclosed.

From my perspective too, showing that the £750k had been 'properly' paid as a liability of the football club wouldn't improved the overall financial picture, as it would simply confirm that the remaining £2.75m would logically also be a debt of the football club, and an undeclared one in the most recent accounts.

The clarification around this is within the remit of one person within the club and, unfortunately, he's remained resolutely silent on the issue.

 

I don't think Zuk has ever spoken publicly, so I wouldn't expect him to do so now either.

 

I don't expect him to do so, but that's a different measure from believing that he should.