My updated view of how Barnsley FC is being run

I posted several times last season about how badly the club was run. We had an ownership group which prioritised player (and manager) trading over results - and whose execution of those objectives was failing badly. Communication with the supporters was at a low ebb, perhaps partly because of the challenges arising from the ownership situation. We had a CEO who in my opinion made some questionnable decisions and / or whose communication of them was poor. One of those decisions was the appalling appointment of Poya Asbaghi to replace Markus Schopp. With the benefit of hindsight, relegation was perhaps the inevitable consequence of a poor strategy and poor management.

A few months ago I posted again with my view that things were better, that communications were improving ad the new ownership group and CEO were attempting to start to reconnect with supporters. But also that it was still early days, that much more work was required and that their 'spectemur agendo' required further supporting evidence before the damage done to how I feel about the club would heal.

I'm back again now to confirm that for me at least it is healing. I've been impressed by a number of things recently:

• Outbound emails. I've felt for years that the data the club holds about ST holders should enable more effective outbound emails and marketing. It's now happening and it's not just the standard marketing guff, it's actually making me think that my support is valued - from 'we're looking forward to you being here' emails before games to 'thanks for your support' after them. Oh and the better content about tickets for away games which now includes the category I'm in and therefore when I can buy, which I find helpful.
• It appears to me that there's more and better on social media (albeit that there wasn't much positive stuff to post about last season and / or it could be that I just wasn't looking). In particular I like the 'alternative angle' footage. I also think the increased usage of fan pictures / film is good. Again, I understand it would've been challenging to find any happy / enthusiastic faces last season!
• JAQ's motives and level of commitment has also been questioned on here from time to time but some of her recent tweets have been great e.g. about her being honored to be a Director and women's football coming to Oakwell and about the Wednesday game being "an all hands on deck situation". And her tweet on Sunday (which for some reason I can't screenshot here but read: " Got a seat for me? Can't wait to be back at Oakwell - it truly belongs to you, the Fans - thanks for bringing it back - your club your town your team your home - it's always been yours and no one can take it away" was brilliant. It is and it's great that she recognises and acknowledges it. Nothing like that ever came from (or would ever in the future) the previous majority owners.
  
• Communications are much better - contrast the explanation of the closure of the East Stand last week with the West Stand last year.
• The change of strategy applied to the appointment of Michael Duff (and Martin Paterson and Martin Devaney) - a UK based one based on getting better results on the field and building the club rather than again speculating on a continental manager based on their possible value when they move on. And of course the same strategy applied to incoming transfers. Incidentally, whilst I was disappointed with the outgoing transfers I understood the imperative and accepted it albeit I feared what the consequences might be.
• More recently the efforts to improve the atmosphere at Oakwell. Of course it's made easier by results on the pitch but I nevertheless acknowledge the focus on it.
• I think the way the Alumni is progressing is great - it's good to see so many ex-players on the pitch. Based on their social media posts afterwards it also appears that they themselves appreciate and value it. It links to the past, to players that many of us connected to in the past and so it maintains and builds the relationship with the club because the club also considers it worthwhile.
• And the evidence suggests that Khaled's leadership as CEO is one of the factors. It surely has to be. And therefore despite my aforementioned concerns about his leadership and his capability, I'm reassessing that view.

It's still not perfect and there's more to be done on all of the above and also on some other key issues. Oakwell is just shabby and investment in the ground is overdue and becoming urgent imo. I hope to see positive news soon re the conversations with the council. Whilst it's a bit better (I think although I stopping even trying to get anything at half time a long time ago) it needs to be a lot better. The pre and post match experience could also be much better, although I guess would require investment and so is dependent on the ground ownership issue. However, whilst there's lots still to do, I see the improvements.

One potentially big issue for me is that the future payments for the purchase of the club being funded by the club itself. It just feels wrong to me. So how that transpires remains important.

 

Its the flatbreads that did it.

 

I still don't agree that the football club should pay the debts off when it was the owners bad decisions that put it in that situation in the first place.

The owners should foot the bill.

 

The owners have, they’ve put £6.6m in the club to meet a £3m (plus the £750k) debt.

This approach gives the club more working capital.

 

Cheers. I take back previous comment. Always interested to read what people like yourself put.

 

I prefer the pegging chat!

 

I might be mistaken but was Chien and Conway involved when we were unbeaten at home and promoted?And as for the ground being shabby I take it your not an away game participant.(West stand granted.)

 

Archerfield has mentioned it already, but just to reinforce the point that the club paying the newly agreed settlement costs is far less of an issue than that of the source of the £750k as the shareholders have put funds into the club to (more than) cover this liability.

Not sure if you saw it at the time, but the thread on the latest accounts has more detail on this, and perhaps puts into better context the necessity of some of our outgoing transfer business.

https://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/bfc-accounts-may-2022.319859/

Everything in your post is fairly stated and entirely reasonable, but the the two areas of disappointment you expressed (outgoing transfers, club paying settlement costs) are perhaps more 'forgiveable' when viewed in the context of the overall financial picture. As you know, I was one of the most vocal critics regarding the £750k issue, so am particularly interested in how this developed. In isolation, the club being liable would be a cause for concern, but its much less of an issue when viewed in conjunction with the equity injections into the club that have accompanied the settlement being agreed.

 

I'm not sure what your point is re when we were last promoted? You're not suggesting that the club was well run under the Lee / Conway leadership are you?

I am a regular away day traveller. I agree in comparison to Oakwell there are some poor grounds - imo Hillsborough being the worst. Nevertheless I don't judge Oakwell by how bad other grounds are. I believe it needs some investment to maintain / update / improve it. And btw, whilst there are multiple others that we'd consider too small and inadequate, I still think several are 'smarter'.

 

I think a lot of clubs do that now. Don't Manchester united fans hate the Glazers and that's one of the big reasons why? I do agree with your sentiment though, just doesn't sit right - but as pointed out above the owners have put in plenty of money themselves, unlike the Glazers

 

Thanks Sheriff. Having re-read the thread on the previous accounts I think I may previously have misunderstood the capital injection and thought it increased debt. I now understand that's not the case but remain a bit confused by the suggestion that in order to maintain their shareholding, Lee and Conway needed to stump up a portion of the money equal to their % shareholding? In which case, wouldn't it be reflected in the asking price for their shares if and when they should sell?

 

In the situation the club was in at the end of last year the shareholders had a straight choice between administration and putting funds in to the club. Administration would have meant their equity value was zero. (All the money they had paid to buy the club would have been lost).

The equity put in last year would have increased the value of the club by the exact amount of the equity injection. However that does not mean that they would automatically get that value on a sale. The club will likely partially burn through the equity injection with an operating loss this year. Without further substantial sale proceeds (or compensation for the manager leaving) it’s highly likely that more cash will be needed at the end of this year. This is when the resolve of the shareholders will be further tested. If there is no obvious end to the cash required to keep the club afloat there does come a point when investors will no longer participate in future equity issuance.

The hope is promotion, this will improve finances and hopefully alleviate the need for further cash from the owners.

 

I hope you're wrong.

 

There was also a decent chunk of money in the bank back then, that was there when they took over the club, inherited from Patrick Cryne, and sales of Hourihane, Winnall, Bree and windfalls from Stones and Mawson sell ons.

Pretty sure that under the Conway / Lee chairmanship, we made a loss every year, and ended up back in League 1, with no money. The vast majority of damage done during two windows where Conway acted as CEO.

 

The second window yes. However, Conway signed Luke Thomas, Mads Anderson, Bambo Diaby, Connor Chaplin and Brad Collins. Three of which are still at the club today.

 

Thanks for clarifying @Archerfield. I guess therefore we have to be grateful for their support (and cash) to keep the club solvent.
Although I'm still conflicted about the fact that JAQ aside, they were a part of the ownership group that caused the problem* and I think I will be again if (and I appreciate it's a big if) they are able to achieve a sale price which recoups the money they've invested and earns them a profit. I suppose if that happens then it will likely mean we've had some success and so I may feel differently.
* I'm aware some people will feel that as minority shareholders there was nothing they could do to prevent it but my view is that as directors they had responsibility for the management of the company and they can't avoid any responsibility by directing blame to others.

 

If we hadn't signed Solbauer, Andersen would probably be back in some obscure European third tier league now. A combination of the January window, season suspending and Wigan's administration saved us that season. He also signed a number of players that we were unable to offload, or had to pay off, such as Odour, Schmidt, Halme. Thomas is only coming good in the last year of his 4 year contract, and that is at a level below what he was signed for.

 

Forgot about Clark Oduor. I didn't think he was that bad but I couldn't work out what his position was/is.

 

With less than 50% of the voting shares there was literally nothing they could do. You only have to look at every other club where Lee and Conway have control to see they are the problem.