The Cryne’s side

New half time entertainment, throw them all in those inflatable sumo suits and put them in the centre circle.

 

Why file now though? If the Cryne’s are suggesting the consortium haven’t been paying instalments for quite some time then why did they entertain discussions in January 2020 about the ground sale and take the 750k incentive payment? Surely they were owed money at this point?

Something doesn’t quite add up. I suppose we aren’t privy to the agreed instalments so we’ve no idea how many have been missed. It seems to me that the fallout has only happened after discussions about the sale of Oakwell.

 

That's irrelevant.

The new owners have failed (its alleged) to have paid the agreed purchase instalments at the existing, or temporarily/new rates and times.

The performance on the pitch or financially of BFC are irrelevant in terms of the agreed purchase price and signed contracts.

 

This. Seems they are a set of fuppers after all.

 

So could this lot lead us into admin by virtue of all funds getting put on hold and nobody paying for anything while they sort this mess out including no permy signings etc?

Sounds like they are just tranna ger the club for a pittance. The stuff that guy posted about them renegotiating the deal off the back of crynes ailing health speaks volumes. There is your 3rd side to the story.

 

Or they never had any

 

The accounts don't seem to suggest payment dates, but the amounts did seem to have been adhered to in the Nov 2019 accounts. As the owners bought the club in December 2017, I'd hazard a guess the next instalment was due shortly after those accounts and after various discussions and efforts to find a compromise, they've hot a brick wall.

 

Fairly straight forward that. My concern is that the Hong Kong company can’t or don’t want to find the cash. The 3rd party for the ground looks like a red herring to distract the attention from an unpaid bill. I wonder what jurisdiction the UK court has over a Hong Kong company?
I also wonder what the time scale is likely to be to settle the issue in court?

 

The ownership company is separate to the football club itself. If the directors authorised sizeable payments to themselves that then led to administration, as company directors they would be in breach of their duties.

I very much agree with your second paragraph.

 

Well given that any time the UK mention Hong Kong, China throws a hissy fit about interfering in its internal affairs, I guess **** all.

 

The investment company is not the club. They are two legally separate entities. Irrespective if they mirrored each others directorship structures.

 

Very good point regarding jurisdictions. If any legal minds wish to extrapolate what may happen if the Crynes won the argument and the investment co refused to pay the agreed fees still, I'd certainly be interested to hear.

 

To clarify - being more than happy to sell their share of Oakwell, doesn’t actually say they are able to. At some point it was clearly agreed to- hence this other ‘option’ scenario has come about.

I’m more than happy to sell my company car to my mate - but I can’t, as it belongs to the company, not me. That kinda thing......

The facts will come out in the court applications from the respondent I should imagine.

 

According to one or two recent threads you will find life clearly is black and white. No grey allowed!

 

This has the potential to rumble on for a long long time. The club will not be saleable given the situation regarding the ground and the currrent dispute. And I suspect neither side will want to walk away at a loss. Big winners will be m'learned friends!

 

Nonsense. We've just agreed a deal to sell Woodrow to Wycombe for £75,000, 6 pieces of corrugated iron and 12 nails, to rebuild the West Stand, - so there's a bit of money there.

 

We are still none the wiser. Two statements released that basically contradict each other. Looking at it with emotion-free, neutral eyes, have either party done anything up to this point that gives us reason to not trust what they are saying?

The new owners came in and immediately said they would not be doing anything silly in regards to spending or investments, and have been true to their words. They said they had an option to buy Oakwell and it's land, they had. I can't think of anything they lied about.

Same with James and Jean Cryne. They have not given us any reason to not believe their side of the story either.

I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but there could have been some gamesmanship going on(from both sides) with regards to money. Maybe the owners basically told the Cryne's that they could not pay the full purchase price, and to avoid costly, drawn-out legal action, they decided to play ball. Then, when the stadium buyout came up, they saw the chance to get the money lost back, by inventing a phantom third party to try and drive the price up?

It's times like this though that really highlights how in the dark we are as lifelong supporters of the football club. We put our money, time and emotions into supporting it, and in the modern world where we should feel more connected than ever, we have no idea at all what **** is going off behind closed doors...

 

nah, those daft tw..its are still googling google

 

Does anyone else find these sarcastic belittling of the club to be pathetic.
And childish.