Court Case / Move from Oakwell - Further BFCST Update

That's one conspiracy gone then lol

 

What a strange, complex club we have. On the footballing side the history of the club isn't that exciting but what goes off behind closed doors is astonishing.

 

I have just received my season ticket.

The strap line on the covering letter says

Today, tomorrow, always. They should add another line ...at Oakwell

 

According to a club statement:

"On January 27, 2020 however, the Club, for the first time, was informed by the Cryne Family that another party had sought to enforce their own option to purchase Oakwell, which had been in existence for some time and long before the investment in 2017"

So nobody needs to go looking for the other "party", if they are inded the fly in the ointment.

Though an option to purchase is I believe not a "restrictive covenant" - a restrictive covenant is created in order to prevent someone from doing something on the land. An option to purchase is self explanatory.

So what's the problem here ? Nobody on here seems to know.

Any incumbrances on the land would have been known to the Crynes by virtue of the land being sold to the company they were involved in, in 2004. So an old restrictive covenant they would know about. An option to purchase however might have been created more recently - e.g.BMBC might have an option to purchase the Cryne half share of the land if they were to try and sell it.

The Chien lot weren't buying the land to kick off with, so might not have bothered with checking on what might affect their subsequent possible purchase of it. More fools them.

 

Or put a question mark after "always".

 

The Cryne's are the only group of people that have ever directly profited from Barnsley Football Club. That's not a bad return for saving their football club.

This lot will be the next.

 

So, the covenant didn’t affect the 2 previous recent purchases?

Peter Doyle and then to Cryne & BMBC.

Therefore, it’s something more to do with the change of use or additional building on it. Or even something as random as the West Stand cannot be demolished.

Whatever it is, didn’t affect the previous purchases. But does this.

What is clear, is that neither of the 2 previous owners had any plans to improve Oakwell whatsoever. The stadium was just a ‘thing’ that needed to be protected.

The new owners might have grand plans - they may even see the sale of Oakwell in full for housing, but build a brand-new stadium for us just off the motorway.

I like Oakwell, but I’m also not blind to the fact it costs a fortune to maintain, and has limited non-match day revenue potential.

I’m not against BFC moving to a new and good stadium for that reason - so long as it remains in Barnsley.

 

Does this involve a previous thought about "sweating the assets" and using a quarter of the car park for housing per chance?

 

Well in that case they have 9 years to look about for a suitable plot of land and get building!

 

Well done to the Supporters Trust on this! Good work.

I'm somewhat reassured that this is just a bargaining tactic by the consortium - it doesn't say much for them though that they'll act like this with the Cryne family, given that they are partners in owning the club.

 

What exactly is meant by there being 9 years left on the lease? The lease of Oakwell from the Crynes/ Council?

I suppose if we're tied into that then the consortium might consider a new stadium for 2029, but to be honest I don't think they intend to be around that long or pump in the money necessary for that!

 

no

 

Thanks for posting this.

Just reading through the bullet points in order, the immediate theme I picked up on was that our owners have a consistent track record of downscaling/deferring outgoing payments:
£6m additional purchase payment, negotiated down to £3.5m.
Non-payment of installments of the renegotiated figure, leaving £2.75m remaining unpaid to date.
Extended the original 6-month option to purchase the stadium.
Seeking to avoid maintenance costs associated with the running of Oakwell (which would have been a regular cost to the football club prior to sale, so estimable at the time of purchase from any basic due diligence exercise).

In general terms, as someone who already has concerns about the conduct of our owners, this does nothing to reassure me about their conduct/motives. If anything, it's an additional 'red-flag' for me.

Beyond that, there looks to be a possible inconsistency in one aspect of the statement, which is potentially relevant. The terms of the negotiated deal with the Cryne's were a £750k quarterly payment, which presumably commenced in the months following our promotion season, as the original terms were linked to that promotion but subsequently set aside. Let's assume 1/7/19 as the first payment date.

The document states that the owners became aware of the restrictive covenant after invoking the option to purchase, stated as occurring in January 2020. If true, then there would have been 2-3 of the installments payable to the Crynes by that time, suggesting to me that the non-payment issues are not directly linked to the covenant, as they pre-date the owners becoming aware of them (based on the details in the statement). Based on the figures they've only paid one installment, so whatever caused them to stop paying occurred in the second half of 2019.

"It is believed Conway/Lee feel aggrieved that the purchase of the stadium was never a real option, and this explains why subsequent instalments of the outstanding £2.75m were not made."
This line is the crux of the matter for me. The two issues are unconnected (i.e. option to purchase Oakwell vs purchase price of the company, already re-negotiated at that stage). Purchase of the stadium remains a real and available option, but one that Conway/Lee are choosing not to proceed with, for reasons which are potentially not supported by legal advice on the matter. That's a matter for them, and there's no legal obligation for them to do so.

Whether purchased or leased, the maintenance costs of Oakwell don't simply disappear and it seems to be these ongoing costs which they have an issue with, and these are essentially part of the day-to-day running costs of the club. The responsibility for the maintenance costs will have been clear within the lease relating to Oakwell, which was in existence at the time the club was sold, so again would have been known from any basic due diligence exercise.

Ultimately, the summary I get (not for the first time) is that the owners' due diligence exercise was clearly inadequate for their purposes, and responsibility for that rests solely with them.

 

1 - the investors have failed to perform proper due diligence and they are now crying over a covenant they claim they didnt know about when pretty much most barnsley fc supporters know about it.
2 - the said covenant is there to protect the club and the football stadium so unless they have ulterior motives of asset stripping the club there should be no issue
3 - seems their greed and haste in grabbing what they considered 'a bargain' has meant they overlooked important issues and are now trying to back track
4 - the crynes should not be on the board AND be part of the company leasing the ground imho - its a conflict of interests as we are now seeing.
5 - imho if the consortium take the club away from oakwell they will lose pretty much all of their investment anyway and we lose our club because that is our home and where we play and fans wont entertain a move away
6 - as a commercial lease surely the consortium know they are responsible for maintain and upkeep?

 

Let's just see what the 3rd party covenant is in the car park first

Cos I've a theory, and an order of events that could well turn out that everyone is actually telling some truths tbh.