Court Case / Move from Oakwell - Further BFCST Update

That doesn't seem like an option now. The Investment group no longer wish to purchase the stadium. Probably due to the high maintenance cost.

 

All this talk of the "club", the "ground", etc. We seem to now know who has ownership of the various bits, 80%, 20%, 50-50%.
But I was wondering ... the "ground" ... does this include the land it is built on or is it just the buildings, stands etc or is the "land" a separate thing covered by these covenants?

 

Well, it seems my theory is wrong anyway.

So, as you were (everyone)

 

Yes I suppose so. Just don't see why when you've got a recent contract you start changing things. Plus hadn't they already pushed the initial price down originally?

 

No, we own a ground that is so run down that people are quite happy to own it - and take rent - as long as they don’t have to pay for its upkeep.

It is an old agreement and the owners would have been well aware of it. But it is an unbalanced and arguably unfair situation.

Whilst they are apparently being a bit backhand in how they are going about it, in all fairness I can see their point.

As has been eluded to above, there is a chain of events and likelihoods here in which no party is completely lying or even completely in the wrong - and unlike SuperTyke, among others, I’m not given to conclude this is all the majority owners doing.

In my eyes this is a three way dick waving exercise and nobody is backing down.

The Cryne’s have a finger in both pies which isn’t helpful. They partially own both the club and the ground, and there’s disagreement between both sides. That is a conflict of interest in my view. But this could be sorted if all parties stopped playing Billy Big-********.

The council and Cryne’s could reduce rent/agree to contribute to maintenance, or could have the covenants legally removed if they think them no issue (I suspect they are though and that this isn’t a simple and cheap exercise. I also suspect the council want them to remain) - and then sell their share.

The 80%ers could (and should) pay what they owe for the club - and climb down a little over the stadium, agreeing to shared costs or to buy one or both shares of the ground from the Cryne’s and/or BMBC.

At the moment no party seems to be prepared to give any ground, and that isn’t useful to anyone. So there’s nobody completely absolved of blame in my eyes.

The Cryne’s put out a statement stating they agreed to a reduction in the sale price. That was, at best, stretching the truth - as they in actual fact agreed to settle for £3.5million as an add-on at a time when there was a very real chance that what was going to be owed would be £0. In fact at the point this agreement seems to have been reached, we were probably not favourites for top two, or at least were nothing close to being assured of that, and the playoffs are always a lottery.

Both sides cashed out to alleviate some risk. The Cryne’s might have got nothing if they’d carried on. The consortium might have owed nothing at all, but were set to owe £6million if we were promoted. Both therefore took a punt. It was not an agreement to reduce the price at all as at that point the ‘price’ wasn’t settled. It also meant that in the closing stages of the season, neither side had a financial interest in not being promoted. It was ethically the right thing to do so the team could concentrate on promotion, and let’s be honest, the owners would have had little to celebrate had the promotion and rumoured £6 - £7million of additional income it attracted was completely swallowed in another payment to the Cryne’s. It made sense for everyone, so to then claim they’ve agreed to reduce the price is in my eyes quite misleading, and a sign of posturing towards a moral high ground they aren’t particularly entitled to.

The initial purchase price of the club, without any land or infrastructural assets included, was ‘up to’ £16million. £10million was all that was guaranteed, and this was paid up front and not a penny of that appears to be outstanding.

The £2.75m owed is from the additional agreed amount - and should be paid. No doubt about it. So the owners are legally and morally bankrupt in that regard.

But just let that sink in - in the history of Barnsley Football Club, no owner has ever made a profit out of the club (or taken any dividend) that doesn’t have the surname Cryne.

I’m not criticising this per se, but before blindly defending them and assuming they have the club and the fans as their sole priority and only wish, remember they are business people looking to make a profit here too. The difference being they are taking money and making profit - the consortium, as disliked as they are and as suspicious we are of them - whatever its long term plans, so far have not.

 

No

 

Think someone called Doyle May have taken a dividend imo.

 

At heart I couldn’t care less about any of this but what it does do at least in my case, is make me think again about continuing to attend and financially support people whose generally behaviour I find hard to reconcile. Football is an escape a fantasy a meeting of minds a chance to forgot your troubles and worries and just live. All this crap sours that for me. Whilst it’s entertaining and keeps us talking it is dispiriting. I don’t want to be a customer of a company in business dispute but a fan of my local club that is part of and is embedded into my downtrodden northern town.

I bought season tickets to support our club in very difficult times because it felt the right thing to do. I can’t say I’m still convinced of this.

ho to the hum.

 

Who sold half the ground to the council?

 

Doyle I would assume, as PC and the council went 50/50 on it

 

Thing is we are assuming 80% approached Crynes but perhaps Crynes realised the £6 million was at risk and approached?

 

Me too. I know Cryne came across as the reluctant custodian but it would have been in his best interests owning the whole kit and caboodle.

 

Wasn't it done when we came out of administration? Half to Cryne and half the council, with it being Cryne's belief that it would lessen the chance of the club losing the stadium, because the fact the ownership is split means no one person can pull the trigger?

 

On the surface it seems quite noble but could it also be to do with him not wanting to be solely responsible for ground improvements and roads and walkways around Oakwell. Seemed a cop out at the time and still does to this day. Was he that bothered about his reputation?