QUOTE="Gimson&theBarnsleys, post: 2544938, member: 6814"]The flats were built on Jooener's garage.[/QUOTE] the Doyle thing is definitely rubbish any covenant under discussion is over a 100 years old.
So far, nobody can say with any certainty what the covenant is. What we can say is that if it has existed for over 100 years, the club has operated at oakwell without impediment with it. Raising it now as an apparent justification for not paying for the club indicates either it is intended to operate the club in some radically different way or The only alternative I see is it is being used spuriously as an excuse or a bargaining chip.
You think this is the most worrying issue? I'm trying to come to terms with Big Lil wandering around Barnsley in green tights, carrying a bow and arrow!
It suggests they wanted the land for a different purpose and always planned to rent some other god forsaken place for the team to play at. This lot were never going to get into big scale ground improvements.
Why has there been a specific post by the club about an "option to purchase" as the problem then? An option to purchase is not a covenant.
From what I can gather...... The 80%ers are the only group/business/people that could possibly lease Oakwell. The 80%ers know this. The Crynes and BMBC could not possibly lease the ground or land to anyone else and they can not sell for development cos of the Covenant. Sooooo with that in mind the 80%ers could potentially move away and leave Crynes and BMBC with a worthless (well not completely) football stadium and land... The 80%ers could ram the price of the land down dramatically by threatening to move away in essence they could pay as little for the land as they possible could That’s possible init???
I am aware what a covenant is and that an option to purchase is different. My understanding is that the owners are saying there is now a problem with them purchasing the ground because of a covenant on the land. It could be as minor as preserving the earl of Devonshire's falconry rights (not uncommon) or it could be a serious (given our founder) that if the club ceases to operate at oakwell, st Peter's church or their successors can buy the land for 10 shillings. Like I said, it hasn't stopped the club operating for all this time whatever it is
So they have 2 problems then? If you look at Loko's post no.4 in this thread it makes clear what the 80% owners say is their problem. Which is not a covenant.
‘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.’ The majority of us assumed this ‘party’ must be something to do with the covenant. The statement alludes to the fact that a recent approach has been made to enforce a right to purchase. However, there’s nothing out there to confirm who has sought this and why. People wrongly assumed it was the council. Although, whoever this is, I find it odd that if they’ve sought an option to purchase and the Cryne’s accepted, why hasn’t the sale been completed?
Probably definitely not an option. They have never shown they have the wealth spoke of them from the start and have just purchased clubs with loans without actually investing in an infrastructure then flogging them on for a profit if the opportunity arises. Ten bob billionaires to a man!