There is no sudden clamour, Marlon. As I've explained in the past. It started happening more (occasional references) when I started working there five years ago. It was my choice. Just as it was to rename the programme Grove Street. So blame me. You are one of a few now in this thread who've suggested we are trying not to refer to Oakwell. The website is one click away.
I’d be extremely surprised if they aren’t looking for somewhere else to play. They’re paying a significant sum to a party they are in an escalating legal dispute with, for the privilege of playing on an absolute pudding of a pitch which is barely playable, with no serious prospects of being able to utilise anything near the seating capacity for the foreseeable future. I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t think they’re looking for alternatives. Why on Earth would they not?
I was born in the 60s mate, then we moved to Windermere Road when my brother was born. Lived there till I was 11 then we moved to Monk Bretton (late 70s)
Fair enough. The problem the owners have is that I don't think there's a single one of us on here who have a clue why they bought us or what their actual motives are. I've no problem with their strategy for the club on the playing side, it's a continuation of Patrick Cryne's and is, for my money, the only way we can sustainably compete at Championship level in the modern football climate. What they get out of it though I have no clue. They certainly didn't buy us out of a love for the club and there's no short or probably even medium term realistic prospect of getting to the Premier league. So why did they buy us and why have they gone on to acquire Oostende, Thun, Nancy and now, it seems a team in Scandinavia? We never hear anything at all from the owners, rumours of ground sharing, disputes over the current ground, payment of the initial fee for the club proliferate. In a football world riddled with questionable owners, bad owners, irresponsible owners not least fourteen miles down the M1 it's not surprising that supporters worry about our own club when, for the first time in our history we're owned by people with no real affiliation for the club.
Used to love going down behind the Cricket club wit kids & have a kick about. spent hours on that field until academy took it all.
As I've stated in the past buddy, and again today, I took it upon myself five years ago to use Grove Street in certain articles so as to have another way of referring to us, to the club. It's our address. Barnsley FC, Oakwell Stadium, Grove Street, S71 1ET. Originally, I was going to also refer to S71. "Join us here in S71" and stuff like that. But it's a Sheffield postcode so didn't sit right. There is no conspiracy. I've been at it for years. When we decided last summer to continue doing programmes (most clubs chose not to), we felt a rebrand was due. And I felt Grove Street was a decent name for it. We'd had BE RED for years. It was tied into the whole BE PROUD, BE BARNSLEY tagline from Mansford's era. It was time for a change. My colleagues agreed with Grove Street as the new name. Sadly, the 'dispute' did then become public and so I do accept that to some folk, minds would race etc. But think about it for a minute. If we were to move away from Oakwell, why would we change the programme name to Grove Street? Surely we'd have kept it as BE RED? And again, if we were trying to move away from Oakwell, why would we refer to the street it sits on in articles? And finally, it's just not true that we don't refer to Oakwell. For every reference to Grove Street on our website there are 20 references to Oakwell. As far as I'm aware, we play at Oakwell, I work at Oakwell and it will continue to be our home. And yes, I definitely have you down as a decent poster who has respect for others.
Cheers Whitey and I'm not expecting you to comment on my other points given your position but I think it's a genuine conversation to be had amongst the rest of us and something that can only be put to bed by the owners.
That they tried to groundshare is undisputed fact. Dane glosses over this by saying "it's an ownership level issue...nowt to do with me..." When was the last time one of our owners consented to be interviewed?
Can't fault any of you. It matters to me too because of 'my position'. But this is the best run BFC in my time at the club and on the pitch too, it's about as good as it's been. Despite a global pandemic. But my final point on this topic - any worries about usage of Grove Street, it's my decision/fault/idea. Just as I and my colleagues launched the Oakwell Hall Of Fame a couple of years ago.
Fair enough as I said it may be unfounded . But things are happening in the background especially our new owners enquiring to clubs as far away a Wigan and as near as Rotherham about possible ground sharing . Whether false or not these rumours seem to be widely accepted by some of our fans and also the mentioned clubs fan. I’m not looking to blame any one party as to why this may be happening but it is a bit worrying or at least concerning and I know for a fact it would have been a worry or at least a concern of yours if you weren’t working for the club and in the know as an ordinary fan . Rumours have been abound at Oakwell for years many have been false but many have also come to light as being true and some of these true ones were brushed aside at the time by the club. As I say I’m not one for over reacting nor do I dismiss but with disputes in the board I’m not being complacent and if I have a genuine concern I’ll follow it up as much as I can and find out as much as I can . We almost lost out club almost twenty years ago and we had to navigate between lots of stupid rumours and facts . With the boards actions in enquiring about ground share im once again concerned .
It isn't an undisputed fact in the context you just laid it out in. It's out there in the open that they asked clubs about the possibility of groundsharing, should the need to ever do so arise, but it no evidence suggests it was a full out move to groundshare. The way you shape those two statements is very, very different. We know there's a dispute on payments, a dispute on maintenance, and I think most people would accept that it makes sense to have a Plan B in life - even if 99.9% of us would think it's a stupid thing to do. We know the day to day running of the club isn't impacted and that everyone is hopeful of a resolution.
I hate hearing grove street, stop saying it, teams come to oakwell end off, just because some smartarse made it up and thinks it's cool, I keep thinking biker grove its rank.
I mean, it's fact they asked and Rotherham said no. I sincerely hope you're right and that they are merely creating plan Bs or posturing so as to out outmanoeuvre/pressurise the Crynes. I cannot believe the Crynes would jeopardise our being at Oakwell, however. I'm not sure that's true of our other owners.