We were discussing this after. My best guess is down to the well talked about Covenant. There's a risk if they buy the stadium they could end up losing out on the title as another party has a theoretical right on the title. I asked him if it was down to the covenant and he said that and some other issues but didn't go into those. Given 5 insurance companies would not underwrite the title (ie if they did lose out to the third party) then the risk is seen as too high to take. You wouldn't purchase house there's some chance you could lose ownership and equity from particularly if the risk couldn't be underwritten.
There was a separate fan led question and answer tonight also. Different from the Radio Sheffield interview. Some of the similar questions were asked and answered. In that, he said one or maybe two players if we are lucky. Red all over videod that so would imagine it will be on their YouTube channel shortly so give it a subscription. Spot my stupid comment in that one as well.
Be interesting to hear the home office take on why our clearance seems to take longer than any other club that’s brought in a player requiring a visa. Weird it’s happened to us twice.
There was much ranting on this subject by Paul Conway. Basically no process, or governance. They will be very vocal in trying to get this solved by the government going forward as they see the greatest transfer bargains to be had from Europe and not league one or two anymore. Maybe league 2 but they need players who can be up to speed within a season.
Possibly to do with providing indemnities against historical covenants? We had to provide a couple when we sold our previous house.
Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 prescribes a procedure for applying to discharge or modify a restrictive covenant affecting land. One assumes the Consortium's lawyers have looked at this.
Perhaps. Seems contrived and able to point the finger at a department that will never respond to the criticism - considering how it took this long for this news to surface.
I do like Conway when he speaks. I like his policy for the club, and the explanations on the visa issues are good. But the stuff with Oakwell is still worrying. The ground is looking a bit rough - it needs money pumping into it but it sounds like it's going to be allowed to deteriorate further.
The stadium/land issue is curious. The understanding is that they were purchased by Barnsley Council and Patrick Cryne in 2003 through the medium of Oakwell Holdings. One would assume that at that time the Council and Cryne satisfied themselves (through their lawyers) that they would receive a good title from the vendors, suitable for their purposes. So why would that title now not be good enough to satisfy Lee, Conway et al if it was good enough for Cryne and BMBC? Does it speak to other ambitions on the part of the newer owners? I am not speculating or posing conspiracy theories here, just observing that there is some part of this that is not fully visible.
It wasn’t that kind of meeting where you could just ask all kinds of questions. With the media represented quite heavily it was a different format to normal, and as you can see from what Radio Sheffield, The Chronicle, and the YP have been sharing this morning it was more around the ownership and playing side. This wasn’t one of the Fan Engagement Forums. Think that will be saved for the new CEO.
Not so. On the basis that assumption is the mother of all f1ck ups I've learnt not to assume anything. Never trust in what you assume, only in what you know. Whilst recognising that football forums live, breathe and survive on conspiracy theories it still gets a bit tedious on here when the "go to place" for our very own conspiracy theorists is the place where negative judgemental assumptions are made about whatever the man says.