I agree on the whole - some of the stuff written on here is pure fantasy. But you must admit that Mr Conway is adept at the art of 'Spin', shall we say.
Why not approach the third party to resolve the issue? Pay the Cryne's what they owe them and finish the purchase of the ground?
These days Fonzie pretty much everyone is well versed in the art of spin. Not only people in the public domain either. On another point, how many of the other 92 football league club CEOs do the same as PC did the other day...and has done on previous occasions? Genuine question. Sometimes, before the moaning starts we should all take stock on how far we've come in the last 5 years.
Fair points - especially the last sentence. I don't care about other CEO's though. I just care about ours.
The answer is not many. Haven't the Glaziers just met the Manchester United fans for the first time ever? Mike Ashley, the Burnley owners who just paid for the club in full with the club money, the Italians at Watford, Chansiri, the Prince at the Lane, etc. etc. That's before you get down to some of the comms that have come out of Bury, Blackpool, Macclesfield, Oldham, Bolton, etc. in the last few years. Patrick Cryne used to mention all the time how none of the owners of our neighbouring clubs would be given as much access as he gave, yet it was never enough. Always had a bit of a bee in his bonnet about how silent Dave Allan was at Chesterfield considering the mess that club was in. Name dropped Ken Bates a couple of times too.
I think now the ground issue has been explained,is'nt it time maybe for James and the council to get there fingers out to help the owners to redevelop the West Stand and bring in added income to strengthen the club going forward.
It would seem the issue over the covenant is that the Crynes and their legal team don’t see it as an issue to be concerned over but the owners do. Who is right or wrong I ain’t got a clue, but perhaps it’s just down to perspective. By that I mean perhaps the Council & Crynes when buying had no intention to sell, whereas the owners will one day without doubt and they are concerned potential future buyers are put off.
It seems to me that the Council and the Cryne's don't want to release the ground because the land is worth top dollar and any sale would be just a one-off payment.
It took a long time for Cryne to get the club out of Administration due to the complications of Pete Doyle’s deal with finance partners . Maybe some of those dealings are still hovering?
No idea m8, trouble is I don’t think anyone has ever catagorically stated what the issue actually is, so we are all guessing really.
I know this has been rumbling on for years now, but I'm still non-the-wiser as to which parties own/don't own which elements of the club. I mean, does whoever owns the training ground also own the stadium? Or are they separate entities?
The Cryne's and the Council own the ground and the training facilities, land etc. The club is a separate entity that Chien and Co own. Somewhere along the line a third party got involved and bought the rights to what the land is used for and what it's called etc. I'm guessing that is to do with the Council and the Cryne's.
Cheers, so do the Crynes and the council own the land/facilities 50/50 or do they own unequal shares of them or different elements of the land/facilities? I know when the council stepped in to protect the land it was seen as a knight in shining armour moment for the club, but in hindsight it seems to have been done in such a way that it's deliberately obstructive to legitimate future development. I've worked in and around property/land sales for over 10 years now and I've yet to see a single restrictive covenant prevent a sale (where there's a will, there's a way!). Normally if a purchase doesn't happen it's either lack of appetite on either side or lack of finance on the purchaser side. Covenants just don't prevent sales in my experience.
Covenant is placed on the land. Right from when the brewery gave the club the land. It's 100 odd years old, but still active against the title of the land. If I got that right....
I'd suspect the land is worth more than the club and someone was laughing their co ck off when the sale of the footballing side went through.
Thought there was a 2nd claim though for a narrow bit of land that runs through the training ground or something I think the 1st covenant can easily be got round as I believe the last remaining family member has passed away, but it's the 2nd claim that is the issue
Only reference I can find is the pitch. Was even discussed in parliament back when we were asking for a slight extension to all seater stadiums. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1994/nov/22/barnsley-football-club The 2nd claim I've only ever read on here
But Paul Conway has said he and the consortium no longer want to buy, not that the council/Crynes don't want to sell.