They have 6 -7 years last I heard. Tbh, I can see why they wouldn't rush to extend it, no one else is going to put a bid in to use it .
I suspect it was a 10 year lease, doubt a continuation. So that would run to December 2027. Not official, but that would fit with figures mentioned and seems a reasonable assumption.
Barnsley will soon have an empty stadium nobody wants and the 80 percenters will be renting somewhere else. My guess is the club will be sold before then.
It’ll have to be given away on those terms IMO. They said they were gonna steadily invest and make it more valuable then cash in . But with the way things are with all sets of owners no ones gonna invest owt till it’s sorted. They’ll all have to come together sometime in the future and until then it’s all up in air what’s gonna happen .
BFCST Update: Court Case and Oakwell Stadium Earlier today Barnsley FC Supporters’ Trust got a greater understanding of the current ground ownership situation at the football club and why the ownership group have explored the possibility of playing home games away from Oakwell. A club insider spoke in detail about the ownership of Oakwell and the recent news stories sighting boardroom disagreements. In this article, we’ll try and explain the history behind the sale of Oakwell, why there is a potential court case and what has prompted the majority stakeholders of the ownership group to look at alternatives to Oakwell. Headlines A 6M additional payment was due to the Cryne’s holding company based on retaining or regaining championship status. This was mutually agreed to be reduced to 3.5m in the March of the League One promotion season at a point where promotion was not guaranteed. BFC Investment Company no longer wants to purchase the stadium due to 3rd party interest via a restrictive covenant. The Cryne family and their legal counsel believe this 100-year-old covenant is un-enforceable BFC Investment Company are unhappy with the original deal and have stopped paying the remaining 2.75m instalments on the mutually agreed 3.5m BFC Investment Company are dissatisfied with the terms of tenancy that means they need to pay many times more than the stadium rental in maintenance costs and would like the Cryne’s/Council to reduce this The option to move away from Oakwell is under investigation due to this cost. This feeling is that this will not happen and is a tactic to put pressure on BMBC/The Cryne’s but given it is instigated by the majority shareholders it is a possibility The lease has 8 more years to run and expires on 24/10/2028
So why did they accept to do it in the first place? Or has things changed since they signed on the dotted line so to speak?
This is the interesting part to me. It’s currently quite hard to obtain title insurance for issues such as this at commercially palatable rates. It may well be that any potential finance provider would be unwilling to provide a loan to cover the cost of purchasing the ground until the defect in title is rectified (i.e. removed) or adequately insured against. This puts the owners in a difficult situation, and as a result it might not be a case of the owners not wanting to purchase the ground but that they are genuinely unable to finance the purchase in light of the covenant. Ultimately, it’s not a case of convincing you or me about the un-enforceability of the covenant - it’s a case of convincing a (very risk-averse) bank and / or insurance provider.
It doesn't matter how long the contractual term is - unless the lease is contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the club will have a right to a new lease upon expiry unless the owners can prove one of several specific grounds for possession.