[Official Site] CLUB STATEMENT: RESPONSE TO BARNSLEY COUNCIL

I’m surprised someone hasn’t quoted the Cauley penalty clause on this thread…

 

it’s not broke though is it.

 

There’s a difference between not broke and returning it in the condition you received it in. Not completing necessary advised works would be reviewed and ultimately charged for on lease expiry if they meant that the condition of the property wasn’t as leased minus wear and tear.

 

but as far as I understand it, the council stated it was fit for use subject to the usual stipulations of the safety certificate (no doubt max numbers, stewards etc) so not broke at present. the club hasn’t stated exact facts, and doesn’t need to hand it back for 7 years, we’ve heard bluster, but miraculously there is suddenly extra stewards so more away fans can come and 1000 of our oldest fans are having to move.

 

Again you misunderstand. It is fit for use. There are no structural concerns. They have advised on some issues but the club have not acted on those for commercial reasons. That’s fine. While ever the lease is in place the club only have to maintain it to a standard that makes it safe to use which it has. However when the lease ends there will undoubtedly be a clause that states that the ground must be returned in the condition it was received in (minus wear and tear). That’s in every commercial lease I’ve ever seen. So the club will need to pay at some point if it intends to end the lease As the ground is not in the state it was when leased.

 

I think it's safe to say that we're massively in the dark about what's going on along with the truth spoken and motives of those involved.
I've got an innate scepticism of local councils. However I think it's pretty obvious that the record of our current owners in terms of straight talking and transparency is absolutely awful.
They can hardly be surprised that very few people are willing to put their trust in them.

 

I’ll ignore the condescending statement that I misunderstand. Again. I stated it was fit for use. However clearly the club have chosen not to maintain it as they should / follow the legal safety advice given hence it’s now shut. I think we are all quite aware of the probable commercial lease aspects, the club has 7 years to address those if the stand is left to rot until then.

 

There are no grounds to close the stand on safety grounds even without the suggested improvements it is still safe legally as the councils safety cert shows. The clubs decision is purely a commercial one. They have every right to make that commercial decision but tried to pass this off as a safety issue which it is not.

And we are agreed that eventually if the club chooses to use the break clause in 2028 they will need to return the ground to the state they leased it in. Which will no doubt be far more costly if they basically leave 25% of it to rot for 7 years.

 

Am I right in thinking that if Chien, Conway and Co are intending to sell the club on within the next 7 years, they personally will have no need to spend a penny on the ground if they choose not to?

 

Having read a lot of folks opinions on said subject ....id still say I'm nearer the truth to what's taken place and why......put sentiment to one side it pays them to close it...from a financial perspective...doesn't make it right though..nothing else but operational cost cutting decisions.....so why try to deflect the blame and lie by putting the blame on the councils shoulders after taking the decision to close it......
My message to the CEO ....shot yourself in the foot big time over this buddy....
Also getting your English language mixed up...by failing to understand the difference between transparency and opaque doesn't help ......whilst at the same time disregarding and not respecting those in the west stand ..
Who or should that read what's next ..from these uncaring charlatans running/ ruining our club.....watch this space...more to come I suspect....and I doubt we will like it

 

The stand was only closed to allow stewards to go to cover away end for blunts to pay £36 per head, because Doyle security do not seem to be able to attract staff, why the club does not run that side of things themselves, I am sure they would save money, because that is all these owners want, money, money, money. Its quite alright to put our own fans out, but we have to let paying visitors in.if they spent more on team and a half decent manager then we might be in top 6 and not need visitors to survive

 

Even something as simple as producing the vouchers for reserved plus season ticket holders.

 

I consider myself quite measured but when someone at my son's football asked what was going off at Barnsley FC I didn't know where to start!

 

I got mine through the post today actually. 5 X £10 discount vouchers for tickets in the west stand

 

Never once during this entire

.[/QUOTE]

It seems not

 

In theory yes but if you were purchasing you would do your due diligence and factor and remedial work into your bid.

 

If there refusing to pay for club and ground ,could they have both taken off them

 

Fair enough, sorry if the question upset you.

Suppose it would reduce the chances of you posting as you would have to go to the trouble of setting up a new account. Would be just as easy to read the board.

My suggestion then people can do it themselves, change the password just hit a load of random keys then copy and paste it into the confirm box and log out.