This is not a football club

It's a trading company.

 

Soap Opera

 

and not a particularly good one.

 

Always has been?

Nothings changed has it?

 

At no point in the past was the sole purpose of the club the generation of cash for its owners. We did in the past at least always try to achieve success on the pitch maybe not always successfully but they tried. The statement from the CEO today changed that fundamentally the whole focus of the club is no longer on field success it's reason for existing isn't to entertain it's loyal supporters it's simply a vehicle for making money for its owners nothing more nothing less. It is with the statement that it's ditched a successful playing style for one which as brought abysmal performances and results no longer a sporting club it's merely a retail outfit selling second hand footballers.

 

This, with bells on.

 

Perfectly true statements. In the past, some of our owners have been wealthy men but far from super-rich. This has undoubtedly compelled the club to cash in on players who were the subject of large transfer offers. However, what is different now is the resource-level of our current owners. Wiki still indicates their wealth to be a combined $9.1Bn. I know that figure has been disputed in the past, but if the figure was only a tenth of the amount stated in Wiki then the owners would still be wealthier than those of two current Premier League clubs and all bar seven in the Championship. Where is the evidence that these owners have invested any substantial funds into the club, or even loaned money to the club to fund improvement to the playing squad or the infrastructure?

I find the statements by the CEO regarding the closure of the West Stand unconvincing. There is a strong sense of ex post facto justification about them. Given that the Council's inspection of the stadium deemed the West Stand to be safe for use, what was to prevent the club from immediately addressing the minor problems identified pending longer-term renewal or rebuilding? One imagines that a local building/joinery firm could have put things right at little substantial cost. The piling up of little issues to retrospectively justify the closure and the use of long-serving club employees to deflect criticism at the meeting is unimpressive, to say the least. It is going to be some atmosphere at Oakwell on Sunday. The echoing emptiness of the West Stand, opposite the habitually quiet East, and the North Stand hosting more away supporters than the capacity of the South Stand. Not a promising set-up for a home team lacking in confidence.

The playing squad appears little better than that inherited by the owners when they took over in December 2017. It is quite breathtaking to hear the CEO decry the style of Valerien Ismael's team for not generating enough added value in the players. The change of style under Schopp appears to have made the situation worse. So, if we can't adopt a pragmatic but successful style, and we can't see any meaningful investment in the team, what is the future for the club in the short to medium term? January, and the next season ticket renewal window will be "interesting times"!

 

On the money side-

I don’t want the Directors ‘loaning’ money to the club for anything. That’s a slippery slope - it’s pure debt.

I don’t mind investment to a degree, but we were told on day one - self sustainable and long term plan. If it’s gifted to the club, and in small amounts then fine. But that also means the club isn’t self sustainable.

FFP makes it more difficult these days too.

The main issues that some supporters seemed to be concerned about, are:

1) Withheld initial purchase payments.
2) Wrangle over Oakwell lease.
3) West Stand debacle.

I don’t include Schopp, as that’s a normal issue for any club to deal with. And I suspect fitness issues are partly to blame too.

1) We don’t know the full issue and it’s going to court still to solve. All parties confirm they still get on and it doesn’t affect their working relationship. Agree it’s bizarre, but if it’s going to court then both sides must feel they have a good case.

2) Was always going to rear it’s head at some point regardless of owners. We all know it needs money throwing at it. This is trying to agree who does what essentially. If the club just bent over and said yes, it’d cost us significant amounts - enough to affect playing budget. By negotiating with the landlord, it puts the club in a better position. When you have a tenant situation like this, the tenant has quite some power too, as the landlord can’t really let to anyone else.

3) I’ve no issue with the reasons, it’s the timing and communication which could maybe have been improved. The holes in the stand take me back to 1985 and the fire at Bradford. That was caused by litter getting into the voids below the timber structure and catching fire. Based on that alone, the club are right to close it, until that and other issues are sorted.

 

It is a football club simply because it has thousands of passionate fans who are members of this club & love the club, however the club we love is currently in the hands of a trading company but we will be there when the trading company has long gone, lets hope it is in the near future.

 

Back in 1985 people smoked on the terraces. It's a different situation now so a few holes don't automatically mean close now. If that was the case it would be clear from the safety cert . I'm sure that bit could have been copied and put on the letter to the fans.Along with the remedial action.

 

Obviously.

But, don’t forget Bradford City were warned about it and other issues before it actually happened. They were renovating the stand at the end of the season to resolve it, but left it open until then, as they were deemed low risk at the time.

Using this historical event as reference, Khalid’s decision is brave but also correct. And maybe he’s the first CEO we’ve had who has the balls to do this sort of stuff. Gally mentioned that he comes across as wanting things 100% right.

 

As I recall, the space below the Bradford stand was simply a void which had, over decades been allowed to build up with rubbish which was 'probably' ignited by a carelessly discarded cigarette butt. That is not the case with the West stand, which housed the changing rooms and the Board Room.

 

But isn't that what Patrick Cryne effectively did?

 

Funny. I was thinking about this last week and came to the same conclusion. In the same way we are no longer viewed as fans or supporters, rather customers. Perhaps the signage and all other materials should be rebranded as Barnsley Football Ltd. At least it would be more honest of the current owners to admit it.

 

Yes, but for sensible business activity/continuity.

Not throwing it around.

And I believe he didn’t claim all that back, although ISTBC on that.

 

You can be too particular though.As you say Bradford were taking action, bur we've been given no timetable yet.

Plus, I would assume the fire safety report would be clearer after the tragic events at Bradford. One place I worked was told in no uncertain terms it would fail to get a certificate if they didn't clear old papers/boxes from the roof space in an old building.

 

The West Stand still has a void below the timber, just not full depth. Although my point is not about a fire.

My point here, is that several reported small concerns were not acted upon, and were decided to be left until the end of the season to sort out - one of which led to a tragedy.

Nobody can argue with that, and everyone should remember that as a point in case.

Therefore, the decision to me is correct - it’s Khalid’s name on the cert. However, it should have been communicated better and ideally done before the season started.

 

We don't know it's correct though. Risk assessment has to be reasonable.

 

No, that’s wrong.

Bradford chose to house several thousand in that stand still. In hindsight, they should have either cleared the debris, or closed the stand.

They chose the easier and cheaper option - to leave until the end of the season. But that’s in hindsight.

The West Stand is complex. It could take 3-4 months to ascertain an exact cost and timescale at least. Trust me - nothings ever quick in construction.