Khaled El Ahmad tonight....

The new CEO gave poor responses to numerous outlets the other week. Tonight wasn't going to be any different.

 

Doesn't sound like it all was without incident either @dreamboy3000 . Sounds like there were plenty of our fellow fans applying pressure to some answers. The CEO now needs to come back with full and detailed answers to some of the points raised. I'm guessing he'll be reporting back to the owners that we're not happy campers.

 

I'm not sure the club does. My impression, admittedly from ten years ago is that if a disability isn't readily visible enough to warrant a place in the disabled stand it didn't count. That said, that would also sum up lots of organisations. Thinking about it I'm inclined to exercise my rights under the equality act and ask if I can sit on my own in the West lower as I'd have no steps to negotiate

 

So in other words the squad will be further weakened in January by the sale of established players and the recruitment of more shots in the dark from somewhere abroad who will if the past is a marker take months to even get near the first 11 obviously Dike was the outlier in that he fitted straight in but I very much doubt we will be making signings like him again anytime soon.

 

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what Paul Conways text did, was answer a question that wasn’t being asked.

He’s saying the 750k was a bonus to be paid to the previous owners if the club got promoted, which was agreed by all parties at the time of purchase.

that’s fine, and correct, but the question being asked is why did that money get paid from Barnsley football club, which the text didn’t answer.

it’s just doing what you see politicians doing, answering a question that’s not been asked, and moving on from the point. They’ve done this at least twice now on this particular question.

 

I think that's a good point aswell dreamboy 3000. It's probably the best conduit for the fans to feedback to the owners the level of our discontent. If they are as mercenary as most think, they will think twice about p!ssing us off too much.

 

Presumably because both parties agreed that promotion to the Championship would guarantee an increase in money to the club and as such a bonus payment could come from this additional revenue stream.

 

The answer to that question is simple because they can. Because the previous 100% owners were desperate to sell for perfectly understandable reason and the 80% mob took advantage of the situation you've only to read the tweets from the 80% mobs ex adviser on the deal to see how Conway is alleged to have sought to take advantage of a dying man's state of mind to know what kind of people are running OUR club

 

True, but from the promotion success we also flogged off our promotion winning centre halves and then one of our star strikers. We nearly went straight back down. Can understand a dividend if we'd got promoted and stabilised the championship standing of the club (after 1 season). But straight after a promotion with an already shoestring budget? The worth of the club wouldn't have changed much, especially if you go straight back down with championship wages. The incomings and outgoings would cancel each other out.

Who in their right mind would sign off on that? If we'd been promoted to the Premier League I'd get it.

 

yes more than likely, the extra payment isn’t in question. The question is why did Barnsley football club pay that money to the previous owners and not the company that bought Barnsley football club.

 

It's been stated in the Chronicle that the Crynes are adamant the agreement was due from the 80% investors, not the football club. That's one reason legal action has been raised.

Also, the additional payments were renegotiated from an original agreement regarding Championship status when we looked like being promoted under Stendel. If we hadn't have been promoted, the investors would still have owed the money.

 

Have you got a link to these tweets? Never seen them but would be very interested to, as I'm sure would other BBSers.

 

Conway boardroom tirade....

 

Same here, I must have missed all of that. Its like a chuffing episode of Eastenders meets Dallas all of this.

 

That explains a lot, and basically answers the question at the end of my previous post.

 

They've been posted on here before I'll try to find them on twitter but as the relationship between the 80% and the advisor ended up in court ( the advisor won btw) they may have been deleted.

 

If we'd been promoted to the Premier league there would be at least a nought on the end of the number.

The 20% negotiated and accepted a 750k payment from "the club". They didn't have to accept this payment. They could have said, let's not have this payment, let's just have the money you "the 80%" owe us. But they agreed to accept £750k whilst other monies are in dispute.

 

The 20% accepted the money from the club.
They could have not accepted it and added it to the original law suit.
They must have signed off on it. They own part of the 100%.

 

Basically it's a giant shitheap, where deals haven't been fulfilled and our beloved club is caught up in the middle. Per my previous comment regarding Dallas, I wonder if Chen and Conway in private wear ten gallon hats.

 

It’s the first time I’ve heard reference to tweets from an advisor to the 80% ‘ers . Come on Stairfoot Red who was the advisor and what did the tweets say