Come On You Bantam Reds

It wouldn't work for the Barnsley FC you and I support. As it didn't work for the original Wimbeldon.

But, you asked what financial benefit could the current owners gain from moving the club.

You also asked if I thought that the US franchise system would work in the UK.

I said, I didn't know if the US franchise would work but pointed out that a) the owners of Wimbeldon dissolved the original club b) moved them to Milton Keynes and changed their name c) have made money out of doing so. This resembles (but is not exactly the same as) the US franchise model.

My point was the owners might consider emulating this model if we "have to" move, because they "can't" buy Oakwell.

 

I mean, they exist.

 

That's the bottom line.

If they can play elsewhere for £9 a week to avoid paying a tenner for Oakwell these shisters will do it.

 

They do, but as a football club, what progress have they made in the last 16 years?

 

What about the Kassam? It would be handy for me. Besides if the potential new owner has his way Oxford United will be looking for a new stadium near to Oxford Parkway Stadium.

If we are looking closer to home the obvious place for the owners to sound out would be Hillsborough. Any takers?

 

Lets look at it from a different perspective.

You're the landlord of a property with circa 6 years left on its lease at a very low rate. The tenants state they want to buy it from you. They've already negotiated down a separate agreement for the amount due and extended the period of payment. The tenant reneges on that agreement, around 3 years after their option to buy lapsed. They've also entered into a legal dispute with the tenant because of a completely unrelated matter and non payment of agreed terms has followed.

Lets say this wasn't football, and you had a standard commercial lease, its pretty unlikely you'd want to deal with that tenant again. Your trust in that tenant to fulfil its promises and obligations is also probably frayed.

In that case, why would you spend millions on the ground for the benefit of a tenant you're in dispute with? Would you be willing to reduce a paltry rent even lower, with a tenant you're in dispute with?

I know I certainly wouldn't entertain such a thing until a legal case had either been heard, or the other issues had been resolved.

 

You seem to have misinterpreted my point as being a defence or promotion of MK Dons. I am not saying they are a success story.

My point was about the intentions that the owners had when they dissolved Wimbeldon and moved the club.

 

But the issue of the state of the ground has been going on long before these owners arrived. It's the duty of the ground owners to keep the ground modern and safe, for the greater good of Barnsley football club, no matter who the owners are.

 

It already is a peppercorn rent though?

 

They're not bothered about the fan base or community though are they? They are simply concerned with making money however that can be done. Therefore, if they want the BFC enterprise to continue and to squeeze the 'product' and the other ownership partner into concessions this may be one way of doing it.
As to the rumours/speculation regarding all this there's too much smoke for it to be incorrect for me regardless of sources or journalistic license. They ARE looking at their options regarding a move as part of their strategy or as part of a pressurising tactic on other stakeholders.
They care not about history or community. They are simply not very nice.
I could be argued against but I'm sticking to that as a logical opinion and based on a view of why they are here in the first place.

 

Can I just throw into the mix Ashton Gate.
When we were there recently it struck me as a great football stadium and the seats a the right colour (unless that’s going to change too).

 

Not really.

 

Why is it the duty of the owners to keep the ground modern? I'd probably say the responsibility for safety comes down to those using it for their business purposes too.

The owners agreed to a lease and the terms within. If they want to negotiate with serious intent and come to agreement to contribute to development, then all parties may come to a conclusion. But as landlord, you'd want a much more commercial level of rent and for a longer period to make such development worthwhile.

You'd also want paying what you're owed, which has nothing to do with the stadium.

 

I agree, but there isn’t another tenant waiting to take over the property. Nor is there a realistic option of doing much else with it. You can’t really compare the two.

 

Because it should also be in the councils best interests to ensure the club stays competitive and successful. This ain't someone renting out a unit on an industrial estate. It's a stadium to a professional football club.

 

Firstly, of course a journalist isn't going to reveal his or her source. As soon as they do that, said sources immediately stop. Plus, it drops said source right in the muck.

It probably is true - all evidence points to it. The neglect of Oakwell will continue so The Club will then try to spin it as a positive to move away from the decrepit shed that those nasty Cryne's won't maintain.

It's such a shame that the positivity of last season has been flushed away so needlessly (and yes I'm aware that last season's success happened under the same Board).

They may as well just Franchise us up and move us to London in an American stylee.

 

Its not the councils remit to spend millions of pounds of money that is going to allow "billionaires" to pay even less money.

 

I think the original masterplan all along was not to make money on player trading and take that for themselves but to use that player trading profit to buy the club using those funds, therefore once paid off they have spent nothing but whatever they sold the club for would be pure profit. (To do this it doesn’t really matter which division the club is in either).

The rug seems to be being pulled out from that idea with the Crynes challenging them using club funds to pay for it. They now need a way out in my opinion as I can’t see how they can profit, so perhaps they have resorted to plan ‘b’ (the OGC Nice model).

edit: to add, perhaps the reason they wanted the ground was also maybe to have some collateral to make further loans against to pay for the club, which all could be recouped on sale - this avenue has also seemingly been cut off from them.