Doesn’t sound like the Hull deal speaks highly of him either "Duffen said it soon became clear to him that Jarvis 'had not done a football transaction before, or more likely, any transaction.' He said none of Jarvis’ Chinese contacts ever materialized."
But in the tweet above he claims Cryne was his client? Not being a dick by the way, I'm not entirely clued up on takeover deals.
Different version posted in NY Times Jarvis said he also acted on behalf of the Barnsley seller Patrick Cryne, who was terminally ill at the time and died earlier this year. The relationship grew fractious, and people close to the Cryne family accuse Jarvis of leaking information about the deal to the news media in order to boost his company’s profile. Jarvis denies this, describing Cryne as a “bitter man” who was “high on drugs” at the time. A lawyer for the Cryne family declined to comment. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/sports/soccer-jarvis.amp.html
Both sides can become your client if you're working for two parties making a deal work. There are some projects we work on where we are acting independently for two organisations. Both are our client, though one pays the fees directly.
He doesn't strike me as someone I'd largely trust on anything to be frank, and that he was in the same pool as some of our consortium, that only enhances that sense. He did win his case to be paid his fees though.
TBH that’s the point I was offering up as balance is he clearly can’t be trusted either. Interesting he claims Conway etc accused him of leak yet NYtimes say it was the Crynes.
Leaks can be advantageous for a buyer or a seller and there will always be friendly media to tilt a story the way you request. Leaks are very often intentional. It's a murky old world.
We live in the world of leaks, it's about getting the media moral high ground. Propaganda and spin value currencies in the modern world. If you're completing an international takeover, surely both parties would want someone with experience and knowledge? Again it all looks like amateur hour, was this chap a willing or unknowing stooge to throw under a bus when the time was right? Have the FA seen any of this stuff? Did they intervene in any way to ensure all was above board in line with best practice and their ethos (cough) ?.
Interesting that Chien Lee is mentioned as a good guy and Paul Conway the bad guy. It could be counter intelligence as they both **** in the same pot. With all the bad press it got me thinking "one out of two aint bad".
Just had a look on companies House, only 2 active roles, Blackbridge Sports and Blackbridge Cleantech (holdings), both only incorporated last year, no accounts other than micro accounts for Sport and they have about £5k in capital. No previous directorships that I can see. Sounds like a right del boy. One of these Instagram business types that doesn't actually do owt. Fur coat, no knickers. I'd be inclined to disregard anything he says. I also can't find anything regarding the court case other than a comment on a footymad forum from last year. I'm not saying it didn't happen though and I'd appreciate anyone pointing me in the direction of something more concrete.
Business transactions are far removed from any community spirit. Rarely will anyone come out of them looking good - it’s all about the “leverage”
It's not possible to say who is good or bad. Just like it's not yet possible to state what their motives are or why they've gone on a cheap football club spending spree (using either their own, or others' money). All we can look at is a chaotic business model that turns boom into bust at speed and disrespects the fan base and the removal of £750,000. There may well be other things going on that are invisible or won't be visible until the next financial accounts or the court case is heard. But generally, their collective way of conducting business is not one I'd advocate, copy, or encourage.
Additional... He's also a director of Blackbridge Cross Borders, incorporated in 2014, looks like the company is about to be struck off, accounts are overdue...
It may well be he's created a new vehicle and rather than paying the striking off fee, he's just letting it wither and die. Given there are other more recent organisations, I'd guess he's ceased trading from the old entity. Also, if the new co is just him, starting capital of £5k is more than enough given his overheads are likely a bit of web hosting, travel and a mobile phone.
Why do I get the feeling that trying to decode all this is a bit like rolling your sleeve up and putting your arm up to your elbow in a bucketful of vipers trying to catch the right one.
So basically the club is run by 2 groups the biggest of which is made up of supposedly very rich people although no one seems to be able to find any real cast iron evidence of this wealth and a smaller group who thought it would be a good idea to give a majority shareholding to the bigger group and haven't been paid for it (court case pending). So in short Barnsley FC is ******