Yes, I'm pretty sure of the circumstances around the £750k payment, as detailed here: https://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/the-£750k-and-khaleds-response.311242/
Seriously? "misters"? Was the first draft written in crayon? No one thought to sense check the Google translate version before posting it? Looks right professional this campaign so far. Not in my name, thanks.
Because the likelihood is that the Cryne's didn't know the source of the payment until that information was in the public domain. Attempting to refuse or repay it after the event would potentially weaken their ongoing case for payment of the outstanding £2.75m owed to them.
The translation was done with the assistance of members of the Conway Out group, based on information I read on there the other day. NB: 'Members' refers to people in the FB group, but not necessarily those actively involved as admins.
TBF They have objected, to the point of taking it to court. However; logically, anyone buying the club, would in the first instance be looking to buy the whole club which includes the Cryne’s 20% holding*. The Cryne’s are no more separate from the rest just because they’re ‘local’ any more than Grace is because she’s fit. *Unless the prospective owners were specifically approaching the Cryne’s first to ask them to become part of a new ownership consortium.
In the same way that anyone not involved in the day to day activities of the finance department wouldn't be party to their actions. Additionally, the payment was originally made on the basis of it being on behalf of the investment company. The issue with it arose when that debt was written off by BFC and the cost charged as an expense of the football club, which could have been several months after the actual payment was made.
I keep saying Conway is the figure head of the group or the face if you like. Example Great Britain is run by parliament but the Queen is the figure head
@Durkar Red @Sheriff The way I see it, simplistically: James: "Thanks for the £750k installment Paul. I'm thinking of putting £500k of it towards a decent signing*, could you authorise the club account to match the amount?" (* could be any commodity, lets just call it a player) Paul: "Sorry James, there's not enough in the current account to match your £500k. Nice gesture though" James: "There was close to £1m last time I looked at the statement???? What's happened?" Paul: "Well £750k of it just landed in your account. We need to start building the balance back up so we can give you the next installment" James: "WHAT!!!!!!!??????" Paul: "Panic not. We're gonna start a great line in flatbreads and Schopp is the new Val. Nailed on. You'll get your dosh". James: "I don't want another payment from you until it is known to be coming from the expected source. i.e .......... YOU!" Paul: "Not gonna happen" James: "See you in court. Good luck with your flatbreads and head coach(es). This is gonna be some old season!"
In the Crynes' statement to the Barnsley Chronicle they said: "The club is not liable to pay the deferred element of the purchase price, it is the Hong Kong company which owes the money.” https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/a...in-275m-legal-case-against-barnsley-fc-owners
The share structure is set up to facilitate a 100% share sale, as the Cryne's stake is a 20% shareholding in the investment company, which owns 100% of BFC's shares. In all likelihood, any sale would involve the investment company selling it's shareholding to a new entity created to be a new holding company. Whether or not the Crynes held a stake in that company would depend entirely on who was purchasing it. The key thing is that there wouldn't need to be separate negotiations with the Crynes and the 80% group to sell individual shareholdings in BFC. The investment company owns the shares as a single entity and would take a collective decision, under whatever rules they operate, as to whether or not to do this.
But they still took it. As board members/co-owners I have a very hard time believing they didn't know where it came from.
They did know, as the statement from them indicates. It doesn't necessarily mean that they knew this at the time they were paid.
Sorry, but 75% of our bank balance was withdrawn and the board weren't aware? That's incredible if true.