Conway out protest QPR

I have followed this controversy on the BBS for many months now, and seen the various arguments put forward by posters. A small minority have tried to find out the facts behind what has happened in respect of sources and destinations of payments. Because of Barnsley F.C. being a small business, with correspondingly light disclosure requirements, and the opacity of the off-shore ownership, the debate never gets any further. It won't do until disclosures become public in the court case(s), should these come to trial. If the case is settled out of court then the "truth" will likely never be known.

I would venture that there is a person who should "know" what the agreement over payments were and whether these have been honoured. This is the Finance Director of Barnsley F.C. Maybe there isn't one and the role is filled by the Finance Director/man of BFC Holdings. In a public company the C.F.O./Finance Director has great responsibility for the financial integrity of the company. While there is greater leeway for privately-held companies there are still fiduciary duties the Finance Director owes to the financial stakeholders i.e. shareholders, loan holders, creditors etc in the running of the company, as well as to the company (the classic job of "custodian of the companies assets"). I don't know if there is a (Companies House) registered Director for Finance of BFC but there should be a responsible Finance person who knows the facts and has taken a view on what is right for the running of BFC (and his other duties to, say, Holdings if applicable). If you could talk to that man.............

 

Yes I read that and thanks for your detailed argument, but it’s still based on supposition ,and the idea that the Crynes weren’t aware of the source of the £750k payment until the accounts were published just doesn’t hold water

 

I can't believe all the nitpicking about who the message relates to, Conway or the rest of em. Everybody knows we want the lot out. We all also know they can't go and leave a vacuum. It's not a fecking essay it's a blunt gesture of discontent.
I think there's clearly some idiots on the FB group but that's hardly the point. It's the first chance to visually, en masse demonstrate a level of discontent across the fan base.
For God's sake stop bickering and hold up the damn sign to show them how you feel.

 

What about holding up a poster and turning your backs on the pitch.
This would be a double win as it could register a form of protest and avoid having to watch the match!

 

About where I am. And not sure about " professional " protests, anyone trying to get things organised will not be able to do it as a full-time job. This is why I don't think organising it on a closed Facebook group is necessarily the best way to do it, it needs to be bigger than that and grow.

 

Hold up a poster for me, Helen.

 

If that happens the posters better be printed on both sides

 

Robert Zuk formerly also part of the Crynes' company, I believe, including possibly a spell at the same time.

 

If you choose not to believe this is feasible, then that's entirely your prerogative to do so. However, as someone who has been actively involved in senior finance roles for over 20 years, I can only state that it's entirely feasible for them to have been unaware of this at the time the payment was made.

If you want a further indication of how little influence the Cryne's potentially have on the day to day operations of the football club (bearing in mind that only James is a director of BFC, so Jean Cryne has no role which would be consistent with a day to day involvement), then consider the fact that they've had to resort to taking legal action against a company in which they have a direct 20% shareholding (i.e. BFC Investment Company Ltd) and are therefore effectively liable (attributable would perhaps be a better description) for 20% of the costs of defending their own claim and for 20% of any award that is made against this company. Do you think they would have resorted to this in a situation where they have a meaningful role in the decision making of that company?

The investment company management ultimately decide how BFC is run on a day to day basis, and who is party to the relevant information regarding this. As a board member of both companies, James Cryne will ultimately receive updates via the board meetings of both companies, but that's a very different proposition to being actively involved at a transactional level in the day to day operations.

As I originally stated, until there's any meaningful information to suggest that the Cryne's have not acted in the best interests of BFC, then I have no reason to question their ongoing involvement and their actions to date are consistent with being in opposition of the use of the £750k from the time they became aware of which entity had borne the cost.

 

should be Conway out on one side and Colin in on the other!

 

What do we want?
People who own businesses they've paid £millions for to just leave so we can takeover
When do we want it?
Now

 

Personally... It's a start. Hold them up.

I would then think it be funny should 10k posters suddenly turn into paper aeroplanes and flown onto the pitch. Then everyone walk out the ground.

But appreciate that becomes then a problem of it not being entirely peaceful and interputs the game etc

 

Allez Conway

 

Robert Zuk is the relevant person in this regard, and I've suggested previously that he would be the most reliable source of clarification on the £750k payment issue. To date, he's remained silent in this regard, whether by choice or because the ownership haven't allowed him to make such a clarification.

The reason for this is most likely that the information which he could provide, on which he'd be professionally bound, would be consistent with that stated in BFC's audited accounts. This would directly contradict the public statements made by Paul Conway regarding the payment, which would be something of an inconvenience to him, to say the least.

Unless anyone is prepared to accept that BFC's audited accounts are incorrectly stated, then we already know all the answers regarding the £750k. What we're trying to achieve via the pressure regarding it is that the club acknowledge this as fact, after previous denials, that they undertake to repay the £750k to the club, and that they give a commitment that club funds won't be used for the remaining £2.75m liability that is, as yet, unpaid.

 

Are the Crynes not relevent to the payment of money out of their club into their bank account?

Your knowledge of high level business finance obviously exceeds mine by a lot and I thank you for trying to lay it out for me, but I don't think you'll ever be able to put it in terms where I'll be able accept that a company the size of BFC with relatively little money in the bank can authorise a payment of £750k without all board members being aware of it.

 

What about Neerev?

 

He did, he went public saying he wanted them out well before the buyer was found.

 

He was happy until they got into the Champions League then felt he’d been short changed and started a campaign against Chien , not a Facebook group though

 

As I've tried to explain, the issue is when and how they become aware of it, and no-one is disputing that the Crynes did become aware of it in due course (which appears to have prompted them to commence legal proceedings).

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that every time Robert Zuk wants to process a payment out of the BFC account he needs to phone round each individual board member and ask if he's OK to do so, which is not how any business of that size (or any size, for that matter) operates.