If we are ever promoted to the top flight again.....

.....the first thing that we would need to do imho is to buy the ground back, even if it leaves a hole in the transfer budget. Only that would absolutely secure the long term future of the club. A bit random I know, just something I was thinking about before our play-off hopes died last week.

 

i would go no more

stopped going to away game cos of the obscene prices and they are even worse in the premiership

 

I suspect that the current ownership situation (Mr Cryne and Barnsley Council) was put in place in order to stop the club from ever again pledging their assets against a level of debt which they were unable to sustain from future likely incomes. In other words, the ground and property enabled the club to borrow money at interest rates that they were unable to afford. Mr Cryne is an accountant and his gut feel with regard to unsustainable debt is the thing that we will be able to thank him for long after both he and his money are long gone. No bank would lend money when their debt is not secured against an asset of at least the value of their debt, hence BFC can never get into the same situation again. QED

 

totally agree with that.
i'd much rather have the current agreement with the ground than any mercenary stealing into the club for its assets.

 

it doesn't seem to take a lot to keep you away from the well.

 

I don't understand who 'we' are. The fans? The club? The owner of the club? It is better off where it is rather than it becomes an individual's asset. Look what happened last time.... That was the point of establishing it's current situation- to safeguard it's survival against un-scrupless owners. Alledgedly.

 

The current agreement could be why rumours of takeover talks for us are never heard. What happened to the two parties Don Rowing said were interested? We never heard them mentioned again.

 

good. did its job then kept the asset strppers away

 

I'm sure it was Doyle who split the Football Club from the ground and land initially. The land is one thing but I'm not in favour of clubs not owning their stadium, things might be stable with the Council and Cryne owning it for now but thats not to say things could change,and they usually do

 

I think you might find it allowed a certain someone with a mans nose on a mans face not a boys nose on a Mans face or summat to borrow money from what were essentially loan sharks.

 

There's a flip side to that coin

Never again will we be able to secure a loan to get us through a rough period like millions of businesses have had to do since the beginning capitalism.

With no assets, with nothing to sell, with nothing on which to secure a loan we'll simply fold. And it could happen in the space of days.

If at any time in the future we have any kind of cash flow problem we will simply have to shut up shop. If you own land, if you own property, you can buy yourself time. Time to sell players, time to have a money spinning cup run, time to find an investor, time to issue shares, time to find a rescue package. Barnsley FC will be closed down in the time it takes to book a court room. A couple of weeks would do it.

It's an extremely perilous position to be in, particularly in a volatile business like football. We're one of the very few clubs in such a position. If we'd been in this position the last time we encountered difficulties we'd all be spending our Saturdays in Meadowhall. Remember, it wasn't the debt that did for us, which was relatively small, it was future liabilities.

With no assets, who will give a **** about us next time?

 

Just to clarify, I meant the club.

 

Re: There's a flip side to that coin

Jay, are you sure that future liabilities is not just a euphamism for unsecured debt. Whether the debt is secured or unsecured, it is still debt. If the club budgets properly and ensures that it does not spend money that it does not have, it should not get into the position that you describe. The club was not saved by Mr Cryne because he thought that it has assets that he wanted to own. It was saved because he was a supporter who had the money to be able to do it and it cost him a far greater sum than the value of the value of the land and buildings to do so. The amount of the mess that the club had decended into convinced him that the club must be run under the straight jacket of sound financial principals, even if this meant that it would never again be able to play in the Premier League. Lets us never forget that we almost lost the club that we all love and people with the good of the club at heart and the money to make things happen like Mr Cryne are rarer than those who advocate him selling out believe.

 

Who was talking about Mr Cryne?

Mr Cryne didn't approach the administrators to take on the club, that was Mr Doyle. There's lots can be said about Mr Doyle's time in charge, but the fact of the matter is he gave us a stay of execution until someone else came along to take the club forward. Do you think he would have done that, or even could have done that if BFC didn't own a huge chunk of land? Whether that period under Mr Doyle's tenure was beneficial to the club is open to debate, but no one else was coming along and the clock was ticking.

I'm certain that future liabilities is not a euphemism for unsecured debt. Our debts were low, ours was a cash flow problem. We didn't have any. If it ever comes to pass that we'll be in that same situation again, we'll be knackered.

You say "If the club budgets properly and ensures that it does not spend money that it does not have, it should not get into the position that you describe." This is football we're talking about right? Have you ever known a club that has done what you've said? Even clubs that have run for periods in the black are always on the very edge in terms of balancing the books. No club has a nice nest egg tucked away for a rainy day. If they've got one, they spend it. Consequently even the best run clubs need loans from time to time to tide them over until the season ticket money comes in or until they play Man Utd in the cup. Are you honestly telling me that you can't envisage a time in the future where our football club might need a loan?

 

Let us not forget that Doyle took out a £5 million loan the instant he "saved" the club. This increased Cryne's future costs when he eventually took over. Will never understand how he allowed Doyle to get there first.

IIRC, long term borrowing that the original club had was mortgages taken out to fund ground improvements, with the rest being made up from transfer profits and operating profits.

Let us not forget the shITV Digital fiasco, whereby money promised and BUDGETED for never came.

The NatWest forced us into admin. *******s.

 

Mr Doyle took out a loan against the value of the land which injected money in to the club and allowed it to keep operating giving time for someone else to come along to take the club forward.

Which is exactly my point. That can never happen again, we'll just shut.

 

Separating the club from the ground

Is not a guarantee of security in itself. Worked brilliantly for Stockport County's security and long term future, hasn't it?

 

Re: Who was talking about Mr Cryne?

I think that we are agreed that Mr Doyle did not have the funds to save the club and put it into a condition where it was once more a going concern. He had to search out someone to loan him the money. The people he found were not interested in the club or its future. If Mr Cryne had not turned up, Mr Doyle would have rapidly run out of money again. Cash flow is no more than having funds to support your on-going expenses and these on-going expenses include loan interest. I understand that Mr Cryne has spent approximately £15m putting the club back on its feet. This is far more than the working capital that Mr Doyle was able to borrow against the security of the club's fixed assets at the time. When Mr Doyle had run out of money again, the people who had lent him the money would have taken possession of the clubs fixed assets and kicked the club out. They would not have had any interest in guaranteeing the future of the club as the present owners do. They would have sold the land for redevelopment and it would now be covered in houses. I believe that Mr Doyle was well meaning, but I also believe that he was miles out of his depth. He never stood a chance because he did not understand the true position the club was in. He is not an accountant so why should he.

Your point is right in one sense because since he took over Mr Cryne has acted as the clubs banker because he has guaranteed that the club does not have to go to the bank for funding. At the end of last season, he decided that the club must learn to live within its means. This season we are finding out what that means, and it is fair to say the some fans do not like this new reality. There are calls for Cryne to go, as though there are millionaires around every corner with a philanthropic interest in ensuring the club is successful. Unfortunately, I have a more jaundiced view on life. Most millionaires have a view on their investments which places philanthropy very low on their list of priorities. By jointly owning the fixed assets of the club with the council 50:50, Mr Cryne has ensured that neither he nor the council has a majority interest. Therefore, the agreement of both parties is necessary before any change to the status quo can be made. The land would only be sold if both parties thought that it was in the interests of the club. I do not personally believe that it is in the interests of the club for the two parties to sell ownership back to the club, or to any third party. Things could change, but I do not know why they would as a new philantropic milionaire owner would wish to support the club and to do that he would not need to own the clubs ground. I respect the fact that you disagree, but I have thought about the issue for many years and I hold my views as a result of the long term thought.

 

Mr Cryne was already interested. Doyle simply muddied the water.

 

My final word on the subject

Would you feel more secure if you rented your house or if you owned it outright?