Oakwell Holdings Limited v BFC Investment Company Limited

The Statement says that additional share capital has been subscribed but is held in escrow. Barnsley FC Ltd will be purchasing the 50% share of land that is currently held by Oakwell Holdings, but either it does not currently have the amount of cash needed, or the board believes that all the cash that the club holds is needed as working capital and should be used to finance day to day footballing activities. Therefore, the owners (bfc investment company ltd) have subscribed more share capital, but have not yet taken the final step of turning it into shares, because once that is done, it is virtuously impossible to get it out again.

 

patrick cryne was supposed to have saved us and put everything in place so one day barnsley football club could be one day self sufficient and own their own stadium again, in an agreement with barnsley council but apparently monies have been paid to the cryne family by a third party , so the present 80%owners cannot buy the ground , so was it patrick that was greedy, or his remaining family

 

As @Gally says......very good question

 

I never thought TOLATA 1996 would be referred to on the bbs. My life is now complete

 

True.

Why send the club into the red and possibly affect FFP.

If the company behind it do it, then there’s not that issue. Also potentially saves the Club £150k a year in rent.

I can see why folk might be worried by this scenario, but from a financial point of view, it makes total sense.

Separated clubs and grounds are never ideal - and always tricky to re-join together.

 

Im happy although there is a small problem
The person who you are referring to hasn't got a son
If you look on the company website bio information
He has two daughters , no sons
And his daughters children are girls.
Where has this information come from that it is the pharmaceutical company dads son ?

 

Could be wrong but seem to recall some digging revealed he was an Investment banker and had a company called Berkeley(something or other).

 

]

Info came from Yorkshire Post but they also said he was CEO of VPhrase an analytics company but our guy doesn’t look anything like that Parekh

 

So, it seems I wasn’t far wrong.

https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/a...n-2.75m-legal-case-against-barnsley-fc-owners

 

Its ok saying the court case wont affect the footballing side BUT when both parties take the fight to the public domain, press etc then it surely can affect the footballing side. Both have done just that.

Im happy to sit with both parties and arbitrate. Im not a lawyer but I can be sensible and have common sense.

 

So,this could all stop if Chien Lee pays the £2.75 million pounds he owes and agreed to pay. Just when people were warming to the Board members, this crops up.
My message is PAY THE DEBT YOU OWE.
It amazes me how supposedly important, successful people whether in Business, Sport or Entertainment and Politics, manage to get out of bed and function.

 

I first posted about this legal action in august 2020 (and this prompted the club to make a brief statement at that time). I have been puzzled that everything has been so quiet on this front.

I also recall the club’s suggestion a few months ago that it may be necessary to play home games away from Oakwell.

Now we have the closure of the West Stand in dubious circumstances where there is ambiguity about the real reasons for this.

I do wonder whether some of these developments are connected with the continuing litigation.

Today I called the court centre at Manchester and asked them what is happening in action number BL-2020-MAN-000076. I was told that the action has been consolidated (I.e. combined for the purposes of efficient case management) with action CC-2020-MAN-000069. I was also told that the cases are awaiting listing for hearing. I am not sure whether the hearing is procedural or the final trial.

Court proceedings are public, yet this is another area in which the information available is opaque to say the least. Time for a statement from the club.

 

Do you know what the second case is all about?

 

No, only that CC means ‘Commercial circuit’. That’s part of the High Court which deals with more complex and typically high value commercial disputes.

I have established that both actions were commenced at the same time.

 

By the same party, or claim and counter claim?

 

Wasn't it always claim and counterclaim in that PMG hadn't paid their installments, and Oakwell Holdings hadn't disclosed the reasons that PMG couldn't buy the ground outright?

 

We know the Crynes brought an action. I've not seen it confirmed that the 80% group have officially taken an action out against the Crynes. We've seen many threats but not one actual action turning to litigation from them. So I wondered if they were merely defending the action, or if they'd actually gone beyond hot air this time.

 

Ah I see. Maybe I've watched too much Judge Judy.

 

No comment m'lud!