Sense Check

Cryne has not been paid for the purchase of the the club...

 

Agree.

I’ll add if you ever get chance to listen to Simon Jordan, he’s a great listen in regards to this scenario.

He went through similar with Ron Noades at Palace.

 

If they'd paid for the club I'd have a different view but they haven't. Years on..

 

I thought his family had been paid some, but not all yet.

So, who else should take over then? You buying them out?

 

If they were up to date with payments (which I’d add, we only know some of the facts), you’d agree with my original post?

 

and the park, or now lack of it, is down to the highways agency - perhaps they've got a traffic interest in the West Stand

 

As they 80% owners who never actually paid have repeatedly said they will not put any of their own money into the club then why does it matter if the owners are billionaires or absolutely skint? I can put none of my money into the club just as easily as Paul Conway can.

Let's be honest. They've hardly made revolutionary business decisions that nobody else could possibly have thought about have they

 

On what grounds? There isn't any precedent for this. The only clubs that have ceased to exist are ones that got in a massive financial pickle, and even then the majority of clubs which end up in a mess still survive. People can say many things about our owners, but financially they seem to be running a pretty tight ship. Having gone to the trouble of obtaining the club, there is no earthly reason to shut us down. Without the ground is not like we particularly have any assets. Even at peak market value, the squad is probably worth around £30 million tops.

 

I get what the OP is saying. It seems that the council is just holding on to the ground

a: because they can
b: because they see it as an income stream.

However, they don’t see that it needs the upkeep. A little bit like the Rotherham situation a few years ago. I think the owners would like to keep the stadium where it is, but wouldn’t be adverse to moving it. But again the council hold the planning permission keys for a stadium anywhere else in the borough. Despite selling school fields, green belt, and parks for a quick return of coin, they are unlikely to piss on the windfall of the steady rent from BFC.

 

And yes, it’s in the public, but at least it’s transparent!
While there is no such thing as a perfect board/owners and this lot have pretty much stated they wouldnt put their own money in etc etc
However the "transparency" i see has a distinct spin on it. This west stand issue is yet another example of this.

 

I hope you are right.

 

Well 1. They'd make a lot more money selling the land than they do in the extremely low rent they make from it.
2. The tenant is responsible for the upkeep of the stadium not the landlord.

 

Was going to make these exact points myself, they’ve contributed zero cash themselves, me and supertyke might as well have taken over with a bank loan from the Halifax.

 

I'm sure you must realise that the council only owns 50% of the stadium. So even if they agreed to sell, the new owners would not own the stadium in its entirety. On the other hand, the other 50% is owned by a party that, allegedly, is in dispute with the people who bought the club because they have not fully paid the agreed price. There is also the supposed covenant to consider. Therefore I would be reluctant to lay all he blame at the council's door, as it seems much more complex to me.

 

I have no idea of who is and who is not telling the truth but as a financial investment the yield on the ground for The Cryne family/BMBC Is pretty awful. The purchase was made at a £5.235m back in 2003.

The rental cost to the club of the ground is £150,000 pa. The yield on the investment is less than 3%. For all the sabre rattling and official statements, the rental cost is not extortionate.

To contrast ground rental costs, Sheffield Wednesday pay £1.625m pa and Derby, if they had any money, £1.25m pa

 

Fair comment.

Couple of things though - Weds & Derby were recent leases, so costs will be more current. Also, they are renting back to their owners as a loop-hole. Any rent had to be perceived market value to raise less eyebrows. Our arrangement was mainly about stopping the ground being re-developed and offering reasonable rent.

Also, Oakwell, as most other grounds, have limited uses for anything else other than their intended tenant. So whilst you could argue £150k PA is cheap - no one else will lease it. So market conditions prevail.

So after 18 years, the lease has paid back 50% of its original costs (less fees).

Rotherham Utd’s story is interesting. As whilst different, it goes to show that things can work out for the better. I’d like to stay at Oakwell, and think we will.

 

Is the £5m (ish) the total cost or the council's half do you know?

 

Even if we only moved to either of those places I can't see more than 20-30% of fans attending, especially when everyone knows the move is through choice not necessity.

 

Or C, they are trying to make sure we have a football club! The way these sh1thouses are carrying on would you have faith in what happens should the council sell their share ? If you are thinking a purpose built West stand generating money every day of the week, new scoreboard, decent catering, development of the school site and a spruce up of the ground I’d be prepared for a shock.