The Cryne’s side

This is interesting. The Crynes' statement suggests that issues around the sale were raised by the owners and not them whereas the club's statement suggests the Crynes or a third party raised it.

 

Have they ever had cash? What happened to the proceeds of the OGC Nice sale? Are they front men with investments from funds or other sources? are they borrowing through the investment vehicle? What cash are they using to acquire clubs across the continent? So many questions and it staggers me so many people are willing to give them so much benefit of doubt. Is there anyone they haven't threatened yet?

And thats before we get to Billy Beanes IPO based in the cayman islands!

This is not good. At all.

 

And Tarntyke is adamant that the Council is willing to sell to Lee/Conway. Anyone trust these new owners now?

 

Didn't we buy a foreign player then walk away from the deal and leave the player in limbo?

 

Two ways to look at it
The Crynes duped the consortium about the third party and the consortium are refusing to pay up until the ground purchase is sorted
Or
The consortium duped the Crynes about their wealth and are a group of chancers who have run out of cash

Whichever is the truth the Club and the fans will be the ones who lose out. One thing is for sure it's never straight forward with Barnsley Football Club and every time we the fans think things are going the right way for a change something always crops up to prove us wrong.

 

I don't think Falkirk like them very much either.

Neither do I.

 

Mmmm.....so there we are. The two sides of the story.
Look, im not anti board or anything as aggressive as that, i just well.....i just dont trust them. I look at their fabrication of what they "acheived" at Nice, how they handled the Stendel fiasco, our last summer transfers and more importantly how they communicate with the fans (which has improved lately).
I know we will never get the perfect fit but i just dont believe in their long term plan for OUR football club. I hope im very wrong.

 

Something doesn’t add up in the chron statement.

I’m not convinced either party is being completely truthful.

I suspect the reduction was asked for as they’d funded a shortfall in the league one season; they also don’t say how large the reduction is. But it doesn’t read well for the consortium.

I have to say I’m more inclined to side with the Cryne’s - but that is based in emotion not fact - I just can’t imagine them wanting to do any harm to the club. But I’ve nothing to hang that opinion from other than history.

The bit saying James is an employee and he’s foregone salary is a bit misleading too. He is and he has, but he’s also an owner, and none of the owners have had any money out either.

There is also some absolute bullsh.it regarding not taking the club to court, but the Hong Kong company. The club is wholly owned through that HK company, in fact 20% is owned by them through it. The HK company exists only as the company through which the club was bought and is operated. In effect the HK company IS the club.

If the court found in their favour, the money will go to them from the club, nowhere else. Make no mistake, they are essentially suing Barnsley Football Club.

Both parties are painting a very black image of eachother and whoever is right or wrong might not matter if this goes on much longer. Nobody wins here, especially not the fans, nor the clubs future prospects.

 

Or maybe there just losing interest in us and looking for an excuse to sell up

 

Yep allegedly, I think it was Manuel Maranda who was at Wacker Innsbruck at the time.

 

If I'm guessing, once the dust settles, it will probably come to light that Chien/Conway are arguing for a price reduction based on some technicallity/reps n' warranties that will be COVID-related but not deemed as such.

I'm working for a company at the moment that is pulling out of an already-agreed deal to buy another firm due to some very, very small print relating to funding but 100% based on the fact that the target company is now only currently worth half of what they originally agreed to pay for it.

 

Wigan fans furiously googling the word 'hubris'.

 

The Cryne statement is very clear though, the requests from HK Invest Co were pre covid 19. The transaction for the club was in late 2017 and they've since bought two other club stakes in Europe. I can understand negotiations to push down prices in a deal not yet completed, but this is purely a case they haven't paid a legally agreed fee in time despite obvious willing on the Cryne side.

 

I doubt they could even spell it, never mind finding out what it means

 

come on Roy, you know theres always three sides to a story

 

100% (from Cryne's point of view). I don't think COVID would even have been mentioned in that statement unless someone is using it as a reason though.

 

They might both be lying. Life is full of grey it's rarely black n white.

 

Are we at the summary stage yet?

 

Ive always been a supporter of BFC Investment.
However - IMO the statement by the Cryne family reads that they have unfortunately sold the club to a smoke and mirrors outfit that cannot be fully trusted.

Of course James has to do what he can - he’s not just fighting for a business agreement here - he’s fighting on behalf of his FATHER.
Which makes this a whole new ball game.

 

There is always the point that the club owners have always said that they will not fund the club out of their own pockets and that it has to stand on its own feet financially.
If that's the case then the shortfall payments to the Crynes could be to do with that, any "spare " money required for rent and repayments has been in short supply.
Thus we are back to buying and developing young players and selling them when necessary. This keeps the club going.
They have said they have taken no money out of the club.
Or am i talking ******?