I would say £2.75m worth of installments have been missed judging by the claim...unless the full outstanding amount is now payable because they defaulted.
In business you never really know who your friends are. I've had someone who worked for me 15 years, who I gave shares in my company & helped off his arse in the early days, who is now trying to steal every contact I have. This co-ownership between an investment firm & the family of our former owner / saviour was doomed from day one in my book. That said they have a controlling interest in the club, but not the ground, which is, even in Barnsley as much an asset as the playing staff / league membership / brand. A deal will have to be done, just like a divorce settlement. In this case the kids need to be looked after.
The Oakwell Holdings accounts to November 2019 showed £1m due within 1 year and a further £2m due thereafter. My guess is that the total of £3m was reduced to £2.75m through the negotiations described in their Chronicle Statement, and the Cryne family are now looking for the full payment of £2.75m.
........ ‘The Hong Kong business is the club’. That’s right. Which comes back to the old argument that some have tried to make in the past that the owners and the club are two different entities. They arnt. The owners are responsible and liable for the club.
That's not always the case. The truth can be anywhere from our Hong kong owners version to the Crynes but given that the Crynes are paying solicitors and actually have launched legal.action I would suggest its nearer to the Crynes .
Goodness. Can I unreservedly apologise? Well actually no I can't. More than happy to take criticism from fellow BBS's but not you Nudge. Rather like the owners judgement I was belittling, there's considerable evidence of your past demeanours which means your views lack a little credibility in my eyes. Sorry to return your 'personal' comment but there you have it.
Yes we are, the ownership of the Club seems very convoluted. I 'm disappointed and somewhat surprised that there is still.money owing on the purchase. It's not as if BFC was expensive to purchase in the first place. We seem to have a Newcastle takeover scenario here, "Who is responsible for Barnsley FC, exactly?"
Whilst I 100% agree that this whole sorry episode is a proper clusterfkcu and that it's always us (the fans) who suffer, I'm going to try and hang on to a touch of optimism from one particular line in the Cryne's statement: "It is hoped that the matter can be resolved before the claim progresses much further......."
While I agree that I am concerned about the current situation, I believe your list is looking for things that are not there. Daniel (there is more there, on both sides, which I don't think we're privy too); Hull owe us money; Wigan wanted us relegated and the EFL deserve it, and this was praised by many on here. I don't know, or care, about Hearts and Nice. That the leaves the Cryne Family.
After reading the article in the Chronicle, I have to say that personally I am extremely sceptical about the long term viability of our Club with this current board in situ. All cannot be well, when one part of a so called " team" is suing the other for monies not paid, particularly when it seems that a time extension for payment had already been agreed to. I think it's imperative that whatever happens going forward, no attempt is made to sell the ground to Chien Lee, Paul Conway and Co and I would like to see a petition signed by grass root fans stating just that , is submitted to Barnsley Metropoltan Borough Council.
I honestly dont know what to believe. If the cryne family are telling the truth as the Chronicle states. Even if the owners resolve this. It makes me onder what else they owe. If its crynes lying. I'd be upset due to their relationship with club and also still curious of the owners due to lack of communication in the past.
My list isn't doing anything other than documenting numerous incidents of friction between the owners and other parties- im sure some of them are warranted. Your second to last sentence suggests your unwillingness to view all the facts from a balanced perspective. I am not 100% anti Lee and Conway nor am I 100% pro... i will look at the evidence available and make my own mind up.
Separating entities from its owners used to be quite simple. When you paid for something, you owned it. If didn’t pay, you didn’t own it. It sounds like somebody’s not paid in full to me.