The Facts (from the Land Registry at least)

It's like Coronation Street.

 

The link I put has the following ....
I asked Robert Smith, chairman of the Manorial Society, which auctions authentic titles, what he thought of my purchase. 'What you have bought is just a fancy piece of paper - nothing but a change of name that you could have done with a solicitor for just £25,' he said. 'You are still Mr Walne and if you change your name in the way this paperwork suggests, you would be nothing other than Mr Lord T Walne.

'This is not the same as a Lordship of a Manor, enshrined in English law as incorporeal hereditament - property without body. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you are not defrauding people through its use.'

I asked Charles Kidd, editor of Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage whether my new title merited a place in the prestigious book. Plain Mr Kidd said: 'Sorry, if you come to us with that sort of title there is only one place your details will be placed - and that is not in the book.

'The ''lordship'' you have purchased cannot be used on any legal document. You are actually tarnishing the name of an authentic title and putting it into disrepute.'

 

I might get one purely because it seems to really annoy those snooty tw*ts

 

That all makes sense, after all how come somebody once decided to build a brewery there. Spring water is apparently more profitable than most oil plays

 

chritthhhh eubanktthhhh has a few

 

Yeff he duff.

 

Is it usual for a company to have the same registered address as their accountants?

 

Yes it’s often the case.

 

He'll be past his best then!

 

Lord Mansfield Red sounds very distinguished imo.

 

on that company report site Hardrof are in the letting and real estate group so is it someone has placed the claim to build houses on the land?

i still dont see how this should affect the new owners if they have the best intentions of the club at heart - unless they want to sell the land for development. Has the mask slipped?

Id like to see questions around this put direct to the consortium by the supporters club.

 

...

 

I think the name Oakwell is a pretty strong clue

 

The owners' declared intention (via a Dane Murphy interview) is to build a redeveloped West Stand incorporating a proper Social Club/Fanzone. Would that constitute a development that could be restricted by covenant?

 

I was thinking more like Black Mirror

 

I suspect Barnsley FC are, in common with most other clubs below the Premier League, in a position where the monies to be made from football related activity are less lucrative than money to be made from land redevelopment. They won't make money from U23 and U18 games and cup draws won't always chuck home ties our way so we have 23 home league games in which to pay our way plus TV money and other bits and bobs. The Premier League's operating model, especially with regard to parachute payments has made things worse not better. Add Covid in to the mix (so games are being played behind closed doors) and you have to believe that Macclesfield's demise, along with that of Bury and Wigan is probably the tip of a giant iceberg that will hit the EFL just like the Titanic got hit. Some might argue that with foreign ownership and the global reach of the Premier League the game needs to change with the times and, as others have hinted, perhaps it might herald, a North American style franchise ownership system developing and two separate Conferences of 20 teams each comprising the English Premier League with end of season play-off games deciding the top dog. If that happens we'll have lost the community links that, for many of us supporting Barnsley FC are so cherished. I love to make the journey to Oakwell along with my son that my Dad and my Grandad before us did and I would love to think that in years to come my son will make that same journey with his offspring. The game is losing its heart and soul to Mammon.

 

One of the things that doesn’t stack up for me is that the HK Investment Co. would only be purchasing 50% of the stadium/land so this would still not entitle them to attempt any development of that land as they would need the permission of the other party (BMBC) wouldn’t they?

Same if they were looking to borrow money against the land?

We all know, and it’s no secret that they are here to make money, they don’t appear to be creating a debt within the Football Club business and are trading players to maintain that business being debt free so I just cant work out their end game.

We’ve seen the reports that they released a large loan whilst owning Nice so I assume they had the ownership of the stadium/land there but really all they own is the BFC name and the players and employees of that company and none of that is suitable to borrow money against.

Threats to take that business elsewhere would not improve their financial position and I guess would likely weaken it and let’s face it, all that would happen is that a phoenix club would start and could quite possibly have the use of Oakwell?

It’s a confusing and unnecessary sideshow IMO with some unknown underlying reason that will hopefully become apparent in the not too distant

 

Yes, and a main Water main I believe - the East Stand faced a slight delay when being constructed for this reason - as it ran below and they didn’t know at the time.

 

Yes

 

NT