The Council haven’t done anything, taking aside they own Half the ground/ land etc, they are simply bystanders in this current situation. They will confirm something along these lines quite possibly before today is out.
Dub Tyke made a good point about using the option to buy it and then selling it on with a few extra zeros on the price.
If Chien and Co bought 50% when they assumed control of the club. The Council and the Crynes must have owned 25% each?
Chein and co dont have any of the ground. Its 50% Cryne and 50% Council. Chein and co have tried to exercise their right to the 50% which they thought was a formality. A 3rd party or one of the existing owners (currently unknown) are the ones stopping chein and co having the 50% they thought they had agreed to buy....
Because that's what they thought they had agreed when purchasing the club. Ie BFC 2002 Ltd (players and contracts etc) plus an option at a later date to buy the 50% owned by Cryne
There were issues at the time of acquisition where China blocked overseas investment in football clubs. Of course, that doesn't mean it just related to that. But you'd think seeing as they included a clause in the deal to allow for them to buy the 50% in a short timeframe, they would have the funds for that available.
All my immediate questions have been answered at the minute. I wait with bated breath to find out who the mystery third party is and why the Cryne's won't sell their share of the ground to Conway et all. Although I could speculate til the cows come home.
I can't imagine they were the 3rd party - in these times, using public money to buy private property would seem a very risky thing to do.
Here's a list of all the documents referred to in the leasehold title of the ground. There is nothing further listed against the freehold. You would expect the answer to be in one of these documents if the option is registered, but that must have been thoroughly checked at the time of the takeover you would have thought. It appears there has been no change in ownership of the stadium since 2003 and it is still the same entity that owns it. Presumably Lee etc will have bought the shares in the relevant company/ies and whilst there is a change in "ownership" as we understand it there has been no change in ownership of the property from a legal standpoint. This is where things might become murky - if there is an unregistered option then it would likely not have bound purchasers of the stadium. However if the same entity owns the stadium then the option may still be enforceable notwithstanding non-registration. This would then likely be a question of the due diligence and responses to enquiries given when the owners bought the shares, and whether there was a misrepresentation or actionable omission on the part of the sellers.
Which goes round to my original guess. It’s either a ****-up on one of the sides, hidden by one side, or ignored by the other. Whatever option is contained, was in the original transfer of deeds, as it’s not changed since. Which says to me the previous owner inserted it.
If all your questions have been answered are you now clear on the current position, which is; related to the ground, the Crynes own 50% and BMBC own the other 50%. Chien & co own nowt yet. There are no 25% shares currently
I’m not hoping anything, BMBC will be releasing a statement about their position in this, which is they don’t have a position. The source also told me at the same time that the Crynes would be releasing a statement today, but asked me not to say anything and wait for it to go public