The telling thing about the 80% mob

Exactly!

 

"They can improve the club so that it becomes a more attractive investment opportunity for another party, or they can become such an unpopular owner that someone stumps up a premium just to get rid of them."

As with most things, I agree with you.
However, whilst I understand your logic re the latter option, I can't understand why they would actively pursue it. It doesn't make business sense in our case as I can't see that there is anyone to stump up a premium just to get rid of them;........unless, of course, the rumour re James C and Prakeesh (?) are correct.

 

apologies.....neerav parekh.

 

Community buyout. All we need are 10,000 fans willing to stump up £730 each and we can buy out the 80%ers. They disappear into the sunset with a million profit, the Cryne debt is paid off, the club continues with a sustainable model.

Never gonna happen, but nice to dream...

 

What makes you think the court case is about the source of the payment to them? As far as I'm aware, it's been brought due to the non-payment of the other instalments due to them (£1.5m from memory).

Genuine question, and it could be something I've missed along the way.

Going back to the original questions from others regarding the legality of the £750k payment, it's not illegal for this to have been made. However, as I pointed out on the other thread, it's clearly detrimental to Barnsley Football Club Limited. For those who are directors of this entity only, and not that of the Hong Kong investment company, then it does raise questions as to their conduct in allowing it to take place.

 

If it was simply that the Crynes had not been paid what is due, they would not need a judge because there is no legal issue. It would simply be a case of enforcement of the payment, which does not need any legal opinion.

 

Simple and basic rule of football club ownership. If you're outside of the Premier League and not in receipt of parachute payments. Then you don't get into football to make money. Unfortunately you'll need to get creative with your own money to subsidise the income. You won't win any medals or get a knighthood, it's just the truth.
The Cryne's put their own money, they made us all aware of this. However they knew what was required to stay competitive.
The current owners also should have known this reality.
Only way to avoid this reality is to move to a proper salary cap, like in US sports.

 

They'd still need to win a judgement of some kind to enforce the debt and this one, on the face of it, meets the criteria for requiring the high court.

"The High Court is most likely to be used by creditors for claims over £100,000 for debts not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The creditor has to show why the case should be heard in the High Court, for example because:

• it is for a large amount and there is a significant dispute;
• the case is complex; or
• the result could be very important to the public."

Personally, I think the High Court action is purely in regard to the unpaid debt. From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure that anything can be done about the source of the payment already made unless it was as part of an action by an appointed insolvency practitioner who would have the power to reverse preference payments made prior to a company being formally declared insolvent.

 

@Loko the Tyke I agree with your view and this is reinforced by the statement in Oakwell Holdings accounts.

 

Perhaps I have put 2 and 2 together and arrived at 5. I have been so convinced that this payment of £750k is wrong that I have jumped to the wrong conclusion. As they say, time will tell.

 

I cannot believe that the Cryne family would ever believe that Barnsley Football Club Ltd would ever be in a position to pay them £3.5m from its own funds, without prejudicing either its future, or its ability to fund the purchase of replacement players. I therefore assumed that they would expect the 80%ers to fund the additional payment. If that is not true, then I have doubts about the Cryne family as well as the 80%ers.

 

I doubt they have/had any control over the source of the payment, regardless of their views of it. They will have little control over the day to day transactional accounting so may not have even been aware of it until well after the event.

Similarly, in possible defence of the UK directors, the transaction could have originally been made with the intention of being a loan to the investment company, with the expectation of repayment from them. It is the write off of this debt which is the truly contentious matter, and that might simply have been a case of the majority shareholders being able to enforce it via weight of votes.

 

Surely it comes down to whose name is on the contract to buy the club?
Ie BFC will buy 80% for X or Holdings will buy 80% for X.

 

The fundamental issue is that the purchaser isn't the entity that made this £750k payment. There simply isn't any justification for it from the perspective of Barnsley Football Club Limited, which is the entity that was subject to the purchase agreement, and also the one now paying the cost of it.

 

Fair comment.

 

What was the Reds reserved plus lie?.... genuine question because I havent heard it before.