To fans sceptical of those of us whom distrust the 80% owners

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by MonkeyRed, Oct 11, 2021.

  1. MonkeyRed

    MonkeyRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bratfud
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Are you aware that the 2019-20 club accounts show that £750,000 of club revenue (not Pacific Media Group wealth) was used to pay part of the installment to Oakwell Holdings Limited (the Crynes) as part of the agreed purchase of the club?

    That means, in literal terms, our ticket money has been used to buy billionaires a football club. And their assertion that they haven't taken £1 out of the club, well...

    I'm 100% happy to be corrected by those with accounting expertise if I'm wrong on this and withdraw (alternatively would appreciate verification on what I'm saying).

    It just seems like such a crucial point that I don't see raised anywhere near enough.
     
    wakeyred, Casper, Django and 9 others like this.
  2. MDG

    MDG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,937
    Likes Received:
    3,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Darton
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    It must be all above board for the purchase to have gone through.

    But realistically is there anything wrong with that?

    If you took over running a pub from admiral taverns as an example, they charge you rent for the pub but you use that business premises and equipment etc to pay that rent etc.

    Surely not a million miles away from that.

    If you flip the coin and say, OK the owners pay the instalments out of other funding sources but then take that out of the club profits as a return on investment you end up in the same financial situation in terms of bank balance. So it's just probably the easiest way of shifting the funds. Maybe tax benefits thing? Not sure.

    Personally, don't think there is much wrong with it tbh.
     
    Kettlewell and Dub-Tyke like this.
  3. ley

    leythtyke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    8,135
    Likes Received:
    12,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Wasn’t that money an agreed dividend from the club to the Crynes after promotion? Can’t see the Crynes agreeing to it otherwise, given they own 20% of the club
     
  4. red

    redrum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    22,166
    Likes Received:
    16,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Heard that by fans a few weeks back that club money has been used to pay installments. Didn't really look into it but not good if true. And billionaires on paper maybe.
     
  5. lk3

    lk311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2016
    Messages:
    8,648
    Likes Received:
    7,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Not uncommon in Football or business in general
     
    MexboroughTyke likes this.
  6. Red

    RedVesp Guest

    That thread title seems to suggest you trust the 20%ers.

    None of us should trust any of them.
     
  7. Red

    RedVesp Guest

    Most billionaires are billionaires only on paper. They don't generally have bank accounts stuffed with billions, it's all tied up in investments, property and their own business interests. I'm not suggesting our owners are billionaires or not as I've never attempted to find out, I'm guessing Pacific Media and Newcity Capital are registered in China or Hong Kong and wading through that is next to impossible.
     
  8. Dan

    DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    14,163
    Likes Received:
    17,210
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    Hong Kong.

    Though the vehicle for our ownership is a completely separate company.
     
    RedVesp likes this.
  9. Dan

    DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    14,163
    Likes Received:
    17,210
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    The practice certainly isn't illegal. And its certainly quite common in VC takeovers and particularly in the US.

    Its what pushed much of the angst against the Glazers. Though this group haven't heaped us with debt (yet), they have drained pretty much all the cash reserves inherited through losses, and this £750k has sped that up.

    The Crynes couldn't stop them doing it, 80% stake is enough to have complete operating control.

    In essence, its the same as taking £750k out of the club and paying themselves as it saves on their debt.

    So not only have they not fully paid for the club as it is, they've also saved £750k of theirs (whoevers) money too (maybe more if we look at future accounts), and having got Patrick to write off significant debts too.

    All while quibbling about £150k a year in rent.
     
    Old Gimmer, redrum and MonkeyRed like this.
  10. She

    Sheriff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    5,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Just checked the accounts and the club paid a £750,000 instalment to Oakwell Holdings Limited relating to the purchase of the club, on behalf of BFC Investment Company Ltd, which is the Hong Kong registered company that is the ultimate parent of the club.

    The accounts also state that the club won't seek reimbursement of these funds from BFC Investment Company Ltd, so the cost was recognised as an expense in the accounts for that year.

    So, in summary, yes, they used the operating funds of Barnsley Football club to pay one of the purchase instalments.
     
    MonkeyRed likes this.
  11. She

    Sheriff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    5,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    The difference in your example is that the rent for the pub is a genuine running cost associated with running the pub.

    The equivalent comparison is that if you'd paid Admiral Taverns a fee to purchase the lease of the pub in the first place, you've now used the operating funds of the pub to cover the cost of your initial investment. Essentially, you've spent none of your own money to acquire the benefits of running the pub, but have divested profits that the pub generated to cover this cost after the event.
     
  12. Dep

    Deputy Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2017
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    560
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    In the Cryne's statement they released
    was it court statement ?

    The Cyrne's said that payments for the club "cannot be paid out of clubs funds "
    if it was written in the contract to buy the club that this was so.
    are they forbidden from doing so ?

    i presumed the court case was over this.
    the Cryne's blocking the consortium from doing this and the consortium refusing to make the payments believing once they have agreed and signed to buy the club and have a majority shareholding they can do whatever they want.

    very sad as they are literally getting the club for nothing plus taking a million out of the club through presumably player sales every year to pay the debt
    as people have said presumably anyone could have taken over the club on this basis
    i have always said they will never put a penny of there own money into the club
    and as of now that seems to be the case

    they took advantage of a dire situation as theses vulture predator's do and reading a post on another thread they deliberately dragged the sale on because of the impeding death of the owner to get a better deal.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2021
  13. pon

    pontyender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    3,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Barnsley
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    It isn't the same thing at all. Buying the club should come out of their pocket and paying the bills should come out of the club's pocket.
     
  14. Red

    RedVesp Guest

    If that's the case, why would the Crynes accept payment through that route?
     
  15. Dep

    Deputy Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2017
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    560
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    The 750,000 was a separate payment presumably for promotion
    i believe in a interview in the chronicle Conway said this was agreed to
    whether the Cryne's believe this to be the case is unclear
    it is unclear to me (fans) whether the Cryne's statement related to that payment or not
    it was not specific on the details

    The club's payment was a separate 5 step year plan
    which in the court documents said was extended and lowered about a year and a half ago as i presume they couldn't or refused to make the payments.
    they don't seem to have made any payments at all for that debt.
    hence the court case
     
    DannyWilsonLovechild likes this.
  16. She

    Sheriff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    5,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    The actual note in the accounts referring to this for those interested. Looks like there was an additional debt of £6.5k also written off too. 2021-10-11 (2).png
     
  17. MonkeyRed

    MonkeyRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bratfud
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Part of the Crynes' justification of taking the Hong Kong Investment vehicle to court is, in their words that, "The club is not liable to pay the deferred element of the purchase price, it is the Hong Kong company which owes the money.”

    https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/a...in-275m-legal-case-against-barnsley-fc-owners
     
    DannyWilsonLovechild likes this.
  18. Dep

    Deputy Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2017
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    560
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    in the chronicle about a couple of weeks ago
    Conway said he does not owe the club any money
    he said the court case is Cryne's v barnsley fc whatever its called the Hong Kong company
    who actually owns the club ?
    are these people just front men(strawmen)

    or are they hiding behind a offshore shell company to make out it is not them owing the money
     
  19. She

    Sheriff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    5,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    The nature of the payment conflicts with the general commentary in the accounts about Covid bringing a liquidity challenge and it being the most challenging period for the club in generations. They chose to report a £280k loss for the year by including the payment as an expense, rather than a true underlying profit of £470k before tax.

    If the liquidity situation was so severe then there's no way that you would consider making a payment of this kind, although it may have been made prior to the Covid outbreak.
     
  20. She

    Sheriff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    5,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    There's no publicly available information available on the Hong Kong company which is the ultimate parent company, so we won't get to see any information about what's going on in there.

    The only thing we can monitor is whether or not funds were being taken out of the BFC operating company, albeit the expectation is that this would have been in the form of dividends.

    By using the club to loan money to the parent company, and subsequently write off those debts, it's essentially a way for the 80% ownership to withdraw funds from it without having to pay an equivalent dividend to the Cryne family (as any dividend would have to apply equally to all holders of a specific class of shares). Ironically, it's the Cryne's (via Oakwell Holdings) who benefitted from this payment but there's nothing to stop them making another loan payment on behalf of the Hong Kong company at any stage and then writing it off.

    Prior to this set of accounts, there had been no indication that club operating funds were being utilised in this way, so the worst they could have been accused of is reneging on the agreed purchase cost of the club from their own available funds. This puts a very different spin on things now, as they've opened the tap on syphoning funds away from BFC for purposes unrelated to the operation of the football club.
     

Share This Page