Sounds like they are trying to buy the ground for less than previously agreed or want the Cryne family and BMBC to do some refurbs before the deal goes through. Playing hardball maybe making out the ground has got worse since the original deal was made and upkeep hasn't been kept up to the standard expected. Maybe...
So BMBC don't have any issues and the Cryne's don't have any issues. Are Conway and Lee looking to cut and run?
Say you were buying an house but didn't want to move in for another two years and you agree a price. But two years later the house has deteriorated because the current owner hasn't bothered to keep it to that standard as they know it's getting sold.
It would be appropriate for our owners to now make a statement, then we have all three parties. Only a pure guess but if two parties have stated they want to sell or have no objection, maybe the other party want to pay less? Something isnt right because the cynes are trying to get their missing monies and going through the courts to do just that.
Seems to me Chien and Co think letting this go through the courts will get rid of the Cryne's and the Council more cheaply than paying what is owed.
not a valid comparison though is it. Particular as our lease says that we are responsible for maintenance and the council have had no contact at all regarding the purchase so are not in negotiations anout cost / depreciation etc.
From all the information that's in the public domain, I think it's reasonable to make a de facto conclusion that the 80% consortium are holding out to pay less than they'd agreed to the Crynes, using some loopholes and technicalities in an effort to procure the ground at a cut price. It requires them to release a statement to the contrary and speak up as others have, otherwise the above speculation is more than valid. If true and the threat to move us away from Oakwell is for their own financial gain, well that cannot be forgiven for me.
I thought the 20% shareholding belonged to James; but I could easily be wrong, I guess it’s quite feasible it’s under the family trust fund catch all.
But, after coming to that conclusion, the next question is why would they do that? Is it simply because they think they can, or is there something that the Crynes have or haven't done that opens up such loopholes? We might never know for sure.
Belongs to the Cryne family/company. That's why the statement tends to come from the Cryne Family rather than just James. I think we get an allocation for owners/board members and with some of ours being abroad that allows Jean and James to always go as club representatives (is my understanding)
The Crynes may have done something to jeopardise the original terms of the deal, yes. But the fact they are willing to bring the matter to the Courts would suggest they are confident that they have not acted in a way that should have led to this. In any case, using the club's position at it's home as a bargaining tool, to the detriment of the fans, is a needlessly aggressive tactic rather than them engaging in further dialogue.
Seems that way but we’ll have to wait and see . If It’s true the owners are trying to pull a fast one I hope it sends a message to other clubs in Europe .The owners are putting together portfolios and buying clubs to sell on but things like this damage their reputation for clubs in the future imo which surely for their business model is very damaging .
Sounds like we’re none the wiser after this statement. This doesn’t really add to the previous statement does it? We know from before that the Cryne’s are still willing to sell their share. I can only continue to assume that there’s a condition in the sale of the ground that the investment company aren’t happy with. Will we ever actually find out for certain what that is? Obviously lots of rumours and speculation, but nothing has been confirmed.