But they are in court for non payment we know that from the Crynes statement yes ? And the Crynes also made a public statement saying the payments cannot be paid from the clubs finances ,correct ? i presume they would only make such a statement if they were very sure in the validity of that statement after taking multiple different legal advice. we can presume it was in the terms and conditions of the sale of the club or what would the Crynes court case be based on ?
I was under impression that the case was about an unpaid agreement, the rest I’m not certain about. In this thread alone in one post Sherrif says they are saying they don’t agree but nothing to support its part of a legal dispute but one post later you are saying it is(by assumption). Personally I would suspect it is Sheriffs version otherwise it would be clearer.
I don’t recall the Cryne’s saying anything publicly about the club accounts not making the payments owed. Maybe someone could share that as it’s obviously not been seen by that many? There’s also comments in the thread about this being a performance bonus. That’s what Khaled read out from Paul Conway at the Q&A when pushed on it, saying it was a payment agreed by all shareholders, but the £2.75m that we’re aware of is the money owed from the sale of the club. Ignore the numbers, but as we were in a precarious position it was a £15m deal that became £17.5m if we stayed up or returned to the Championship within a year. That’s the ‘gap’ that is in dispute, with Conway et all refusing to pay it because they’re in dispute around maintenance of Oakwell and who should contribute to the upkeep. A year later the accounts show this £750k payment to the Cryne family. Conspiracy theorists even suggested we didn’t buy a striker in January that season to try and avoid getting promoted a year too soon. I’m not sure why £4m has been mentioned or even £5m.
https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/a...in-275m-legal-case-against-barnsley-fc-owners "The club is not liable to pay the deferred element of the purchase price, it is the Hong Kong company which owes the money.”
I don't understand how there can be any dispute at all about the maintenance of oakwell. There is a lease which will be pretty damn clear who is responsible for the maintenance. In fact the freedom of information request that the council responded to was clear in saying that the inspection was to ensure that the club was maintaining the stadium properly as per the lease.
It's not a performance bonus in the ordinary sense of the phrase. It's a deferred part of the purchase consideration that was initially dependent on the club staying in the Championship under Morais or on immediately being promoted back from League One if we were relegated. A "bonus" implies something that's payable to employees within the club, rather than something agreed within the terms of the original purchase agreement. Conway's wording is deliberate obfuscation of the issue, along with the fact that he repeatedly, and incorrectly, claims it's a liability of the football club. He's done this more than once, which eliminates any argument that it's a misunderstanding on his part. It's performance related in the sense that it was originally dependent on the club achieving 1 of 2 time-limited things. The performance related element was subsequently removed when they renegotiated the terms with the Cryne family and settled upon a £3.5m figure, which was not subject to us being promoted under Stendel, rather than the original £6m figure that would have payable on promotion in that season.
No of course it isn't. I was just referencing the reason given by the current owners. It's an attempt to get people to accept it as perfectly normal - as tha's exactly what our current CEO did and took it at face value. That's before he understoof why supporters were questioning it.
To put a few facts that are recorded on company accounts in to this discussion. 1 The initial cash to purchase Oakwell Holdings’ stake in BFC was £6.2m paid to Oakwell Holdings and this represented the debt that was outstanding to Patrick Cryne at the date of purchase. 2 The deal was £6.2m plus £1m pa over 5 years. This is clear in Oakwell Holdings accounts in 2018, the cash on balance sheet increases from £0 to £7.4m. At 30 November 2018 £4m is owed as part of the purchase. £1m in the following year and a further £3m 3 The following year the £1m payment was made and is reflected in 2019 accounts. This now shows £3m outstanding with £1m due in the following year and £2m thereafter. 4 The accounts in 2020 show that there is an issue and that there has been small write down in the amount outstanding from £3m to £2.75m with £1.75m due in the current year and £1m thereafter. 5 From Oakwell Holdings accounts in 2020 ending November there are no receipts of payment, so I think the £750k was paid as part of the second £1m payment and must have been paid between June and November 2019 to show in BFC’s 2020 accounts. So to purchase 80% of the club the total amount paid by the new owners was £6.2m plus £5m over the next 5 years. It looks like this was negotiated down to £4.75m, with £2.75m in dispute. Not straight forward but it sort of hangs together based on accounts which have been filed.
I forgot. Nobody ever lies in person. The west stand is closed because of serious structural reasons, I mean operational reasons, I mean it's made of wood, sorry I meant it's not disabled friendly, erm the wall might fall down but not if you turn right to the ponty end after going through it.
Does this mean that the plan was always to pay for part of the purchase of the club from the accounts? And that the £750k is a similar payment to what we’ve seen in previous years, but just hadn’t been picked up on or complained about?
I don’t think it was Ben, the quote from the reporting of the legal action underlines this. "The club is not liable to pay the deferred element of the purchase price, it is the Hong Kong company which owes the money.” I actually think this was an attempt by the sellers to ensure that the club maintained a strong working capital buffer. Remember that there was around £5m on balance sheet at the time of the sale. If it really was all about extracting £5m for the Cryne family benefit they could have just dividended this out prior to sale.
I admitted as much when I started the sentence with ‘ignore the numbers’. I’ve not got a clue what the exact figures involved in the club sale were - was more demonstrating the fact we agreed two different prices for the club dependent on which division we played in.