I think I’m with you now. So the recent £750k to Oakwell Holdings was the first time an annual payment had been seen leaving the BFC accounts? Which means we can only assume the previous £1m p.a payments came from Hong Kong? Where do you think the additional monies for being a Championship club are within what you’ve seen? Part of the £5m over five years?
This is where I think there may be some confusion. Oakwell holdings back in 2018 show £4m owed. If any of this was contingent on league position it could not be shown in the accounts as a debtor. Maybe there was some other upside for the sellers but the lack of any mention of a contingent payment in the accounts suggests that’s not the case.
I mean that isn't what I've suggested at all but if that giant leap makes you feel better about the point you're making then just run with it. You know what I meant considering it was me that raised this at the Q&A - I took him at his word. If I'm wrong on that then I've got more to lose than someone just shouting liar from behind a keyboard.
We should all stop going, not renew season tickets, if we do go just boo from start to finish or sit in silence. We can try to break our players by moaning at every slight mistake, lets heap pressure on our new coach and try to drive Woodrow out our club with a bit more abuse, hopefully Collins Helik Anderson Styles Benson Britain Iseka Morris will not sign new contracts and piss off aswell. The owners saw a great opportunity to come to Barnsley and bleed millions of pounds out of our club. Barnsley is well known to be a thriving town and football club flush with money so it was an obvious choice to buy us,run it in to the ground and steal money from us., lets hit them with foul language and posts on social media so they know that we think they are theives, hopefully that will encourage them to give us millions of their own money. Its obvious that its all their fault and they should just build a new stadium for the council because they are billionaires. This Kaled bloke should go back to the 2 bit job he had before here because he is so lucky to be over promoted to be getting this highly sought after position. They are not getting another penny out of me thatll show em. Boo boo the ********.
The 750K is theirs to do what they please with. They are all honorable men. Our club is stable and debt-free. It matters not that we sit second bottom of the division, our best players and coaches are allowed to leave before the applause has died down and chunks of the ground are shut down because of neglect. Solvency and stability are all that matters. Come on yooo debt-free Reds!
Why are you thinking it's down to the council to build a new stadium? I don't see anything wrong with people holding the owners of the club to task, we'll still be supporting Barnsley long after they leave. And that's the same with any football club. And having opinions on players is also part of being a football fan. I agree you don't have to be abusive in your criticism but not everyone thinks alike. I don't get the " we're only little old Barnsley " we should be grateful for whatever crumbs come our way mentality either. Not saying we should be unreasonable and demand the moon but we should expect to be competitive within our means.
Ahh sorry missed that bit. Wasn't having a dig I find it impossible myself to follow the numbers so don't expect anyone else to reel them off. Just know, especially with your BFCST role, that you would want to get the right information out there.
Nah. Was purely saying an easy and round number around the two different prices for the club. I actually think it was the same set of figures I used at the Q&A which is probably why I typed them up as well.
The background to the re-negotiation of the £6m to £3.5m is within the update that the Supporters Trust provided when the dispute first arose. It also references the £750k payment as being part of the £3.5m figure (albeit, the agreement was for quarterly payments of £250k, according to this so it could be 3 payments or a single one that ultimately made up the £750k total). https://bfcst.co.uk/bfc-courtcase-move-update/ I see the point regarding the accounting treatment within Oakwell Holdings but my gut feel is that they've treated the contingent income as a debtor from the outset, as the figures seem to corroborate the background information in the BFCST update. That points towards a potential issue with the audited accounts of Oakwell Holdings, but nothing that would impact the validity of our concerns with the £750k payment itself. The one specific element that is beyond dispute, that some have queried, is with regard to who owed the £750k to Oakwell Holdings, and that is clearly stated within the accounts as being a payment made "on behalf of BFC Investment Company Ltd." There's no way such as statement is made within the related party disclosure without it being accurate in terms of the contracted parties involved. (NB: some of this reply isn't directed as a response to Archerfield, who will already be fully aware of the points raised, but it seemed a good place to collate the relevant information within the reply). I've also just spotted, via another visit to the Companies House website, that the filing of the latest Confirmation Statement is currently overdue (it should have been filed by 24th October). This filing relates primarily to the persons with significant control (PSC) of the entity, so is a very straightforward filing to make if there have been no changes from the previous year. It's a responsibility that typically falls on the Company Secretary, so in this case it would be Robert Zuk if so, as he's the company secretary registered on Companies House. This isn't to be confused with the role of Club Secretary, which has a new appointee, as this role is typically focused towards all the compliance matters related to the football administration side of things (i.e. contracts, registrations with the EFL/FA, etc).
If the board pays for and build a new stand at a cost of £2m who then owns the stand. The person who has paid for it or the person whose land it is on and who owns the rest of the stadium.?
It’s not a unique situation, in fact I’d imagine it’d be quite simply covered in a contract. Either an investment would need to be repaid at some point by the current stadium owners, or a new stand would buy the club a share of the ground ownership. It’s not likely to happen though, while ever the club believe the ground to be a high risk investment due to the covenant.
It's a long term lease. So the owners of the club pay and get the benefit. Or add the cost to the selling price. Its like a council house, you redecorate it because you are there long term as opposed to a private rental where you only have a tenancy for a year at a time.
Im sorry i suppose its simple but im not getting it, building a new stand isnt the same a general upkeep and maintenance. I agree with the board about the west stand it is not fit for purpose and i wouldnt open it either its 2021. It should be clear whos responsibilty is whos and they should be accountable and i think rightly or wrongly that it sits with the people who own it. If i was renting i would pay to decorate, new carpets etc if i was staying long term but i would not replace the windows and doors or put a new roof on it unless i had agreement that they would knock the money off my future rent.
Ah and that last line Sims your attitude up yet again. You're getting quite pathetic with it now Loko. Lost a lot of respect for you lately with your swiping simply because I don't attend meetings. So what if I don't lick the owners arse and hero worship them? So what if I dont choose to attend the meetings? I can still read what's said and form a judgement. And my judgement l, and many others judgement from what we've read is that the excuses don't add up. The responses dont make sense and that there are lies and misstruths being told. Am I not allowed to form that opinion because it annoys you Loko? You're more than welcome to believe them because they told you in person. I'm more than allowed to disbelieve them because I've seen it written down as is the whole idea of the meetings.
Nothing at all to do with anything you've just said. But interesting that it's you reverting to that tone and language. I said I took the CEO at his word, because it was a face to face exchange. That means I could take context, body language, tone, and make that decision for myself. You tried to take that and make out that I was claiming nobody ever lied when speaking to someone face to face - not something I remotely suggested. I never said I was annoyed. I never said I believed everything they've said. I was only commenting on that one exchange yet you seem to be assuming on my behalf I'm saying something else. I wasn't even getting at your lack of attendance at meetings vs. your extreme vocalness online, but we know that if he/they are found to be lying that it would be brought up against anyone who suggested otherwise. Never works the other way funnily enough.
If they're found to be lying why the hell would it be brought up against you or anyone else? Patrick lied many times but no fans got the blame for that. Paul Conway has lied many times in the past. No fans have been blamed for that. If they lie then they're the ones who people distrust, not people who have been lied to.