Thanks for the explanation - really useful. Question for you - if - hypothetically of course - the owners had yet to fulfil their obligations to purchase the business, would the level of risk in putting the business into administration be significantly reduced? How would that outstanding balance be treated in an administration scenario?
But that's not what the £750 000 was for. Remember these owners have already twisted on the initial sale price
In response to the original post (if I've understood it properly) the line has already been crossed for me with these owners and my opposition is similar to Jay's. I'm not giving them any of my money anymore. I refuse to do so and I dont care if we are in the Champions League. They have their interests at heart and no-one else's. Simple as that. I'll watch on telly, listen to the radio and read news on forums like this. I'll start parting with my money again when they've gone.
Firstly you and conan where 2 of the most critical against cryne on here and i always remember having debates with you about it then. And especially at the time we sold those 3 players. On the sale of those players we got 3 million for bree and conor a extra million for villa been promoted and 700k for winnall. So thats just short of 5 million all in all with sell ons that have never been triggered. You and conan were both unhappy as you felt we should have gone for the play off push and kept these players therefor losing 5 million and we the would have been unable to bring mowatt in and many others in the summer window. I could understand selling those players with 6months left as to lose than sort of money for a club our size is a big issue. Last night you were critical of the new owners for paying a loan fee for dike which almost gained the club 140 million. Without him we almost certainly wouldnt have reached the play offs. So the past 2 owners you have been critical for diffrent reasons.
Can you find and quote where I was critical of Cryne relating to the sale of Winnall and Hourihane and that we should have kept them for a play off push? I very rarely agreed with Conan and had plenty of spats with him, so I think you're quoting the wrong person. And you're twisting what I said about Dike. We don't know the level of fee, but I'd hope anyone would be critical of an ownership spending sizeable speculative money on an unknown punt. I find it hard to believe we'd spend in the region of £500k on a loan fee arrangement for such a short period when we have such limited funds. And nearly gets you nowhere. As you can see right now. Should we spend £500k on another punt now?
The league position doesn't bother me as we are now a very definite yo yo club. Even more than we have been in the past. That said, their performance on the pitch has been pretty unimpressive. A massive dose of good luck with Ismael, a promotion with a team that any decent coach should have been able to get in the top six minimum. Then it's looking like two relegations and almost a third where player sales a nd recruitment were laughable. But for me it's the dishonesty and subterfuge. The constant appalling gaffes and arrogance. I'm well aware of them being a devil we know but I'd love a better alternative.
Apologies if it wasnt you im not trawling back to find out. I could see the logic in cashing in on conor and bree once winnall forced his move. Fulham had already outplayed us twice with our best players in was it worth a 5 millon pound gamble for a club of our size? No i thought not but conan and others disagreed and i got pelters apologise if it wasnt you wjo was one of those thought it was.
In addition, arent they then banned for x amount of years from being a director of another business? Or have I dreamt that
The bans are if a director is seen to be unfit. Generally about failing to keep proper records, failing to file accounts or continuing to trade if insolvent and little likelihood of getting out of it. Though I believe some of those points were loosened because of covid.
This goes to the heart of the argument about the £750k and the £3.75m it is linked to. I and many others believe it is a debt owed by the new owners to the old owners, and nothing to do with Barnsley Football Club Ltd. In that case, it has nothing at all to do with the club.
That would apply if it could be proved that they traded illegally, that is they continued to trade and build up debts knowing the company was insolvent. It tends not to be used much because it is so hard to prove.
Tend to agree and on a personal note I will not renew my season ticket til I see how things in the summer pan out.
