Isn’t that the club wanting to keep all their best players? The midfielder wanted decided not to come didn’t he? Rather than not having the budget to add him to the squad. So a case of keeping both and trying to stay up. Maybe
OK, this is what I understand happened from past reading of the Accounts. When the Cryne family sold their shares in Barnsley FC to PMG, Patrick Cryne agreed to write off his loan. The company, with its huge reserves of cash from past player sales was sold for a bargain price, because it came without any loans recorded on its Balance Sheet. Any agreement to make good on that write off is between the Cryne Family and PMG. It has nothing to do with Barnsley FC Ltd. Had Mr Cryne insisted that his loans remained on the club Balance Sheet, and at some later date and according to a formula laid down in the sale agreement, part or all of his loan was to be repaid, then it would be Barnsley FC Ltd that made the payment, and the amount outstanding on the loan would have been reduced by £750k. However, that was not possible because Mr Cryne had already agreed to write off his loans. The reason that the Auditors chose to write their note as they did is that they too believed that the writing off of the loan was done before the sale, and that any agreement to pay an additional payment in respect of the purchase of the club was between PMG and the Cryne family, and that it had nothing to do with the club. Because there was no longer any outstanding loan to the Cryne family, and because the payment has to be recorded somewhere, there is no alternative. It has to be recorded on the club's Profit and Loss Account, but they state quite clearly and quite understandably that the payment is to the Cryne family for a debt due from PMG. The auditors could have written that note differently had they believed there was another explanation, but they chose to write it clearly an unambiguously. Barnsley FC had made a payment on behalf of PMG.
theyre not, they’re employees however the model FA contract is subject to collective bargaining hence to a degree they’re well protected. That said, they’re all fixed term contracts so you may say they don’t have that much protection.
@Red Rain I think you are pretty close and Oakwell Holdings accounts give the whole picture. The sale of the club was agreed that the £6.2m in loans outstanding plus the cash on balance sheet, £5m would be paid to Oakwell holdings and Oakwell Holdings would receive a 20% stake in BFC investments. The £5m would be paid over annual instalments from BFC investments as was the initial purchase price. The £6.2m and the first £1m were paid at the time of the takeover. As the loan in Barnsley football club was written off this appeared in the share premium account. The remaining £4m was negotiated down to £3.5m and then there was the notorious £750k payment.
There is a rumour that Celtic were interested and it is covered in the Daily Record. Nothing else to substantiate the bid.
Can I just return to this post. I replied last night, and on reflection, I do do not think that my response was clear enough. The value of a company is the sum of its Fixed and Current Assets, less its Liabilities. The value of a company's Share Capital is meant to reflect that sum, although sometimes, those shares are worth more than that sum because of the earning potential of the company. When Patrick Cryne wrote off his loan, he effectively increased the value of the company he was selling, because he reduced its liabilities. PMG bought shares in a company that did not owe anything. I get that the Crynes said that they would like to build into the selling price an additional sum that was dependent upon a particular event, and I get that that additional sum was to reflect the fact that Mr Cryne had written off his loan, but however it has been phrased in the sale agreement, because Mr Cryne had irrevocably written off his loan, it is an increase in the selling price for the shares and is nothing to do with Barnsley FC. As I said last night, the note in the Accounts leaves no room for doubts. Just to remind people what that note in the 2019/20 Accounts says - During the year, payments amounting to £750,000 were made to Oakwell Holdings Limited on behalf of BFC Investment Company Limited, the company's parent company. These payments were made in accordance with incentive consideration clauses within the purchase agreement made between these parties. Barnsley Football Club Limited shall not seek to recover the sums paid and has therefore recognised these costs as an expense in the profit and loss account.
This was common knowledge/covered. Y the local press wasn’t it? New York Red Bulls made a bid but Forest were also interested.
Considering you accused me of lying to support some of my opinions a few weeks ago, I thought I best show something on this. I thought Leon at the YP covered it but might be wrong on that front. I did take it from similar reports to this though. https://www.nottinghamforest.news/2...ejected-move-to-nottingham-forest-in-january/
But sometimes, keeping your best individual players doesn't add up to building the best team. Going into January, I thought we would hedge our bets a bit, sell a player if a seven figure bid came in, and some would go towards strengthening in January, while the rest would be in the bank to start cutting the deficit of relegation. The main gripe with the January dealings was the timing. It appears that even after the sale of Williams, we still couldn't do anything to bring anybody in until Sibbick was sold. If a bid came in for Styles earlier in the window, it would've given us a chance of maybe bringing Quina / Bassi in earlier and/or getting Trybull before another club came in for him or look at other targets if he turned us down. Obviously, if the bid for Styles came in at the end of the window, then it is more understandable to turn it down.
This tribe that own us aren't without money and you have to speculate to accumulate but they don't and won't which leaves us and all their clubs in a sorry state
Getting into the realms of speculation here but beginning to think we are just a front alongside our sister teams to build confidence with American investors (who in any case know very little about European football). The end goal being to raise proper money to fund a takeover/partial buyout of a much larger team $85 million cash on hand is more than enough capital to fund a leveraged buy out of a Leeds/Valencia/Fiorentina sized top tier team. At which point the rest of us legacy-PMG clubs can rot on the vine for all they care? This is exactly the kind of trading-up acquisitions business beloved of US tech/media sectors.
