https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/a...cwlWSXAelSF8PQgcXpwlD1FNBWO_U8BSsXO-tCG_HM2RM Cryptic? Pointless? Certainly not helping me feel anymore reassured in the slightest.
THE OWNERS' APPROACH TO FINANCES One of the reasons I joined Barnsley was the way the owners are running the club. They are not putting their own money into the club. I think the way Mr Cryne ran the club, or any owner that is paying out of his pocket, is admirable but it’s the wrong way to run a club. It’s wrong for the fans and community to expect the owner to do that. How many other businesses could expect to run without anything being invested by the owners? Even if you fund the purchase or investment into a business through borrowing you are usually expected to have some skin in the game, even if only by way of providing security or guarantees for the borrowing taken out. No wonder Loko described them as "disrespectful in the boardroom"! If this is the level of commitment required then anyone could be in charge - particularly persons with the interests of BFC more closely at heart. My vote would be for Steve 1887!
This particular business has a multi-million pound turnover, and has been trading for over 100 years. It shouldn’t need a regular capital injection from the owners in order to survive. Other clubs that are run that way are destined to fail in the long term.
I personally think all football clubs should be run without owners investing in them when it comes to playing staff and wages etc, but they absolutely should be funding the purchase of the club out of their own funds. Any profits should be reinvested or used to maintain the infrastructure. If the owners wish to make money from a club then they do that upon selling it.
Agree with much of that Donks, but what I'm talking about is the occasional bit of investment to prime the pump - from which I'm perfectly happy for them to take a profit. The way they are running it smacks of wanting something for nothing. So only the supporters pay.
They want to make money but not willing to spend it. Football is a capitalist construct, however beyond the Premier League and parachute payments most owners will lose money. The old line "you don't get into Football to make money". We've got no salary cap and FFP which isn't fit for purpose. The system is against the lower league teams, no adequate salary cap and ridiculous agents fees. Teams have to ensure their grounds meet standards and look pretty for TV. What the owners are wanting is a NFL style structure. Franchise where the teams location pays for stadium, they clearly want salary caps, big endorsements and loads of money each year no matter how rubbish we are. But the game isn't set up like that. They can't change it. How many times have we heard Conway complain about the whole process? He's right about some things, but what's the real motive behind the comments? I'm all for reform and the sustainability of the game, but not so owners can annually trouser profits.
Has anyone ever FOI'd via a subject access request the council, about whether any third parties (the owners can't name them) have emailed them about buying the ground and land? Have any ultimatums or suggestions been made that the club could be moved? Has anyone FOI'd the council about the club?
IMO, what that tells us is: Get used to idea of being self funded and there will be sales in January if reasonable offers are received. They won’t leave Oakwell, but won’t admit it as want to use the ‘option’ of leverage. Recruitment will become more hit and miss as they will have to delve deeper into the pot. Some players have been recruited outside the spreadsheet. Lastly either it’s the way it is written or it comes across as prepared answers and the sound bites of a Politician. Which drives a bus through his transparency claims. I for one like to always judge on facts, not emotion or hearsay, but I do find this one of the more depressing (if that’s right word)releases in recent times. All IMO of course.
I just think it is wrong that they took money out of the club to pay for it when they said they wouldn't. If they want to run it like a business, speculate to accumulate and build upon what they achieved last year without going nuts and risking the long term future of the club. They don't want to do that though. So if what I'm describing is a mutual society, then they are parasites as they are adding nothing to the club and taking what little we have away from it.
The question of the money needs to be front and centre. We need the likes of the Chronicle and local media to ask the tough questions. If they then get restricted access to the club as a result we'll be a lot closer to what's going on. ,
We're all worried about climate change, but I don't think Barnsley would ever end up a coastal town. Don't stress about that.
We do have some donkeys though, however the main donkey doesn't do rides. He just stands there emotion /motionless.