?? The football club get paid for player sales, not the Owning company that owes money to the other owning party
TBH all that confuses me. Who owns the owning company. And who owns the club. Are they not one and the same. In financial circles. Why can one company not use funds to cover the other. Layman’s language please if possible.
I've said a lot about the Cryne's but would they weaken the footballing side of the business for a quick buck? For example we want our money sell a player to pay us.
It was split up into two entities after adminstration so that if the club ever went bust the Cryne's and the Council could sell the land around Oakwell to Tesco to recoup their money.
Surely there’s no truth in this? It would prove they have no money of their own and would be like me buying your house off you, on the condition that you wait til I sell the paving slabs before I give you the money for it and that I get as much for the paving slabs as the house is worth??
The Crynes only have a minority interest in the holding company and couldn't force anything through alone with their voting rights.
They ‘could’ but there’s nothing to suggest they would. Other than a load of conspiracy theorists who can’t stop believing there’s something crooked afoot.
Yes. For example the Keith Hill season when we looked genuine play off contenders, had a big January sale and then barely stayed up.
No, a company is a separate entity to a director or shareholder. Its even possible for a shareholder to sue themselves if they are a Director.
But we’re 3 years in. They clearly stated their aim was to neither pump money into the club, nor to take money out. So far; that’s exactly what they’ve done. And every month, something happens that makes someone speculate that the above behaviour will change. Because people ‘want’ to have something to complain about, even if they have to invent that ‘something’.
The Crynes have said they want their money (and have started legal action to get it). How our consortium of investors go about raising the money is up to them.
I understand that, what I’m saying is if the club gets 2 million 20% of that is the Crynes anyway. I thought it was the consortium that owed the money to the Crynes?
No The £2m belongs to the club, not to the owners. The club (in its current form) will use that money to cover running costs / buy players. in order for the ‘owners’ to use their share of the £2m, they’d have to take it from the club to pay the Crynes. As they’ve never taken money out before, and given the club is expected to run at a profit, why would anyone think this is gonna happen.
The holding company owes the Crynes, yes. Not the football club. If a dividend was extracted (which is difficult in the current climate as it is an extraction of profit) and 20% paid to the Crynes, that would not satisfy the debt owed by the HK holding company for the acquisition. The debt is separate to a dividend raised from the football club.
