I seem to remember something being built round Barnsley a fair few years back ( it might even have been the Alhambra) and they uncovered a fairly shallow seem of coal the mineral rights of the land belonged to the NCB I think it was maybe it was the coal authority anyway all that happened was that any coal they dug up while completing the building had to be handed over to the NCB didn't stop the building work or slow it down surely the same would be true at Oakwell. If they dig owt up just hand it over.
There can only be one reason for not taking up the option to purchase the ground and that is because you're restricted in using it to run a football club. To make more money they would want to be able to sell on to someone the promise that the land could be developed/ sold without restrictions. Yes, it had already begun and presumably the funding had been sorted at the same time.
Im not very wise on it all if im honest so correct me if im wrong. The worrying thing for me is they havent paid installments to buy the club if rumours are to be believed but want to purchase the ground and surrounding land. With this you could end up with a bury situation if the crynes and council sold the ground and land to the wrong people.
Does anyone have the understanding of what happens with the court case. If they are basically refusing to pay for the club could they potentially lose the ownership of the club or will they just be pressed through the courts to pay the money they owe?
I think we would need to see the actual wording of the covenant tbh. We have 3 versions so far (one not mentioned in this thread yet but discussed before) 1) the seniors could buy it back if football is no longer played 2) any developments has to support the club 3) a former MP stated in parliament that it was the playing surface always had to be used for football (he didn't mention the surrounding land, but it ties in with John Dennis' version of relocating) So, we aren't exactly clear. Although I can see 1 and 3 being pretty close, I don't see 2 being the actual case. Maybe PMG would like to build a huge supporters bar. Increase the match day experience, but would they put profits to the club, or just back to themselves. (They could in theory put it back into the club if 2) was the issue and pay themselves a dividend for example) We don't know what they want to do, and we don't know the actual wording of the covenant. It's a mess either way. All for something that was logged in 19 nought blob
That's why Patrick Cryne was keen to split the stadium from the football club and get the council onboard. That doesn't seem to cover the situation where the majority owners of the football club take their club elsewhere and leave the Cryne's and Barnsley Council with a piece of real estate that can't be developed for other than sporting purposes.
But the council are the ones who approve new developments from planning. So wouldn't approve of a new stadium in Barnsley when one existed....
Maybe Cryne realised he couldn't do fc uk all with Oakwell and saw the Council and later consortium coming.
I'm taken to having bloody dreams about this thread now! Last nights was that, if PMG only bought 80% of shares in the club, and none of the Stadium/Training Ground etc, why would they have had to know about the covenant at the time of purchase? In a business acquisition of shares does that kind of information have to be divulged?
Yeah looking at it when they were approaching other clubs in yorkshire and even Lancashire that could have been just scare tactics or a attempt to twist arms. Im sure it will all come out eventually worrying times.
I've got a copy of the title, not sure of the legality of posting it in its entirety on here... If an admin can advise I'd appreciate it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but every restriction in the covenant was amended. To the point that it's hardly restrictive at all. Can't see the problem.