maurice wrote:
If the LSV/Shay are rented to the respective tennants at no cost but they are then responsible for income and running costs they would both be run much better and with far fewer costs.
That is just a recipe for disaster. The two clubs dont want the hassle of managing the stadium which is effectively what you are suggesting. The overheads plus the additional responsibility is not what two clubs that are in effect semi-pro need.
A new stadium management structure needs putting in place different to the SST. SST was all about managing the stadium at minimal cost whilst focusing on getting the East Stand completed. It now requires a proper management team put in place which can provide excellent sporting facilities for the two clubs whilst maximising the use of the other facilities. The stadium is used what, around 40 times a year for matches so there are another 325 days a year where the facilities need to be used to fill any shortfall in the finances of running the Shay.
It wont happen under the Council's leadership. Yes, they need to retain ownership, but they have no interest or passion for the Shay so they need to put in place an alternative which will have the desire to maximise its use.
I am unsure whether both clubs should have board representation. There are too many vested interests. And should the clubs be given board representation should also all other organisations that use the facilities have a seat on the board?
There is probably no ideal in moving forward, but the Council really needs to be consulting the clubs, the supporters, etc, about finding a way forward.