Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:26 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

As the person who logged the FOI request with the Council I find it right that I come on here and explain myself. I'm not hear to bait or gloat, just explain why I did it.

I placed the FOI not as a Town fan looking for an excuse to attack the rugby club, but as an attempt to hinder the purchase of a community asset by Reactiv Media (owner T. Abbott). I believe that the ground should remain owned by the council.

At the start of the 'SOS' campaign I'd never considered looking into the rugby club aspect, but Abbott (you can insert the 'Mr' if you like, I never use it for anyone else so won't now) tied the rugby club in by attaching the rent debt of one of his companies in with purchase, linking the two in my eyes.

When his bid was questioned the default answer was 'trust me', and some fans on here said we should trust him due the money he's invested in the town and how honourable he was. He also claimed that the stadium was loss making.

It turns out that he can't be trusted to pay the bills of another business he co-owns (HRLFC) on time, and he's not putting money into the town as he's now over £60k in debt to the council, plus lost interest on that money that it will never see again.

The previous FOI made it clear that an agreement had been reached by both sides to pay the debt, in full, by 31.12.2013. No mention what-so-ever was made about any of it being tied up in the now defunct purchase of the Shay. That date has been missed, and the debt has grown since. This blows the 'trust' argument totally out of the water for me, and the rugby club can no longer hide behind the argument that this will all be taken care of when the ground is sold. Calderdale MBC obviously don't see that as the current arrangement.

If he successfully buys the ground, and needs a mortgage on it (unless he can rustle up £2.5 million when he can't get £60k together), what would happen to the ground if he approached his mortgage payments in the same way? It'd be repossessed, sold to the highest bidder and both clubs would be up the swanny or the council would have to buy it back for more than they sold it for.

I'd like to repeat this isn't an attack on the club. I've said on another thread on shaymen.net that I'd hope if the football club was in difficulty the council would extend our payment terms to help us out short term. However, until any deal with Reactiv is publicly dismissed totally by CMBC then I feel it's a democratic duty to raise concerns.

I also don't think your board of directors owe me an explanation. However I do believe they owe the people of Calderdale an explanation, as they owe the tax payers this money.

I hope this post is accepted with the same decency as I've approached you, and will attempt to answer any questions you have with regards to my motives.

You can't say fairer than that mate.All will come out in the end.
The thought that TA could fall short of his knight in shining armour tag
is just too unpalatable for some.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:30 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

As the person who logged the FOI request with the Council I find it right that I come on here and explain myself. I'm not hear to bait or gloat, just explain why I did it.

I placed the FOI not as a Town fan looking for an excuse to attack the rugby club, but as an attempt to hinder the purchase of a community asset by Reactiv Media (owner T. Abbott). I believe that the ground should remain owned by the council.

At the start of the 'SOS' campaign I'd never considered looking into the rugby club aspect, but Abbott (you can insert the 'Mr' if you like, I never use it for anyone else so won't now) tied the rugby club in by attaching the rent debt of one of his companies in with purchase, linking the two in my eyes.

When his bid was questioned the default answer was 'trust me', and some fans on here said we should trust him due the money he's invested in the town and how honourable he was. He also claimed that the stadium was loss making.

It turns out that he can't be trusted to pay the bills of another business he co-owns (HRLFC) on time, and he's not putting money into the town as he's now over £60k in debt to the council, plus lost interest on that money that it will never see again.

The previous FOI made it clear that an agreement had been reached by both sides to pay the debt, in full, by 31.12.2013. No mention what-so-ever was made about any of it being tied up in the now defunct purchase of the Shay. That date has been missed, and the debt has grown since. This blows the 'trust' argument totally out of the water for me, and the rugby club can no longer hide behind the argument that this will all be taken care of when the ground is sold. Calderdale MBC obviously don't see that as the current arrangement.

If he successfully buys the ground, and needs a mortgage on it (unless he can rustle up £2.5 million when he can't get £60k together), what would happen to the ground if he approached his mortgage payments in the same way? It'd be repossessed, sold to the highest bidder and both clubs would be up the swanny or the council would have to buy it back for more than they sold it for.

I'd like to repeat this isn't an attack on the club. I've said on another thread on shaymen.net that I'd hope if the football club was in difficulty the council would extend our payment terms to help us out short term. However, until any deal with Reactiv is publicly dismissed totally by CMBC then I feel it's a democratic duty to raise concerns.

I also don't think your board of directors owe me an explanation. However I do believe they owe the people of Calderdale an explanation, as they owe the tax payers this money.

I hope this post is accepted with the same decency as I've approached you, and will attempt to answer any questions you have with regards to my motives.

Eloquently put, would be nice if some of your fellow supporters could be so balanced.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:35 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

As the person who logged the FOI request with the Council I find it right that I come on here and explain myself. I'm not hear to bait or gloat, just explain why I did it.

I placed the FOI not as a Town fan looking for an excuse to attack the rugby club, but as an attempt to hinder the purchase of a community asset by Reactiv Media (owner T. Abbott). I believe that the ground should remain owned by the council.

At the start of the 'SOS' campaign I'd never considered looking into the rugby club aspect, but Abbott (you can insert the 'Mr' if you like, I never use it for anyone else so won't now) tied the rugby club in by attaching the rent debt of one of his companies in with purchase, linking the two in my eyes.

When his bid was questioned the default answer was 'trust me', and some fans on here said we should trust him due the money he's invested in the town and how honourable he was. He also claimed that the stadium was loss making.

It turns out that he can't be trusted to pay the bills of another business he co-owns (HRLFC) on time, and he's not putting money into the town as he's now over £60k in debt to the council, plus lost interest on that money that it will never see again.

The previous FOI made it clear that an agreement had been reached by both sides to pay the debt, in full, by 31.12.2013. No mention what-so-ever was made about any of it being tied up in the now defunct purchase of the Shay. That date has been missed, and the debt has grown since. This blows the 'trust' argument totally out of the water for me, and the rugby club can no longer hide behind the argument that this will all be taken care of when the ground is sold. Calderdale MBC obviously don't see that as the current arrangement.

If he successfully buys the ground, and needs a mortgage on it (unless he can rustle up £2.5 million when he can't get £60k together), what would happen to the ground if he approached his mortgage payments in the same way? It'd be repossessed, sold to the highest bidder and both clubs would be up the swanny or the council would have to buy it back for more than they sold it for.

I'd like to repeat this isn't an attack on the club. I've said on another thread on shaymen.net that I'd hope if the football club was in difficulty the council would extend our payment terms to help us out short term. However, until any deal with Reactiv is publicly dismissed totally by CMBC then I feel it's a democratic duty to raise concerns.

I also don't think your board of directors owe me an explanation. However I do believe they owe the people of Calderdale an explanation, as they owe the tax payers this money.

I hope this post is accepted with the same decency as I've approached you, and will attempt to answer any questions you have with regards to my motives.

Your completely entitled to your opinion, I don't have to agree with it (and I don't) but your entitled to it.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:40 pm  

spanishbob wrote:

Your completely entitled to your opinion, I don't have to agree with it (and I don't) but your entitled to it.

Neither do I but it was eloquently put!

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:44 pm  

I don't mind anyone stating their case and posting the facts as they see them. If only his friends on shaymen.net and the Courier comments stuck to that. Instead they resort to nasty personal attacks on TA and, even worse, on Heartbeat of Sport.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:50 pm  

Fax Machine wrote:

I don't mind anyone stating their case and posting the facts as they see them. If only his friends on shaymen.net and the Courier comments stuck to that. Instead they resort to nasty personal attacks on TA and, even worse, on Heartbeat of Sport.

Exactly, perhaps MR Mouse would like to comment on that?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:23 pm  

Fair question. I don't think anyone comes out well in an online argument. With regards to the Courier I do try and avoid it, newspaper message boards, whether the Guardian, Daily Mail or local rags seem to attract the most extreme voices who don't reflect their chosen sides well.

Honestly, I've not seen many personal attacks on Shaymen.net. I believe some abuse on Twitter was reported early on and if that is the case I hope it was reported to the site and the police if necessary.

Ironicly it was a comment on here referring to me as 'that bell end who put in the FOI' (Bulls thread, page 6) that encouraged me to sign up and post my reasons on here. So I've been abused, personally, without merit; but I accept it as a flippant off-the-cuff comment that (I hope) wasn't intended to be an actual personal assault. Therefore I think you have to be careful singling individual posts or posters out as examples of bad behaviour.

Regarding the HoS stuff I believe it's unfortunate from Abbott's side as a good venture has left him open to attack either through a lack of understanding of the registration process or administrative oversight. I do believe that as soon as it is registered with the Charity Commission then 99% of the users on shaymen.net won't mention it again.

I don't like dealing in conjecture, just facts, so I don't want to be drawn into other people's he said/she said arguments as I can't speak for either party.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:46 pm  

Its like a episode Emmerdale on this Forum , all these deep thinkers , and then GFB posts a reply .

[Nat (Rugby_Aholic)]

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:42 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

As the person who logged the FOI request with the Council I find it right that I come on here and explain myself. I'm not hear to bait or gloat, just explain why I did it.

I placed the FOI not as a Town fan looking for an excuse to attack the rugby club, but as an attempt to hinder the purchase of a community asset by Reactiv Media (owner T. Abbott). I believe that the ground should remain owned by the council.

At the start of the 'SOS' campaign I'd never considered looking into the rugby club aspect, but Abbott (you can insert the 'Mr' if you like, I never use it for anyone else so won't now) tied the rugby club in by attaching the rent debt of one of his companies in with purchase, linking the two in my eyes.

When his bid was questioned the default answer was 'trust me', and some fans on here said we should trust him due the money he's invested in the town and how honourable he was. He also claimed that the stadium was loss making.

It turns out that he can't be trusted to pay the bills of another business he co-owns (HRLFC) on time, and he's not putting money into the town as he's now over £60k in debt to the council, plus lost interest on that money that it will never see again.

The previous FOI made it clear that an agreement had been reached by both sides to pay the debt, in full, by 31.12.2013. No mention what-so-ever was made about any of it being tied up in the now defunct purchase of the Shay. That date has been missed, and the debt has grown since. This blows the 'trust' argument totally out of the water for me, and the rugby club can no longer hide behind the argument that this will all be taken care of when the ground is sold. Calderdale MBC obviously don't see that as the current arrangement.

If he successfully buys the ground, and needs a mortgage on it (unless he can rustle up £2.5 million when he can't get £60k together), what would happen to the ground if he approached his mortgage payments in the same way? It'd be repossessed, sold to the highest bidder and both clubs would be up the swanny or the council would have to buy it back for more than they sold it for.

I'd like to repeat this isn't an attack on the club. I've said on another thread on shaymen.net that I'd hope if the football club was in difficulty the council would extend our payment terms to help us out short term. However, until any deal with Reactiv is publicly dismissed totally by CMBC then I feel it's a democratic duty to raise concerns.

I also don't think your board of directors owe me an explanation. However I do believe they owe the people of Calderdale an explanation, as they owe the tax payers this money.

I hope this post is accepted with the same decency as I've approached you, and will attempt to answer any questions you have with regards to my motives.

Your entire argument is based on the principle that neither the club or Tony Abbott can afford to pay the outstanding amount. There are many other reasons for not paying it, if you don't get the services you are paying for you have the right to withhold payment until those services are provided or you are compensated appropriately. Catering for example, when did EMC go bust? I am just speculating but trying to help you understand there are other reasons for withholding payment.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:53 pm  

Sheffield Unt behind with there rent? http://www.sportinglife.com/football/ne ... called-off.

Sheffield Unt behind with there rent? http://www.sportinglife.com/football/ne ... called-off.