Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:14 am  

Danger_mouse wrote:

Simple answer. CMBC currently owe over £3m on loans taken to complete the East Stand (source T Swift). Reactiv's bid for the Shay was less than £2m (source T Swift). Therefore, the council were looking at selling an asset and still having a debt held against it. I'd hope that in a democratic society where we are free to hold our politicians to account anyone would want to challenge councillors selling off a valuable asset at less than market value. In whose interest would this have been?

Separately, as a Town fan, of course I'd be worried that our ground would be sold to someone who never explained how the financing of the purchase would work, or how he'd safeguard the future of the club.

I think your first answer would have done?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:21 am  

faxcar wrote:

Can I ask.

Are you in possession of all the facts, do you know for sure why the rent has not been paid?

If not are you not speculating.

From the speculation conclusions have been drawn that directly lead to comments such "that reads to me",
"if he can't get £60k together" and the rest about "defaulting on a mortgage", the "Shay being sold to the highest bidder", "both clubs being up the creek " etc.

Again all based on what exactly.

Whilst not intended to be an attack on the club it is negative towards TA and the club, assuming that they can't pay it.

Final question.

Is that not like a case of guilty before being proved innocent without any real evidence?

Of course you can ask, that's why I came on.

Sorry if that original post wasn't clear, I copied some of it from a post I made on the other board to explain my motives to Swifty. Perhaps the funding angle has been over-emphasised by the lack of backstory.

In the original post I proposed 3 possible reasons for the rent not being paid, the club in financial difficulty, Abbott deliberately not paying to inflate the losses of the ground and gain leverage over CMBC, or the club racking up debts whilst shooting for Super League, hoping the financial rewards would cover the debts. I asked Swifty for other ideas but he didn't reply. I am genuinely interested in your suggestions, I want to provoke sensible, constructive debate.

Since coming on here I've had an alternative take, that the club is deliberately withholding rent due to a dispute with the Council. Now this has been proposed I'll fully investigate this angle. I think the FOI response I quoted is unambiguous, but will clarify it in fairness to all parties.

I'm not presuming anyone's guilt, I'm trying to gather all the facts together. It would have helped if the Council and your board were more open as maybe this could have been resolved without speculation, but whilst Reactiv still have an interest in the Shay I'll carry on looking for reasons not to sell it to them (and would be for any private individual looking to buy it).

I hope that helps clarify my stance.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:32 am  

Danger_mouse wrote:

Of course you can ask, that's why I came on.

Sorry if that original post wasn't clear, I copied some of it from a post I made on the other board to explain my motives to Swifty. Perhaps the funding angle has been over-emphasised by the lack of backstory.

In the original post I proposed 3 possible reasons for the rent not being paid, the club in financial difficulty, Abbott deliberately not paying to inflate the losses of the ground and gain leverage over CMBC, or the club racking up debts whilst shooting for Super League, hoping the financial rewards would cover the debts. I asked Swifty for other ideas but he didn't reply. I am genuinely interested in your suggestions, I want to provoke sensible, constructive debate.

Since coming on here I've had an alternative take, that the club is deliberately withholding rent due to a dispute with the Council. Now this has been proposed I'll fully investigate this angle. I think the FOI response I quoted is unambiguous, but will clarify it in fairness to all parties.

I'm not presuming anyone's guilt, I'm trying to gather all the facts together. It would have helped if the Council and your board were more open as maybe this could have been resolved without speculation, but whilst Reactiv still have an interest in the Shay I'll carry on looking for reasons not to sell it to them (and would be for any private individual looking to buy it).


I hope that helps clarify my stance.

i did not reply as did not know then of any other ideas as to why.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:12 am  

swifty62 wrote:

i did not reply as did not know then of any other ideas as to why.

That's fair enough, the comment wasn't intended as a dig at you. Like I say, I'm trying to open up a debate and am interested in the views of both sides.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:19 am  

Danger_mouse wrote:

Of course you can ask, that's why I came on.

Sorry if that original post wasn't clear, I copied some of it from a post I made on the other board to explain my motives to Swifty. Perhaps the funding angle has been over-emphasised by the lack of backstory.

In the original post I proposed 3 possible reasons for the rent not being paid, the club in financial difficulty, Abbott deliberately not paying to inflate the losses of the ground and gain leverage over CMBC, or the club racking up debts whilst shooting for Super League, hoping the financial rewards would cover the debts. I asked Swifty for other ideas but he didn't reply. I am genuinely interested in your suggestions, I want to provoke sensible, constructive debate.

Since coming on here I've had an alternative take, that the club is deliberately withholding rent due to a dispute with the Council. Now this has been proposed I'll fully investigate this angle. I think the FOI response I quoted is unambiguous, but will clarify it in fairness to all parties.

I'm not presuming anyone's guilt, I'm trying to gather all the facts together. It would have helped if the Council and your board were more open as maybe this could have been resolved without speculation, but whilst Reactiv still have an interest in the Shay I'll carry on looking for reasons not to sell it to them (and would be for any private individual looking to buy it).

I hope that helps clarify my stance.

Thanks DM.
Perhaps it would be prudent to gather all the facts first then come to an informed conclusion rather than speculate either positively or negatively.

Applying that to myself I will wait and see because as I have stated in other posts in must be resolved for Fax to continue playing out of the Shay.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:33 am  

faxcar wrote:

Thanks DM.
Perhaps it would be prudent to gather all the facts first then come to an informed conclusion rather than speculate either positively or negatively.

Applying that to myself I will wait and see because as I have stated in other posts in must be resolved for Fax to continue playing out of the Shay.

It is being and it will be.
In my honest opinion.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:03 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

Simple answer. CMBC currently owe over £3m on loans taken to complete the East Stand (source T Swift). Reactiv's bid for the Shay was less than £2m (source T Swift). Therefore, the council were looking at selling an asset and still having a debt held against it. I'd hope that in a democratic society where we are free to hold our politicians to account anyone would want to challenge councillors selling off a valuable asset at less than market value. In whose interest would this have been?

Separately, as a Town fan, of course I'd be worried that our ground would be sold to someone who never explained how the financing of the purchase would work, or how he'd safeguard the future of the club.

I'm sure the council borrowed more than the figure you wrote to build the flats at Mixenden and then sold them to a private developer for £1.00 each. But that's what councils do.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:04 pm  

Nat (Rugby_Aholic) wrote:

Doubt they would answer that as I am sure it would harm their ability to continue to overcharge the rugby club.
To me the answer is simple, establish a £ per hour amount and then bill as it is used. Flat charge on top for the permanent offices, shops etc.

Could this be the answer as to why Halifax Town have never moved out of the old offices and as to why the prime spot they negotiated for their new shop layes empty and makes the front of the building an eyesore ? That empty place could be so much better used but they prefer to sell what stock they have off market stalls , sad really.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:15 pm  

johnny freeman fan club wrote:

Could this be the answer as to why Halifax Town have never moved out of the old offices and as to why the prime spot they negotiated for their new shop layes empty and makes the front of the building an eyesore ? That empty place could be so much better used but they prefer to sell what stock they have off market stalls , sad really.

good point.FCHT directors have had loads of abuse on this subject and have never
publically stated the reasons.......sounds a bit familiar eh.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:47 pm  

Cassandra wrote:

I'm sure the council borrowed more than the figure you wrote to build the flats at Mixenden and then sold them to a private developer for £1.00 each. But that's what councils do.

And if people let them get away with it then that's what they'll continue to do. Why is trying to put a stop to it and holding elected officials to account a bad thing? This is what the FOI act was brought in to allow the public to do.