Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:23 pm  

[quote="Danger_mouse"]Sorry, which speculation are you referring to?
All the speculation previously mentioned for not paying the rent or on how much the Shay was losing and how accurate or what worth any of it is.


We know an offer was made as CMBC have confirmed it was in an FOI request. I suspect Bubba's point was more about the lack of detail contained in the offer.
Bubba wrote.
Lets be clear about a few things. The Council were never close to agreeing a deal to sell the Shay to Tony Abbott. The reason being that they had no deal to consider given that all they had received was a single piece of A4 paper containing a couple of paragraphs.

The point is clear CMBC were never close, there was no deal according to him and of course he couldn't be wrong, he had to really mean something else.

Do you ask me that as a tax payer or football fan? Are you not both a rate payer and football fan, how do you seperate them both because there is a conflict of interests between the two.

As a tax payer I don't want a valuable asset that the council has spent millions on sold off cheaply.
How is it a valuable assett when it is losing tens of thousands of pounds per year as it stands, unfinished with no money to spend on it and the inevitable decay that will follow, sounds more like a liabilty to me.

As a rate (tax) payer how do you feel about all the other rate payers of calderdale of around 110,000 people losing your figure of £50,000 per year for the 1500 football fans which isn't even 1.5% of the population meaning 98.5% don't count or don't have the same rate payers rights.

As a football fan I don't want the ground sold off to anyone who can't prove they have the resources and finance in place to fund their vision for the ground without using the stadium as security on the debt.[/quote]

As a football fan you have your wish, but since it's a community assett it should not be one fan or 1500 fans decision.
As a rate payer you do not have your wish because it's losing rate payers money for a very small minority.

Where do you get the £50,000 loss figure from, the FOI?
What did the figure in the FOI include in it's loss count?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:05 am  

Is the interest being paid on the 3 million loan included in the 50k a year loss or not. If it is included then the shay is not looking money it is the interest on the loan that is loosing money. If it is not included then the shay is loosing more than 50k a year. What ever way you look at it selling the shay for 2 million saves money in the long term. If the interest is included in the 50k then selling for 2 million reduces the interest by 2/3 (17k) if the interest is not included then they would save themselves 50k + 2/3 interest payments. And all future repairs / up keep.

These are all rough calculations as I do not know the true figures.
If it was me I know what I would do.

Sell it to a big property developer or supermarket for 4 million and make some money .

Then may be you would say, "if only we had not been so hasty judging Tony where are we going to play football now"?

On a serious note the 2 million offer would help the council balance the books better I would say.

The rugby club would be ok, I'd move up the road to the Klondike and get a gold mine build a stadium in Nnrth America move the team to the stadium and call it expanding the game.

I would be the new saviour of rugby league.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:20 am  

Part Quote.
"Is the interest being paid on the 3 million loan included in the 50k a year loss or not. If it is included then the shay is not looking money it is the interest on the loan that is loosing money. If it is not included then the shay is loosing more than 50k a year. What ever way you look at it selling the shay for 2 million saves money in the long term. If the interest is included in the 50k then selling for 2 million reduces the interest by 2/3 (17k) if the interest is not included then they would save themselves 50k + 2/3 interest payments. And all future repairs / up keep."

That's exactly why I asked but I wanted them to answer the question.
It's not only the interest on the loan but the loan itself and the interest that need to be taken into consideration as loss or debt.

Maybe the FOI boys could send one in to find out how much is left owing on the loan and what the annual payments are and if the results fit their agenda no doubt they will be published everywhere, if they don't nothing will be said.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:53 am  

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.

A good rent model is how they do Huddersfield, the Football and Rugby clubs pay a set amount per person through the gates at each game.

Hudds Town pay more rent, as they play more games, and are better supported than the Giants. But on a break down neither pays more than the other for what use they get.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:20 am  

That sounds reasonable to me, Brew. What does our new friend Danger Mouse think about that?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:56 am  

Fax Machine wrote:

That sounds reasonable to me, Brew. What does our new friend Danger Mouse think about that?

Halicat got him

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:31 pm  

Faxcar:

All the speculation previously mentioned for not paying the rent or on how much the Shay was losing and how accurate or what worth any of it is.

But I wasn’t speculating. My losses figure is the result of an FOI, the person speculating on the losses was the person trying to justify his bid for the ground.

The point is clear CMBC were never close, there was no deal according to him and of course he couldn't be wrong, he had to really mean something else.

What are you arguing about here? Reactiv did make a bid to buy the ground. The fact that is was so short and lacking in detail is immaterial, that bid was still on the table and CMBC had to consider it.

Are you not both a rate payer and football fan, how do you seperate them both because there is a conflict of interests between the two.

Because everyone has to separate them both. Someone who enjoys reading may have a conflict of interest over council tax because they want the libraries to have 30 copies of each book so they don’t have to wait to borrow it. Life is full of conflicts of interest. I’m not expecting the council to provide me with a 70,000 seater stadium with a TV replay scoreboard which I may do if I only existed as a football fan. We don’t all walk around with hats on that tell us we can only have an opinion on one thing at any one time.

How is it a valuable assett when it is losing tens of thousands of pounds per year as it stands, unfinished with no money to spend on it and the inevitable decay that will follow, sounds more like a liabilty to me.

As a rate (tax) payer how do you feel about all the other rate payers of calderdale of around 110,000 people losing your figure of £50,000 per year for the 1500 football fans which isn't even 1.5% of the population meaning 98.5% don't count or don't have the same rate payers rights.

Reactiv obviously think it has potential as they believe it could make a profit without either club paying rent. So, if you believe that then what is to stop the council achieving that whilst keeping the profits and investing them in other services? If you don’t believe that’s possible then ask yourselves why Reactiv are so keen to buy it.

As a football fan you have your wish, but since it's a community assett it should not be one fan or 1500 fans decision.
As a rate payer you do not have your wish because it's losing rate payers money for a very small minority.

You’re absolutely right. That is why the bid should have been made in the open and fully disclosed, so that the people of Calderdale, with their many hats on, could decide what is the best for the future of the district and the tax payers. It was the secrecy surrounding the bid, on all sides, that have caused so much concern. And, if you want a response from me with each hat, then as a football fan I don’t trust Reactiv to be custodians of the stadium without proving they can do all the work without securing a debt on the ground, and as a rate payer I’d want CMBC to put it on the open market so we could see how much the maximum someone would pay (with the caveat of use as a sports stadium), rather than the council accepting the first speculative bid they receive.

Where do you get the £50,000 loss figure from, the FOI?

According to FOI 289 the forecasted loss for 2013/14 is £58,286

What did the figure in the FOI include in it's loss count?

Debits were employees, transport, premises and supplies. The interest to service the loan to rebuild the East Stand isn’t included.

Maybe the FOI boys could send one in to find out how much is left owing on the loan and what the annual payments are and if the results fit their agenda no doubt they will be published everywhere, if they don't nothing will be said.

No need for most of it, at a council meeting on 26.09.2013 Cllr Malcolm James asked, the answer is a public record:
The cost of the capital scheme at the Shay was £5.8m. £3.588m of that was undertaken by prudential borrowing. Of this, £3.157m was outstanding a 31st March 2013. The borrowing commenced in 2009/10 and was taken over a 25 year period.
I also find your comment a touch disrespectful. All my FOIs have been asked through What Do They Know, a public Web site where anyone can check the responses, whether or not they ‘fit my agenda’.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:37 pm  

Fax Machine wrote:

That sounds reasonable to me, Brew. What does our new friend Danger Mouse think about that?

I don't have a problem with a fair rent for each club. However, I assume that as your directors are businessmen then they wouldn't have signed a contract they thought was unfair, so by definition isn't the current agreement fair?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:05 pm  

Who knows? Maybe they haven't signed a new agreement because they weren't happy with the terms and they are still haggling over it. Granted, it is a long time to be trying to reach an agreement but I genuinely believe that there is more to this than meets the eye as, if it was just a simple matter of Fax not paying the rent, I think CMBC would have taken some form of action by now, either to recover the money or by at least denying Fax any further use of the stadium.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:20 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

Faxcar:

All the speculation previously mentioned for not paying the rent or on how much the Shay was losing and how accurate or what worth any of it is.

But I wasn’t speculating. My losses figure is the result of an FOI, the person speculating on the losses was the person trying to justify his bid for the ground.


The point is clear CMBC were never close, there was no deal according to him and of course he couldn't be wrong, he had to really mean something else.

What are you arguing about here? Reactiv did make a bid to buy the ground. The fact that is was so short and lacking in detail is immaterial, that bid was still on the table and CMBC had to consider it.

Are you not both a rate payer and football fan, how do you seperate them both because there is a conflict of interests between the two.

Because everyone has to separate them both. Someone who enjoys reading may have a conflict of interest over council tax because they want the libraries to have 30 copies of each book so they don’t have to wait to borrow it. Life is full of conflicts of interest. I’m not expecting the council to provide me with a 70,000 seater stadium with a TV replay scoreboard which I may do if I only existed as a football fan. We don’t all walk around with hats on that tell us we can only have an opinion on one thing at any one time.

How is it a valuable assett when it is losing tens of thousands of pounds per year as it stands, unfinished with no money to spend on it and the inevitable decay that will follow, sounds more like a liabilty to me.

As a rate (tax) payer how do you feel about all the other rate payers of calderdale of around 110,000 people losing your figure of £50,000 per year for the 1500 football fans which isn't even 1.5% of the population meaning 98.5% don't count or don't have the same rate payers rights.

Reactiv obviously think it has potential as they believe it could make a profit without either club paying rent. So, if you believe that then what is to stop the council achieving that whilst keeping the profits and investing them in other services? If you don’t believe that’s possible then ask yourselves why Reactiv are so keen to buy it.

As a football fan you have your wish, but since it's a community assett it should not be one fan or 1500 fans decision.
As a rate payer you do not have your wish because it's losing rate payers money for a very small minority.

You’re absolutely right. That is why the bid should have been made in the open and fully disclosed, so that the people of Calderdale, with their many hats on, could decide what is the best for the future of the district and the tax payers. It was the secrecy surrounding the bid, on all sides, that have caused so much concern. And, if you want a response from me with each hat, then as a football fan I don’t trust Reactiv to be custodians of the stadium without proving they can do all the work without securing a debt on the ground, and as a rate payer I’d want CMBC to put it on the open market so we could see how much the maximum someone would pay (with the caveat of use as a sports stadium), rather than the council accepting the first speculative bid they receive.

Where do you get the £50,000 loss figure from, the FOI?

According to FOI 289 the forecasted loss for 2013/14 is £58,286

What did the figure in the FOI include in it's loss count?

Debits were employees, transport, premises and supplies. The interest to service the loan to rebuild the East Stand isn’t included.

Maybe the FOI boys could send one in to find out how much is left owing on the loan and what the annual payments are and if the results fit their agenda no doubt they will be published everywhere, if they don't nothing will be said.

No need for most of it, at a council meeting on 26.09.2013 Cllr Malcolm James asked, the answer is a public record:
The cost of the capital scheme at the Shay was £5.8m. £3.588m of that was undertaken by prudential borrowing. Of this, £3.157m was outstanding a 31st March 2013. The borrowing commenced in 2009/10 and was taken over a 25 year period.
I also find your comment a touch disrespectful. All my FOIs have been asked through What Do They Know, a public Web site where anyone can check the responses, whether or not they ‘fit my agenda’.

So from all that the FOI did not include any repayments on the over 3 million loan something that is a 25 year finacial liabiltiy that TA could have included in his statement and no one even thought about.

It was speculated that TA had in some way. QUOTE." deliberated inflated the figures to gain leverage over CMBC.
Just how could he do that when they are the ones who are having to deal with the amounts each year." End Q.

What is he going to say "well actually your not really £50k a year out of pocket it's £250K" and they would somehow be pressured into selling, it's just ludicrous.

No argument at all just pointing out Bubba was wrong when he said there was no bid on the table but the bid did not reach an advanced stage where the council were taking it seriously because of the lack of detail.

This would negate the need to go public and involve anyone else as it was a none starter.

That being the case why did the hate campaing start in the first place.

I said their agenda, not my agenda meaning not one individual, others have used the FOI information with the sole intent of calling TA a liar and worse, and to prevent Reativ purchasing the Shay using whatever means possible as the facts show.

The fact is that those town fans who went on the hate TA campaign do not want the Shay to be sold at any price to anyone especially if associated with the rugby club regardless of how it affects the majority of the Calderdale rate payers.