Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:24 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’.

Blimey DM , I bet your fingers are tired , have you been up all night ?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:01 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

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?

I always class fair as being even handed/consistent, so if each tenant pays the same rate per game assuming same number of stands are open then it would be fair.

If the landlord rents out any different to the above then it is unfair, especially if the disparity is due to previous financial incompetence which left the UK taxpayers £800k out of pocket

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:22 pm  

[Faxcar wrote]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.[/end]

And I wish we had known about that, which again is why if the deal had been made in the open, or he’d mentioned taking that debt on in his clear the air meeting, it would have cut down an avenue where his ideas were questioned, rather than leaving us speculating months later.

[Faxcar wrote]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. [/end]

I don’t think I said the second part of that quote, but I know I can’t really comment on formatting issues as the ‘phone makes it very difficult. However, in my mind that inflated figure was thrown into the conversation to get people who may have accepted it as truth onside with the bid from the outset. I am suspicious of anyone who starts a conversation with a made up fact.

[Faxcar wrote]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. [/end]

I can’t answer for Bubba’s use of language or certain words. Also, as my resuest for a copy of the bid was refused I can’t comment 1st hand on what was in it. All I will consider going forward is CMBC confirmed Reactiv made a bid for the stadium.

[Faxcar wrote]That being the case why did the hate campaing start in the first place. [/end]

I think hate campaign is a strong phrase to use to group of a lot of varied intentions together. There are some football fans who hate the rugby club, and vice versa. However, as I tried to point out in my first post this isn’t an ‘us v them’ argument to me. What I saw was a 3rd party attempting to buy the ground without doing it through a proper bidding process. I don’t hate TA, but I reserve the right to find out as much information about someone who wants to buy an asset the council have spent millions on in recent years. If some people genuinely hate him then I can’t answer for them.
I have previously said that if TA or his family receive personal abuse then I hope he reported it to Twitter and the police in necessary because I’d never agree with that.

[Faxcar wrote]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. [/end]

I’ve only seen one other FOI during this period, again about rent arrears. FOIs contain facts from CMBC, if those facts go against something anyone else has said then that discrepancy needs addressing. I guess one of the main cruxes of this is the rent not being paid. The FOI said the rugby club had promised to pay the arrears by 31.12.2013. This day came and went with no payment. One of your users on this board gave a reason why the club may not have paid, I’d not considered that angle so have asked CMBC to clarify the promise. You see, I’m not out to grind an axe, someone on here disagrees with me and I’ll take it on board and think about it further.

[Faxcar wrote]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. [/end]

Trust was always an issue for Town fans, as TA wanted us to trust that that stadium was safe in his hands. You trust him because of the money he’s put into your club, and that’s fine. However, he has to earn the trust of Town fans if he wants us to be happy with Reactiv owning the ground, as a 3rd party you’d never heard of would have to win your trust. He has made a bid for a council owned asset, and to me that gives us the freedom to look into his business and relationship with the council using legal tools that the government has given us for this reason.
It’s not our fault when we uncover things that contradict what TA says, like the payday loan issue. TA says he has nothing to do with them, but I point out 3 things I’ve found that challenge that and have posted them on here. Not one person has queried those discoveries with me. It’s things like this that make the trust issue less likely to be resolved for Town fans.
You’re right in the last point, I don’t believe the ground should be sold off to anyone. There are ways of protecting Council Tax payers and securing the safeguarding of the ground, such as a charitable trust leasing the stadium. Fans of both clubs have marched together in agreement of this in the past so we know that some people on both sides agree with the principle.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:24 pm  

maurice wrote:

I always class fair as being even handed/consistent, so if each tenant pays the same rate per game assuming same number of stands are open then it would be fair.

If the landlord rents out any different to the above then it is unfair, especially if the disparity is due to previous financial incompetence which left the UK taxpayers £800k out of pocket

But your BOD signed it, they must have thought it was fair. Maybe you should ask for copies of the tenancy agreements to see if both clubs receive exactly the same things.

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:43 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

But your BOD signed it, they must have thought it was fair. Maybe you should ask for copies of the tenancy agreements to see if both clubs receive exactly the same things.

The thing about tenancy is, have both clubs signed a lease. If not why not?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:30 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

But your BOD signed it, they must have thought it was fair. Maybe you should ask for copies of the tenancy agreements to see if both clubs receive exactly the same things.

Why would Leighs Board of Directors sign an agreement for the Shay?
And have they paid the rent?

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:33 pm  

charlie caroli wrote:

Blimey DM , I bet your fingers are tired , have you been up all night ?

Try typing that on a mobile! Sorry again for the lack of formatting!

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:37 pm  

halifaxjohn wrote:

Why would Leighs Board of Directors sign an agreement for the Shay?
And have they paid the rent?

Ah, Maurice is a fan of another club. Consider me suitably chastised. Still, it doesn't stop him putting an FOI in if he wants to campaign against injustice!

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:47 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

Ah, Maurice is a fan of another club. Consider me suitably chastised. Still, it doesn't stop him putting an FOI in if he wants to campaign against injustice!

injustice

"a situation or action in which people are treated unfairly"

?????

Re: Official Discussion: Rent Issue! : Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:19 pm  

Danger_mouse wrote:

But your BOD signed it, they must have thought it was fair. Maybe you should ask for copies of the tenancy agreements to see if both clubs receive exactly the same things.

Feeling something is fair and actually being fair are two different things. As joint tenants of the council you should have the same terms, its not a double glazing salesman selling one 4x4 window to number 26 and half the price to number 32. The fact the council may have allowed this to happen is disgusting imo and if true the soccer club should be made to pay the equivalent rates backdated imo, or the amendment made to level things up

As said I am a Leigh fan, but wish Fax all the best in this matter and find the pontificating of some Soccer fans on here amusing and hypocritical to say the least

When in glass houses do not throw stones.