Re: Not this again : Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:15 pm  

freddies wig wrote:

To be fair they are £35,000 in arrears, how much are we actually paying, £100 a month? (The club are not 35K in arrears).

We may have been in dispute for a few years but in that time we have made a sneaky bid to buy the stadium, can't be that much of a dispute. The bloke that drove the bid doesn't seem to be around anymore! (You are assuming that the bid to buy the stadium was cooked up by Abbott, it wasn't, he was just the fall guy. Reading the emails in the FOI act it is clear something was been hid and it seems more a case of the council wanting rid)

We have an agreement, stick to it. Pay up whilst disputing it - who knows, we may get a refund. (In my experience the only way to get a dispute sorted out is to withhold money, each to their own though and Fax will have taken legal advice over this and maybe the recent payment has something to do with that.)

Bottom line is this doesn't go away, there's no smoke without fire and its damned embarrassing for our great club and its fans (Although embarrassing IMO this will be better for us in the long run it been in the public eye, hidden away the council can keep on avoiding the situation)

Ive tried to reply in bold.

Re: Not this again : Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:33 pm  

What exactly are the council "hiding away?"

It's a fact that Fax don't pay their rent in full and it's a fact that the whole thing is massively embarrassing and has been for a while.

There's no way the club can take the moral high ground here unless we start paying up

Re: Not this again : Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:36 pm  

Quote. “The FOI response which is currently in circulation is out of date and substantially understates the club’s payments.”

The above is from the couriers article on the subject from a spokes person for HLRFC as was the comment on not commenting further in the public domain at this time.

The club have made a statement and we need to read what they say.

The rent being talked about is for the 2015/2016 year which if it runs from April to April there is still time to make what ever outstanding amounts are due which according to the club statement is not £35.000.

The rent agreement that is in place should be honoured and then if for whatever reason a tenant wants to re negotiate then that is the time to do it.

It's been running for some time as we all know and out of the two parties involved it takes both of them to sit down and talk about it, which of the two would be less inclined to do so?

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:07 am  

As stated above this is an ongoing situation between the two parties. It isn't the end of the financial year, it's the courier raking over old coals to make a story out of very old news.

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:16 am  

freddies wig wrote:

What exactly are the council "hiding away?"

It's a fact that Fax don't pay their rent in full and it's a fact that the whole thing is massively embarrassing and has been for a while.

There's no way the club can take the moral high ground here unless we start paying up

What about if the council are not keeping to their end of the agreement?

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:01 am  

Very disappointing to see this topic back on the forum as a headline. At one of the forums it was explained quite clearly by Michael Steele that the club were unhappy with the fact the two tennants are paying different rent for using the same premises/facilities. The club look to me to be using the non or delayed payment as leverage to force a resolution. I agree its not good PR for the club but I am sure the club have money from last years RL funding accrued to pay once the matter is settled or legal proceedings from the council dictate we have to pay. One for the Directors and Council to resolve as this clearly can't go on forever- for the sake of both parties. No doubt the FCHT trolls will be having a field day but that's minor to me.

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:44 am  

Another thing as well I don't see why we or the club should feel embarrassed.

Of those involved the council should be, they are the ones who have set the substantially differing rents for both the rugby and football clubs for what amounts to the use of the same stadium for sporting purposes.

Only for one of them to find out that it's costing them £11.880 more per annum for basically the same thing at the same time and as anyone would be they are not happy, the same would apply if it was the other way round, FC Town should not have to pay nearly 12 grand more than the rugby club.

From the rugby clubs point of view it's a business issue, they are in partnership that includes trust and fair practices involving important finances any questionable morales should be directed at the council who need to look at how and why they can deal so differently with their two tenants.

Likewise how often does the courier publish anything concerning this with all the facts or anything that doesn't lead the reader to think the rugby club are some undesirable occupier at the Shay?

In this latest article it refers to an FOI that is out of date and doesn't make any mention of what time frame it does cover, is it 6 months out of date, 6 weeks or 6 days, whatever it is it does not represent the current situation or the reasons why the situation exists, just poor irresponsible reporting again.

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:28 pm  

If you want to know why the clubs pay different rents, their is a foi on it. Which your favourite poster bubba has posted several times on Facebook. It shows that the rugby club rent considerably more floor space within the shay than the football club does. Things like the laundry rooms, gym etc are used by the rugby club are not used by the football club. The rent paid isn't just a flat rate, it's itemised and done by the floor space used.

Hope this helps.

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:12 pm  

Fax dont have a gym at the ground. Its also worth noting one of the extra floor spaces that we have is the club shop. As far as I am aware Halifax Town decided not to have a shop at the Shay, Town get around this by using other means at the Shay to sell their merchandise, something which seems to be lost on the council.

Re: Not this again : Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:46 pm  

I think the club should pay the rent as this just fuels the Town fans and is not good publicity for the club at all.
But Calderdale Council cannot justify charging one of the Shay's tenants more than the other. especially when Town play more games at the Shay than the rugby.