Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:55 am  

I'm happy to wait and see also, it's not like we have much choice I suppose. But it's fair to say I'm worried, if not the Shay then where? Odsal? Do me a favour. I hope this is sorted soon.

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:08 am  

[quote="Aleydita"]That doesn't explain why you think allowing Fax to continue not paying rent is preferable to the alternative (which is to kick us out).

I clearly said Fax will have to pay the rent or have no ground to play on and go out of business, they will not be allowed to continue not to pay it and if they can't pay it for the Shay they can't pay it anywhere else, if that doesn't explain it nothing will.

What no one knows is WHY it hasn't been paid but some jump to negative conclusions based on how their opinion of anything Fax related.

Others just do not think it is as bad as the doom and gloom guys because it contradicts a number of things which can be clearly seen the club are factually doing.

"Where does the figure of £250k/year come from?"

It was stated in the Courier some time back that the Shay was losing at least £250k per year and rising just to maintain the place.
Fax should pay the rent and when they do the shortfall will be reduce accordingly but it will still be significantly in the red as an entity.

It being a financial liability in tough economic times is why the Council first thought about selling it in the first place.

"As above we all know the stadium is under-utilised, a whole tier of the east stand remains unoccupied for example, and the council have admitted in another FOI that they've made no attempt to remedy this."

Regardless of the financial standing of Fax the Council will never will be able to remedy anything at the Shay because they are skint and that is a fact.

"It isn't written in stone that The Shay has to make a loss under council ownership."

Truthfully do you think the Council has it in them to use the Shay as a commercial venture, that's business, they may be a lot of things but they are not businessmen.

As you say all we can do is wait and see at least we've had some debate.

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:53 am  

Can anyone offer an opinion as to what sort of dispute
with the council could justify the action of not paying £63k
rent over a 16 month period ?

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:18 am  

mr t hall wrote:

Can anyone offer an opinion as to what sort of dispute
with the council could justify the action of not paying £63k
rent over a 16 month period ?

Anything said has likely been said before and mostly guess work based on all the spin that has being going on with a few smatterings of so called factual information mixed in.

We're guessing again that it involves a dispute which may be part of it and maybe not.

A few of the things supposedly been involved.

Some rent was owed for before the talk of buying the Shay came to light.

The talks included the rent being absorbed into any purchasing agreement.

Not too long ago the deal for the Shay was taken from the table at least in the short term.

Both parties went of to give more consideration to the potential sale.

Could the deal be back on again after due process with similar terms for the rent included.
Now that would explain the silence and will get a certain section going again

Total speculation but the above was part of the original plan so is feasible.

Other than that, again we are either skint and can't pay it.

We are not skint and won't pay it.

In either case.

To continue playing from the Shay or anywhere else we will have to pay it.

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:36 am  

faxcar wrote:

Anything said has likely been said before and mostly guess work based on all the spin that has being going on with a few smatterings of so called factual information mixed in.

We're guessing again that it involves a dispute which may be part of it and maybe not.

A few of the things supposedly been involved.

Some rent was owed for before the talk of buying the Shay came to light.

The talks included the rent being absorbed into any purchasing agreement.

Not too long ago the deal for the Shay was taken from the table at least in the short term.

Both parties went of to give more consideration to the potential sale.

Could the deal be back on again after due process with similar terms for the rent included.
Now that would explain the silence and will get a certain section going again

Total speculation but the above was part of the original plan so is feasible.

Other than that, again we are either skint and can't pay it.

We are not skint and won't pay it.

In either case.

To continue playing from the Shay or anywhere else we will have to pay it.

Thanks,so only really the Shay potential sale could justify our actions.
I'm trying to be positive but surely the possible Shay purchase came long
after arrears had already built up ?

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:49 am  

When does Gavin's daft Asset of Community Value (ACV) run out? Is it six months from the date of his application or six months from the date Calderdale Council decide to sell?

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:54 pm  

It's six months after the council decide to sell.

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:56 pm  

mr t hall wrote:

Thanks,so only really the Shay potential sale could justify our actions.
I'm trying to be positive but surely the possible Shay purchase came long
after arrears had already built up ?

They did but it is the only connection with the former and current situation.

I know you are concerned and that unlike some others is why the question is being asked.

Those who can answer it aren't doing so for whatever reason.

They are the only ones who can.

There is no point in beating ourselves up over something we don't really know about or can do anything about.

At times like this I go back to core beliefs and values.

Fax almost had a perfect storm of a bad year last season regarding games and crowds, early cup exits etc.
They didn't like it or want it to happen but they prepared for it and took it on the chin.

I just do not believe that the club is in the financial mess some are saying.

I do not believe the current BOD for no reason or any reason will do anything to harm the club.

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:01 pm  

So the £250k/year figure came from the Courier. And I wonder who gave them that. The FOI shows this figure was absolute ball-cocks yet you choose to believe it rather than the black and white figures given by the council.

The thing is, the club originally wanted to include the rent in the deal to buy the stadium, despite it being the club owing the rent and TA being the one hoping to buy - two separate entities which makes this just plain daft. Furthermore, when the sale didn't happen, the club then agreed to pay in full by 31/12/13.

So if there was any dispute at all, why would they look to pay it off as part of the deal to buy the Shay, and why would they later agree a date by which to pay it in full? There is no dispute, or if there is it's been manufactured recently in order to justify continued non-payment.

Re: So can we have the truth...?? : Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:21 pm  

littlerich wrote:

When does Gavin's daft Asset of Community Value (ACV) run out? Is it six months from the date of his application or six months from the date Calderdale Council decide to sell?

5 years from the ACV being granted.

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.

Tim Swift said on numerous occasions on Twitter, and in emails, that there was no sale of the Shay on the horizon which totally contradicted the rhetoric coming from Mr "A deal will be concluded within the next few weeks" Abbott. From the meetings I held with the three main party leaders within the Town Hall there is/was no desire to sell the stadium though there remains concern about the ongoing subsidy required - not helped by the rental arrears.

The public meeting held to "reassure" people over the potential purchase seriously damaged any opportunity which may have developed. False claims of not being involved in the payday loan business and the clouded response over how a purchase would be funded quite rightly set the alarm bells ringing. There were also concerns about some of the other claims such as the potential hotel and the fact that viability studies have shown that there is no demand for another hotel within the town centre.

The Council clearly shared the concerns of the football club and the supporters over the stadium falling into private ownership and the risks which short and long term this would pose. And these are concerns which should be shared by supporters of HRLFC just like in 2006.

What I think we would all agree on is that the Shay is not even close to maximising its potential - something which Tony Abbott is well aware of. But this is why it is important to find a solution where a stadium maximising its potential works for the local taxpayer and two sporting clubs rather than for a private owner.