Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:44 pm  

Bubba wrote: I agree. Maybe thats why FCHT supporters are a bit more wary about the stadium falling into the hands of a private owner because we are more aware and maybe even more paranoid about future problems given our past. But why would the Town directors need to fund them this season? There was almost £200k in the bank on the previous financial return. If they are having to fund the club the I would be concerned, but there is no proof that they are or even need to. Not sure on our membership numbers. They are certainly not as high as we would like but we have been pretty dormant over the last few years. I read on here that I had supposedly walked away from the Trust. That never happened! Councillor Roger Taylor is the chair of our board which has 6 members. We are members of Supporters Direct, who have been a great help this past month or so - aren't Fax Trust still members of SD? In fact I have been invited to speak at a rugby league Supporters Direct event in January about the ACV - will Fax Trust be in attendance? We have over £10k in the bank, hold an annual meeting and submit our annual financial returns to the FCA. We didnt get off to the best of starts with the club owners but there is dialogue now. I know my name is mud on here so I want to try justify why we have done what we have. From our point of view it was never a football vs rugby issue. Of course there would have been FCHT supporters who would have been delighted had it been David Bosomworth trying to buy the Shay. But I would like to think that the majority who have been against any sale, have been because of the future risks to both clubs. When it became apparent, or at least according to Tony Abbot, that a sale of the Shay was weeks away I think everyone would agree that it hadn't been done the right way. We are not talking about a plot of land for building a little garage. We are talking about a sport stadia which has huge emotion attached to it and home to the towns two main sporting clubs. There had been absolutely no transparency and the only way to at least ensure if any sale was to be made it would be done to the benefit of the Calderdale taxpayer was to apply for the ACV. The Trust, as a Industrial & Provident Society, was the perfect vehicle to put in the application. There are other ways and other groups that could have done it but it made sense for the Trust to take the lead. I dont know Tony Abbott personally but know people who do and there isnt a bad word said about him. However, managed better, with a bit more thought than bravado, he could have taken everyone along with his ideas. But by trying to do it behind the back of the football club was always only going to end in tears. You mentioned that it was the protest march which led to the council deciding to complete the East Stand. I am not sure if you really believe that or not but the protest march was organised when the council talked about selling the Shay to a private owner - about 4 years prior to work on the East Stand beginning. Ian Griffiths was the main organiser, I was involved as were others from both clubs because we understood the risks that came with the Shay falling into the hands of an individual or organisation other than the Council. My interest in the future of the Shay stretches back before this. I was part of the joint working party of HTST and Fax Trust which put together the document which started the discussion leading to the Shay Stadium Trust. The others were Peter Lassey, Joanne Cardwell and from Fax Trust Adrian Vaughan, Andrew Hamer and Robin Smith. http://theshay.org/wp/?p=55 I wanted to point this out to show than my ideology of community ownership/management is long running and not just because it was Tony Abbott - major shareholder of HRLFC. The football supporters view has remained pretty consistent over the ownership of the Shay but there has been a huge degree of hypocrisy on here. In 2005 you were against private ownership. In 2009 you were all for the council spending almost £6m on completing the East Stand. But all of a sudden you are desperate for the council to sell the Shay because of the drain on the resources of the tax payer. Where was the uproar when CMBC announced that they were going to take out prudential borrowing to complete the East Stand? Where was the uproar a year ago when CMBC were continuing to subsidise the Shay? Lets face facts, you have only begun to kick up a stink when you became misty eyed at the possibility of the man who HRLFC's future depends on announced he wanted to buy the Shay. When taking a look at the legal aspect of the council selling the stadium it became apparent that there could be no undervalued sale of the Shay. The council officers either didn't understand the legislation or they were hoping that nobody else did. As the concerned tax payers that you are, surely you would want the council to sell off the Shay - with the same constraints they were saying would be attached to any sale to TA - to the highest bidder, getting the best return in? I dont think any of us would want the council selling the Shay to any old random. OK TA may not be any old random, but who says he wont sell it on to any old random at some point in the future? This is just one of the many risks a sale to him would have had. In the communications I have had with various Councillors I got the feeling that there was no appetite for selling the stadium. The annual running costs when compared to other Council owned property are not ridiciulous. I dont think it is specifically this which is the major concern. The problem is meeting the future investment needs of the stadium, for example the redevelopment of the Skircoat Stand which will be necessary at some point in the future. Thats why it is important that the council find a suitable way forward where they retain ownership, maximise the potential and make sure the stadium works for the benefit of the Calderdale taxpayer and equally the two clubs. And I think everyone has a part to play in finding this workable solution. Believe it or not, the saddest thing about this whole episode is the damage of the relations between both sets of supporters and possibly the two clubs. I have said some stupid things over the years but I would like nothing more than two successful clubs playing in a quality stadium and enjoying a bit of harmony. Not getting not long never ending debates but I will correct you on two points and am puzzled why you won't say what the Halifax Town Supporters Trust membership is, why? Firstly Tony Abbott and other Halifax RLFC Directors have assured us that he DID speak to the Board of FC Halifax Town and why wouldn't he as he knows they have to be involved as one of the tow major tenants. As for Halifax RLFC Supporters Trust supporting Council ownership and its ultimate investment it was a different scenario, then there was no potential buyer who was keen to keep the Shay for sport the fear was that it would be closed and sold off (although my own belief is the Shay is that it is not as lucrative as most people think Broad Street need public money to make it happen why would the Shay work for anything?), the Reactiv situation is different he does want to keep it for sport. The Councils investment was obviously very welcome and again that was then this is now, since that time the Council is under huge budget cuts and the fact that the Shay will not get any more money invested in it as it is losing money cannot be disputed, your dream of a solution via the Council won't ever happen. That is mine and most other fans fears and is NOTHING to do with Tony Abbott being the messiah as he aint he is a businessman with a POTENTIAL vision for a Shay that will be improved an will be commercially viable, is that so bad?

Bubba wrote: I agree. Maybe thats why FCHT supporters are a bit more wary about the stadium falling into the hands of a private owner because we are more aware and maybe even more paranoid about future problems given our past. But why would the Town directors need to fund them this season? There was almost £200k in the bank on the previous financial return. If they are having to fund the club the I would be concerned, but there is no proof that they are or even need to. Not sure on our membership numbers. They are certainly not as high as we would like but we have been pretty dormant over the last few years. I read on here that I had supposedly walked away from the Trust. That never happened! Councillor Roger Taylor is the chair of our board which has 6 members. We are members of Supporters Direct, who have been a great help this past month or so - aren't Fax Trust still members of SD? In fact I have been invited to speak at a rugby league Supporters Direct event in January about the ACV - will Fax Trust be in attendance? We have over £10k in the bank, hold an annual meeting and submit our annual financial returns to the FCA. We didnt get off to the best of starts with the club owners but there is dialogue now. I know my name is mud on here so I want to try justify why we have done what we have. From our point of view it was never a football vs rugby issue. Of course there would have been FCHT supporters who would have been delighted had it been David Bosomworth trying to buy the Shay. But I would like to think that the majority who have been against any sale, have been because of the future risks to both clubs. When it became apparent, or at least according to Tony Abbot, that a sale of the Shay was weeks away I think everyone would agree that it hadn't been done the right way. We are not talking about a plot of land for building a little garage. We are talking about a sport stadia which has huge emotion attached to it and home to the towns two main sporting clubs. There had been absolutely no transparency and the only way to at least ensure if any sale was to be made it would be done to the benefit of the Calderdale taxpayer was to apply for the ACV. The Trust, as a Industrial & Provident Society, was the perfect vehicle to put in the application. There are other ways and other groups that could have done it but it made sense for the Trust to take the lead. I dont know Tony Abbott personally but know people who do and there isnt a bad word said about him. However, managed better, with a bit more thought than bravado, he could have taken everyone along with his ideas. But by trying to do it behind the back of the football club was always only going to end in tears. You mentioned that it was the protest march which led to the council deciding to complete the East Stand. I am not sure if you really believe that or not but the protest march was organised when the council talked about selling the Shay to a private owner - about 4 years prior to work on the East Stand beginning. Ian Griffiths was the main organiser, I was involved as were others from both clubs because we understood the risks that came with the Shay falling into the hands of an individual or organisation other than the Council. My interest in the future of the Shay stretches back before this. I was part of the joint working party of HTST and Fax Trust which put together the document which started the discussion leading to the Shay Stadium Trust. The others were Peter Lassey, Joanne Cardwell and from Fax Trust Adrian Vaughan, Andrew Hamer and Robin Smith. http://theshay.org/wp/?p=55 I wanted to point this out to show than my ideology of community ownership/management is long running and not just because it was Tony Abbott - major shareholder of HRLFC. The football supporters view has remained pretty consistent over the ownership of the Shay but there has been a huge degree of hypocrisy on here. In 2005 you were against private ownership. In 2009 you were all for the council spending almost £6m on completing the East Stand. But all of a sudden you are desperate for the council to sell the Shay because of the drain on the resources of the tax payer. Where was the uproar when CMBC announced that they were going to take out prudential borrowing to complete the East Stand? Where was the uproar a year ago when CMBC were continuing to subsidise the Shay? Lets face facts, you have only begun to kick up a stink when you became misty eyed at the possibility of the man who HRLFC's future depends on announced he wanted to buy the Shay. When taking a look at the legal aspect of the council selling the stadium it became apparent that there could be no undervalued sale of the Shay. The council officers either didn't understand the legislation or they were hoping that nobody else did. As the concerned tax payers that you are, surely you would want the council to sell off the Shay - with the same constraints they were saying would be attached to any sale to TA - to the highest bidder, getting the best return in? I dont think any of us would want the council selling the Shay to any old random. OK TA may not be any old random, but who says he wont sell it on to any old random at some point in the future? This is just one of the many risks a sale to him would have had. In the communications I have had with various Councillors I got the feeling that there was no appetite for selling the stadium. The annual running costs when compared to other Council owned property are not ridiciulous. I dont think it is specifically this which is the major concern. The problem is meeting the future investment needs of the stadium, for example the redevelopment of the Skircoat Stand which will be necessary at some point in the future. Thats why it is important that the council find a suitable way forward where they retain ownership, maximise the potential and make sure the stadium works for the benefit of the Calderdale taxpayer and equally the two clubs. And I think everyone has a part to play in finding this workable solution. Believe it or not, the saddest thing about this whole episode is the damage of the relations between both sets of supporters and possibly the two clubs. I have said some stupid things over the years but I would like nothing more than two successful clubs playing in a quality stadium and enjoying a bit of harmony. Not getting not long never ending debates but I will correct you on two points and am puzzled why you won't say what the Halifax Town Supporters Trust membership is, why? Firstly Tony Abbott and other Halifax RLFC Directors have assured us that he DID speak to the Board of FC Halifax Town and why wouldn't he as he knows they have to be involved as one of the tow major tenants. As for Halifax RLFC Supporters Trust supporting Council ownership and its ultimate investment it was a different scenario, then there was no potential buyer who was keen to keep the Shay for sport the fear was that it would be closed and sold off (although my own belief is the Shay is that it is not as lucrative as most people think Broad Street need public money to make it happen why would the Shay work for anything?), the Reactiv situation is different he does want to keep it for sport. The Councils investment was obviously very welcome and again that was then this is now, since that time the Council is under huge budget cuts and the fact that the Shay will not get any more money invested in it as it is losing money cannot be disputed, your dream of a solution via the Council won't ever happen. That is mine and most other fans fears and is NOTHING to do with Tony Abbott being the messiah as he aint he is a businessman with a POTENTIAL vision for a Shay that will be improved an will be commercially viable, is that so bad?

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:07 pm  

Part quote.
I agree. Maybe thats why FCHT supporters are a bit more wary about the stadium falling into the hands of a private owner because we are more aware and maybe even more paranoid about future problems given our past.

The thing is Bubba it's not just FCHT supporters many Fax fans agree with the essence of the concerns about private ownership, once it goes there the risk, no matter how good the intentions intially must be higher than the local authority controling it, I know I do.

However some of the things done and said by a section of the Town group in following up on the concerns were so over the top and extreme it compromised everything else you were trying to say and do, do you not see there is a right and wrong way to go about things and if they were done the right way you would have had support from some on here as well!!

The ball is and has always been with the council and whether the decide to sell or not.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:23 pm  

Why are you puzzled that I dont know what our membership is? I dont look after membership. I do know we once had about 340 but nowhere near that now.

Of course Tony Abbott did speak to FCHT. Do you think the Halifax Town owners were in favour?

You are missing the point. Tony Abbott could potentially be the best thing since sliced bread. But what happens should his company fail? What happens when he dies (it comes to us all)? What happens when he has had enough? Not even you can answer that with any authority. And please dont mention covenants because I have found out over the last few weeks that these are pretty much worthless!

There has to be some sort of compromise which suits everyone and I am certain that there is one.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:26 pm  

faxcar wrote:

Part quote.
I agree. Maybe thats why FCHT supporters are a bit more wary about the stadium falling into the hands of a private owner because we are more aware and maybe even more paranoid about future problems given our past.

The thing is Bubba it's not just FCHT supporters many Fax fans agree with the essence of the concerns about private ownership, once it goes there the risk, no matter how good the intentions intially must be higher than the local authority controling it, I know I do.

However some of the things done and said by a section of the Town group in following up on the concerns were so over the top and extreme it compromised everything else you were trying to say and do, do you not see there is a right and wrong way to go about things and if they were done the right way you would have had support from some on here as well!!

The ball is and has always been with the council and whether the decide to sell or not.

In fairness there has been some pretty rotten comments on here too. But that is playground stuff; I would prefer to try have proper debate.

And yes, of course it was the councils decision whether to sell or not. Tony Abbott did his bit in trying to persuade them to do as so whereas we did our bit to convince them that they shouldnt. Fair game.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:36 pm  

Bubba wrote:

In fairness there has been some pretty rotten comments on here too. But that is playground stuff; I would prefer to try have proper debate.

And yes, of course it was the councils decision whether to sell or not. Tony Abbott did his bit in trying to persuade them to do as so whereas we did our bit to convince them that they shouldnt. Fair game.

i have always found that could have a reasoned proper debate with you. but some (one definately) have gone way too far with comments and more than playground comments.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:31 pm  

Bubba wrote:

In fairness there has been some pretty rotten comments on here too. But that is playground stuff; I would prefer to try have proper debate.

And yes, of course it was the councils decision whether to sell or not. Tony Abbott did his bit in trying to persuade them to do as so whereas we did our bit to convince them that they shouldnt. Fair game.

Ah so unlike your mate SG you accept they did consider selling then.

"Your bit." The comments made by some of the Town group were well beyond the playground and more inline with despicable thugs.

Personel character attacks on the man, his family, twitter accounts, his charitable works, comparing him to a child killer and many more.

Hardly a platform or invitation to "proper debate", this type of high morals good intention talk in view of your actions is the definition of a contradiction in terms.

If that is "fair game" then once again, in print you have shown what you are really about and what moral standards you have.

This "persuasion" was motivated by his connection to the rugby club and nothing more, the rest of the concerned retoric was a smoke screen because you and yours don't want the rugby club at the Shay at all.

You claim it to be a community assett just as long as the community is FCHT and everbody else, rugby supporters, rate payers are surplus baggage.

Tony Abbott asked if he could complete one section of the ground that has been left unfinished for years and will remain unfinished for a few more years.

It was the council who opened up the possibilty of more to which he responded in the positive because he had the best interests of the two clubs at heart which was never malicious or with any other agenda, as it turns out, the recent halt in proceedings could be the best thing that has happened to him.

YOUR COVERS BLOWN, YOUR THE TAYLORS SHOP IN FRONT OF THE GANGSTERS HIDEOUT.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:25 pm  

Bubba wrote:

Why are you puzzled that I dont know what our membership is? I dont look after membership. I do know we once had about 340 but nowhere near that now.

Of course Tony Abbott did speak to FCHT. Do you think the Halifax Town owners were in favour?

You are missing the point. Tony Abbott could potentially be the best thing since sliced bread. But what happens should his company fail? What happens when he dies (it comes to us all)? What happens when he has had enough? Not even you can answer that with any authority. And please dont mention covenants because I have found out over the last few weeks that these are pretty much worthless!

There has to be some sort of compromise which suits everyone and I am certain that there is one.

Cos you are good at throwing figures around when it suits yet cannot tell us how many fans are members of the Halifax Town Supporters Trust, I wonder why???
As for Tony Abbotts company failing its you who have missed the point as he has stated in public that the Shay will be a separate stadium company which would not be affected if Reactive went bust.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:24 pm  

Not being a twitterite so can only say what I have been told.
The luddites have achieved their secondary object, I believe Mr Abbott is not interested in a partnership and will therefore withdraw from his plan for the Shay.
Perhaps all the bile and filth posted on various networks (sanctioned by the Town Chairman "We must resist this proposal by every means available" helped him make up his mind.
All the bubberites will go to bed now and look at Bubba's picture on their ceiling, but hold on, their main objective has not been met, Mr Abbott will not walk away from Halifax Rugby League Football Club.
Mind you, it can't be much fun when your season ends at 5.45 November 9th.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:09 pm  

faxcar wrote:

1. So the council were now selling again at a give away price but TA could not afford it so that's why it is now not for sale. SuperGeoff logic again just to try and slag TA off.

I have had a word with my doctor about getting my intelligence levels to the same as yours and he has said that by removing my entire brain and leaving my skull entirely empty would be the way to go.

A simpleton can anly give a simple answer including mutiple contradictions to the same question but they wouldn't know and the question is never answered.

Any BOD that would sell players rather than keep them lacks finances and ambition, hence the term.
"A selling club" For them progress will be limited and they will soon find there level before slowly slipping back down.

Your not sure on anything as you change your story everytime you post so no suprises there.

2. I have no football agenda but I want Town to win every game and do as well as they can irrespective of what anybody else does, rugby, soccer or otherwise.
In fact I have suported them since I was a young lad even when the rest of my mates chose Leeds or Huddersfield.

My own club being in the red, you clearly do not understand how finances work and again are reading what you want to read into balance sheets just to slag someone off again.

Have you not heard of the term "credit" which means to manage funds so you pay them when it is best to so without defaulting and getting into debt.

Part of the entire financial system world wide is built on credit and you are always paying catch up but I don't expect you to understand.

1. Nope but that is what you seem to think. The talks were had, the sale never happened. Full stop.

In what way does that makes Halifax Town a selling club? They sold one player to allow the player to reach his ambition and potential (currently in the play-offs in the championship) and the money raised allowed a more rounded squad to be built. Obviously you won't see it that way because it doesn't fit your ideals. Is it not a mark of the football club developing a player worth vast amounts of money?

2. So there are no financial worries then? The fact that 100k was pumped into the cub by its benefactor means nothing? I see you and your cronies have backed down on the claim of Messers Ham and Bosomworth putting vast amounts of money into the club.

Re: council statement. : Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:10 pm  

swifty62 wrote:

i have always found that could have a reasoned proper debate with you. but some (one definately) have gone way too far with comments and more than playground comments.

Agreed Swifty. Always found you have something intelligent to add to the debate