Re: The Shay. : Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:08 pm  

This is starting to look a lot less appealing than it did as each interview comes out. It would still be pretty funny if it did go ahead just to see some Town fans reactions, and then even funnier if the ground was then sold on to some new Fax investors when the Giants leave. I can see Town fans hounding Bosomworth out over this and then to be honest I think they will find themselves on a slippy financial slope if that happens.

Re: The Shay. : Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:12 pm  

Another stumbling block for the Davy proposal are the EFL ground sharing rules that prohibit 3 teams of different sports at the same place.
Should FC Town ever win promotion they would not be allowed in whilst both Fax and the Giants were playing there without special dispensation.

EFL 2024 / 25 handbook page 78. 13.3.
Quote:
Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the board.
The board will ordinarily withhold approval where circumstances where the proposed ground share arrangement would result in the club sharing occupation of the playing surface with more than one other individual team from another sport ( by way of a example a club sharing occupation with one rugby league team would be acceptable but a club sharing with one rugby league team and one rugby union or sharing with two rugby union ( or rugby league ) teams would not. ) End.

I wonder if he’s unaware of the limitation of the numbers of teams allowed because in his previous interviews he stated that plenty of other football and rugby clubs shared grounds with no issues and said that he had not sought the views of either the National League or the RFL because he didn’t think it was his role.

Re: The Shay. : Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:39 am  

faxcar wrote:

Another stumbling block for the Davy proposal are the EFL ground sharing rules that prohibit 3 teams of different sports at the same place.
Should FC Town ever win promotion they would not be allowed in whilst both Fax and the Giants were playing there without special dispensation.

EFL 2024 / 25 handbook page 78. 13.3.
Quote:
Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the board.
The board will ordinarily withhold approval where circumstances where the proposed ground share arrangement would result in the club sharing occupation of the playing surface with more than one other individual team from another sport ( by way of a example a club sharing occupation with one rugby league team would be acceptable but a club sharing with one rugby league team and one rugby union or sharing with two rugby union ( or rugby league ) teams would not. ) End.

I wonder if he’s unaware of the limitation of the numbers of teams allowed because in his previous interviews he stated that plenty of other football and rugby clubs shared grounds with no issues and said that he had not sought the views of either the National League or the RFL because he didn’t think it was his role.

A possible option: The Shaymen could play at Lawkholme Lane or even Brighouse Town while Fax and Giants share the New Shay. Just a thought that might annoy some people perhaps!

Re: The Shay. : Sun Jan 19, 2025 5:18 pm  

cowfax wrote:

A possible option: The Shaymen could play at Lawkholme Lane or even Brighouse Town while Fax and Giants share the New Shay. Just a thought that might annoy some people perhaps!

If we don’t get some news on the rumoured consortium / investment pretty soon it could easily be Fax playing at Brighouse Rangers.

Re: The Shay. : Sun Jan 19, 2025 5:46 pm  

faxcar wrote:

Another stumbling block for the Davy proposal are the EFL ground sharing rules that prohibit 3 teams of different sports at the same place.
Should FC Town ever win promotion they would not be allowed in whilst both Fax and the Giants were playing there without special dispensation.

EFL 2024 / 25 handbook page 78. 13.3.
Quote:
Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the board.
The board will ordinarily withhold approval where circumstances where the proposed ground share arrangement would result in the club sharing occupation of the playing surface with more than one other individual team from another sport ( by way of a example a club sharing occupation with one rugby league team would be acceptable but a club sharing with one rugby league team and one rugby union or sharing with two rugby union ( or rugby league ) teams would not. ) End.

I wonder if he’s unaware of the limitation of the numbers of teams allowed because in his previous interviews he stated that plenty of other football and rugby clubs shared grounds with no issues and said that he had not sought the views of either the National League or the RFL because he didn’t think it was his role.

FC will never get promoted. No worries there.

Re: The Shay. : Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:27 pm  

Faxlore wrote:

FC will never get promoted. No worries there.

I was just supplying some relevant info as a possible stumbling block and who knows, but for them to agree to the Davy Shay deal taking it completely out of their own hands would be crazy and we can all imagine how their fan base would react.

How would we feel if we had a board that took that sort of lack of ambition decision?

Once they wake up to the rules I don’t think they will do that and expect them to at least consult the EFL about it.

The concern of the EFL isn’t about the number of the teams so much but wether the pitch can stand the number of games generated by 3 teams.

The very best modern hybrid pitches can take up to 1000 hours, maybe by installing the very best pitch and with it being touted as a temporary arrangement get some dispensation.