[quote="Bubba":2jcr9k6u]Id probably say its premature to suggest that; not to say it wont happen. But there isnt enough detail available as yet especially in relation to the longer term security of the stadium for the two sporting clubs.[/quote:2jcr9k6u] Just looking through my messages and I was aware of Davys involvement/interest around the 10th of December. We're the sst aware of his potential interest?

[quote="Bubba":jb47g95j]Unlikely.[/quote:jb47g95j] Strange , my understanding ( which of course could be wrong ) is that people associated with the rugby club were interested in the running of the shay but when davys proposal came through they acknowledged that getting the ground up to spec would accelerate that position and to protect themselves from the risks you've mentioned covenants have already been agreed.

[quote="Listenup94":1d161lwy]Strange , my understanding ( which of course could be wrong ) is that people associated with the rugby club were interested in the running of the shay but when davys proposal came through they acknowledged that getting the ground up to spec would accelerate that position and to protect themselves from the risks you've mentioned covenants have already been agreed.[/quote:1d161lwy] Not only that you have a group of supporters mentioning how important it is to them for securities to be in place for the future of the clubs at the Shay but at the time of submitting a proposal they haven’t decided what they are! Wouldn’t they think that the clubs themselves would want the same things in place and get things as watertight as possible? Sounds like any securities that include the Shaymen will be okay and any that don’t won’t be to me.

[quote="faxcar":2ywy9lty]Not only that you have a group of supporters mentioning how important it is to them for securities to be in place for the future of the clubs at the Shay but at the time of submitting a proposal they haven’t decided what they are! Wouldn’t they think that the clubs themselves would want the same things in place and get things as watertight as possible? Sounds like any securities that include the Shaymen will be okay and any that don’t won’t be to me.[/quote:2ywy9lty] I understand the anxieties to all involved and there is many unanswered questions, there is a handful of reasonable characters on shaymen.net but then there are some who are either blinded by historical hate or just plain thick to be polite. I can't speak for db and it must be frustrating having an owner who is moreorless mute. I can only speak for the information I have which is obviously rugby based and I would be very shocked if they entered into an agreement which jeopardised the future of the club . Having said that the power players are the council and davy so anything is possible.

[quote="Listenup94":186ilc09]I understand the anxieties to all involved and there is many unanswered questions, there is a handful of reasonable characters on shaymen.net but then there are some who are either blinded by historical hate or just plain thick to be polite. I can't speak for db and it must be frustrating having an owner who is moreorless mute. I can only speak for the information I have which is obviously rugby based and I would be very shocked if they entered into an agreement which jeopardised the future of the club . Having said that the power players are the council and davy so anything is possible.[/quote:186ilc09] Spending far to much time debating it and what will be will be.

[quote="faxcar":2hgedvb5]Spending far to much time debating it and what will be will be.[/quote:2hgedvb5] Understandable as sadly this is just about the first subject that's provoked any interest with supporters for about 4 months!