[quote="Bubba":1xaf6nhs]There will be discussions, yes.[/quote:1xaf6nhs] With hoddie walking away from the sst on the grounds of not being in favour of 3rd party ownership and the other members remaining does that mean the working group are prepared to accept davys proposals providing certain provisions and covenants are in place to protect the shay and both halifax clubs ?

[quote="faxcar":3odj84l6]They’re leaking information! What confirming Ken Davy was showing some renewed interest in the Shay which had been doing the rounds for a while. I wasn’t aware there had been a media blackout imposed and and if as you claim there’s no obligation not to say anything there’s no obligation not to do so either especially the nature of it but as per usual you find some negative critical slant on things where the rugby club are involved.[/quote:3odj84l6] Blimey, a bit sensitive arent you. When you said you "knew about it weeks in advance from sources within the club", and there hadnt been anything official announced then I was guessing you meant you were told on the hush hush?

[quote="Listenup94":1tnuuks5]With hoddie walking away from the sst on the grounds of not being in favour of 3rd party ownership and the other members remaining does that mean the working group are prepared to accept davys proposals providing certain provisions and covenants are in place to protect the shay and both halifax clubs ?[/quote:1tnuuks5] We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.

[quote="Bubba":1ukm5i82]Blimey, a bit sensitive arent you. When you said you "knew about it weeks in advance from sources within the club", and there hadnt been anything official announced then I was guessing you meant you were told on the hush hush?[/quote:1ukm5i82] Sensitive, quoting how you chose to describe something as leaked information on a guess that was wrong!

[quote="Bubba":18wtqudt]We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.[/quote:18wtqudt] What's your interpretation/understanding of the ken davy loan situation?

[quote="Bubba":8pkvfzlc]We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.[/quote:8pkvfzlc] What are your groups requirements for security of the stadium? Because whoever gets ownership / control over the Shay will not be able to do just what they want, apart from any covenants that get put in place without the council giving planning permission and permission for a change of use the owners will be able to do nothing, yes the clubs could lose out but so would any owner that doesn’t play ball with the local authority and tenants.

[quote="Listenup94":3q6nk4ex]What's your interpretation/understanding of the ken davy loan situation?[/quote:3q6nk4ex] Ive tried not to interpret it as yet. I obviously noted what was said in KD's interview with Matthew Shaw which probably needs further clarification.

[quote="faxcar":1bsecgc8]What are your groups requirements for security of the stadium? Because whoever gets ownership / control over the Shay will not be able to do just what they want, apart from any covenants that get put in place without the council giving planning permission and permission for a change of use the owners will be able to do nothing, yes the clubs could lose out but so would any owner that doesn’t play ball with the local authority and tenants.[/quote:1bsecgc8] Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club. Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.

[quote="Bubba":1sdex6ml]Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club. Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.[/quote:1sdex6ml] Wouldn't these kind of practices be covered by covenants?

[quote="Listenup94":126wv2mf]Wouldn't these kind of practices be covered by covenants?[/quote:126wv2mf] Unlikely.

[quote="Bubba":22dbbtte]Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club. Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.[/quote:22dbbtte] Well if you haven’t got anything in place for the security of the clubs how can you have put in your proposal when it’s so important to you? And if Gordon Gibb or a doppelgänger tries that with Fax he’ll be disappointed because Fax don’t pay rent and knowing the stadium would eventually be sold, to warn then off in the best interests of both clubs is the real reason for them not doing so.

[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!

[quote="faxcar":4n25qn5t]Well if you haven’t got anything in place for the security of the clubs how can you have put in your proposal when it’s so important to you?[/quote:4n25qn5t] Apologies, I thought you were meaning with regards our thoughts on the requirements for any KD purchase. As for our proposal; we would not be looking to purchase the stadium so the only security risk to the two clubs would be from either their own failures or the failure of the SST (if you want to call it that), which is obviously intrinsically linked to the stability of the two clubs.

[quote="Listenup94":nbnby3ff]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:nbnby3ff] There are local examples where convenants are not worth the paper they are written on.

[quote="faxcar":3apnnbgc]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![/quote:3apnnbgc] That is incorrect, which I have explained.

[quote="Listenup94":y43izo1s]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:y43izo1s] I am not saying this is the case here, but owners of sporting clubs often take a short-term view. Spend today and worry about the consequences tomorrow kind of thing. Supporters generally take a longer-term view i.e. wanting to still have a club in 5, 10, 20 years time. The KD deal may - in the short term - be great for both clubs. New pitch, upgraded facilities, etc. But what about in 5 or 10 years time? Theres a new stadium for the Giants in Kirklees and other than holding the Shay as an asset, there is no other interest in the stadium for KD. Will rents remain realistic? As landlord will KD continue to upgrade and maintain the facility? If he looks to sell and the two clubs/council cant afford to buy it, then want? On the open market to the highest bidder? So many questions and I think everyone is right to ask them.

Ken Davy has previous when it comes to owning a stadium, and the Huddersfield Town fans still haven't forgiven him. In 5 to 10 years time, If the Giants have managed to build a new stadium, he'll be wanting to dispose of The Shay, unless its making him money, which with the primary income been the rent from the 2 clubs, won't be substantial unless he ups it. I can see a situation where the Giants leave, and the stadium is sat empty with no tenants. quite where FCHT and Halifax Panthers are by that time I don't know.

[quote="Bubba":31ykv4e9]I am not saying this is the case here, but owners of sporting clubs often take a short-term view. Spend today and worry about the consequences tomorrow kind of thing. Supporters generally take a longer-term view i.e. wanting to still have a club in 5, 10, 20 years time. The KD deal may - in the short term - be great for both clubs. New pitch, upgraded facilities, etc. But what about in 5 or 10 years time? Theres a new stadium for the Giants in Kirklees and other than holding the Shay as an asset, there is no other interest in the stadium for KD. Will rents remain realistic? As landlord will KD continue to upgrade and maintain the facility? If he looks to sell and the two clubs/council cant afford to buy it, then want? On the open market to the highest bidder? So many questions and I think everyone is right to ask them.[/quote:31ykv4e9] But don’t you think the clubs and all involved behind the scenes are doing so? Of course they are, however a lot of these questions no one can answer, can you? If so answer them now. But if you can’t don’t expect someone else to do so and use that as a reason for doing nothing apart from putting up maybe, maybe not unknown obstacles. Like “I’m not saying this is the case here.” Only to go on and say it. Why say it then. Again no one will ever be able to see into the future with any certainty and you have to deal with the present and not be frozen by what may or may not happen x number years down the line. In any case regarding the Shay things must change and can’t stay as they have been and currently are. There are around 208,000 people in Calderdale with a small percentage of them, say 3,500 to 4000 max across two sporting teams that have been and are being heavily subsidised to the tune of hundreds of grand a year by the council and the larger tax paying community. This is at time when for a few years now we have had no sports centre and no swimming baths for the wider sporting community and dire levels of service across the entire range of other areas that the council are supposed to be supplying. Why should all these others have to pay that amount for something they have no interest in whatsoever whilst being deprived of other things that do interest and affect them? These longer term views you talk about the supporters having are based on purely selfish, unfair and unrealistic expectations, everything has to be paid for and if the clubs and or supporters can’t do so then they don’t deserve to be there as you and the Shaymen crew have repeatable pointed out when the rugby club have been in dispute with CMBC over the rent and not paid it. Who of any of us if we owned something that was costing us a fortune and the current tenants could no longer meet the costs of wouldn’t look for other options who could or get rid? One way or another, sooner or later things are inevitably going to change and I’ll tell you what I think. Anything that involves the Shaymen having some meaningful control will be acceptable and anything that doesn’t won’t be regardless of who it is.

[quote="Brew":evexskj5]Ken Davy has previous when it comes to owning a stadium, and the Huddersfield Town fans still haven't forgiven him. In 5 to 10 years time, If the Giants have managed to build a new stadium, he'll be wanting to dispose of The Shay, unless its making him money, which with the primary income been the rent from the 2 clubs, won't be substantial unless he ups it. I can see a situation where the Giants leave, and the stadium is sat empty with no tenants. quite where FCHT and Halifax Panthers are by that time I don't know.[/quote:evexskj5] Again no one will ever be able to see into the future with any certainty and you have to deal with the present and not be frozen by what may or may not happen x number years down the line. In any case regarding the Shay things must change and can’t stay as they have been and currently are. There are around 208,000 people in Calderdale with a small percentage of them, say 3,500 to 4000 max across two sporting teams that have been and are being heavily subsidised to the tune of hundreds of grand a year by the council and the larger tax paying community. This is at time when for a few years now we have had no sports centre and no swimming baths for the wider sporting community and dire levels of service across the entire range of other areas that the council are supposed to be supplying. Why should all these others have to pay that amount for something they have no interest in whatsoever whilst being deprived of other things that do interest and affect them? These longer term views you talk about the supporters having are based on purely selfish, unfair and unrealistic expectations, everything has to be paid for and if the clubs and or supporters can’t do so then they don’t deserve to be there as you and the Shaymen crew have repeatable pointed out when the rugby club have been in dispute with CMBC over the rent and not paid it. Who of any of us if we owned something that was costing us a fortune and the current tenants could no longer meet the costs of wouldn’t look for other options who could or get rid? One way or another, sooner or later things are inevitably going to change and I’ll tell you what I think. Anything that involves the Shaymen having some meaningful control will be acceptable and anything that doesn’t won’t be regardless of who it is.

[quote="Brew":3e8m2621]Ken Davy has previous when it comes to owning a stadium, and the Huddersfield Town fans still haven't forgiven him. In 5 to 10 years time, If the Giants have managed to build a new stadium, he'll be wanting to dispose of The Shay, unless its making him money, which with the primary income been the rent from the 2 clubs, won't be substantial unless he ups it. I can see a situation where the Giants leave, and the stadium is sat empty with no tenants. quite where FCHT and Halifax Panthers are by that time I don't know.[/quote:3e8m2621] In 5 to 10 years with respect to him and the inevitable he’s more likely to be dead and looking at many in the crowd at Fax games these days he won’t be in his own.

[quote="faxcar":3tt8ks00]In 5 to 10 years with respect to him and the inevitable he’s more likely to be dead and looking at many in the crowd at Fax games these days he won’t be in his own. [/quote:3tt8ks00] That's another issue which I wasn't going to mention, He's 84 years old, Father Time waits for no one, Who know's what even happens to the Giants when the reaper calls for Ken. If the DavyDome isn't built before then it may never happen