i did not reply as did not know then of any other ideas as to why.

That's fair enough, the comment wasn't intended as a dig at you. Like I say, I'm trying to open up a debate and am interested in the views of both sides.

Thanks DM.
Perhaps it would be prudent to gather all the facts first then come to an informed conclusion rather than speculate either positively or negatively.

Applying that to myself I will wait and see because as I have stated in other posts in must be resolved for Fax to continue playing out of the Shay.

It is being and it will be.
In my honest opinion.

I'm sure the council borrowed more than the figure you wrote to build the flats at Mixenden and then sold them to a private developer for £1.00 each. But that's what councils do.

Could this be the answer as to why Halifax Town have never moved out of the old offices and as to why the prime spot they negotiated for their new shop layes empty and makes the front of the building an eyesore ? That empty place could be so much better used but they prefer to sell what stock they have off market stalls , sad really.

good point.FCHT directors have had loads of abuse on this subject and have never
publically stated the reasons.......sounds a bit familiar eh.

And if people let them get away with it then that's what they'll continue to do. Why is trying to put a stop to it and holding elected officials to account a bad thing? This is what the FOI act was brought in to allow the public to do.

I believe it's called cutting their losses rather than throwing good money after bad with the ongoing costs. It's like having a car which is costing a fortune in repairs, there comes a time when it is better to get shut even if you are getting less back than you've put into it.

Yep. Isn't that what Sheffield City Council did with Don Valley.

I don't think they even tried to sell DVS, well not as a going concern anyway. They just demolished it so they no longer had to upkeep it or sold it to developers, not sure which.

Aye they decided to cut costs and get rid of the reported £700k per year running costs and the need for repairs.
Despite around a 6000 person signed petition against closure.
It is reported it will take them to 2024 to pay of the debt from when the stadium was built for the world student games.

But the Shay is only losing 50k per year and Both sides of this argument agree that the council have been poor at maximising revenue from it, meaning it could feesibly be turned into a profit making facility reducing the burden on tax payers.

With the council owing £3m on the development loan, and selling for less than £2m, the £50k a year saving would not be seen for 20 years as it would be servicing the debt. That is why any deal should be subject to public scrutiny with tax payers knowing all the details.

We only know about the actual loss the Shay makes because of an FOI request, by the way, and it's much lower than the figures speculated on when the offer to buy the Shay was made.

So much for speculation then and according to Bubba there was never any offer made to buy the Shay just a couple of paragraphs on an A4 piece of paper.
Plus the less the purchaser has to pay the more he has to spend on the stadium improvements.
Which would you prefer the council get the extra money or the stadium.

Sorry, which speculation are you referring to?

We know an offer was made as CMBC have confirmed it was in an FOI request. I suspect Bubba's point was more about the lack of detail contained in the offer.

Do you ask me that as a tax payer or football fan? As a tax payer I don't want a valuable asset that the council has spent millions on sold off cheaply. As a football fan I don't want the ground sold off to anyone who can't prove they have the resources and finance in place to fund their vision for the ground without using the stadium as security on the debt.