Could of been wrote by any number of their imbecile supporters to be fair.

Love the irony

Welcome , we need MORE Charlies .

Well, having a look through there does appear to be a few discrepancies within itself.

For example.
Early on it says it has been a distraction that has involved an immense amount of work caused by the uncertainty of what was going on and not being consulted and also the length of time taken for discussions between the council and TA.

From what has been said did anyone know what was going on, the agenda seemed to be changing and evolving all the time.

First an enquiry to finish the corner, then a bit more, then the whole stadium.
As it snowballed obviously there was more and more involved taking longer and longer to consider.
Logically, only recently when it finally got to this point could the Council, for the first time decide and say anything.

Also if things had been rushed through, then that would have been criticized as well, ("no due process".)
It was the time element that allowed the "cat out of the bag" as it is called and allowed the ACV to be applied for.
The ACV itself will add more time to the process and doesn't even start until if and when the sale of the Shay ever returns to the table.

Time in that sense is an ally of anyone (FCHT for example) not wanting the sale to go through not an enemy.

Later it says that when a meeting (consultation) was held with FCHT and TA there was no commitment from FCHT to come to a conclusion at that meeting or a subsequent meeting.
So when they are not consulted they have been left out and it takes a long time it causes problems.
Yet when they are consulted they did not want to bring it to a conclusion resulting in it taking even longer.

It states they were not prepared to enter into a tit for tat comment saga even though we disagreed with some of the comments made by TA in the public meeting.

Later it says that the reason for not accepting the sponsorship money would be hypocritical when we may be totally opposed to what TA proposed.
Is it some disagreement or total disagreement?

Anyway all anyone can do is wait and see what happens in these future meetings.

Quote from shaymen.net:

"The supposed mis-spelling of his name also appears to be the fault of the half-wit who copied and pasted flea's original post onto their forum. christ if they can't perform a simple paste and copy job without screwing up, it goes a long way to explain the general idiocy on there."

Fao. Mr T Hall - this is what your fellow FCHT fans think of you for posting on their behalf.

Well it wasn't what it appears to be.

Probably the most relevant comment to cover the entire Shay proceedings from all parties from day 1.

No one knows what the other one is planning, doing or thinking at any given time so we are all left guessing and distrusting each other.

Love the comment about health and safety and maintenance.All the directors of FCHT are clearly blokes as NO-ONE could possibly say that the ladies toilets in the South stand are healthy,safe or well maintained.Half of the toilets don't work,most of the taps don't work,the floor is permanently covered in water and there is rarely any toilet paper so who is responsible for the health and safety of the female supporters at the Shay?

52k would go a long way towards paying for that would it not?

You tell us, you appear to be the expert..... unless you meant to add a £ in front of the 52k or would you just like us to all guess what you mean ?

I reasoned it must be this years rent and there was a time frame to pay it in.

If it is rent overdue from previous years that is owed and what is due from this year it should be payed, why should it not be.

Again though I don't know all the facts and spend most of the time looking at what is happening on the field and playing front and know less about what is going on off it.

The rent is from Sept 12 to Oct 13 that is owed...... Not sure on payment arrangement though in place

Good luck with your 11 plus.