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.

The majority of Calderdale tax payers don't want a community owned stadium, it's a waste of their taxes to have 2 teams that frankly no one gives a about except the 2000 or so fans of each club. As a tax payer I wouldn't want another penny spending on the place and I would bet that if the residents of Calderdale were asked to vote it would be hugely in favour of getting rid. As a rugby fan I wouldn't want it in council ownership whilst they allow it to deteriorate into nothing more than a quagmire.

Where have you and others been for the rest of the things that the Council has sold off, from Housing to Playing fields? Its clear the Council have major money problems and cant afford to properly keep the Shay in good nick or sort problems out like proper drainage, repair damage to the stands, finish off building work etc. So for me the Council has to look at what is important and what is not. The Shay is used by sadly less than 1% of the Calderdale population. Can it justify spending money it doesnt have on The Shay at the neglect of services to the Old and disabled or other areas like Schools?
The Council has to look at what areas it can best serve the public with- Some things are more important than others. If The Shay is simply costing too much, then the Council must look either bring more money in from its use or to sell it off. This may mean short term losing money on its sale. This has happened in other things it has sold. Long term it would free money that it would be sinking into the Shay for the benefit of 2 Professional Sports Clubs. The Shay is likely going to cost the Council hundreds of thousands if not millions in the next 10 years with things like repairs, sorting the pitch out as right now the current solution is not good enough etc. The Council for me has to look at if it can or will be prepared to do that or not.


The current owners also cant prove they have the resources and finance in place to fund the ground in the future. That doesnt mean Mr Abbott or whoever is the right person neither. I also feel, that should the Ground be sold, then there has to be something that guarentees both clubs playing future at The Shay. But any sale also has to include a certain amountof improvements at the Shay including proper drainage. Also that both clubs pay the same amount.

One point about the club finances that all you doom mongers seem to forget, if we are so short of money why does Halicat look so well fed?

Lighten up everyone, it's in hand, in very good hands.

Is the interest being paid on the 3 million loan included in the 50k a year loss or not. If it is included then the shay is not looking money it is the interest on the loan that is loosing money. If it is not included then the shay is loosing more than 50k a year. What ever way you look at it selling the shay for 2 million saves money in the long term. If the interest is included in the 50k then selling for 2 million reduces the interest by 2/3 (17k) if the interest is not included then they would save themselves 50k + 2/3 interest payments. And all future repairs / up keep.

These are all rough calculations as I do not know the true figures.
If it was me I know what I would do.

Sell it to a big property developer or supermarket for 4 million and make some money .

Then may be you would say, "if only we had not been so hasty judging Tony where are we going to play football now"?

On a serious note the 2 million offer would help the council balance the books better I would say.

The rugby club would be ok, I'd move up the road to the Klondike and get a gold mine build a stadium in Nnrth America move the team to the stadium and call it expanding the game.

I would be the new saviour of rugby league.

Part Quote.
"Is the interest being paid on the 3 million loan included in the 50k a year loss or not. If it is included then the shay is not looking money it is the interest on the loan that is loosing money. If it is not included then the shay is loosing more than 50k a year. What ever way you look at it selling the shay for 2 million saves money in the long term. If the interest is included in the 50k then selling for 2 million reduces the interest by 2/3 (17k) if the interest is not included then they would save themselves 50k + 2/3 interest payments. And all future repairs / up keep."

That's exactly why I asked but I wanted them to answer the question.
It's not only the interest on the loan but the loan itself and the interest that need to be taken into consideration as loss or debt.

Maybe the FOI boys could send one in to find out how much is left owing on the loan and what the annual payments are and if the results fit their agenda no doubt they will be published everywhere, if they don't nothing will be said.

A good rent model is how they do Huddersfield, the Football and Rugby clubs pay a set amount per person through the gates at each game.

Hudds Town pay more rent, as they play more games, and are better supported than the Giants. But on a break down neither pays more than the other for what use they get.

That sounds reasonable to me, Brew. What does our new friend Danger Mouse think about that?