The thing that worries me most is when the FCHT fans change tack and go along the route of "If the Council really want to sell the Shay it should be put out to open tender rather than sold on the cheap to Reactiv".

This tells me that it is not the Shay being sold that worries them, rather that it could be sold to someone involved with The Great Satan aka Halifax RLFC.

Don't they realise that Tony Abbott is at least heavily involved in Halifax sport, lives locally and runs a local company? Has it not occurred to them that if bids were invited from the wider market it would almost certainly be bought by someone who is only interested in the site and what they could make out of it?

Abbott should try and get Cess Pod in to put together a joint venture.

Maybe FCHT directors want a chance to bid ?

Both clubs should be supporting each other. It is in the interests of both clubs that The Shay does well and is fully utilized. We are Halifax!! (OK, I don't live there anymore but I lay my hat there) The town needs regeneration - why not start with it's main sporting clubs? Up the Fax!! Up the Shaymen!!

So what has stopped them approaching the landlord all this time then ?.

If i was renting a house and wanted to buy it then i would speak to the owner, Not wait until someone else tries to buy it and then start crying "its not fair, i should hve been asked ".

But if I rented a house I would n't do it up for the owner so we need some investment if the council have no brass left.

If you rent a house or a office, and the owner wants to sell it, while protecting your existing lease. do you have any say in the matter?

I have waited some time before joining this debate. I started this post some time ago and I kept adding to it!I have had strong views since day one but I wanted my response to be considered and I hope understandable. When you first look at the Shay Stadium reports in the Courier it appears at first glance it sounds very interesting. Both clubs will pay less rent, new shops and businesses to create hundreds of new jobs. Both clubs will secure and the stadium will be developed to become the focal point of sport in Halifax and the community. Truly excellent news; just what is needed! But hang on something just doesn’t add up. Why would a successful and competent businessman pay £1.9M for a site with just two revenue streams i.e. Rugby and Football clubs. Both are hardly money making machines and unlikely to become so. The football club according to a Director need 1600 to break even. Despite a good start to Conference life this is not being achieved. The Rugby Club are allegedly substantially behind with rent to the council, and current performance levels tend to indicate the trend of falling attendances will continue, certainly in the short term. He has already indicated rents for the two clubs `will be reduced’ I am missing something here. Perhaps somebody out there who knows modern business methods can tell me how you can pay the best part of £2Million for the site and where are the income streams coming from to a) pay for the purchase and b) finance all the additional items to further transform the stadium. As mentioned earlier he (according to the courier article) has already promised to reduce the rent paid by both clubs. I obviously do not know what the actual rents being paid by both tenants is but let’s say for an example both are paying 100K to the council. The profit element of £200K (after expenses for actual usage and maintenance is deducted) is certainly not enough to finance a £1.9M purchase. Also the additional liability of the drainage remains to be sorted. I am sure I read that this is likely to cost £1/4M (a proportion apparently to be funded by grants but the balance to be funded by the owners is still substantial)to be properly resolved; is the new landlord going to fund this? Some contributors particularly those with stronger associations for the rugby club seem to be saying to supporters of the football club; that the latter are simply envious of a new benefactor with strong and public connections to the rugby club. I enjoy both codes and I really want both to continue and survive (and hopefully) prosper in the future. Putting the Stadium in `a private’ hand is `potentially’ disastrous and is the most risky option. Problems may not occur for a few years (but could come a lot quicker) Those who thinks tenants are be protected by 100 year leasehold, clauses `guaranteeing’ use by the sporting clubs, and restrictive covenants banning future change of use sales etc I am sorry but you need to be aware the opposite is true. All these clauses and covenants are not 100% guaranteed and in today’s commercial world these would be overturned by any half decent legal team in The High Court. You just need to look at the ingress of private housing/business usage into supposedly sacrosanct green field sites for evidence that climates and opinions are changing. You really need to ask yourself which option 1) private or 2) council ownership has the best chance of preserving the stadium/facilities/location for permanent use by both teams. I stump for the latter option not because I think the council are the best thing since sliced bread; probably the lesser of two evils. I use the drainage problem as an example; I am sure that if the council retain the ownership of the shay stadium the drainage problem will be definitely be sorted (eventually) Some poster I think `bubba’ have also raised a third option of making the club is managed and owned by the community/supporters/and or Trust; I appreciate some out their think this is the way forward. I simply wish them well in their efforts but I don’t see how this is viable with the income streams currently available and likely to be generated in the future will adequately fund operating, maintaining and developing The Shay Stadium. With private ownership the decision to proceed or not is totally based on income streams and profit levels etc; the council would have to be slightly different and have more of a community based ethos/responsibility to ensure the Shay is fully functioning. A commercial organisation in today’s economic climate probably could struggle to do a satisfactory business case for spending £250K on the pitch. Particularly if one tenant or both are behind in rent, could and would be used by the principals as a valid reason for not undertaking the work, or more likely to be used as a valid excuse (sorry business justification) for delaying the work to an unspecified time in the future.
As an aside I was first heard that £1.9M had been offered for the Shay, my first reaction was this figure was something akin to giving away the family silver. I am not a surveyor or have any knowledge of commercial land prices, but for a large prime site near the Town Centre the price looked embarrassing low. I nevertheless satisfied myself thinking the council would have a legal remit to ensure they obtain a price based on a full market valuation. I was amazed to learn that the council are under no such remit. They don’t have to accept only a full market valuation; instead they are legal charged to ensure that all valid bids, properly constituted and robust are fully investigated. As I say I don’t know if this is true, but it would fit the story that a bid of (only) £1.9M is being processed. But back to the main point - I read somewhere that Roman A @ Chelsea has `invested’ £400M+ into the club and apparently he can take out this money (no notice needs to be given) at any time he sees fit. Chelsea supporters are very happy to have him underwriting the club big time, but he ever has a chance of heart Chelsea will go into freefall (ala Portsmouth) Mr A and his companies could be the best thing to happen to the rugby club since Mr Gartland. But Mr A rather his company, could sell his £100K of shares tomorrow. Looking at a balance sheet provided on another posting it already arrears `Directors loans’ are keeping the rugby club solvent. If he or one of his companies buys the stadium, and he or his companies has a change of heart and decides to take himself or his business in another business direction. He can and will be able to sell his property to anybody he wants to, and both club as tenants will have very limited rights. This scenario would never happen if the council retains ownership. I do think the council with the current economic climate and the strain on resources would love to sell this white elephant that is the Shay Stadium. But they retain ownership they do have a legal right whilst it is open to ensure proper management of the facility. I think in some bizarre way this situation is not unlike what happened at Thrum Hall with sale of the ground. I am not suggesting any improper behaviour from any of the parties involved in that sale. But I think it would be the ultimate irony if the following scenario took place. Mr A and his company buy the Shay, but quickly find developments to increase revenue on the site do not materialize, and the venture no longer is profitable or viable. He then sells the whole site to Tesco or Barratt for substantially more than he or his company paid. As part of the deal to boot us off site (sorry sweetener) they agree to build us a new ground on some (sorry secondary grey field industrial land) site in the middle of nowhere which is value for money i.e. cheap. At first glance you would be in uproar at such a plan. But is this so out of the question. Both clubs don’t need 12,000 stadia. A low cost sports facility which is more in keeping with the level of professional sport being played and the attendances being generated is required. The clubs need to be realistic in their expectations for the future. Unless we suddenly acquire the support of someone with buckets of money to throw at the club (I don’t think Mr A is in this category), we are going nowhere; Championship 1 is our level. This is the first time I have acknowledged that the top tier of the game is beyond us. So why don’t we admit our limitations and make plans accordingly. I remember going to Workington rugby (or was it Whitehaven) a few years ago for a cup match after they had largely rebuilt their ground I think from an EU grant. A local told me a figure which unfortunately I can’t remember but it was low, very low. The East Stand cost £6M (and still needs a corner sorting) no wonder the council want shut of the whole thing! Nothing fancy, elaborate, no double tiered stand, or computerised turnstiles just a basic ground but fully functional. Nowhere near as good as The Shay (or Thrum Hall) but certainly fit for purpose. I remember thinking this is precisely the type of ground the rugby club (at that time was not thinking of the football people) should be at. If we could acquire such a ground with club(s) ownership we would be masters of our own destiny and in a facility that is both affordable and fully usable. One question that results from this train of thought is that why don’t the Council simply sell the Shay Stadium for something approaching it proper market worth to a suitable house builder or supermarket chain etc. Build `us’ a low cost stadium more suitable to the tenants needs (many years ago a site in Copley was mentioned) for a fraction of the cost of that Mr A is offering. The council would be win-win with this deal; council make serious money on the deal, rid themselves of the white elephant that is the Shay Stadium, the Football and Rugby clubs get a new ground with more reasonable running cost and that reflect the current status in their respective sports; everybody happy - job done (PS and Mr A is really interested in helping the club(s) he would want to be involved, wouldn’t he?)

Holy wall of text.

I got to the part where you said the rugby club are allegedly massively behind with their rent. Care to provide evidence for this? Or is it just hear say from other Town fans? Why would they know? Its not something that would ever be discussed with them is it?

Maybe we should start speculating how much Town owe the council over the past few decades.

Lets face it if this was anyone else buying the Shay then Town fans would be all over it but years of living in the shadows of the rugby club has made a lot of their fans very bitter and twisted when it comes to anything to do with the rugby club.

Posts like this are of no help to anyone.You only have to look at your
posting signature to realise how out of touch you are.

I couldn't agree more. Has this guy never heard of paragraphs?

That whole post displays his serious bias towards FCHT.

One major point - he says that he can't understand why Tony Abbott would want to buy The Shay when it only has 2 revenue streams (both non-lucrative). Surely this is the whole point. Since the East Stand was completed, to the best of my knowledge, there has been a great deal of office space available which has never been utilised because the Council has never bothered to install a structured wiring backbone and VoIP (or at least a basic telephone network). If this work was completed I am sure that the facilities could then be utilised. LBG are only a few hundred yards away and are constantly short of office space.

There is also the corner building which can be completed and provide further income. I have never understood why, until funding became available, it wasn't temporarily boxed in and used as advertising space.

Just look at Odsal, since OK took over they have Asian Wedding Fayres, Pop Concerts, Beer Festivals which all bring in further income apart from just Rugby.

If the Council can't be bothered to develop The Shay, I say hand it over to someone who can.

To finish I would like to say once again that if FCHT fans, in their desperation to stop the sale to TA, try to drag Calderdale taxpayers onside by putting it on the open market they will only succeed in handing it over to a ruthless Property Developer.

Who would pay 5 or 10 million for a site with 2 sitting tenants which could only be used as a sports stadium? As a building site however.......

One thing I cannot get my head around is why are Town not utilising the prime ground level spot next to our shop in the East Stand ? The place is an eyesore and gives a very bad impression of visitors to the place , it`s things like this where the place could be more utilised to make money and if they arn`t using it someone else should be allowed to. They are still using the old offices across the way that we had to vacate to (quite rightly )to move into the new office space.I have yet to be convinced that the people of Calderdale could care less about the Shay to be honest apart from the 3,000 or so individuals who watch town or Fax why should they. If certain people had not been so pedantic about the useage eg kids playing on the pitch etc things more than probably would have been differant . I know many many people who have an axe to grind re` the Shays useage because they pay for it out of their rates but their kids are told they are not welcome. There is even one Councilor who is still in shock because they kicked his beloved Speedway out. So the idea that ordinary ratepayers feel somewhat agreived TA wants to buy the place and pump money in is quite frankly laughable.
I would imagine TA would do the end bit up that badly needs doing and would therefore be able to utilise this for his own business .Good luck to him as far as I`m concerned I hope it comes off as the Council arn`t going to put up with that underused stadium much longer.

The Shay is a massively under-utilized asset and Calderdale Council have enough on their plate without trying to run it as a commercial operation. Basically, it's run by a bunch of commercial amateurs. What plans Tony Abbott has to turn this around is anyone's guess. I would hope that those making the decision on whether to sell or not have forwarded the plan onto professional assessors. Tony must surely be in possession of the full cost structure as it stands now and what additional strategic plans are needed to make the site a commercial success.

This is what the decision makers have to grapple with. Everything is a risk and just because Calderdale Council own something doesn't make it secure. With barely fifteen hundred attendees a week throughout the year the Shay isn't even a political hot potato. It's no more of a jewel in the crown than the Woodlesford bus stop. The people of Calderdale couldn't give a monkeys about sport. Maybe Tony Abbott can change the attitudes like David Brook did. Either way i'd expect the Council to jump at the chance to get the controversial site off their books and give the problem to someone else.

exdysonroadie has shown his hand and expressed his opinion, like forum members do from time to time
Im thinking I may be moving down the most wanted list now after my root and branch overhaul topic, has the price on my head dropped now?

Anyway, its far too long winded and not concise, im not sure what his point is, I guess he just doesn't want The Shay to be sold to anyone hes not vetted as agreeable to his personal preference.It doesn't stack up though, local authorities are continually having the squeeze put on them, and will have so for many years to come, any money they have in reserves or newly founded Icelandic banks will not be there for much longer so keeping it 'Safe' doesn't wash, neither does over scrutinising Reactiv and picking holes in his business.

Yes there are problems from time to time with private sector businesses, isn't everything associated with the private sector carrying some risk though, there are more success stories than failures in my mind, I am loathe to use Luddite but i'd be really interested to see if someone else who put in a bid not connected with RL would be scrutinised in such a negative way. As many of us have said, if any deal has sufficient clauses to ensure the turf will not be pulled from beneath the players feet and a deal can be brokered where the council are happy, I don't see why this would be construed as not in the tax payers interests, it's not just about appeasing a minority of Town fans, of which I am one, and wish for this deal to happen if at all possible. We can't not do it just in case someone else 'might' want it in a couple of months or someone 'might' run into problems.

The Olympics is over, sporting legacy ideology will last until the next credit card gets maxed out.