[Faxcar wrote]So from all that the FOI did not include any repayments on the over 3 million loan something that is a 25 year finacial liabiltiy that TA could have included in his statement and no one even thought about.[/end]

And I wish we had known about that, which again is why if the deal had been made in the open, or he’d mentioned taking that debt on in his clear the air meeting, it would have cut down an avenue where his ideas were questioned, rather than leaving us speculating months later.

[Faxcar wrote]It was speculated that TA had in some way. QUOTE." deliberated inflated the figures to gain leverage over CMBC.
Just how could he do that when they are the ones who are having to deal with the amounts each year." End Q.

What is he going to say "well actually your not really £50k a year out of pocket it's £250K" and they would somehow be pressured into selling, it's just ludicrous. [/end]

I don’t think I said the second part of that quote, but I know I can’t really comment on formatting issues as the ‘phone makes it very difficult. However, in my mind that inflated figure was thrown into the conversation to get people who may have accepted it as truth onside with the bid from the outset. I am suspicious of anyone who starts a conversation with a made up fact.

[Faxcar wrote]No argument at all just pointing out Bubba was wrong when he said there was no bid on the table but the bid did not reach an advanced stage where the council were taking it seriously because of the lack of detail.

This would negate the need to go public and involve anyone else as it was a none starter. [/end]

I can’t answer for Bubba’s use of language or certain words. Also, as my resuest for a copy of the bid was refused I can’t comment 1st hand on what was in it. All I will consider going forward is CMBC confirmed Reactiv made a bid for the stadium.

[Faxcar wrote]That being the case why did the hate campaing start in the first place. [/end]

I think hate campaign is a strong phrase to use to group of a lot of varied intentions together. There are some football fans who hate the rugby club, and vice versa. However, as I tried to point out in my first post this isn’t an ‘us v them’ argument to me. What I saw was a 3rd party attempting to buy the ground without doing it through a proper bidding process. I don’t hate TA, but I reserve the right to find out as much information about someone who wants to buy an asset the council have spent millions on in recent years. If some people genuinely hate him then I can’t answer for them.
I have previously said that if TA or his family receive personal abuse then I hope he reported it to Twitter and the police in necessary because I’d never agree with that.

[Faxcar wrote]I said their agenda, not my agenda meaning not one individual, others have used the FOI information with the sole intent of calling TA a liar and worse, and to prevent Reativ purchasing the Shay using whatever means possible as the facts show. [/end]

I’ve only seen one other FOI during this period, again about rent arrears. FOIs contain facts from CMBC, if those facts go against something anyone else has said then that discrepancy needs addressing. I guess one of the main cruxes of this is the rent not being paid. The FOI said the rugby club had promised to pay the arrears by 31.12.2013. This day came and went with no payment. One of your users on this board gave a reason why the club may not have paid, I’d not considered that angle so have asked CMBC to clarify the promise. You see, I’m not out to grind an axe, someone on here disagrees with me and I’ll take it on board and think about it further.

[Faxcar wrote]The fact is that those town fans who went on the hate TA campaign do not want the Shay to be sold at any price to anyone especially if associated with the rugby club regardless of how it affects the majority of the Calderdale rate payers. [/end]

Trust was always an issue for Town fans, as TA wanted us to trust that that stadium was safe in his hands. You trust him because of the money he’s put into your club, and that’s fine. However, he has to earn the trust of Town fans if he wants us to be happy with Reactiv owning the ground, as a 3rd party you’d never heard of would have to win your trust. He has made a bid for a council owned asset, and to me that gives us the freedom to look into his business and relationship with the council using legal tools that the government has given us for this reason.
It’s not our fault when we uncover things that contradict what TA says, like the payday loan issue. TA says he has nothing to do with them, but I point out 3 things I’ve found that challenge that and have posted them on here. Not one person has queried those discoveries with me. It’s things like this that make the trust issue less likely to be resolved for Town fans.
You’re right in the last point, I don’t believe the ground should be sold off to anyone. There are ways of protecting Council Tax payers and securing the safeguarding of the ground, such as a charitable trust leasing the stadium. Fans of both clubs have marched together in agreement of this in the past so we know that some people on both sides agree with the principle.

But your BOD signed it, they must have thought it was fair. Maybe you should ask for copies of the tenancy agreements to see if both clubs receive exactly the same things.

The thing about tenancy is, have both clubs signed a lease. If not why not?

Why would Leighs Board of Directors sign an agreement for the Shay?
And have they paid the rent?

Try typing that on a mobile! Sorry again for the lack of formatting!

injustice

"a situation or action in which people are treated unfairly"

?????

Feeling something is fair and actually being fair are two different things. As joint tenants of the council you should have the same terms, its not a double glazing salesman selling one 4x4 window to number 26 and half the price to number 32. The fact the council may have allowed this to happen is disgusting imo and if true the soccer club should be made to pay the equivalent rates backdated imo, or the amendment made to level things up

As said I am a Leigh fan, but wish Fax all the best in this matter and find the pontificating of some Soccer fans on here amusing and hypocritical to say the least

When in glass houses do not throw stones.

Maurice's words, not mine... "If the landlord rents out any different to the above then it is unfair"

I have no idea how much the football club pay, and never enquired about how much the rugby club pay until it emerged it wasn't being paid, as I couldn't have given a fig until that point. I never asked how much the rent was, it just came out as the amount mentioned on the final notices issued.

If anyone on here thinks it's unfair then find out what the difference is and ask why. If this has been such a major issue I'm surprised this hasn't been done already.

It has been mentioned on the Town forum that the football club pay less as they don't have use of an office or shop. I have no idea whether or not this is true. However the council are happy with the amount paid as the previously mentioned FOI say the football club don't have rent arrears.

In your example if number 26 has an extension then why would number 32 pay the same amount for less windows? A businessman would understand this so could have queried it with CMBC in the past, too.

I'm not arguing with you about fairness as I have no idea if the rent is different or why; just explaining that this is public information and you can investigate it if you're not happy.

I f Town don`t have use of an office whose in the building above where the groundsmen are?

What if it turned out Fax never had a tenancy agreement and actually are squatters but are now claiming the land as their own. So turns out the Town fans were right all along but in being right will have no cause to celebrate.

Bump.

Town forum suggests we are locked out of shay,is this true ?

where have the "facts" for this theory come from then?