So the council have to follow the proper dispute resolution process but we don't have to hold up our end of the contract? I don't care what the dispute is, unless we have a legal instruction telling us not to pay, pay the bloody rent! Like I said earlier the council could very easily solve the problem by raising the rent for the football club. Then everyone looses apart from the council that get our rent and theirs!

Ive tried to reply in bold.

What exactly are the council "hiding away?"

It's a fact that Fax don't pay their rent in full and it's a fact that the whole thing is massively embarrassing and has been for a while.

There's no way the club can take the moral high ground here unless we start paying up

Quote. “The FOI response which is currently in circulation is out of date and substantially understates the club’s payments.”

The above is from the couriers article on the subject from a spokes person for HLRFC as was the comment on not commenting further in the public domain at this time.

The club have made a statement and we need to read what they say.

The rent being talked about is for the 2015/2016 year which if it runs from April to April there is still time to make what ever outstanding amounts are due which according to the club statement is not £35.000.

The rent agreement that is in place should be honoured and then if for whatever reason a tenant wants to re negotiate then that is the time to do it.

It's been running for some time as we all know and out of the two parties involved it takes both of them to sit down and talk about it, which of the two would be less inclined to do so?

As stated above this is an ongoing situation between the two parties. It isn't the end of the financial year, it's the courier raking over old coals to make a story out of very old news.

What about if the council are not keeping to their end of the agreement?

Very disappointing to see this topic back on the forum as a headline. At one of the forums it was explained quite clearly by Michael Steele that the club were unhappy with the fact the two tennants are paying different rent for using the same premises/facilities. The club look to me to be using the non or delayed payment as leverage to force a resolution. I agree its not good PR for the club but I am sure the club have money from last years RL funding accrued to pay once the matter is settled or legal proceedings from the council dictate we have to pay. One for the Directors and Council to resolve as this clearly can't go on forever- for the sake of both parties. No doubt the FCHT trolls will be having a field day but that's minor to me.

Another thing as well I don't see why we or the club should feel embarrassed.

Of those involved the council should be, they are the ones who have set the substantially differing rents for both the rugby and football clubs for what amounts to the use of the same stadium for sporting purposes.

Only for one of them to find out that it's costing them £11.880 more per annum for basically the same thing at the same time and as anyone would be they are not happy, the same would apply if it was the other way round, FC Town should not have to pay nearly 12 grand more than the rugby club.

From the rugby clubs point of view it's a business issue, they are in partnership that includes trust and fair practices involving important finances any questionable morales should be directed at the council who need to look at how and why they can deal so differently with their two tenants.

Likewise how often does the courier publish anything concerning this with all the facts or anything that doesn't lead the reader to think the rugby club are some undesirable occupier at the Shay?

In this latest article it refers to an FOI that is out of date and doesn't make any mention of what time frame it does cover, is it 6 months out of date, 6 weeks or 6 days, whatever it is it does not represent the current situation or the reasons why the situation exists, just poor irresponsible reporting again.

If you want to know why the clubs pay different rents, their is a foi on it. Which your favourite poster bubba has posted several times on Facebook. It shows that the rugby club rent considerably more floor space within the shay than the football club does. Things like the laundry rooms, gym etc are used by the rugby club are not used by the football club. The rent paid isn't just a flat rate, it's itemised and done by the floor space used.

Hope this helps.

Fax dont have a gym at the ground. Its also worth noting one of the extra floor spaces that we have is the club shop. As far as I am aware Halifax Town decided not to have a shop at the Shay, Town get around this by using other means at the Shay to sell their merchandise, something which seems to be lost on the council.

I think the club should pay the rent as this just fuels the Town fans and is not good publicity for the club at all.
But Calderdale Council cannot justify charging one of the Shay's tenants more than the other. especially when Town play more games at the Shay than the rugby.

From what I was told earlier today. This really is a non story. People that think the club are behind with the rent don't know that facts. I'm not going to get into all of them on here. But the club isn't behind with but it is in a dispute with the council over money owed to the club over the last 3/4 years and are currently been advised by solicitor and the rfl. The football club work fromthe old offices at the corner of the south stand and all sell club merchandise from their, despite the fact they don't have a license to sell any merchandise from the shay as that is part of their rent agreement and part of the reason it's lower than the rugby clubs.