I'm happy to wait and see also, it's not like we have much choice I suppose. But it's fair to say I'm worried, if not the Shay then where? Odsal? Do me a favour. I hope this is sorted soon.

Can anyone offer an opinion as to what sort of dispute
with the council could justify the action of not paying £63k
rent over a 16 month period ?

Anything said has likely been said before and mostly guess work based on all the spin that has being going on with a few smatterings of so called factual information mixed in.

We're guessing again that it involves a dispute which may be part of it and maybe not.

A few of the things supposedly been involved.

Some rent was owed for before the talk of buying the Shay came to light.

The talks included the rent being absorbed into any purchasing agreement.

Not too long ago the deal for the Shay was taken from the table at least in the short term.

Both parties went of to give more consideration to the potential sale.

Could the deal be back on again after due process with similar terms for the rent included.
Now that would explain the silence and will get a certain section going again

Total speculation but the above was part of the original plan so is feasible.

Other than that, again we are either skint and can't pay it.

We are not skint and won't pay it.

In either case.

To continue playing from the Shay or anywhere else we will have to pay it.

When does Gavin's daft Asset of Community Value (ACV) run out? Is it six months from the date of his application or six months from the date Calderdale Council decide to sell?

It's six months after the council decide to sell.

They did but it is the only connection with the former and current situation.

I know you are concerned and that unlike some others is why the question is being asked.

Those who can answer it aren't doing so for whatever reason.

They are the only ones who can.

There is no point in beating ourselves up over something we don't really know about or can do anything about.

At times like this I go back to core beliefs and values.

Fax almost had a perfect storm of a bad year last season regarding games and crowds, early cup exits etc.
They didn't like it or want it to happen but they prepared for it and took it on the chin.

I just do not believe that the club is in the financial mess some are saying.

I do not believe the current BOD for no reason or any reason will do anything to harm the club.

So the £250k/year figure came from the Courier. And I wonder who gave them that. The FOI shows this figure was absolute ball-cocks yet you choose to believe it rather than the black and white figures given by the council.

The thing is, the club originally wanted to include the rent in the deal to buy the stadium, despite it being the club owing the rent and TA being the one hoping to buy - two separate entities which makes this just plain daft. Furthermore, when the sale didn't happen, the club then agreed to pay in full by 31/12/13.

So if there was any dispute at all, why would they look to pay it off as part of the deal to buy the Shay, and why would they later agree a date by which to pay it in full? There is no dispute, or if there is it's been manufactured recently in order to justify continued non-payment.

5 years from the ACV being granted.

Lets be clear about a few things. The Council were never close to agreeing a deal to sell the Shay to Tony Abbott. The reason being that they had no deal to consider given that all they had received was a single piece of A4 paper containing a couple of paragraphs.

Tim Swift said on numerous occasions on Twitter, and in emails, that there was no sale of the Shay on the horizon which totally contradicted the rhetoric coming from Mr "A deal will be concluded within the next few weeks" Abbott. From the meetings I held with the three main party leaders within the Town Hall there is/was no desire to sell the stadium though there remains concern about the ongoing subsidy required - not helped by the rental arrears.

The public meeting held to "reassure" people over the potential purchase seriously damaged any opportunity which may have developed. False claims of not being involved in the payday loan business and the clouded response over how a purchase would be funded quite rightly set the alarm bells ringing. There were also concerns about some of the other claims such as the potential hotel and the fact that viability studies have shown that there is no demand for another hotel within the town centre.

The Council clearly shared the concerns of the football club and the supporters over the stadium falling into private ownership and the risks which short and long term this would pose. And these are concerns which should be shared by supporters of HRLFC just like in 2006.

What I think we would all agree on is that the Shay is not even close to maximising its potential - something which Tony Abbott is well aware of. But this is why it is important to find a solution where a stadium maximising its potential works for the local taxpayer and two sporting clubs rather than for a private owner.

Has the FOOTBALL CLUB directors ever made a public statement about not being in favour of PRIVATE ownership?

Completely irrelevant.

Just one point on the continuous accusations by the FCHT lot that TA lied about Reactiv and Payday Loans.

I was at the meeting and, as I remember it, He actually said "Reactiv Media never has been and never will be a Payday Loan Company".
I believe this could be true. Reactiv runs a Call Centre facility which is available for use by any company wishing to use it's services. It is not up to Reactiv to take the moral high ground. They are in business to make money and Payday Loans, whilst distasteful, are not illegal under current legislation. So, not a lie maybe? Just a politician's answer.

A bare faced lie, I was there, I heard it along with many other people.

or heard what you wished to hear, as an outsider how much do the soccer club pay to rent the stadium as £30k pa was posted previously?