Boohoo from my view point.

Town had a choice to use the facilities you discuss - they don't. This tit for tat is getting boring as hell.

Let it go. Move on.

Hang on, its Fax who refuses to let it go. All the article is doing is quashing the supposed facts your chairman spouted a couple of weeks ago.

Just because FCHT have the option to use the facilities (which I dispute), does that mean they should be charged for them? Or does Town's choice not to use them suddenly mean your club should be free to use them without charge?

There is plenty of empty office space on the upper floors of the East Stand. In your logic both clubs should be charged for using that as well because its available - even though neither club requires or uses it.

Whilst I appreciate that you do work for the club (albeit as a volunteer) it doesnt mean you have to wear rose tinted spectacles.

I have my own opinions and I work on the evidence that is presented to me not hear say.

My "position" has naff all to do with it. My "position" is a fan of rugby league NOT football.

O'h no, here we go again, enter danger-mouse and Shay men down under who lives in Elland with their vitriol.
Can't wait.

What the sport is has naff all to do with it except that its the Fax Chairman/Board who are trying to make it rugby vs football. And all the evidence is in the FOI responses made by Calderdale Council...none of it is hearsay except what the Fax Chairman says which you seem happy to believe rather than the council evidence.

It still does beg the question why Fax think that either Town should pay for something they do not use or why Fax should pay the same as Town when they do use these extras. Its like leasing a car, you look at one for £400 a month and one for £500 a month, you decide to take the one for £400 a month. The leasing company does not expect you to pay for the £500 per month one just because you could have chosen to take that one. In the same way if you take the £500 a month one you cant turn around and say I want to just pay for the £400 a month one because my mate took that one and now his is cheaper.

We know what the courier is reporting as the reasons for the dispute and quoting Michael Steele but I am hoping there is more to the dispute than we know because from the quotes there are things that just do not add up.

I find Fax's stance on this a complete embarressment.The day it gets finally resolved can't come soon enough.

What you don't see Greg is that FC Halifax actually do have a shop. Its called the "Supporters Bar" and both stadium and council officials see this every week and do nothing. The issue isn't the fact that Halifax RLFC have a shop and its reflected in the rent but more so that FC Halifax do and its not because they trade out of a bar which i believe is illegal.

The Supporters Bar that both clubs use?

...but not as a shop to sell retail garments which is illegal!

Can you please find me the law which applies?

I don't need to Gavin, you have to have a trading licence which im sure you are aware of. Its just the same as people running around pubs selling DVD`s etc, ,its illegal and you know it. Please don't take me for one of your silly underlings! You will automatically assume that im against FC Halifax and anyone who knows me well will assure you to the contrary. The facts are the facts, FC Halifax have a shop and are not being charged for it.

Que? If I've been on here spouting vitriol why haven't you banned me? I came on here months ago to explain my actions state facts, not spout off. The last few times I've been on here recently have been to challenge a homophobic slur and when HJ has name-checked me. Like I've said before, it's easy to label anyone you disagree with as a hater.

I guess its awkward because saying the finer points to everyone could affect things but it is really needed that people know all the details because Fax do not come off very well in these arguments without people knowing the full facts.