Off to France Sunday, don't expect a post card.
Would have preferred a win last night tho,

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm more confused. What do you expect the Town BOD to say?

Both clubs signed a rental contract. One club payed it, one club (whatever the reasons) refused to. Are you expecting the club that did pay to come out with statements of support for the one that didn't? The refusal to pay inflated the costs of running the stadium, giving CMBC more of a reason to sell it, putting the home of the football club in jeopardy - why would they support that stance?

A PM of "glad you're not here" will do!

I'll be rooting for you on Sunday.

Surely a fixed cost per game per stand open should be applied to a council owned facility for its joint tenants, make the tariff public and crack on guys.

This argument falls flat when you start analysing how much each club costs CMBC to run the stadium such as because Town play football the grass has to be cut much shorter so consequently more regular and stewarding for football is tighter due to the threat of trouble etc.. Why is it ridiculous to say Town use the pitch more so should pay more???
Again to stop all this nonsense charge both the bl**dy same, I also ask again would Town fans be happy if this situation was the other way around???
I think not, in fact I know not!

Town's u19s are playing at shay this season,they have used Brighouse in past.

As usual, a lack of understanding. Groundstaff are required all year round to maintain the pitch. Whether the grass needs cutting twice a week or four times a week is irrelevant - fulltime groundstaff are still required. The football club also pays for their stewarding so thats irrelevant to this debate.

And I am not surprised you want both clubs to be charged the same because it would clearly work in HRLFC favour. I would accuse you of being deliberately daft but I just think you are blinkered.

The logical way would be to split the payments down to a Pay per Play for the match day facilities and the another rent payment for the additional facilities ( offices etc. ).
But it's the local government so doubt there will be any logic involved.

Isnt that pretty much what happens now? Similar amount of games yet Fax have more facilities hence the more rent that they pay

Couldn't we just agree to disagree, put this thing to bed, let the clubs sort it out, let the Luddites return to their forum and leave us in peace?
We will never agree, let it go.

Blinkered???
Its you and some Town fans who are blinkered as yet again you reply to the bits you want to score brownie points over and not the ones that are fair and reasonable like would you be happy if this situation was the other way around?
Oh and you don't answer the query about charging for every thing down to square footage and all facilities used to the last detail plus what about putting something back into the stadium by using its facilities and not a hotel in Bradford?
Do Town also pay for the extra turnstile staff for the away fans too?
So its not a good idea to stop all this cr*p by charging both clubs the same then?
I wait your politician stile reply with your loaded answer on selected points - nah not really could not give a stuff what you think really as I know that already.

Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and dont respond then if you cant handle proper debate with reasonable answers.

Would you like it if things had been the other way round? One club paying their rent on time, every month whilst the other, who uses more of the facilities pays bugger all? Would you have liked it had one of the town directors have been carrying on like an amateur businessman in making out they had secured the purchase of the Shay?

Club of little integrity who sadly let down you loyal supporters yet you continue to blindly back and support them. Yes, extremely blinkered.