Sorry if this sort of post appears elsewhere - I'm not familiar with your Board.

I am very concerned with the rift between Town fans and Giants' fans over the shares issue. I firmly believe that we should be in this together, because the fears and concerns we have should, in our opinion, be shared by you.

Let's get one thing straight. This is not an anti-Ken Davy post. When Town came out of administration it was thanks to Ken, and, he then put a lot of money into Town. For that, I and many fans are still grateful to him. However, as you know, he later transferred Town's 40% shares in the stadium to his company. He didn't tell anyone, and it didn't come to light until applications under the Freedom of Information Act were made. That is what caused some Town fans to be suspicious, until this day, about Ken's motives. But I'm not concerned about that, and, I would respectfully suggest, neither should you be.

When the transfer became public Ken gave as his reason for the transfer, making the shares safe from any future creditor and he said "I've moved the shares to protect them until the club is stable". I don't know when he moved the Giants' 20% shares to his own company, or why, or what he said was the reason for doing it. But the fact remains that Ken now owns the shares of both clubs, 60% of the stadium shares.

Now we have a number of reasons why we believe the Town shares (and, for that matter, the Giants' shares) should be returned to Town (and the Giants).

Firstly, the stated reasons for transferring the shares no longer applies. The football club is stable, owned by someone who is believed to be more wealthy than Ken. We don't know the reason(s) he retains the Giants' shares.
Secondly, the new owner, Dean Hoyle, is now on public record as saying that when he recovers the Town shares he will put them in trust so that they will be protected for the football club forever. That removes any suspicion that he wants them in the hopes of future profit from them. (It should be noted that some believe Ken's reluctance to return the shares is based on a desire to make profit from them, or the return of them. Whether or not that is true, the same charge cannot possibly be leveled at Dean.)
Thirdly, the possession of 60% of the shares in one person, or company, WHOEVER may be that person or company, is a dangerous situation to be in. If the shares move (by reason of sale or inheritance) to someone else who has no interest in either club and /or has no local ties or interests and/or has not stated to have the best interests of either club at heart, then both clubs will as now, have no say in what happens to the stadium (it's regarded as prime building land), will not receive any financial benefit from the running of the stadium, and then, would have an absentee landlord.
Fourthly, the present split of 60-40 flies in the face of the original intent of the "community benefit" of the original split of 40-40-20. Kirklees Council, only yesterday, said that they were anxious to return to the original 40-40-20 split, and would do everything they could to bring that about.
Fifthly, if the Stadium Company goes under, both clubs would be homeless and KMC could be faced with huge debts to pay off, which should worry us all as club supporters and council tax payers. KSDL could, in our view, do more to make itself profitable (e.g. concerts) but it relies heavily on the financial input from both clubs, although factually, 70% plus from the football club. KSDL needs to have BOTH clubs supporting it financially, but at the moment neither of our clubs gets any financial benefit from supporting KSDL. We both would if we had our shares back.

Those of us spearheading the "Return the shares for £2 - Do the right thing" campaign are trying hard to discourage anyone and everyone from turning it into a hate Davy camp versus a love Davy camp. We are arguing simply on the the basis of morals, logic and what is best for both clubs.

I would urge you to do the same as I have done. Step back from feelings of disquiet about Ken Davy, or support of Ken Davy, and look at the issues I have raised dispassionately and objectively. If you do I hope that you will agree with us that each club ought to have it's own shares back (and ideally both sets of shares to be put into trust where nobody take them away again) and that there is no moral or logical reason for that not to happen.

Sorry about the length of the post - it's a difficult situation. I hope that on reflection you will be persuaded by these arguments, not be swayed by those who blindly hate, or love, Ken Davy, or Dean Hoyle, and join us in our campaign to do right by both clubs.

Its a pity we're not as massive as the massive Martin

Yes, but the club has already received payment from the other 500.

Tax is paid on the season tickets and then on each additional payment at the turnstiles.

An attendance figure on its own can't be used for tax purposes as the figures would need to be broken down into season ticket prices, prepay ticket prices, gate prices, concessions, discounted tickets/freebies, etc.

You pay corporation tax once a year based on profit (if any).
Attendance figures are just a crude indicator of one of the many sales income streams.