Seems to me that all the shouting is from the HTSA and Dean Hoyle is sitting back and letting these people fire the bullets.

The council have said in the Examiner that the protests from HTSA do no one any good and leave it be and let the three parties try to work it out and yet Mr Hoyle doesn't seem to want to come out and say leave it be.

It seems strange to me but the difference between £2 and £2 + Kens investment back are different ends of the Spectrum and it only says £2 in all the publicity and on the images of the t-shirts so 'cuckoo' land comes to mind.

When the terms of the agreement are mutually acceptable, all three parties will sign, in the long term its the only way all this is just posturing.

However a number of 'numpties' who support HTAFC want to make it nasty and personal with DH a saint and KD the devil but as Kirklees have said whether they like it or not and these 'numpties' hate it KD saved HTAFC and DH came later.

The truth is the 'numpties hate it because KD was never blue and white through and through and would not throw mega money regardless in order to restore HTAFC to the 'glory days' their supporters rightfully believe are theirs !!

DH has already spent a lot of money and HTAFC are still in League 1. KD has done the same at the Giants and we still haven't won a 'pot' glory days have to be won by both clever fiancing, good management and the right players on the field.

Since 1961 as a 'lad' of five in the days when Town played one saturday and Fartown the next both in winter in those days I have followed both my home Town clubs with a slight preference for Rugby League as a game for watching.

In all those years both clubs have had some success Fartown two Challenge cup finals and some play off football and promotion to Superleague Town a couple of Wembley trips, promotions and a semi final in the league cup in 1968 when we should have beaten a very very good Arsenal side. I saw both legs.

Both clubs have had relegation problems but for the majority of the years I watched Town they were a second division (Championship) side who often narrowly missed promotion and finally got there in 1970.

Soon after when I passed my driving test i went full time fartown even in the bad times.

The point of this is that HTAFC were always in these modern times a 'Championship' side at best and Fartown near the bottom of whatever league they were in money always being the problem.

So now both clubs have some money due to wealthy owners and SKY, the 'Giants ' are in the top league of their game and Town have the backing to get back to the Championship days and who knows beyond and what is the major obstacle ??

KEN DAVEY AND SOME STADIUM SHARES ACCORDING TO HTSA !!!

However read the Town message boards and its Lee Clarke or one of various players depending on the previous weeks results so ain't it about time that both sets of fans supported their team and left the KDSL and running of the clubs to the guys that own them who surely as Huddersfield based philanthropists will get to the right decision eventually !!

Well said!

For the avoidance of all doubt and in support of my comments above.

If I am ever asked which football team I support the answer is HTAFC and never has been Liverpool, Man Utd Spurs Arsenal or any one else. I worked in London for 11 years with many armchair premiership football fans but always said HTAFC when asked.

I am a Huddersfield lad living these days in Barnsley, you can't choose where you meet someone but when I go to meet my maker if they play rugby league it will be claret and gold hoops for me, but if its football blue and white vertical stripes, white shorts and white stockings and despite being a 'goalie' when I played bags I play inside right next to Steve Smith perhaps my all time favourite HTAFC player !!!

was there a need to start another topic on this when we already have one?

yeah as the HTSA is the real problem i hope they all look 'numpties ' in their green t shirts be funny if Brentford's away strip was that colour !!

isn't that what he did when 'orrible devious ken bailed his beloved HTFC out?

They are a real problem though and if you read soldfor2quid it just blackens Davy's name further without any factual justification in all honesty. It's propaganda against Davy without ever giving him any credit for any positive he's done. There's a page about Loan stock explanation it maybe unheard of it being paid back in full but it is often exchanged for shares in which dividends are paid but this isn't a normal share issue!
There's no explanation that Davy ran both clubs at a loss for 6 years and is still running the Giants at a loss propping up both would've been at considerable cost to himself!
They believe Hoyle's version of events saying Davy kept putting the price up which is not in the public eye and in theory should be confidential, Yet the public statements say the sticking point was the rent formula! Yet they claim they want whats fair and just?? Hmmm wouldn't that include a fair rent formula for both clubs regardless when it was added or what has been previously said???
The say they're trying to pursuade not bully yet according to the letter in the examiner calling a family scab's is not exactly persuading is it? And read some of the Emails they apparently sent to Davy and many councillors I would not say they are exactly persuasive more of a bullying kind!
From whats been made public and no sniping on a forum or this biased website, it's clear to see it's two business men fighting for their own interests and one side backs out over an immaterial sum!

Cllr Khan is right protesting will not help as it could be harmful in the long run, many ordinary folk who have no interest in this will not attend matches in case they are caught up in these protests as the scab comments suggest they attract the worse type of football fan. It will lose money for the club! It will also distract the team on the field and it's aims for promotion. Promotion which Hoyle and Town need!!

At the end of the day Davy will get his money and the rent formula back in line with what Hoyle apparently pulled out over and Hoyle will pay what is asked, it will never be disclosed just how much or what conditions. Davy isn't point blank refusing to hand the share back and Hoyle agreed to pay the loan stock back so where's the problem here??? As I say there's more to it and it's not out in the public so we can only speculate!!

would be very interesting if hoyle bailed out ala rubery and then who would pick up the pieces? im sure ken wouldn't touch that lot with a bargepole after this.

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.

cj, what are your thoughts regarding the argument about the rental formula? I don't understand why that is being cited as being the deal-breaker in this whole affair.

Thank you for your clarification.

I have in my posts tried to remain objective and impartial and have only gone on the facts given by the statements made. Even though I have posted on a Giants forum doesn't mean I'm in Davy's camp. I have no reason to distrust him either afterall I clearly remember how close the whole stadium setup was to failing in 2003.

The divide is not being made by Giants fans as I can assure you they are a very passionate and reasonable set of supporters and it was them and their open arms attitudes that endeared me to become a Giants supporter! In that same time though I have also followed Town up and down the country and have encounted unfriendly attitudes by fellow Town fans towards any incomers! Thats not to say I have not made very good friends because I have and had a lot of fun travelling with them following Town, my dad's side of my family is full of passionate town fans who have worked for the club for many many years! I'm also not slating most town fans either as I know they can be just as passionate about their team, I only have a problem with the few that take their passions beyond the pitch and get involved in matters that really don't concern them regardless how they portray that we should be concerned! And make us believe facts that aren't factually correct!! And am embarrassed by the whole sherbang, do the right thing should be aimed at accepting Davy's turnaround thanking him financially for taking the risk and moving on getting the share formula back to how it was when the stadium idea became a reality! And not sniping at the fact he got it for a price anyone could've picked it up at!

I followed the build of the stadium with enormous vigour I was just as passionate about the project as the masterminds. I am enormously proud of the stadium and have often joked that I could get those concerts profitable and get the place jumping again. So am saddened with all this rigmorole especially when both clubs are on the up!!!

Dean Hoyle is on record as saying that there is a good argument for returning the rental formula to the original 13/13. He accepts that it was changed to 15/13 (unilaterally by Ken Davy) as a way of advantaging Town when they were struggling financially.

To cut as long story short, Dean Hoyle, I believe, thinks the change in the rental agreement was NOT part of the February 2010 agreement to transfer the shares back to Town. When the disagreement arose, Ken said the rental agreement was not part of the share transfer agreement and Dean said Ken was making it part of the shares deal.

Taking Ken at his word (not part of the shares deal) Dean said, OK let's do the shares deal as agreed in Feb 2010 and go to arbitration over the rental agreement. Ken refused to go to arbitration, refused to agree the deal before the John Harman deadline and everything collapsed.

Dean Hoyle would say, I believe, that the attempt to change the rental agreement was just an attempt to change the terms of the 2010 agreement, and therefore, whatever the monetary value, it was wrong in principle and so he wouldn't agree. No doubt Ken would say different.

Our attitude is we don't know what happened (although to be fair, we do tend to side with Dean) and we don't particularly care. There's not a lot of mileage in taking one side or the other, whatever happened in the past, we want the shares (of both clubs, but particularly Town's) returned to the club(s), and have them put beyond reach and safe.

Dean says it was just one more thing he'd have to pay for and it was a step too far. It doesn't really matter now because as I understand it the Feb 2010 deal has expired now, let's get the shares returned.

Which is why I state why protest as the deal will still go ahead with the rental formula and financial package in Davy's favour but all done under the table away from prying eyes! So everyones happy!!

what town fans seem to forget here is we aren't interested in what ken did or didnt for town, he has done wonders for this rugby club and for that we will ALWAYS be grateful and hold ken and his family in high regard!!

no amount of pleading begging or bullying is going to make people on here suddenly turn against 'Sir Ken' because a bunch of football fans have been nudged by their chairman to kick off over this.....the situation to me is simple........Ken owns the shares, if HTFC/dean hoyle or whoever else wants them then BUY THEM OFF THE PERSON WHO OWNS THEM !!!!

use the money you save on pies /coffees etc due to your 'boycott', to put into a fund, stop giving 'free' t-shirts away to protest and use that money, which will have cost the company who made them , into same fund, save the money you were going to use to buy admission to a giants game to protest and use that towards helping the issue......if not then let the money men deal with it !

@cj01

Long post
Short on facts and accuracy.