Hey, it's no skin off my nose if our proposal has no legs. I'm a volunteer trying to do something positive as opposed to the risk of the council selling it to someone who may not necessarily have the best interests of our clubs as priority.



What I would say is that I've been a vociferous critic of the football club owner over his ownership of the football club. And similarly over the years with those running fax. They are two separate entities...owners and clubs. At least I'm consistent, regardless of which club it is which should count for something. I want two successful club in a stable and thriving setting, and that's what this boils down to for me.



You have an agenda. The working group has been nothing but positive and ambitious in relation to the two clubs. There is no agenda other than wanting what's best for both clubs so they can focus on on field matters.



But I'll leave it there. Some people won't be won over...some people don't want to be won over. I'm fully committed to what we want to achieve, and as a group it's nothing but the best intentions. But I certainly won't be concerned about people chucking mud.

It's also widely suspected he took out more than he put in over the time of his ownership.



It seems there is little other option than the Ken Davy option, we'll just have to see how it pans out. Neither Halifax club are in a realistic position to change their status from tenants to owners. So for the foreseeable will be at the mercy of someone else

If the Council do take the KD option.



There is still the issue of whether David Bosomworth will support it given the potential issues in having three teams using the pitch plus the fact that FCHT (plus the Panthers) will be lumbered with £150k of debt for the pitch works.



In the Council press release, he warmly welcomed the proposal but suggested "it is expected more detailed discussions will take place when clarity on any proposals allows decisions to be made."

What power of veto does Bosomworth, or anyone at the Panthers have?



I can imagine they can both refuse the £150k debt to be imposed on them. And KD has only said rents would remain the same for 12 months, so whats to stop him putting a massive hike on that as well as the "loan".



Seems a lot of rugby fans are quite happy with the proposal, I don't read enough FCHT stuff to know what their fans think.Personally I think its a terrible idea but with the council wanting to "dispose" of The Shay I dont see any other outcome currently

I think KD feels it is vital to have the support of both clubs. Plus, if one or both clubs didnt support it, it makes the issue more of a political football (ignore the pun) for the Council. So, I wouldnt say the two clubs can necessarily veto the deal, but they can certainly influence the final decision.



Ive spoken to a few football/rugby supporters in person who were reasonably excited about the proposal. But after explaining the potential issues, they have become more cautious. Others just want the pitch sorting and view it with short-termism - short term gain and worry about any potential long term pain further down the line.



I think back to Tony Abbott's failed attempts to buy the Shay. Only a few years later he was declared bankrupt and banned from being a company director. Had he owned the stadium, god knows what would have happened. This is just an example of why I am not in favour of private ownership, regardless of who it is or how honourable their intentions may be.

[i[/i



The first two points are linked to the clubs being the current tenants legally protected as much as possible and CMBC’s power over planning permission and change of use.



If Davy or his predecessors put on a massive hike then it would likely force them out and he wouldn’t see any rent or the £150 grand.



Yes they would have to find somewhere else to play but Davy & Co to have any income from the Shay would either have to stay there themselves or be left with a stadium they could do nothing with once they moved out.



I would be reasoning / arguing with him that since much of the funding for the pitch and floodlighting would be coming from grants that would directly benefit him as well as the clubs surely he can write that ( for him ) small amount off as a financial contribution to it all.



On the third point from who I’ve spoken to it’s more of the best deal from a poor hand than their personal choice.