He offered after he'd put an offer in for the Shay without having the decency to inform the co-tenants of his intentions. It was an attempt to buy influence. The Town directors said at the time they didn't think it was right accepting money from someone they would be opposing in the near future. It was the 100% correct response.

Nah!icon_sad.gif

Ah right. Let's get rid of our directors so the Town fans will get on with us.



What a prick.



Thankfully as one poster has already alluded, these three eejits don't represent the majority of Town fans, most of whom couldn't give a flying crap about HXRLFC and do not come on here at every opportunity to troll and spout nonsense. Not sure if it's historical jealousy that brings them out from under the rock or whether it's boredom from their own forum but please, get over it.

Mr Windsor Yarnman, why did the rugby club agree to those terms in the first place ?



Where i come from, if you agree to something then it's up to you to continue that agreement until amendments are agreed.



Why did the club spend the money that should have been paying the rent on other things, why wasn't it simply put away into the club accounts until the club eventually agreed to pay up ?



Using the reserve fixtures as a make-weight in the usage arguement v the other tenant's usage isn't even negotiable bearing in mind we haven't had reserves/academy teams for all those years of tenancy, surely that weakens our case ! If we were to only have a senior ( 1st team ) fixture as maybe the case who knows, let's say 18 home fixtures in the league programme next season surely our rent v the other tenant per fixture is at an even greater uneven parity.



The club should have paid it's way throughout what is still been seen as a re-negotiating period, if the landlords had evicted the RL club, would the b.o.d. have expected the club's supporters to have travelled to a neighbouring stadium to watch our team play "home" fixtures ?



If the stadium shop is such a financial burden as part of the rent issue, why do we still rent it ?



I am still just 6 lottery No.'s away from owning this RL club

Wise words Mr S. A different viewpoint on the issue. theshay.org/wp/?p=148

Wise words Mr S. A different viewpoint on the issue. theshay.org/wp/?p=148

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.

Exactly my point.

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.