Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Fax Website

161 posts in this topic

No wonder they have had problems, it would be better to quash rumours in order to put them to bed, they are just kidding themselves if all they're gong to do is 'squash' them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous how it takes threats of getting locked out to make the squatters pay the rent they owe.

I don't buy this 'they pay more' argument either, didn't someone find out how much 'more' they pay, and it's about £100 a month.

That covers the use of the South stand gym, and training ON the pitch, and the Under 20 and first team games, and the offices and the shop.

I wouldn't quibble that if I were them, after all, they agreed to pay that amount.

Get them out now, had enough of them. Their lack of rent paying proves that the Shay is sustainable with only one rent paying tenant.

 

How on earth do you figure that out when the council are missing rent revenue from rugby which in turn will pay the stadium overheads from the rent recieved/not recieved?

 

Are you in charge of Shay finances?  No you are not.

 

It speaks volumes to me that it has taken a number of FOI requests which proves that CMBC needs rent revenue from both clubs thus cannot afford for Fax to go into admin as there will be no replacement for them?

 

That's why they cut them off so much slack before they had to act and change the locks in Mar and keep schtum about their arrears up to then?

 

Have you penned the business plan for CMBC whereby stadium can be viable with Town as sole tenant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they've proved if is viable. They currently aren't paying any money so the income would be the same. But the damage to the pitch and use of the stadium would be less, so then no need for high rent? Or is that too much like common sense? Same income, less usage if they were kicked out??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they've proved if is viable. They currently aren't paying any money so the income would be the same. But the damage to the pitch and use of the stadium would be less, so then no need for high rent? Or is that too much like common sense? Same income, less usage if they were kicked out??

But it's less income as fax will pay eventually. And it's the fixed costs that cost the council a fortune with the Shay rather than the variable ones I would imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the video. Steele says:

 

' Today we have remitted sufficient funds to make CMBC accept we are up to date with the rent. Opening the door for parity and fairness in the ways the stadium is managed'

 

Sounds to me they have paid some and not all, FOI request needed DM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARRGHGH GIH GIOehg o;'adghp9o8qgho;hv loiudhv liuabdhv likquhyg ilquhgr eqklurehf opiuert4qh erqtiuertwh pegioruqhyg verql,hjkbvefqrdsw,mcdhjsv ,

 

SQUATTERS OUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ian croad said the same on facebook an hour ago.

 

Not what MS said on video, listen carefully.

 

Anything Croad tweets in totally credible as we all agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's less income as fax will pay eventually. And it's the fixed costs that cost the council a fortune with the Shay rather than the variable ones I would imagine.

 

Exactly. This is what did for Darlo, when they got into arrears with utilities, leccy and water.

 

Anyone who believes we can be sole tenants at Shay with current rent is deluded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear from the accounts for the Shay that even with both the clubs paying the full amounts of rent due that the stadium isn't viable as it is being run at the moment.

 

It is difficult to know if there are savings which can be made on the costs as there isn't sufficient detail given in the accounts.

 

It should also be remembered that the council is repaying £3 million of borrowing which is not reflected in the accounts.

 

The council is in a difficult position financially and logically, despite what they may say politically, would be more than happy to rid itself of the financial burden. It is clear that the property department is endeavoring to sell off as many surplus council properties as possible, even to give them away to community organisations, so that it can at least rid itself of on going maintainance costs. Therein probably lies the somewhat flawed logic of trying to dispose of the Shay to rid itself of an on going drain on its resources even though, presumably, under the Reactiv offer it would still leave itself with much of the borrowing still to pay back, but at least the on going losses would be stopped.

 

Michael Steele's comments are strange in that he goes from saying ''fully up to date even on Calderdale Council's numbers'' which suggests full payment is being made to ''today remitted sufficient funds to make Calderdale accept we are up to date''. I assume he is just squirming around with the wording because he is still trying to dispute the amount but time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total bollox from Steele ! Obviously there's still a gap between what they owe and what they think they owe ! Think the Veesters analogy sums it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just to remind them of the facts (and this assumes the rugby club are up to date fully) - this is from DM FOI request

 

last 3 years rent

 

Rugby £109180

Football £108600

 

mmm, significant difference there I see

 

and the council state

To offset the fact that a club shop was not being provided to FC Halifax Town a reduction in rent was agreed to be effective from July 2012.

 

so even now their directors are still bending the truth

 

Any idea how many games each team has played at the Shay in that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea how many games each team has played at the Shay in that time?

Considering the u23's play at the shay, then usage is even. It's no one but the Rugbys fault if they schedule games at the shay that attract two men and a dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the u23's play at the shay, then usage is even. It's no one but the Rugbys fault if they schedule games at the shay that attract two men and a dog.

Exactly, and then with the gym and shop of course they're gonna pay more rent.

Complete jokers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately the eggers don't see it  that way, 

 

Nat says

"Ignore the idiot comments on youtube. The guys used all three of his braincells to work out they only paid £580 less than we did. Ignoring the fact that they have twice as many games as we do"

 

we play 23 games

they play 13 games, then their U20 team plays 10 - which I believe equals 23

 

So where does he get "twice as many games"

 

Both teams will have the odd cup match but that doesn't make that much difference

 

And they still ignore the fact that they have a club shop and we don't  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seriously don't get it. The rent isn't for pitch time, it's for the use of the facilities plus the office and - in their case - use of extra space for their shop and gym. This extra square footage they have isn't free. It makes me so mad that everyone pays taxes in order to provide a first class education to everyone, yet some people still display a level of intelligence that steaming piles of baboon crap would be ashamed of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they'll never "get it" because getting it means they will have to admit that their board is lying to them and their club is a complete shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they have only 1 more payday for 6 months, luckily they have the 2nd place prize money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their BOD seem to make some strange decisions.

 

They have appointed a man to generate £500K of sponsorship which would appear to be a little optimistic and he is being slated both by Fax supporters and Fev supporters at his previous club.

 

I appreciate a BOD has to make it's own decisions and can't simply follow public opinion but it will be interesting to see how successful he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't they have playoffs now?

What's the point of them then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of them then?

Some kind of bonus point I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between what the rugby club pay and what the football club pay is £825 per month excluding VAT.

 

There appears to be little difference regarding how much time is spent playing on the pitch.

 

The £825 must therefore relate to the space they have available for a gym area, office space and shop space.

 

On the face of it £190 per week surely can not be far off for renting that additional space.

 

Other than a simplistic statement from Michael Steele that it is not fair that the rugby club are paying more than the football club I don't think I have seen what his actual logic is behind it. Perhaps Fax TV could ask him this question so that we can all understand why he feels hard done by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites