Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Danger_Mouse last won the day on November 20 2016

Danger_Mouse had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

172 Neutral

About Danger_Mouse

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As part of their "make the South Stand open again" campaign?
  2. I thought you didn't agree with us banging on about the rent boys
  3. Lying in bed at 4 in the afternoon? You are a ruddy politician
  4. Classic - out of all that you pick out the one line about the only person no longer connected with your club; are you a politician? I'm not confident we've seen the whole story regarding the purchase of the Shay, but at least some on here decided to ask a question or two rather than hang out the bunting in celebration. Also, for someone who ran a media company the fact he came out of it so badly makes me wonder why he couldn't spin it to make himself look better. If he'd been tricked into being a patsy then why not tell his side of the story? Christ, if he's that inept he could be maneuvered by CMBC then he must have been relieved when he realised that your allegence could be bought with a plate of chips and a computer mock-up of the New Shay!
  5. Let's just remind ourselves of something... FOI509 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rent_arrears_for_the_shay_stadiu#incoming-453503) response dated 19.11.13 arrears stood at £57,191 and HRLFC had promised to pay them by 31.12.13 FOI1067 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/arrangement_to_pay_rent_arrears#incoming-491336) submitted 13.02.14 I asked: Did Halifax RLFC promise that the whole of the arrears outstanding at that time (£57,191) would be paid? Did Halifax RLFC dispute the amount of the arrears? Did Halifax RLFC promise to pay off a lesser amount due to a dispute of the amount of arrears owed? If so, what was the lesser amount and where did the disputed amount arise from? Was the promise to pay the arrears (in full or part)dependent on CMBC or a third party performing a task, completing some work or any other caveat mentioned by the rugby club (e.g. the arrears, in whole or part, would be paid if a scoreboard was built, drains were fixed by a certain date etc.). The responses were: Yes No, not at that time. No No Therefore, the disputes over what the rugby club should pay only appeared between November and February, and someone at the club had previously admitted liability for the whole amount, All of this later guff regarding 'disputes with CMBC' over stadium usage, pitch problems, lack of scoreboard etc. is revisionist bullocks. The simple fact is the club stopped paying rent for 18 months, and when that became public knowledge Steal and Co. came out with one excuse after another as to why they stopped paying which was lapped up without question by 95% of the posters on your message board. As to Town's owners paying to improve the pitch - should it have been necessary, possibly not. But with the country in a period of austerity, CMBC making cutbacks and the ground already losing money was it the pragmatic thing to do? Absolutely. There used to be something in this country where the rich would gift things for the enjoyment of the local community, like People's Park being given to the town by Crossley, or Shibden Hall being gifted to the town by the Lister family. Town's owners have given to the sports fans of the town by improving the pitch and sponsoring the stands. Abort attempted to shaft the council by buying the ground at a cut-down price, with the almost unanimous support of your fans. Your other owners short change the council (rent would have accrued on the interest), gripe constantly about things they have signed legal agreements to pay and moan about things they believe they are entitled to (like the effing scoreboard). Not once have we seen them offer to do something good for the town that they won't get a tangible asset from. Also, as for costing your club thousands - you still have your home games. Town played 3 (I think) 'home' games away rather than rearrange them at the Shay, which would have cost us far more. So, are our owners idiots who are getting shafted by the council without speaking up, or possibly benevolent owners whose actions have benefited the town as a whole rather than just the club they own? Are they perfect owners, possibly not, but I know who I'd rather have out of the two BODs. (Sorry for the long reply, but Match of the Day is particularly poor tonight )
  6. I never said that, but FCHT did it with good grace, HRLFC wet their pants over it and claimed (after the fact) that it was part of the rent dispute. I'm highlighting the differing approaches taken by both BODs. You're probably the only team in the top few leagues of RL that can get 18 months in rent arrears at those shared ground too, perhaps the two issues are linked?
  7. I'm not, but I also don't believe the 'all is good' coming from Steal either. Season tickets are only going on sale for the East stand atm, which implies any rent freeze or cut is dependent on using less of the ground; and how do we know the reserves aren't using the ground on a 'pay per play' basis? CMBC have become a bit of a laughing stock over their dealings with Fax over the last few years, compared with us who've paid on time, sponsored stands and been benevolent for the public good (contributing over and above and moving games). Fax have made well publicised threats that have repeatedly fallen through. They won't want to be seen as kicking Fax out of the town, but have shown they will play hardball when required and contract negotiation time is the best chance to draw lines in the sand.
  8. Why? If I were CMBC in the negotiations this week, if granting Fax any leeway in staying at the Shay, I'd be saying "if your payment is a day late we'll lock you out of your offices. A week late and your reserves play elsewhere, two weeks late and your first team can't play".
  9. http://i.rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=599622&sid=54113f6ef49f793d76bc00be1930e041&start=30 With respect, why even look on their board.I recently watched a programme called "Ripper St" it's set in approx 1888 and there was a football match.True to form as it was then and is now the game descended into a brawl between both sets of players and of course the crowd.Nothing changes, apart from our Mr T they are all Luddites.Football is corrupt, from top to bottom.England manager! The "beautiful game"? Some illiterate Scot stating that "it's more important than life or death"Leave them to enjoy their own cesspit, No disrespect intended.
  10. The person who has just used an episode of 'Ripper Street', a BBC drama based around violence and murder, as evidence of the long history of violence at football matches
  11. He thought Abort owning the Shay would benefit us - absolute twaddle coming out of him.
  12. I agree with that - by putting a statement out they drive the context of the debate and make the council drive them down from the rugby club's objectives. It could have the effect of peeing CMBC off even more, it depends how badly the relationship has eroded. I wonder if anyone is taking minutes of these meetings...
  13. Excellent point, what did the courier report as the shirt sponsorship amount?
  14. They may have paid off loans, Abort lent loads trying to buy credibility didn't he? Plus a few last minute rent cheques came out of directors' pockets I thought. And they bought a minibus. I know very little about running businesses and accountancy etc., so could someone help me out? I seem to remember Reactiv owned shares in the club. Didn't Reactiv go to the wall, and if so would those shares go to the creditors? Someone said on Faxfans they'd be owned by Tony, but I can't see assets being given to the company owner. Fax are in debt so I know they're not assets as such; but if they are held by the creditors could they have got hold of some of that prize fund?
  15. I'd be happy to help, but all I've done is use official methods to get responses out of an official body. CMBC can exempt the discussions with Fax as presumably lawyers are involved, and it's pre-contract negotiations. I don't think the Spanish Inquisition could get answers out of Steal and co., and if they could no-one would believe the answers. i think they'd be best speaking to Bubba for plan B advice to be honest, as RLFC Halifax might be a better alternative if there's a merger and hopefully both sets of fans could move forward together.
  • Create New...