[quote="faxcar":1pzhbvtt]From the options on the table the KD one will get the best results the quickest but has the medium / longer issues surrounding his ownership and future of the stadium / clubs to resolve. I’m no legal expert but from all the parties they need to make the security of the ground and clubs as legally watertight as possible and the Council want to make it clearly plain to any future would be chancer that they will never grant planning permission or change of use that doesn’t still guarantee the Shay predominantly remains a sports ground. At least that way even if they sell it and don’t own it they still have a controlling power over what happens to it.[/quote:1pzhbvtt] Nail on the head and thats been the Working Group's aim from day one. The Council stated their intention of disposing of the Shay and when we came together (last summer) there didnt appear to be any other option on the table. We wanted to avoid the possible worst case of the stadium ending up for sale on the open market. Obviously we see the short-term merits in KD proposal - as a person, his record speaks for itself. Some are of immediate importance (the pitch and certain facilities) whilst others (large screen and digitial advertising) are more beneficial for the Giants. The Working Group doesnt pretend it can quickly resolve these immediate issues. But it is what happens in the long-term i.e. after the Giants return back to Kirklees. Problems may not arise under Ken Davy's ownership, or the next owner. It may be whoever follows them. But, if the Council does proceed with KD, I would be interested in what covenants, etc, could be put in place to provide the long-term security the two clubs need because I understand the options are quite limited.

[quote="Brew":3kxkqdg6]Does it? I've never heard a Huddersfield Town fan say a good word about him after his tenure with the club. [/quote:3kxkqdg6] I dont dispute there are differing opinions about his time at HTAFC. He saved the club and then protected his outlay by transfering the shares in the stadium which obviously soured the football supporters opinion of him.

[quote="Bubba":1ykhsj8h]I dont dispute there are differing opinions about his time at HTAFC. He saved the club and then protected his outlay by transfering the shares in the stadium which obviously soured the football supporters opinion of him.[/quote:1ykhsj8h] 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

[quote="Brew":2ghs1q96]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[/quote:2ghs1q96] 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.