John just a bit of advice NEVER stand under a Flying Pig ,Charlie knows .

Looks like it bounced of your hat Charlie ad landed on our nose. Charlie nose.

John in the next few weeks im going to organise a Charity Fight Night for LISA , it will take place next year , we are thinking of a Wigan v Leigh theme , my brother-in Law trains professionally , he trained Paul Sculthorpe for his Boxing Night , im thinking of having a Curtain Raiser fight featuring a couple of opposing Fans , how about Frank v Littlerich

, any other ideas ?

In the Blue corner the fearsome, aweinspiring, destructive, unbeaten flyweight champion of Halifax weighing in at a little under 8 stone, height, 5ft 4 inches reach, as far as my wallet, fist size, tight, fear factor 11 out of 10, ladies and gentlemen Mrs HalifaxJohn.
frightens the life out of me anyway.
In the red corner, any one who doesn't agree with her.
No contest.

Off thread yer banned

I sting like a butterfly, fly like a bee.

Aaaaaaadriiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane!!!!!!

If the thread that has been started is a load of rubish have we still to stick to it or can we make it up as we go along.

Halifax Town board so innocent and NEVER tell lies.

I wouldnt trust them any more than Mr Abbott to be honest, as I dont know them. They can say what they want, but it doesnt make it true. The Owners (The Council) dont have to tell them or Fax (The Tenants) anything about any meetings if they dont want. If a landlord has received a bid for his property he doesnt tell the tenant. So why would the Council involve the football club about a bid made? Maybe after advanced meetings and The Shay would possibly be sold, the Council would make contact, but again doesnt need to do. The football club should stop moaning and crying and except they are tenants and as such dont hold any rights or demands on what the Council decide regarding the shay. The same goes for Fax as Tenants.

Did the FCHT board actually write this?

Where was it first published?

In yesterdays programme.

Not wanting to start a war again but after waiting all this time to say something it just didn't sound very well put together with a couple of possible contradictions.

Do you think it sounds fluent?

Just to clarify, the fcht supporters club had a meeting a few weeks ago where the board were the guests and they made their opposition quiet clear.

As regards to the original post, it is indeed from the programme, but the poster in question has written it out, and not
Copied and pasted.

Could of been wrote by any number of their imbecile supporters to be fair.

Let's make it up, just as the statement is.

Love the irony

Welcome , we need MORE Charlies .

Well, having a look through there does appear to be a few discrepancies within itself.

For example.
Early on it says it has been a distraction that has involved an immense amount of work caused by the uncertainty of what was going on and not being consulted and also the length of time taken for discussions between the council and TA.

From what has been said did anyone know what was going on, the agenda seemed to be changing and evolving all the time.

First an enquiry to finish the corner, then a bit more, then the whole stadium.
As it snowballed obviously there was more and more involved taking longer and longer to consider.
Logically, only recently when it finally got to this point could the Council, for the first time decide and say anything.

Also if things had been rushed through, then that would have been criticized as well, ("no due process".)
It was the time element that allowed the "cat out of the bag" as it is called and allowed the ACV to be applied for.
The ACV itself will add more time to the process and doesn't even start until if and when the sale of the Shay ever returns to the table.

Time in that sense is an ally of anyone (FCHT for example) not wanting the sale to go through not an enemy.

Later it says that when a meeting (consultation) was held with FCHT and TA there was no commitment from FCHT to come to a conclusion at that meeting or a subsequent meeting.
So when they are not consulted they have been left out and it takes a long time it causes problems.
Yet when they are consulted they did not want to bring it to a conclusion resulting in it taking even longer.

It states they were not prepared to enter into a tit for tat comment saga even though we disagreed with some of the comments made by TA in the public meeting.

Later it says that the reason for not accepting the sponsorship money would be hypocritical when we may be totally opposed to what TA proposed.
Is it some disagreement or total disagreement?

Anyway all anyone can do is wait and see what happens in these future meetings.

Quote from shaymen.net:

"The supposed mis-spelling of his name also appears to be the fault of the half-wit who copied and pasted flea's original post onto their forum. christ if they can't perform a simple paste and copy job without screwing up, it goes a long way to explain the general idiocy on there."

Fao. Mr T Hall - this is what your fellow FCHT fans think of you for posting on their behalf.

LOL--i did copy and paste it,cant think how it was wrong ?
il have to accept i screwed up.Moody wont know im a town fan too.
mr v has changed hisn user name to mr vincent now lol
all good fun.

Well it wasn't what it appears to be.

Probably the most relevant comment to cover the entire Shay proceedings from all parties from day 1.

No one knows what the other one is planning, doing or thinking at any given time so we are all left guessing and distrusting each other.

think have seen a post accusing charlie of posting on town site. charlie knows.

Love the comment about health and safety and maintenance.All the directors of FCHT are clearly blokes as NO-ONE could possibly say that the ladies toilets in the South stand are healthy,safe or well maintained.Half of the toilets don't work,most of the taps don't work,the floor is permanently covered in water and there is rarely any toilet paper so who is responsible for the health and safety of the female supporters at the Shay?

52k would go a long way towards paying for that would it not?

You tell us, you appear to be the expert..... unless you meant to add a £ in front of the 52k or would you just like us to all guess what you mean ?

I reasoned it must be this years rent and there was a time frame to pay it in.

If it is rent overdue from previous years that is owed and what is due from this year it should be payed, why should it not be.

Again though I don't know all the facts and spend most of the time looking at what is happening on the field and playing front and know less about what is going on off it.