www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/ca ... -1-6952740 Cue the FCHT prats.

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/ca ... -1-6952740 Cue the FCHT prats.

Get in there Tony. The Reactive Stand.

Why don't the council also rent out a club shop for the footy lot. Oh, hang on.......

Like the bit at the end from the councillor, basically says if you dont want someone else involved with the stadium then we will put your rent up, simple.

Its an article in the courier which wont be factually correct , just ignore all crass comments posted here or anywhere else. Don't answer them, pass comment or rise(or lower yourselves) to them. End of subject !!

I agree this is just the new Conservative Council leadership flexing its muscles, I do think that the South Stand annex needs completing and using for an income stream plus a hotel would be a good idea but I can't see it on the Skircoat Road side as its full of trees and slopes a better site is the land at the back of the South Stand and the overflow car park putting a new entrance further down Shay Syke.
But no to increasing the rent for both clubs and once again they should charge the same as Fax are reducing their usage I understand, all will become clear soon.

A hotel?
Council offices?
Rent out to business?
Improve the exteria appearance of the ground?
Now where did I hear that?
Mmmm
O'h yes on the night Mr Abbott put his proposals forward.
An unnamed business has shown interest?
Well the courier isn't going to say Rxxxxxxx Mxxxx is it?

Let's just say that I do not think there will be outcry from the pub team fans this time!!

Oh there will. Don't you worry. Anything seen as an attack on their predominantly rented "home"

I agree with the opening sentence though Cllr Baines is much more realistic about the Shay than Cllr Swift. It was Stephen Baines who had the balls to get the funding for completing the East Stand.

What they need to realise however is that both clubs are an asset to the town. Its OK talking about upping the rent of both clubs but they need to appreciate the sporting, social and economic benefits the clubs bring into the town and not just the fact that the stadium requires a subsidy each year.

Absolutely Bubba, they really need to think of the effect if neither club were there and how much would be lost in terms of income from the smaller local businesses. The pubs, cafés etc. which pay their rents to the council would be affected, they need to think of the bigger picture when looking at this type of thing.

Bubba when you take off your "I hate Fax" hat and put your "Mr Sensible" one on then I am sure most of us would agree with your sentiments.
Throw the former one away, the latter suits you much more.

I have said it before, I dont hate Fax. I hate the way it has acted in the past just the same as I have hated (and been embarrassed) by the way FCHT/HTAFC have behaved in the past and am usually one of the first to say so.

I am proud of our town and want nothing more than see both clubs flourish.

I concurr.

John - you seem to have misunderstood my intentions.

I'm happy for the Shay to be improved and want this to happen. The difference is this time CMBC will keep the freehold on the pitch and the stands, thus securing the ground for each of the clubs in the future.

Lease out the surrounding land, get companies to develop it instead of rental payments and it's a win-win for all concerned. The companies get cheap rent, CMBC makes money back and doesn't have to fund the ground, the stadium is improved and both teams have a home that can't be sold off for development, or gobbled up by a bank if one of the developing companies goes under.

I couldn't give two hoots who rents the office space or what the stands are called as long as they are protected for the future. It's always been the ownership issue that concerned me.

Well said Mr Mouse. It's a win, win situation for all concerned. Let's put the past into the past. Both clubs are OK and looking at a better future than they have done for some time. The bickering has to stop, and in needs to stop now.

I have never misunderstood your intentions, you have an agenda which is never hidden, however, as Malcolm says above time to bury the hatchet, which incidentally against Town I have never raised.
As I have said on many occasions I dislike football and most of the people involve with the "beautiful game" BUT I wish any club, business etc etc which has the name of HALIFAX every success.
Incidentally how did you know my name was John??

Whilst the Mailbag section is still on the Courier they dont seem to put letters on there anymore. I have had a letter in today in response to the article last week.


After what has happened over the last 18 or so months it is refreshing to hear a bit of common sense finally coming out of the Town Hall over the future of the Shay Stadium.

Councillor Baines appears to have a realistic vision of what the Shay estate is and what it can be in the future. The stadium is a local asset but one which hasn’t yet realised its potential to ensure it isn’t a drain on the local taxpayer.

It needs pointing out that there are other council owned assets which require an annual subsidy – such as the Victoria Theatre – so the Shay Stadium isn’t alone in running at a cost to CMBC. An asset which isn’t self-sufficient shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as a bad thing though and it is important that the other benefits of having two senior sporting clubs in the town, including both economic and social, need to be appreciated and taken into consideration.

The idea of increasing the facilities which are on offer within the wider estate has long been discussed and hopefully we can finally see progress. FCHT and HRLFC need to be just two of many tenants at the stadium to create a true community facility and the approach taken by the Council Leader on the whole seems to be balanced and considered.

It was disappointing however that Councillor Baines’ felt it necessary to make condescending comments against certain supporters who have made issue of the Council’s behind closed doors handling of the Shay in recent times. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened on the watch of his predecessor, Councillor Tim Swift, which only came to light thanks to the vigorous research and questioning by FC Halifax Town supporters.

We were told that a deal to buy the stadium was just as good as complete by the man attempting to buy it. The price tag was a small fraction of what the Shay was worth with Council Officers advising the prospective buyer of where he should aim his bid – something which is against CMBC’s own guidelines. And this was all going on both behind the backs of the elected members of the Council and those with an emotive connection to the stadium – including one of the sporting tenants.

The bid of £1.9m wouldn’t have been a good return for the tax payer given that the Council is still paying back a loan taken out to complete the £6m East Stand not too long ago. A sale to a private organisation also wouldn’t have offered a secure future either for the stadium or two clubs regardless of what covenants were placed on any deal.

Councillor Bains has obviously forgotten about the Asset of Community Value listing granted on the stadium last year. This was successfully applied for by Halifax Town Supporters’ Trust to try bring some transparency to the Council’s handling of the Shay. It goes without saying that there are commercial and sensitive details which need to be negotiated confidentially. The crucial point though is striking a balance which keeps everyone on board to ensure a healthy, both financially and operationally, future for the Shay Stadium, its tenants and the Calderdale tax payer.

So a word of warning to Councillor Baines. Supporters don’t simply worry about the surface of the pitch or in what position to stand on a matchday. In five, ten or however many years time when Councillor Baines is no longer Leader, both clubs will still need somewhere secure to call home. The supporters are interested in protecting the stadium from short-term savings and electioneering and their views should be considered as well as the wider community.

As a matter of interest, Bubba, can you tell me whether the ACV ruling covers just the stadium or the whole Shay estate? One of the posters in the Courier states the latter but I have looked at the wording of the ACV and it suggests that it only covers the pitch, stands, car parks and 5-a-sides.

After submitting the ACV the Council came back to me to seek clarification on which area(s) of the Shay the application was for. I Issued a map highlighting the whole Shay estate rather than just the stadium.