On the subject of upkeep it'd be interesting to know what it's cost us over the past couple of years. In the days of Hood he used to go on about how much the stadium cost in upkeep and how it was a financial millstone. He used to bring it up at every fans forum. Duffy used to go on about how it cost thousands to get a troublesome drain unblocked to further illustrate this point.

Now assuming that all that was correct then I don't expect much to have changed. The only difference is the Rooley Lane end terracing which is now not used. Maintenance of that may have been curtailed which may have reduced costs.

One things for sure, some bits of the stadium do need some work urgently. It's not far of Belle Vue standards in some areas.

If we do ever make it to the middle 8s then we're going to need the Rooley Lane terracing again soon, hope it isn't going to cost much to bring it back into use.

Rooley lane gets used once a year for the fire work display and the monster trucks. Surly the only reason they don't open it is to save on steward costs.

would be lovely to see you back in the big league so we can kick your and send you back down again for the like of you, grates a bit doesn't pal sweet cheeks indeed

I agree

What a wonderful contribution to this discussion. You must be extremely proud of yourself. Well done, are you walking about with a smug grin on your face today

Have you seen our lease agreement? I haven't, so I couldn't possibly say what we are or aren't entitled to pay.

If you're right and the upkeep of the stadium is 100% our responsibility then again we come back to the ongoing puzzle of just how in the hell we are managing to survive in this division paying all of these outgoings?

I haven't seen any agreements (as I'm sure you well know

, but I do attend most of the forums and listen to what is said. All of the things I've said have been discussed at some level, at the forums, though it should be said that Chalmers is much more 'cagey' than previous recent owners, though they did say that the terms were the same as before, which is why I believe we still have the same sub-lease, plus I've not heard anyone, other than in this thread, suggest otherwise.

There is an ongoing rumour that we've been 'let off' the annual payments by the RFL, which may or may not be true, and that may be part of the reason we seem able 'to survive', though going largely part time and still getting decent crowds through the gate is undoubtedly playing its part. I don't know if the deferred payment (if indeed it exists) is just scrubbed out or if it is be added to our later payments. It shouldn't be forgotten either that repairs are only costly when work is actually done, and that many things in a large sports ground can be deferred for some time before they become critical (ie affect the licence) so that could be another reason. Eg, the last time we used the floodlights there were more lights out than in, IIRC.

The original Underlease which was part of the "circling predators" deal will have been with BB Holdings Ltd as it was at the end of 2011. You might assume that the present Underlease is either an assignment of that or else a carbon copy but I don't think we have ever been told.

That Underlease was for 30 years so to the end of 2041. (The Head Lease has a way to go, until 2152). It could be terminated if RFL wanted to redevelop or for reconstruction. Also we could be given notice to move to suitable alternative or shared accommodation.

It was widely whispered that we were being let off some of the payments due but I've not seen any evidence of this so can't venture an opinion. What seems likely therefore (assuming we lease on same terms as BBHL) is we're good until 2041 unless reconstruction (the chances of which I'd put at zero) or agree to a ground share (only VP would fit the bill and you can guess at the chances of that happening equally as well as can I)

Chalmers hasn’t disappointed ha ha. I mean personally if hudgell and carter want to act like this it might be better to keep a dignified silence. Or call carter’s bluff as he hasn’t got the means to buy odsal. Let them show themselves up. But I’m glad Chalmers isn’t a push over and isn’t afraid to give the clowns what for. Are they really that desperate or insecure that they have to pick fights with a league one club to deflect attention from their own failings?

Latest Chalmers column here: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... onal-game/

Latest Chalmers column here: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... onal-game/

Quote ="Bullseye"Latest Chalmers column here: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... onal-game/'" Read a few lines, got to the bit where he starts bitching about other clubs' chairmen (AGAIN) and closed the page. Not sure how he can keep a straight face while he accuses others of being insatiable.

Quote ="Bullseye"Latest Chalmers column here: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... onal-game/'" Read a few lines, got to the bit where he starts bitching about other clubs' chairmen (AGAIN) and closed the page. Not sure how he can keep a straight face while he accuses others of being insatiable.

It wouldn't be RL without club owners having a public pi55ing contest.

Yeah he needs to stop the mud slinging. Im sure he's had plenty thrown at him at various meetings from the usual cliques and maybe he wants to challenge th. But he needs to stop it. The point he makes (which i think are normally right) get lost with his mud throwing.

Read a few words, got to the bit where you started bitching about the club (AGAIN) and laughed my head off. Not sure how you can keep a straight face when you accuse others of bitching.

You feel like a few of them could do with locking in a room together until they come out either shaking hands or battered and bruised.