[quote="MP":3jt0htio]Maybe what Hudds pay in rent at the Galpham is fair higher than what the cost of a new pitch for FC and Fax costs?[/quote:3jt0htio] At one point, both clubs paid a rent based on gate figures, the more they had in, the more they paid. I think that was on top of Office rental etc. I believe Giants haven't had any presence in the shop there now for a number of years but I've not been in myself so don't know. Huddersfield Town recently refurbished some offices near the cinema end of the ground and moved their operations into there, they've taken the old gym and turned it into a large bar for matchday and event use with a 750 capacity. Everything around the ground is blue and white now. And when Huddersfield Town take control, while they say the Giants are welcome to stay, it'll no doubt be a commercial agreement

A big point about all this work getting done on the stadium, it actually makes SL a realistically proposition for us if someone with money came in to the club. Without the stadium works its impossible for us to get enough points but this would change all that.

Hudders average attendance was 6422 when they won the league leaders shield. It's not a RL town.

[quote="Greg Florimos Boots":2lhmnam7]A big point about all this work getting done on the stadium, it actually makes SL a realistically proposition for us if someone with money came in to the club. Without the stadium works its impossible for us to get enough points but this would change all that.[/quote:2lhmnam7] The question that a lot of people want clarifying about all the work is with Ken Daley saying he was “loaning” the money to the clubs to get it done who is actually paying for it? Could be wrong but If he gets approval to buy it, it looks like and others have suggested although it would have been agreed, because of all the legalities the deal won’t be done / fully completed before the work has to start so he would have to loan the money to the clubs before he is legally the owner? But why would he be lending the money to the clubs when it would be CMBC who still legally owned the ground when the work was being done and wouldn’t it be their responsibility to manage the installation of the drainage, pitch etc and pay for it? If it was the clubs who were being loaned the money what sort of arrangement would it be? Ken Davey paying the biggest part, the clubs paying or some percentage combination. Unless Fax get the new rumoured board / consortium then they couldn’t afford any of it so lots of questions need answering and a lot of things need to happen in pretty short order on just that front. Add to that the other off field tax issue and the on field numbers of fit players the same applies there so interesting period ahead.

I don’t think it would improve our IMG points either. We still wouldn’t own the standout and will still be tenants, sharing with a football club and another RL side. Who would control match day catering? As we and the football would still be tenants would the revenue made from these sales go to KD and therefore the Giants?

[quote="Faxlore":3s8zeuie]I don’t think it would improve our IMG points either. We still wouldn’t own the standout and will still be tenants, sharing with a football club and another RL side. Who would control match day catering? As we and the football would still be tenants would the revenue made from these sales go to KD and therefore the Giants?[/quote:3s8zeuie] IMG wise if all the upgrades that are talked about are done we would increase our score by 1.0 for the facilities, 0.125 for the LED boards, and 0.125 for the big screen (I can't recall seeing mention of this), which takes us over 10 points. We have a ton of scope to improve on the finances section which if we could do would have us battling for around 13th/14th spot. I guess the down side in this is that Huddersfield would move to a Grade A ranking only leaving Hull and Salford as targets.