[quote="Greg Florimos Boots":37zplaou]It does look that way but hard to find the official data. What I can find is that the population looks to be around 208k which will be split in 2 to drop us from 1 point to 0.5 points until the Giants leave. I saw a Giants fan claiming their score would go up which seems to be impossible if that population is correct.[/quote:37zplaou] Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3. Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points. https://www.totalrl.com/forums/uploads/ ... 936f83.png In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.

[quote="Greg Florimos Boots":37zplaou]It does look that way but hard to find the official data. What I can find is that the population looks to be around 208k which will be split in 2 to drop us from 1 point to 0.5 points until the Giants leave. I saw a Giants fan claiming their score would go up which seems to be impossible if that population is correct.[/quote:37zplaou] Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3. Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points. https://www.totalrl.com/forums/uploads/ ... 936f83.png In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.

[quote="faxcar":j8dhw5lb]Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3. Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points. https://www.totalrl.com/forums/uploads/ ... 936f83.png In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.[/quote:j8dhw5lb] Why would there be excessive resistance? If we had an owner who wants to take the club away from a shared stadium and build their own stadium and facilities, who would complain about that. Many FC supports would cheer about such a proposal and so would I.

[quote="faxcar":j8dhw5lb]Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3. Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points. https://www.totalrl.com/forums/uploads/ ... 936f83.png In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.[/quote:j8dhw5lb] Why would there be excessive resistance? If we had an owner who wants to take the club away from a shared stadium and build their own stadium and facilities, who would complain about that. Many FC supports would cheer about such a proposal and so would I.

[quote="Faxlore":6hyjv7id]Why would there be excessive resistance? If we had an owner who wants to take the club away from a shared stadium and build their own stadium and facilities, who would complain about that. Many FC supports would cheer about such a proposal and so would I.[/quote:6hyjv7id] I was talking about the move for them out of Huddersfield to the Shay which although being described as temporary would likely be for some considerable time whilst everything to do with finding a site, planning permission and then building a new stadium involved got sorted out. If we did it I would be concerned about us ever going back to our home town, loss of identity and or being swallowed up in some sort of a merger with the home ground being out side of Halifax with a different name and ceasing to exist as a club or in the Giants case that applying to them and remember the reaction from Fax fans when the proposed merger with Bradford to Tony Gartland. The days of the Shay ever just being the home of FC Town are over with and everyone needs to move on to the reality of 2025. The council are losing too much money and they have to get rid and if Fax left it would only hasten the departure of FC Town as well. If that's a reason for anyone to cheer bearing in mind it's the ones fuelled by hatred that would be the cheering the loudest, well enough said and they need to careful what they wish for or their dream would soon become a nightmare.

Rugby League is slowly dying, Salford will be the next SL club to go bust and when you have McManus at Saints saying they'll have to cut costs (he's fed up of throwing money into a deep pit) then you know there's problems. Will all come to a head when SKY offers a pittance in the next renewal. As for the championship, it's only a matter of time before everything falls apart. Crowds decreasing and interest waning. Using myself as a yard stick I not at all excited about the start of the new season ..... I don't care! There was an article by Chris Foy in the Daily Mail a few months back about Union and League merging ...... it makes sense, Union is much more watchable than it used to be and I actually enjoy watching Union highlights on the telly.

[quote="Tony Fax":2eimuljf]Rugby League is slowly dying, Salford will be the next SL club to go bust and when you have McManus at Saints saying they'll have to cut costs (he's fed up of throwing money into a deep pit) then you know there's problems. Will all come to a head when SKY offers a pittance in the next renewal. As for the championship, it's only a matter of time before everything falls apart. Crowds decreasing and interest waning. Using myself as a yard stick I not at all excited about the start of the new season ..... I don't care! There was an article by Chris Foy in the Daily Mail a few months back about Union and League merging ...... it makes sense, Union is much more watchable than it used to be and I actually enjoy watching Union highlights on the telly.[/quote:2eimuljf] [i:2eimuljf] In his latest ‘Talking Rugby League’ column, League Express editor MARTYN SADLER suggests that long-term strategic thinking is needed by Super League club owners in their approach to the liquidity crisis at Salford Red Devils. IS Salford the canary in the coal mine? The Super League club owners will meet on Tuesday and their reaction to the crisis at Salford Red Devils could tell us a lot about whether Super League has a viable future. The liquidity crisis at Salford is merely a symptom of what is happening across Super League, whose clubs lost many millions collectively during 2024. I’m told that Salford’s losses were apparently lower than those of any other club in the competition, with one owner, for example, having had to put £4 million into his club to keep it operating. The eleven clubs other than Salford are fortunate that they have owners who can do this, but I’m sure that Hull FC would have been in the same position as Salford if new investors hadn’t turned up in the nick of time. And if any or all of the existing owners were to walk away, then Super League would be in an awful mess. Salford were last week urged by the RFL to offload their leading players to other clubs, ideally for substantial transfer fees that would help reduce their deficit, while they are also being urged to cut their costs as a whole to the bone, which would clearly make them uncompetitive as a Super League team. Rugby League’s business model clearly doesn’t work and it needs urgent surgery to transform itself into a model that is sustainable and can secure stability and then growth. Unfortunately I see no sign of the current leadership of the game being able to achieve that aim. The danger is that the competition will weaken and the dominoes will begin to topple one by one. The club owners getting together is an encouraging sign, but only if they make the right decisions. And the key principle they have to follow is that the competition itself has greater value and importance than any of the individual clubs. If we see the other clubs swooping to sign Salford players, thereby fatally weakening the Red Devils and reducing the club to being a passenger in the 2025 season, then I’m afraid there is little hope for the game. With a new broadcasting agreement due to begin in 2027, the demise of Salford will significantly reduce the value of those rights, as we have seen with Premiership rugby union after it lost three clubs and was reduced to a ten-team competition. So if that isn’t to happen and the value of the competition is to be protected, then the clubs have to take control of the situation by becoming far more creative in shoring up its weakest links. What that means is that they have to combine their resources to protect Salford’s position in Super League so that the Red Devils can retain their current squad and be competitive. I understand that the Red Devils are in discussions with an Australian consortium that is seeking to buy the club. I’m not sure if and when that deal will be completed, but the other Super League clubs need to effectively provide Salford with a bridging loan from their own resources to tide them over until that deal is completed and, if it isn’t completed, until the end of the season. The other clubs have some very wealthy owners who must realise that the value of their own clubs depends on the value of Super League as a whole and they therefore need Salford to not just survive but thrive. To raise, say, £1 million between them as private individuals on a relatively short-term basis shouldn’t be too difficult. They are all successful businessmen and they should realise that this would be the best way forward. If they don’t, and they put their own clubs’ short-term interests ahead of the long-term interests of the Super League competition, then I’m afraid that Super League doesn’t have much of a future.[/i:2eimuljf]

A big problem, which I mentioned on here years ago, is that there is not a unified organisation representing the supporters like there is in football with the Football Supporters Association. The top clubs will look after their own interests. But where is the voice for the supporters?

[quote="Bubba":3qtwbgj9]A big problem, which I mentioned on here years ago, is that there is not a unified organisation representing the supporters like there is in football with the Football Supporters Association. The top clubs will look after their own interests. But where is the voice for the supporters?[/quote:3qtwbgj9] Perhaps hoddie could be persuaded to be a positive voice for Halifax Panthers supporters .

[quote="Bubba":2ltc1gj6]A big problem, which I mentioned on here years ago, is that there is not a unified organisation representing the supporters like there is in football with the Football Supporters Association. The top clubs will look after their own interests. But where is the voice for the supporters?[/quote:2ltc1gj6] We’ve all heard the voice from the supporters of a little 5th tier football club looking after their own interests as well but thankfully no one’s listening.

[quote="faxcar":2u61u2u6]We’ve all heard the voice from the supporters of a little 5th tier football club looking after their own interests as well but thankfully no one’s listening.[/quote:2u61u2u6] Id like to think the concerns cover the best interests of both clubs, but fair enough. I remember years ago when Ian Griffiths and I arranged the public march from the Shay to the Town Hall to demonstrate against the selling of the Shay. Shows what can be achieved when working together.

[quote="Bubba":zlpf35g4]Id like to think the concerns cover the best interests of both clubs, but fair enough. I remember years ago when Ian Griffiths and I arranged the public march from the Shay to the Town Hall to demonstrate against the selling of the Shay. Shows what can be achieved when working together.[/quote:zlpf35g4] I've been informed from a good source that the council , sst , the panthers , davy are all working together to negotiate what's best for everyone involved, is this not the case ?

Id probably say its premature to suggest that; not to say it wont happen. But there isnt enough detail available as yet especially in relation to the longer term security of the stadium for the two sporting clubs.

[quote="Bubba":2jcr9k6u]Id probably say its premature to suggest that; not to say it wont happen. But there isnt enough detail available as yet especially in relation to the longer term security of the stadium for the two sporting clubs.[/quote:2jcr9k6u] Just looking through my messages and I was aware of Davys involvement/interest around the 10th of December. We're the sst aware of his potential interest?

[quote="Bubba":2c3wa8gi]Id like to think the concerns cover the best interests of both clubs, but fair enough. I remember years ago when Ian Griffiths and I arranged the public march from the Shay to the Town Hall to demonstrate against the selling of the Shay. Shows what can be achieved when working together.[/quote:2c3wa8gi] You can think what you like but please don’t even try and spin the likes of Hoddie and fairness or having even the slightest concern over the interests of both clubs, his interests are himself and FC Town that’s who and what we were commenting on. For example. Dear Ken FC Town as represented by me and my group would just like you to know you can eff off. Regards Shaymen.net Dear Halifax Rugby Club as represented by me and my group would just like you to know you are a bunch of squatters and parasites etc and we would love it if you went bust. Thankfully away from him, his backers ( which have included yourself ) and fellow likeminded Town fans there is currently a working group with the key players of CMBC, FC Town, Giants and Fax who truly do represent the interests of all parties and we await to see the outcome of it. If your not happy with any of what’s going on then get your boots out and march to the town hall again.

[quote="Listenup94":tteaj9x8]Just looking through my messages and I was aware of Davys involvement/interest around the 10th of December. We're the sst aware of his potential interest?[/quote:tteaj9x8] No. We were first made aware by the council early last week that there was going to be a press release later that week with an indication that there was an alternative bid. We werent aware it was Ken Davy until the press release was made public.

[quote="faxcar":2882mizc]You can think what you like but please don’t even try and spin the likes of Hoddie and fairness or having even the slightest concern over the interests of both clubs, his interests are himself and FC Town that’s who and what we were commenting on. For example. Dear Ken FC Town as represented by me and my group would just like you to know you can eff off. Regards Shaymen.net Dear Halifax Rugby Club as represented by me and my group would just like you to know you are a bunch of squatters and parasites etc and we would love it if you went bust. Thankfully away from him, his backers ( which have included yourself ) and fellow likeminded Town fans there is currently a working group with the key players of CMBC, FC Town, Giants and Fax who truly do represent the interests of all parties and we await to see the outcome of it. If your not happy with any of what’s going on then get your boots out and march to the town hall again.[/quote:2882mizc] Hoddie is no longer involved with the working group. And I am not happy with whats going on which is why the working group was put together back in the summer.

[quote="Bubba":2mkq11yd]No. We were first made aware by the council early last week that there was going to be a press release later that week with an indication that there was an alternative bid. We werent aware it was Ken Davy until the press release was made public.[/quote:2mkq11yd] Well looks like a lot of talk had happened between Davy, Bosomworth, CMBC and Fax before you were informed. As before still only an if / big if according to what Davy is saying in public and he has promised more info after their meeting on the 17th apparently. And on your other post I know he isn’t but he wasn’t removed he chose to walk out which doesn’t negate in any way what his forum stood for.

[quote="faxcar":30pgi1sd]Well looks like a lot of talk had happened between Davy, Bosomworth, CMBC and Fax before you were informed. As before still only an if / big if according to what Davy is saying in public and he has promised more info after their meeting on the 17th apparently. And on your other post I know he isn’t but he wasn’t removed he chose to walk out which doesn’t negate in any way what his forum stood for.[/quote:30pgi1sd] There was no obligation for them to inform us before going public.

[quote="Bubba":3prikxjt]No. We were first made aware by the council early last week that there was going to be a press release later that week with an indication that there was an alternative bid. We werent aware it was Ken Davy until the press release was made public.[/quote:3prikxjt] So when your working group was set up was it to work with the rugby club or as an alternative to them ?

[quote="Bubba":1h347l15]There was no obligation for them to inform us before going public.[/quote:1h347l15] They who are they? If CMBC well they didn’t inform us either but some of us knew about it weeks in advance from sources inside the club unlike FC Town because they didn’t say anything to your group either. Just shows how much importance they put on working together and letting their own know then.

[quote="Listenup94":udtzhyhf]So when your working group was set up was it to work with the rugby club or as an alternative to them ?[/quote:udtzhyhf] Im not sure what you are getting at here, but the working group was formed to look at providing a not-for-profit solution for the stadium because there wasnt any other offering on the table and there was the risk of the council selling it to the highest bidder.

[quote="faxcar":lbsjn7rz]They who are they? If CMBC well they didn’t inform us either but some of us knew about it weeks in advance from sources inside the club unlike FC Town because they didn’t say anything to your group either. Just shows how much importance they put on working together and letting their own know then.[/quote:lbsjn7rz] They are whoever. If sources within 'the club' are leaking information, then thats their prerogative. Just shows how much importance who put on working together? There are, from what I believe, two options that will be on the table. What the working group are offering - an independent, not for profit option - and what Ken Davy is proposing.

[quote="Bubba":re0cctou]Im not sure what you are getting at here, but the working group was formed to look at providing a not-for-profit solution for the stadium because there wasnt any other offering on the table and there was the risk of the council selling it to the highest bidder.[/quote:re0cctou] Youve acknowledged that there was no obligation from the council to inform you of davys interest and you weren't aware of it till it was announced, is it possible that other options were made available to the council but by your own admission not revealed to your group?

[quote="Listenup94":3eprr9tg]Youve acknowledged that there was no obligation from the council to inform you of davys interest and you weren't aware of it till it was announced, is it possible that other options were made available to the council but by your own admission not revealed to your group?[/quote:3eprr9tg] Absolutely. But could we have risked doing nothing?

[quote="Bubba":27ugixi1]Absolutely. But could we have risked doing nothing?[/quote:27ugixi1] So in the run up to the 17th of March will their not be open dialogue with all the parties involved?

[quote="Listenup94":19xt1bpk]So in the run up to the 17th of March will their not be open dialogue with all the parties involved?[/quote:19xt1bpk] There will be discussions, yes.