So the council have to follow the proper dispute resolution process but we don't have to hold up our end of the contract? I don't care what the dispute is, unless we have a legal instruction telling us not to pay, pay the bloody rent! Like I said earlier the council could very easily solve the problem by raising the rent for the football club. Then everyone looses apart from the council that get our rent and theirs!

Ive tried to reply in bold.

What exactly are the council "hiding away?"

It's a fact that Fax don't pay their rent in full and it's a fact that the whole thing is massively embarrassing and has been for a while.

There's no way the club can take the moral high ground here unless we start paying up

Quote. “The FOI response which is currently in circulation is out of date and substantially understates the club’s payments.”

The above is from the couriers article on the subject from a spokes person for HLRFC as was the comment on not commenting further in the public domain at this time.

The club have made a statement and we need to read what they say.

The rent being talked about is for the 2015/2016 year which if it runs from April to April there is still time to make what ever outstanding amounts are due which according to the club statement is not £35.000.

The rent agreement that is in place should be honoured and then if for whatever reason a tenant wants to re negotiate then that is the time to do it.

It's been running for some time as we all know and out of the two parties involved it takes both of them to sit down and talk about it, which of the two would be less inclined to do so?

As stated above this is an ongoing situation between the two parties. It isn't the end of the financial year, it's the courier raking over old coals to make a story out of very old news.

What about if the council are not keeping to their end of the agreement?

Very disappointing to see this topic back on the forum as a headline. At one of the forums it was explained quite clearly by Michael Steele that the club were unhappy with the fact the two tennants are paying different rent for using the same premises/facilities. The club look to me to be using the non or delayed payment as leverage to force a resolution. I agree its not good PR for the club but I am sure the club have money from last years RL funding accrued to pay once the matter is settled or legal proceedings from the council dictate we have to pay. One for the Directors and Council to resolve as this clearly can't go on forever- for the sake of both parties. No doubt the FCHT trolls will be having a field day but that's minor to me.

Another thing as well I don't see why we or the club should feel embarrassed.

Of those involved the council should be, they are the ones who have set the substantially differing rents for both the rugby and football clubs for what amounts to the use of the same stadium for sporting purposes.

Only for one of them to find out that it's costing them £11.880 more per annum for basically the same thing at the same time and as anyone would be they are not happy, the same would apply if it was the other way round, FC Town should not have to pay nearly 12 grand more than the rugby club.

From the rugby clubs point of view it's a business issue, they are in partnership that includes trust and fair practices involving important finances any questionable morales should be directed at the council who need to look at how and why they can deal so differently with their two tenants.

Likewise how often does the courier publish anything concerning this with all the facts or anything that doesn't lead the reader to think the rugby club are some undesirable occupier at the Shay?

In this latest article it refers to an FOI that is out of date and doesn't make any mention of what time frame it does cover, is it 6 months out of date, 6 weeks or 6 days, whatever it is it does not represent the current situation or the reasons why the situation exists, just poor irresponsible reporting again.

If you want to know why the clubs pay different rents, their is a foi on it. Which your favourite poster bubba has posted several times on Facebook. It shows that the rugby club rent considerably more floor space within the shay than the football club does. Things like the laundry rooms, gym etc are used by the rugby club are not used by the football club. The rent paid isn't just a flat rate, it's itemised and done by the floor space used.

Hope this helps.

Fax dont have a gym at the ground. Its also worth noting one of the extra floor spaces that we have is the club shop. As far as I am aware Halifax Town decided not to have a shop at the Shay, Town get around this by using other means at the Shay to sell their merchandise, something which seems to be lost on the council.

I think the club should pay the rent as this just fuels the Town fans and is not good publicity for the club at all.
But Calderdale Council cannot justify charging one of the Shay's tenants more than the other. especially when Town play more games at the Shay than the rugby.

From what I was told earlier today. This really is a non story. People that think the club are behind with the rent don't know that facts. I'm not going to get into all of them on here. But the club isn't behind with but it is in a dispute with the council over money owed to the club over the last 3/4 years and are currently been advised by solicitor and the rfl. The football club work fromthe old offices at the corner of the south stand and all sell club merchandise from their, despite the fact they don't have a license to sell any merchandise from the shay as that is part of their rent agreement and part of the reason it's lower than the rugby clubs.

But they do.
They open up the floor space next door to the Fax shop and sell from in there on match days.
They just keep it looking like a building site so it's not finished.

Not wanting to get embroiled in this again but if Town don't want to rent space for merchandising then surely they should not be allowed to run a pop-up stall in pedestrian walkways to flog their wares. Is this not a health and safety issue let alone extracting the urine from their tenancy agreement.

Pity the two clubs didn't work closer together and shared the facilities to halve the costs-the shop for example could sell for both clubs -open more and have half the staff/overhead costs. The stadium's main asset is the pitch -that's reason for it being there and how Town and Fax make their living- by playing. If we are using it less than the football then why are we paying more rent?That would seem to be the crux of the matter to me and why the club are in dispute.

They should get health and safety in to inspect Town's offices.

The usual poo stirring from the Pubteam lot. This issue has been going on for years. IF it was such a huge issue as the Pubteam/Courier are making out, then I very much doubt we would be able to use The Shay. As per normal, its just the jealous pubteam lot looking to cause problems at the start of the Rugby season and dont like it that we have sponsors/people prepared to help us with a electronic scoreboard-one that was promised by the Council by the way. They do not like it that our players trained in Portugal. Just ignore the trolls.
The fact is, the Pubteam use The Shay, far more than we do and use just as much facilities and utilities as us, if not more. As usual, FC Pubteam are trying to cut corners and not pay for things. If they choose not to have a proper shop and run a jumble sale service, thats not the Councils problem. Each club should pay the same and if they choose not to use certain facilities, then that is the problem of the club. Maybe if the Pubteam lot did not cry so much the pitch would be dry and would not need so much work doing on the drainage.

As I have said on a few occasions before, when Malcolm ran the club shop he offered (very kindly) to stock Towns merchandise and sell it on their behalf. No proceeds going to Fax or cost to Town. They refused.
That I think sums up just one of their many complexes.

I love it.

The prime site next to the Club shop should be cleared out and let by the Stadium to some organisation that would make the place look more respectable . It looks like a bomb site and as it`s the front of the bulding drags the whole look of the stadium down as it now appears to be a dumping ground . It has slowly got worse as it has waited for Halifax Town to decide wether or not to take up the option of whether they are to move in there , leaving the stadium with not just one eye sore ( the cabin across that are still used as offices and the prime front spot of the stadium ) On a matchday they open it up and create what in there words is a " pop up shop " which consist of half a dozen large boxes which they sell out of .It can`t be against their lease otherwise the Stadium Manager and employees wouldn`t walk past without batting an eyelid .
As Halifaxjohn has said Malcom offered on more than one occasion to sell Towns wares but they declined .

Happy Birthday Linda, don't be depressed, life begins at 40.

If I remember correctly both clubs were more than willing to have a shared shop/office facility and thats what the East Stand design was based on. Then HTAFC went bust, in came the new chaps and they were against the sensible idea of the two clubs working together on a shared facility.

That sounds about right given the Town directors will not even interact with any official from the rugby and that started long before all the stadium row kicked off. Too up their own backsides by the sounds of it. I would imagine it will be a while before there is change though as it must be a cushy number with all those undisclosed fees.

They struggle to interact with the supporters nevermind Fax officials. I do think things would be greatly different if the two clubs could/would work together and do appreciate that its more than likely Mr Bosomworth and his fellow out of towners where the problem lies.

Fax appointed a second tier board member whose specific task was to improve relations with the football club but never heard anything since.Craig Poskitt had a meeting with town officials and described the progress as 'baby steps' but his departure probably signalled an end to further talks.