They’re leaking information!
What confirming Ken Davy was showing some renewed interest in the Shay which had been doing the rounds for a while.
I wasn’t aware there had been a media blackout imposed and and if as you claim there’s no obligation not to say anything there’s no obligation not to do so either especially the nature of it but as per usual you find some negative critical slant on things where the rugby club are involved.

With hoddie walking away from the sst on the grounds of not being in favour of 3rd party ownership and the other members remaining does that mean the working group are prepared to accept davys proposals providing certain provisions and covenants are in place to protect the shay and both halifax clubs ?

Blimey, a bit sensitive arent you. When you said you "knew about it weeks in advance from sources within the club", and there hadnt been anything official announced then I was guessing you meant you were told on the hush hush?

We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.

Sensitive, quoting how you chose to describe something as leaked information on a guess that was wrong!

What's your interpretation/understanding of the ken davy loan situation?

What are your groups requirements for security of the stadium?

Because whoever gets ownership / control over the Shay will not be able to do just what they want, apart from any covenants that get put in place without the council giving planning permission and permission for a change of use the owners will be able to do nothing, yes the clubs could lose out but so would any owner that doesn’t play ball with the local authority and tenants.

Ive tried not to interpret it as yet. I obviously noted what was said in KD's interview with Matthew Shaw which probably needs further clarification.

Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club.

Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.

Wouldn't these kind of practices be covered by covenants?