Unlikely.

Well if you haven’t got anything in place for the security of the clubs how can you have put in your proposal when it’s so important to you?

And if Gordon Gibb or a doppelgänger tries that with Fax he’ll be disappointed because Fax don’t pay rent and knowing the stadium would eventually be sold, to warn then off in the best interests of both clubs is the real reason for them not doing so.

Strange , my understanding ( which of course could be wrong ) is that people associated with the rugby club were interested in the running of the shay but when davys proposal came through they acknowledged that getting the ground up to spec would accelerate that position and to protect themselves from the risks you've mentioned covenants have already been agreed.

Not only that you have a group of supporters mentioning how important it is to them for securities to be in place for the future of the clubs at the Shay but at the time of submitting a proposal they haven’t decided what they are!

Wouldn’t they think that the clubs themselves would want the same things in place and get things as watertight as possible?

Sounds like any securities that include the Shaymen will be okay and any that don’t won’t be to me.

I understand the anxieties to all involved and there is many unanswered questions, there is a handful of reasonable characters on shaymen.net but then there are some who are either blinded by historical hate or just plain thick to be polite.
I can't speak for db and it must be frustrating having an owner who is moreorless mute. I can only speak for the information I have which is obviously rugby based and I would be very shocked if they entered into an agreement which jeopardised the future of the club . Having said that the power players are the council and davy so anything is possible.

Spending far to much time debating it and what will be will be.

Understandable as sadly this is just about the first subject that's provoked any interest with supporters for about 4 months!

Apologies, I thought you were meaning with regards our thoughts on the requirements for any KD purchase.

As for our proposal; we would not be looking to purchase the stadium so the only security risk to the two clubs would be from either their own failures or the failure of the SST (if you want to call it that), which is obviously intrinsically linked to the stability of the two clubs.

There are local examples where convenants are not worth the paper they are written on.

That is incorrect, which I have explained.