Listenup94 wrote: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.