Re: The Shay. : Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:04 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

A big point about all this work getting done on the stadium, it actually makes SL a realistically proposition for us if someone with money came in to the club. Without the stadium works its impossible for us to get enough points but this would change all that.

The question that a lot of people want clarifying about all the work is with Ken Daley saying he was “loaning” the money to the clubs to get it done who is actually paying for it?

Could be wrong but If he gets approval to buy it, it looks like and others have suggested although it would have been agreed, because of all the legalities the deal won’t be done / fully completed before the work has to start so he would have to loan the money to the clubs before he is legally the owner?

But why would he be lending the money to the clubs when it would be CMBC who still legally owned the ground when the work was being done and wouldn’t it be their responsibility to manage the installation of the drainage, pitch etc and pay for it?

If it was the clubs who were being loaned the money what sort of arrangement would it be?

Ken Davey paying the biggest part, the clubs paying or some percentage combination.

Unless Fax get the new rumoured board / consortium then they couldn’t afford any of it so lots of questions need answering and a lot of things need to happen in pretty short order on just that front.

Add to that the other off field tax issue and the on field numbers of fit players the same applies there so interesting period ahead.

Re: The Shay. : Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:14 pm  

I don’t think it would improve our IMG points either. We still wouldn’t own the standout and will still be tenants, sharing with a football club and another RL side. Who would control match day catering? As we and the football would still be tenants would the revenue made from these sales go to KD and therefore the Giants?

Re: The Shay. : Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:29 pm  

Faxlore wrote:

I don’t think it would improve our IMG points either. We still wouldn’t own the standout and will still be tenants, sharing with a football club and another RL side. Who would control match day catering? As we and the football would still be tenants would the revenue made from these sales go to KD and therefore the Giants?

IMG wise if all the upgrades that are talked about are done we would increase our score by 1.0 for the facilities, 0.125 for the LED boards, and 0.125 for the big screen (I can't recall seeing mention of this), which takes us over 10 points. We have a ton of scope to improve on the finances section which if we could do would have us battling for around 13th/14th spot. I guess the down side in this is that Huddersfield would move to a Grade A ranking only leaving Hull and Salford as targets.

Re: The Shay. : Mon Jan 13, 2025 3:08 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

IMG wise if all the upgrades that are talked about are done we would increase our score by 1.0 for the facilities, 0.125 for the LED boards, and 0.125 for the big screen (I can't recall seeing mention of this), which takes us over 10 points. We have a ton of scope to improve on the finances section which if we could do would have us battling for around 13th/14th spot. I guess the down side in this is that Huddersfield would move to a Grade A ranking only leaving Hull and Salford as targets.

Raises another couple of questions for the powers that be to decide, would the Giants be classed as being based in Calderdale as long as they were here or be given some dispensation as a temporary move.

On the minus side would we not lose some percentage of points for sharing a catchment area if they were classed as being based in Calderdale?

All if it happens of course.

Re: The Shay. : Mon Jan 13, 2025 5:01 pm  

faxcar wrote:

On the minus side would we not lose some percentage of points for sharing a catchment area if they were classed as being based in Calderdale?

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.

Re: The Shay. : Mon Jan 13, 2025 6:44 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote: 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. 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.

Greg Florimos Boots wrote: 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. 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.