Depends how it's done. Coming in, doing an assembly and giving out tickets is surprisingly unsuccessful. You might get one or two kids going to the match out of the hundreds of tickets distributed. And of the kids who attend, most never go again. Not really worth the effort.

As I said, all strictly controlled, run programmes in schools, finish of with a pre match mini festival ( perhaps at the athletics stadium down the road from the Shay ) with all the schools invited including siblings,parents and teachers ( although put them in the East Stand with a free buffet ) on free tickets, no transfers, no alchohol sales and a cheap kids meal deal in the Skircoat



Actual entry tickets only given out to those attending the festival on the day



Do this 3 times with different schools , collect ALL their data and then follow up with a cheap deal to invite all those who attended,



Repeat along with as much ' visibility ' within the town as you can get/afford



1st thing should be a marketing budget, before you let your coach spend all your money

Our owner made his money in marketing and media companies......

Normal marketing/advertising rules dont neccessarily apply to following a local sporting club, especially if you're not top tier/high profile, it needs a different mindset

What about that Alex Simmonds guy isn't he supposed to be the main marketing guy, or is that old hat now?

That sounds more like it. Going the extra yard - and then some!

Its the ' yard ' that makes the difference, that and the attention to detail ,there is another way of course, just buy the entire Sydney Roosters team and dominate world RL



Which is more likely for a club like Fax?

We still would n't be allowed in SL

[urlhttp://www.theshaymen.net/ipb/index.php?/topic/8365-rent-arrears/?p=139881[/url



Im still surprised the Town fans have not figured out where the dispute arises from. Some good questions asked there but not quite the right ones to get the answers. I guess someone will whisper in their ear eventually and it will be interesting to read the comments from their fans when they do.

Nat, as promised on page 13 this is the FOI clarification over the promise to clear the arrears by 31.12.2013:





In the response to FOI 509 you stated:

"RLFC have promised to clear the arrears by 31st December 2013".

Please can I have some clarification about this statement.



• Did Halifax RLFC promise that the whole of the arrears outstanding would be paid by the 31st December 2013 (£57,191)?

Yes.

• Did Halifax RLFC dispute the amount of the arrears?

No, not at that time.

• Did Halifax RLFC promise to pay off a lesser amount due to a dispute of the amount of arrears owed? If so, what was the lesser amount and where did the disputed amount arise from?

No.

• Was the promise to pay the arrears (in full or part)dependent on CMBC or a third party performing a task, completing some work or any other caveat mentioned by the rugby club (e.g. the arrears, in whole or part, would be paid if a scoreboard was built, drains were fixed by a certain date etc.).

No.

• If the answer to the previous question was yes, did CMBC agree that this sum, in whole or part, wouldn't be due on 31.12.2013 with the rest of the arrears?

N/A.

• Do you consider the whole of the rental debt to be payable by the club or have you reduced the amount you consider they owe?

We consider the whole of the debt to be due.

• Was the promise to pay the arrears made in writing or verbally to CMBC? If in writing would you be able to provide me with a copy.

In writing and verbally. However, as a dispute has now arisen it would be inappropriate to disclose this information at this time. Please see Section 17 Notice attached.

• Please can I have copies of any correspondence between yourselves and the rugby club (other than the final notices already provided) discussing the amount of arrears and any dispute over the amount of them or the club arguing that it should not all be collectable due to failure on CMBC's or a third party's part to fulfil parts of the tenancy agreement.

Confidential because of dispute. Please see Section 17 Notice attached.

• Did the rugby club contact you between the date your response to FOI 509 was sent (19.11.2013) and the date the rent was due to say they would not be sticking, either in full or in part, to the arrangement.

No.

• Have the rugby club been in touch since 31.12.2013 to make another agreement or to dispute the continued accrual of rent arrears?

Yes.

• If meetings have been held with the club to discuss the arrears please can I have the dates of them, a list of attendees and copies of minutes where available.

No meetings have been held.

• Please can you give me an up-to-date balance of the rugby clubs arrears, including amounts and dates of any payments made since 31.12.2013.

Arrears currently £14,351, following payment of £50,000 on 24 February 2014 and a further £10,000 on 5 March 2014.

Care to clarify that? I'd be interested to hear what you mean.

As I stated before the fact is whatever was said months or over a year ago there is an on going dispute concerning rent at the Shay between HRLFC and CMBC now.



The real reason for this is unknown to outsiders and is not being revealed by insiders.



The positions of both have been declared by both with on going discussions taking place.





That being the case what has this got to do with you either as a tax payer or follower of Town or in any other context it is none of your business especially when your motive is to cling to and publicise anything negative about the rugby club.



Another fact at the risk of repeating myself again is the whole rent issue must be resolved with the agreement of both parties for the rugby club to play out of the Shay as the recent alleged lock out proved



Haven't you been patted on the back for your "good" work by the same ones who have resorted to any means possible in their attack against HRLFC.



Your actions are bordering on obsession.

Very interesting reading, if you could scan the original copy and upload please, just to make sure its not edited in any way.

As I said all along, there are two options, either we cant or wont pay it. However as it has been paid so that only leaves one option.

me too.

obsessed

I have to say, I totally agree, why bring it up again.

We know we were behind with the rent.

Michael and Mike have told us at two previous meetings.

We know why we were behind with the rent.

Michael and Mike etc etc.

We know we are still behind with the rent.

Michael, etc etc.

We know why we are still behind with the rent.

etc etc.

We know that the council will either have to reduce our rent or increase Towns.

Let's wait and see.

Quote Nat (Rugby_Aholic)="Nat (Rugby_Aholic)"Very interesting reading, if you could scan the original copy and upload please, just to make sure its not edited in any way. As I said all along, there are two options, either we cant or wont pay it. However as it has been paid so that only leaves one option.'" The original letter is available here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-491336

Quote Nat (Rugby_Aholic)="Nat (Rugby_Aholic)"Very interesting reading, if you could scan the original copy and upload please, just to make sure its not edited in any way. As I said all along, there are two options, either we cant or wont pay it. However as it has been paid so that only leaves one option.'" The original letter is available here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-491336

Faxcar, I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to post this but it came up in a discussion with Nat where he said I'd "filled in the blanks with pure speculation and conjecture", therefore I considered it important. Unfortunately for us CMBC have 20 working days to respond, meaning there has been this delay. You'll be pleased to hear I've not submitted any FOIs since the arrears have been paid; I'm just tidying up loose ends as I feel that is the decent thing to do.



Just for clarity though, CMBC can't lie in an FOI response, so the whole rent dispute issue only appeared after 19th November, so if it is long running no-one at the club bothered to tell the council in an official capacity. Indeed, as the council have a written promise to pay the entire amount, with no amount disputed, suggests they may be on quite strong legal grounds when it comes to collecting the arrears.



Again, this is why Town fans were sceptical of Reactiv's purchase of the ground when all we had to go on was a promise of 'trust me'. Your directors broke a written and verbal promise to pay and didn't have the decency to contact CMBC to say they'd miss the deadline. Replace CMBC witha mortgage company and both clubs would have been out on their ears.

I find the amount of animosity between the 2 clubs and sets of supporters totally bizarre. Neither club can be proud of their financial matters over recent years, but to keep looking back is pointless.



Personally I just don’t get it! We have 2 clubs who play in different sports so they don’t directly compete with each other and therefore in that regard are not a threat to each other. They both represent the same town, and use the town’s name. They both play in the same colours at the same venue and both are not getting enough people through the turnstiles. History is history, I just can’t believe in this modern day the clubs are not doing more to work with each other, economise, be more efficient, e.g. one marketing team, shared promotional and fundraising events, explore joint sponsorship deals, a shared retail outlet. And maybe more clout to get the council or stadium owners to provide facilities fit for both teams.



Instead, we have the petty minded point scoring against each other, fans obsessed with the other club more than their own teams performance, wanting the other club to fail (when in fact both really need the other to succeed).

DM all that changes nothing regarding the outcome or what it has to do with you and reinforces what you are doing, clinging to anything you can to attack the rugby club from a biased perspective.



They are not my directors as in the term "your" but it does show that you are approaching it as a Town fan.



This shows where the real division exists in your approach despite your previous claims to be a concerned tax payer and you are part of the division within the community with your approach.



It creates and feeds the Town v Fax mentality for those that will be taken in by it.



You use the term "suggests" which proves you do not know for sure but quickly follow up in saying as if fact that CMBC would be justified using legal action all the while knowing that each party have their own "reserved positions" after having recently consulted with each other and legal action was never even mentioned or intimated at.



Both parties accept that from an internal informed position they have a difference of opinion as it stands now, but will work together towards a resolution.



As above you state that directors have reneged on an agreement but fail to allow for changing circumstances because all you want to do is emphasise what you interpret as negative towards the club.



If you just go with the well expressed views from a small group of Town fans that the rugby club are just a bunch of liars that are skint, all proved by your biased good work you can't go wrong.



I can't accept anything you say as I know why you are really saying it.

Exactly. The history of BOTH clubs is well known but the difference is one set ( a minority that claim to speak for everyone else) always takes the offensive and goes on the attack leaving no stone unturned while they are doing it and at the same time being less than perfect themselves.



Some choose to ignore it others think why the hell should we just sit and listen to it without a response.



You won't see logic or sense form obsession and extremism and in reality no points are being scored by anyone.

It seems the council were so concerned that they did not even manage to have one meeting with the club to discuss the issue.

As a Fax fan this is something I am not pleased about but it seems the BOD had some issues to raise.

Hopefully it will all see a reduction in the amount Fax pay as it will kick a whole hornets nest if Town are made to pay more.

But as Bubba feasibilty study points out neither of us pay enough so I would probably think the Councilors will be glad to have the excuse to put Towns rent up . Is`nt there an old saying about hornets nests ?

Poke your nose into a hornets nest and you will come out with more than a snoutfull of honey.