Quote faxcar="faxcar"From the options on the table the KD one will get the best results the quickest but has the medium / longer issues surrounding his ownership and future of the stadium / clubs to resolve.
I’m no legal expert but from all the parties they need to make the security of the ground and clubs as legally watertight as possible and the Council want to make it clearly plain to any future would be chancer that they will never grant planning permission or change of use that doesn’t still guarantee the Shay predominantly remains a sports ground.
At least that way even if they sell it and don’t own it they still have a controlling power over what happens to it.'"
Nail on the head and thats been the Working Group's aim from day one. The Council stated their intention of disposing of the Shay and when we came together (last summer) there didnt appear to be any other option on the table. We wanted to avoid the possible worst case of the stadium ending up for sale on the open market.
Obviously we see the short-term merits in KD proposal - as a person, his record speaks for itself. Some are of immediate importance (the pitch and certain facilities) whilst others (large screen and digitial advertising) are more beneficial for the Giants. The Working Group doesnt pretend it can quickly resolve these immediate issues. But it is what happens in the long-term i.e. after the Giants return back to Kirklees. Problems may not arise under Ken Davy's ownership, or the next owner. It may be whoever follows them.
But, if the Council does proceed with KD, I would be interested in what covenants, etc, could be put in place to provide the long-term security the two clubs need because I understand the options are quite limited.