What did the FoI tell us?

In short, not as much as people would have hoped. Financial data relating to Davy’s bid was held back because the disposal process is still in progress and the Council’s Information Officer, an employee and not an elected official, considers its not in the public interest to reveal such details as the previous deal collapsed because of ‘Public Interference’.

It remains a great concern to us and indeed a risk to the disposal of the Shay, or any other publicly owned, valuable community asset, that 7 months into this situation and the Council is unable to recognise, or at least fully investigate, it’s role in the failure of the previous proposal. As we have outlined multiple times, the proposal failed once it became subject to specific legal challenges that indicated the Council may not have followed due process. One key process that was ommited effectively withdrew the right of constituents to complain a out the deal. This means there were potentially significant administrative failures within the Council’s legal Department. Pointing this out feels more aligned to civic duty rather than ‘Public Interference’.

On a Very Personal Note - the conduct simply doesn’t seem right

I was a public servant for over 30 years. I recognise how the vast majority of people working in Government are committed to doing the right thing and for many the operating mantra isn’t simply to achieve the required standard, but to be above it. So on a personal level, it saddens me that some of the people working for the Council in this instance seem to have done the opposite of meeting the required standard. It is possible that this was purely down to a lack of competence and it is also possible there was an intent to get the deal through, whatever the circumstances.

We can only speculate what drove the apparent catalogue of errors. However, we can be unanimous in agreeing that it doesn’t feel like an acceptable level of service. Importantly somebody within the organisation should be prepared to admit or explain the failings rather than cast a slur on a volunteer group who are solely focused upon safeguarding the public interest.

The Narrative in the Davy bid was very general

We couldn’t see the financial aspects because of FoI restrictions but the written proposal that was offered by Ken Davy was shared with us. Three things stood out:

• A Lack of Meaningful Depth - The proposals were broad. A series of buzzwords, with possibly a slight AI feel, that avoided specifics and majored on aligning to the Council’s strategic aims.

• Me, me, me - At the centre of the document was a self promotion exercise for Mr Davy, outlining some of his other community exploits and his great record as a philanthropist. Whilst it may have contained some facts, it didn’t really add to the weight of the bid in any practical way.

• Why the freehold? - At no point did the bid explain why it was essential that the freehold would need to pass to Mr Davy and his family. This feels like quite a gap in sidestepping the single most damaging thing about the whole proposal

As a narrative it felt neither convincing nor concrete. Had the deal gone through, it seems the Council would have passed the Shay ownership to a private individual with no real guarantees of what happened next. It’s hard to see on this evidence alone why such proposals would receive the backing of elected officials.

Three Bids Now in Play

We have been clear in our previous articles that we aren’t here to back a bid. Our aim is to make sure that any successful bid protects the Shay for both current and future generations. Therefore genuine community involvement, both within governance structures and wider usage, the nature of tenure - lease not freehold and avoiding significant conflicts of interest remain our main focal points. Alongside this, it feels clear based on our previous experience that we must keep the Council’s administrators in check and challenge anything that doesn’t seem right.

What we would urge the Council to do is look at bids in the round and not go simply for the one that promises the biggest immediate financial investment. This final agreement has to be played as a long game. And if no proposals match the needs and interests of the public, then don’t proceed.

The Question of a Third Tennant

This question comes to the fore with Halifax Ladies playing a game at the Shay and one of the bids coming from a group connected to them. The new playing surface supports the possibility of hosting 3 teams at the Shay, that was a major driver in installing a hybrid pitch. We see it as a positive that at some point there may be a third tenant from the borough using the stadium. This is a big part of making the Shay financially viable and therefore we would expect a third tenant to be subject to the same sort of financial terms as the two existing clubs.

Three bids are now before Calderdale Council. Three visions for the future of The Shay. Three groups of people who have stepped forward with time, commitment, and ambition.

Friends of the Shay welcomes this. After months of fighting behind closed doors, the process is finally open. The community is finally being heard. That alone is a victory for everyone who cares about this stadium.

But we are not here to celebrate early. We are here to make sure the right decision is made – and that means being clear about what that decision must look like.

We Are Open to Supporting Any Bidder – But Not on Any Terms

Let us be absolutely clear: Friends of the Shay is not aligned with any particular bidder, consortium, or individual. We have no preferred name, no favoured personality, and no hidden agenda.

But that does not mean we are neutral on outcomes. On the contrary: we care deeply about the outcome, and we are prepared to support any bidder that can demonstrate they will protect The Shay for generations to come. We are not here to obstruct. We are here to ensure the right result – and we will work constructively with whoever can deliver it.

Our role from the very beginning has been to act as an independent voice for the community of Calderdale. That is what we have done. That is what we will continue to do. We will not be used as a campaign prop by any bidder, and we will not allow our credibility to be compromised by taking sides on personalities.

But we are prepared to give public backing to any proposal that meets the standards the community deserves. That is not a threat. It is an offer. We want every bidder to succeed in meeting these tests – because that means The Shay succeeds.

The Principles That Must Guide This Decision

From the moment we formed to oppose the rushed and opaque sale of The Shay, we have been guided by four core principles. These principles are not negotiable. They are the reason we exist. They are also the benchmark against which we will judge every proposal – and the basis on which we will decide whether to offer our support.

1. Transparency and Openness

The previous sale process was conducted behind closed doors. The public was given insufficient information. Key stakeholders were sidelined.

That must not happen again. Any future arrangement must be subject to full and proper scrutiny. The financial model, governance structure, and long-term commitments of the successful bidder must be published and openly debated before any final decision is made.

We call on Calderdale Council to publish the full evaluation criteria, scoring methodology, and weightings that will be used to assess the three bids. The public deserves to know how this decision will be made – not just what the decision is.

2. Genuine Community Engagement

Consultation must be more than a tick-box exercise. The community of Calderdale – supporters, residents, grassroots sports groups, charities, and local businesses – must have a meaningful say in how this stadium is run.

We will be pressing the Council to ensure that community voices are heard, not just in the coming weeks, but permanently. The successful bidder must demonstrate how they will embed community representation directly into their governance structure from day one—not merely through advisory panels, but through permanent seats at the decision-making table.

3. Long-Term Sustainability as a Community Asset

The Shay is not a commercial development site. It is not a balance sheet to be managed. It is a cherished community facility with a proud sporting heritage. It belongs to Calderdale.

The successful bid must demonstrate a viable, long-term financial plan that secures the stadium’s future for decades – not just years. Any surplus generated by the stadium must be reinvested back into the facility, the clubs that play there, and the community that surrounds it.

4. Protection of Legal Statuses

The Shay is designated as an Asset of Community Value and sits within Open Space designation. These are not bureaucratic technicalities. They are legal protections that reflect the stadium’s importance to the people of Calderdale.

Any future management arrangement must respect and uphold these designations in full. We will not allow them to be eroded or overlooked.

Our Position on Governance Models – The Tests We Will Apply

While we are not endorsing any named bidder, we believe it is our duty to state clearly what we believe constitutes the right kind of stewardship for The Shay. More importantly, we are setting out the minimum standards any bidder must meet to earn our support.

We start from a simple premise: a stadium of this importance to the community should not be run in a way that extracts value for private gain. When a facility is supported by public funds, sustained by loyal supporters, and cherished by generations of families, the surplus it generates should be reinvested – not extracted as dividends for private shareholders.

We welcome the fact that the Council intends to retain the freehold – that provides a vital and reassuring layer of public protection. But the freehold alone is not enough; the leasehold terms determine how the stadium is actually run day-to-day, and that is where our scrutiny must be fiercest.

We have a clear preference for governance models that embed community ownership, accountability, and non-profit objectives. We believe a not-for-profit trust structure offers the strongest structural guarantee of long-term protection. However, we are also realistic: a for-profit model is not automatically disqualified if it can demonstrate—through legally binding commitments—that it can match the safeguards a trust provides.

With that in mind, we set out the following governance tests that we believe any bidder, regardless of structure, must pass. We are prepared to support any bid that meets these criteria as a minimum:

• Asset lock and legacy protection through lease covenants. With the Council retaining the freehold, the lease itself becomes the primary legal instrument for protection. The leasehold interest—and any physical assets developed or improved upon the land—must be legally ring-fenced through robust, enforceable lease covenants. The lease must explicitly prevent subletting, assignment, or repurposing for private gain without stringent Council and regulatory oversight. The Shay must remain a community facility in perpetuity, not a tradeable asset that can be flipped or on-sold through a lease assignment.

• Mandatory reinvestment of surpluses. Any surplus generated above operating costs must be compulsorily ploughed back into the stadium’s fabric, its sporting tenants, and the community it serves. Success must directly translate into better facilities and services for Calderdale, not dividends for external shareholders.

• Enhanced statutory accountability. The governance structure must be subject to rigorous independent oversight, with transparent annual accounts and clear, demonstrable evidence of public benefit. This level of scrutiny must exceed the minimum disclosure requirements of a private limited company, offering residents genuine visibility and assurance.

• Protection against mission drift. The governing body must be constitutionally duty-bound to uphold its community mission, safeguarding the stadium’s quality and purpose through both good times and bad. The structure must resist the pressure—inevitable in a for-profit model—to cut costs or pivot away from community priorities during economic headwinds.

• Authentic community representation. The governance framework must include user and resident representatives within its formal decision-making structure. This is not a PR exercise; it ensures that decisions are guided by local needs and empathy, rather than filtered through the lens of quarterly commercial performance.

The Critical Need for Structural Independence

Beyond the governance model itself, we believe any successful bid must demonstrate absolute operational and financial independence from the stadium’s tenants. We set out the following tests that all bidders must satisfy:

• A clear financial firewall. There must be a legally defined separation between the stadium operator and any of the clubs that play there. The stadium’s accounts, borrowing powers, and reserves must be entirely distinct. No cross-guarantees or shared liability should exist that could drag the stadium under if a tenant falters.

• Resilience against tenant failure. The primary purpose of this entire exercise is to create a platform that keeps The Shay solvent—permanently. If any of the tenant clubs were to face financial difficulty or even insolvency, it must have no material impact on the ownership, operation, or solvency of The Shay. The stadium must be able to stand on its own two feet, regardless of the fortunes of any single occupant. It must be a platform for sporting success, not a lifeboat for sporting failure. The lease should contain explicit break clauses and reversionary rights that ensure the stadium reverts to full Council control if the operator fails—further insulating the asset from tenant distress and securing its long-term future.

• Clear separation of directorships and duties. We see significant risk in individuals serving simultaneously on the governing bodies of both the stadium and a tenant club. Sporting clubs, by their very nature, operate on short-term horizons—the next match, the next promotion push, or simply surviving the current season—with decision-makers necessarily focused on immediate competitive performance and volatile cash flow. The Shay, however, is not a seasonal enterprise; it is a century-spanning community infrastructure asset requiring a multi-decade perspective on maintenance, capital investment, and financial resilience. Allowing the same individual to sit on both boards risks forcing this fundamentally incompatible time horizon onto the stadium’s decision-making, where long-term planning could be sacrificed for short-term expediency. It also creates an inherent potential for conflicts of interest, where decisions about stadium investment, hiring, and maintenance could be skewed to favour one tenant over another—or, worse, to prop up a failing club at the expense of the facility itself. The stadium’s governing body must be able to exercise independent judgement, with its sole fiduciary duty to the long-term health of the community asset it stewards.

Our Offer to Bidders and the Council

To be clear: we are not saying that only one bidder can meet these tests. We are saying that every bidder must meet them—and we will be judging each proposal against these non-negotiable standards. Those that do will earn our active support. Those that do not will face our opposition.

We are not opposed to commercial involvement where it brings genuine expertise, investment, and efficiency. But commercial involvement must be constrained by legally binding commitments that replicate the protections of a community trust. The burden of proof is higher for a for-profit model, because its default incentives are misaligned with the long-term stewardship of a public asset. But we are open to being convinced—provided the safeguards are watertight and independently enforceable.

We therefore urge Calderdale Council to give significant weight to governance structures that demonstrate community ownership, accountability, non-profit objectives, and clear structural independence in their final evaluation. We also urge every bidder to examine these tests carefully and demonstrate in their proposals how they meet them. The community is watching—and we are prepared to support those who get it right.

This is not about backing one bid over another. It is about backing the principle that The Shay belongs to Calderdale – not to any individual, consortium, corporation, or sporting tenant. Any bidder that embraces that principle will have Friends of the Shay at their side.

Our Call to Calderdale Council

We call on the Cabinet members and officers responsible for this decision to commit to the following:

• Publish the full evaluation criteria and scoring methodology before any decision is taken – so the public can see how bids are being assessed.

• Publish a summary of each completed business case – including financial models, governance structures, and community engagement plans – with sufficient detail to allow meaningful public scrutiny.

• Hold all bidder presentations in public, or at minimum record and publish them, so the community can see for themselves what each bidder is offering.

• Provide a formal route for community feedback to be considered alongside the officer recommendation – not as an afterthought, but as an integral part of the decision-making process.

• Confirm that the final decision will be made with full regard to the stadium’s status as an Asset of Community Value and Open Space.

A Commitment to Constructive Engagement

We wish to make one thing clear: Friends of the Shay is not here to obstruct. We are here to ensure the right outcome for Calderdale.

We have already demonstrated our willingness to work constructively. We have engaged positively with Council Leader Dan Sutherland and Mike Payne. We have proposed a Joint Working Group to facilitate the transition from council management. We have offered a community partnership framework that could benefit whichever bid ultimately succeeds.

We extend that same constructive hand to all three bidders. We welcome the time, commitment and ambition each has brought to this process. While we have our views on what constitutes the strongest governance model, we recognise that everyone involved shares a common desire: a sustainable and successful future for The Shay.

What Matters Most

What matters most, in the end, is not which bidder wins. It is whether the people of Calderdale can look back in ten, twenty, or fifty years and say with confidence that their stadium was protected, cherished, and passed on to the next generation.

That is the legacy we are fighting for.

That is what Friends of the Shay exists to protect.

And that is what we will continue to fight for – every day, every week, until the right decision is made.

This has been a very interesting—and at times scary—journey. We started with a fait accompli: a local octogenarian millionaire, whose actions had made his own hobbyist sports club potentially homeless, had agreed a deal to secure the Shay for a nominal fee. It’s history now (thankfully) that the sale collapsed under proper scrutiny.

Standing up to that bid wasn’t easy. We did it with the firm support of people who recognized a dodgy deal for what it was. The council paid a well-heeled, expensive legal firm to counter our objections, and at times it felt unpleasantly personal. But because collectively we stood up to those shady proposals, we now have three alternative bids to take over the running of the Shay—all focused on a trust model with a clear community emphasis. Crucially, not one of them is seeking the freehold.

Why did the Davy deal collapse?

Publicly, Ken Davy issued a statement blaming a “small minority” for the deal falling through. However, our understanding behind the scenes is that a far bigger driver was his unwillingness to face a protracted legal battle focused on procedural flaws. There has also been an underlying suggestion—not from us—that a primary motivation for bidding on the Shay was to pressure Kirklees Council into granting planning permission for a new stadium elsewhere. Perhaps it could be interpreted that the reason he withdrew so quickly at the first real hurdle illustrates that the suggested planning ruse has merit as a theory.

We never engaged in direct dialogue with him, and we doubt he would want to engage with us now. But ultimately, it was never about the buyer anyway; it was about protecting the freehold.

He has been described to us as “canny”—unsurprising given his commercial background. We know he maintained an ongoing dialogue with politicians and attempted to schmooze various interest groups, but “canny” wouldn’t be our choice of words. Opaque, petulant, entitled, and unbelievably selfish feel far closer to the mark. The impression remains of someone unused to hearing the word “no.”

The main triumph for the people of Halifax is that the stadium was not offloaded in a manner that would lose it to the town forever. It is now far less likely to become a supermarket or a housing development in the near future.

Heavy-Handed Tactics & Political Accountability

Calderdale Council seemed desperate to protect the original deal. The Monitoring Officer, Ian Hughes, effectively ignored multiple requests to review governance gaps—a failure that looks indefensible in light of how events unfolded.

But officers didn’t act in a vacuum; the previous Cabinet shares equal responsibility. Cabinet members were repeatedly presented with clear red flags and detailed questions, yet routinely served up canned, non-committal answers without any real thought. Whether Cabinet was actively pressuring officers to push the deal through regardless, or simply turning a blind eye, their political oversight was completely absent. They rubber-stamped a flawed strategy and allowed public resources to be weaponized against local residents.

Members of our group were personally threatened with extreme financial consequences by Weightmans, the council’s external solicitors. Yet those aggressive communications ceased the moment we retained professional legal counsel and narrowed our arguments down to a handful of indisputable legal flaws. They requested deadline extensions, then retreated without a shred of grace or apology. As the line goes in The Godfather: “It’s not personal. It’s just business.”

Perhaps most troubling of all is the question of institutional continuity. The very officers who presided over this flawed process—who ignored early warnings, oversaw a defective consultation, and sanctioned aggressive legal threats against local residents—remain in charge of evaluating the new bids. In any other sector, such serious procedural failings would trigger an independent review and a fresh set of eyes to restore public trust. Leaving the same team to mark their own homework raises obvious questions about impartiality. How can the public have confidence that the new proposals will receive a fair assessment when they are being judged by the same apparatus that was so intent on offloading the freehold?

Despite their retreat, those external lawyers were undoubtedly paid handsomely out of the public purse. A Freedom of Information request may soon reveal precisely how much taxpayer money was spent fighting local residents. The council officials and politicians who authorized that aggressive strategy are funded by local taxpayers; their endorsement of those tactics leaves a bitter taste and represents an approach to public governance that demands formal scrutiny.

The Three Alternative Bids

Some of the emerging bids are naturally more viable than others. Without full commercial disclosure, it is impossible to offer a definitive assessment. There is understandable caution surrounding the bid from Halifax Panthers, given well-publicized concerns regarding their financial stability and the potential long-term risk to the stadium’s operation.

The remaining bids closely mirror the operational models we have championed from the outset: develop the estate, expand community usage, establish the Shay as an active local hub, and maximize commercial revenue. It isn’t rocket science. The actual operating deficit is likely a fraction of the £470,000 annual loss cited by the council when trying to justify offloading the asset. With basic commercial enterprise and well-chosen business partnerships, breaking even is entirely achievable.

Where does Friends of the Shay stand?

We thought long and hard about submitting an operational bid ourselves, but directly managing the stadium was never our primary purpose—though our role may evolve as further details emerge. We have met with the new council leadership, outlined robust governance frameworks for evaluating options, and held discussions with key bidders.

While we understand the new administration’s desire to look to the future, we cannot ignore how quickly the past is being swept under the carpet. We were led to believe there would be a proper, transparent review into how this mess was allowed to happen. Instead, there has been a distinct silence regarding the flawed process, the conduct of senior officers, and the actions of the previous Cabinet. We appreciate they aren’t going to publicly execute their own staff, but glossing over these failures feels deeply wrong—especially to the Calderdale public who had to dig into their own pockets to fund the legal challenge that forced the council to follow the law.

Our objective remains unchanged: ensuring that whichever model is selected protects the stadium for the long term. As this process enters its next phase, we will continue to scrutinize every proposal, challenge unsound decisions, and press for answers to the key questions that remain unresolved.

Above all, we remain immensely grateful to everyone who saw through the original deal and backed the campaign. The financial contributions were vital in funding the legal expertise required to enforce proper process.

There will undoubtedly be more twists and turns ahead—and we will be here for all of them.

It’s just over two weeks since we sent a discussion document to the new leader of Calderdale Council, Dan Sutherland. During that time we have met with Mr Sutherland to discuss the document further, contacted both FC Halifax Town and Halifax Panthers, sharing the details of our thinking and have met again with Halifax MP Kate Dearden.

The next step for the Stadium hinges on the first meeting of the new Cabinet, which is scheduled for 13th July and includes an agenda item to discuss the disposal of the Shay. Our discussion document included a draft Memorandum of Understanding that proposes the establishment of a Joint Working Group to review possible ownership options for the stadium. That document has received generally favourable responses so far ahead of that first Cabinet.

In our discussions with Ms Dearden, she spoke several times about the need for a ‘business plan with funding’. She also mentioned that she hadn’t contacted either of the Town’s sports clubs since Mr Davy’s deal was pulled but she intended to do that in the near future. She is supportive of finding the right deal for the Shay and considers that maintaining the town’s prize asset as a sporting venue is a ‘red line’ for her.

There has been no further public comment from Ken Davy in relation to the Shay but, as reported previously, there remains a possibility that he might rent the stadium in future as a temporary home for the Huddersfield Giants. A move that would see the Stadium hosting three sports teams has already been approved by the relevant leagues and a third tenant could bring in some welcome additional revenue. However, it’s widely reported that he is also in discussion with Dewsbury Rams and exploring the possibility of sharing their stadium.

Our position remains unchanged. We are focused on the single issue of ensuring that the future of the Shay is secured for the people of Halifax, meaning that any disposal has to be protective whilst ensuring the stadium is properly maintained. Up to now, we have opposed the planned sale of the freehold to a private individual, which would have seen the stadium lost for ever for the people. That deal of course collapsed at the same time that we tabled a strong and valid legal challenge to the Council. It was never about who it was about how.

This next stage continues to be focused upon constructively working together with all stakeholders to find the best long term answer for managing the Shay. And for complete clarity, Friends of the Shay haven’t put in any bid to manage the stadium, that is not our purpose at this juncture.

Following the formal conclusion of the private sale negotiations, we have been handed a rare, clean slate – and we firmly believe the only way forward is together.

It wouldn’t be right to act as an obstacle to the private sale and then simply walk away; we have always been deeply mindful of what comes next. For us, “what comes next” is a completely open, collective effort to safeguard our town’s premier civic asset.

A Unified Vision with Council Leadership

On Monday afternoon, we met with the new Leader of Calderdale Council, Dan Sutherland, for an open and positive discussion. We are delighted that the stadium’s future is a key priority for the newly elected Calderdale Council group. More importantly, we are entirely aligned on a fundamental principle: finding the right solution requires a fully collaborative process inclusive of every single stakeholder.

This is about building a genuine partnership where everyone has a voice. We want to play our part in a cooperative framework that protects The Shay for its current tenants, enables both clubs to flourish, and delivers lasting benefits to the wider Calderdale community.

Total Inclusivity: True Stakeholder Partnership

Our proposal rejects the old ways of working in isolation. The framework we are championing relies on a neutral Joint Working Group (JWG) designed to unite the entire Shay family:

• The Tenant Clubs: Leadership from both FC Halifax Town and the Halifax Panthers are vital to this process, ensuring their sporting and operational needs are front and centre.

• The Council: Uniting the expertise of Council officers across Property, Finance, and Legal teams with elected leadership.

• The Community & Local Experts: Bringing in passionate local residents and independent advisors to contribute real-world skills and objective guidance.

• Cross-Party Unity: Involving cross-party observers to guarantee complete political transparency and consensus.

Memorandum Of Understanding The Shay Stadium

95.5KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The MoU: A Shared Workspace for a Sustainable Future

To turn this spirit of cooperation into action, we are calling on the Council to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This is not an immediate or permanent decision on ownership; it is a formal commitment to a nine-month shared journey.

The MoU simply creates the structured time and space for the Council, clubs, and community to work side-by-side. Together, as a team, we will explore future opportunities centred around community management models – such as a regulated Community Benefit Society – and look at smart, sympathetic development partnerships across the wider estate. The ultimate goal is entirely mutual: making the stadium far more self-sustaining, reducing the burden on taxpayers while unlocking new investment, so we have the collective ability to maintain and invest in The Shay for the long term.

Critically, the proposed MoU includes clear, fair break points for the Council, ensuring this remains a low‑risk process for local taxpayers. If a viable business case cannot be developed, the Council may step away without penalty – protecting public money while giving community partnership a genuine chance.

Open-Book Transparency

Because true collaboration is built on trust, we are making our full discussion paper, The Shay Stadium – A Community Partnership Framework for Long-Term Sustainability, entirely public alongside this statement. For the exact operational scope and governance structure of how this joint team will work together, please refer directly to the attached Terms of reference.

Together, we can secure a sustainable future for The Shay – built on openness, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to our community.

Today is a very important day for Halifax and it’s sporting heritage as Ken Davy has dropped his interest in obtaining the freehold of the Shay Stadium. Mr Davy suggests a ‘small minority’ of opponents derailed the deal, however his withdrawal coincides with a strong legal challenge that has forced the council to put an open ended pause on the proposed disposal. So what were the main points of the statement?

It’s because of a ‘small minority’ of opponents

Whilst Friends of the Shay, a small campaign group, have actively opposed the council’s plans, we have seen fans divided on whether this deal is good for the town. Some have expressed at best a begrudging acceptance. The football club have remained tightlipped, so we don’t actually know what they really think and the newly reformed rugby league club include board members who have been vocal on social media in opposing the sale to Mr Davy.

When we polled ownership models over 80% of people favoured some sort of community ownership. Only 1 person in 20 favoured selling to a private buyer. Painting a picture of almost universal support doesn’t feel to be an accurate reflection of the reality we have witnessed.

It’s perhaps more significant that Mr Davy’s withdrawal coincides with a sharpened legal challenge that has prompted the Council to pause the disposal. We know the points raised in this challenge can’t be overlooked or reverse engineered. They would require a full reset which would add significant time to the disposal of the ground and create increased scrutiny.

Interestingly, prior to the formation of Friends of the Shay, some of our members sat down with him to talk through options for community involvement. Beyond an initial meeting he never entered into any further dialogue even though it was offered.

‘A new state of the art pitch’

Despite turning his back on the deal, Mr Davy points out that the new pitch wouldn’t have happened without him. His interest may well have been a catalyst to work starting, its hard to confirm or deny that, what is clear is that work needed doing. However, we are yet to see any evidence to suggest he has paid a penny, that apparently falls to the Council, grant income and the tenants. It’s reasonable to suggest that their combined cash input was the most crucial aspect.

‘Disappointed for the wider sporting community of Calderdale’

Mr Davy’s plans were to increase the use of the Shay as a ‘multisport centre’ and he now feels that the public will lose out on that. Some of our team have been involved in a community bid previously and are talking to the Council again about the possibility. The thinking we offer(ed) is anchored around widening the use of the Stadium and making it a community hub. It is a must do for any organisation or individual who takes control of the Shay in the future. Its the only way to make it viable and increase its relevance. The fact that it won’t be Ken Davy who makes that happen will not prevent it from becoming reality.

What would have been perhaps more disappointing for the people of the town is that he wanted the freehold of the stadium to do this transformation. This went against advice given to the Council by their appointed property experts Carter Jonas. They were clear in recommending a leasehold in order to protect the long term sporting future of the Shay. In all his dealings Mr Davy hasn’t really properly explained why a freehold was so important to him.

‘I suspect the Shay would probably still be a rental option for us’

Even though the deal is off, Mr Davy talks about the possibility of renting the stadium in the future. That is on the face of it a viable option in that all the relevant leagues have already approved the concept of 3 teams playing there. As a short term, pay to play option it could provide useful income providing there is a condition that permanent tenants have priority usage. It is of course much more favourable, and logical, than disposing of the freehold to an out of town team who have become voluntarily homeless and are looking for a temporary stadium.

So we now find ourselves at a starting point. Our purpose has never been about opposing a particular individual, it has always been about ensuring the correct processes are applied, that there is transparency, all options get fair consideration and the long term benefit of the outcome for the people of Halifax. That remains. The Council still need to answer the question of what next for the Shay. We are in discussions with them and would hope that they are prepared to consider the possibility of different ownership models. We will keep you posted.

Next week will see some of our team meet with the new leader of Calderdale Council, Dan Sutherland. The change of administration, coupled with Calderdale MBC’s solicitors putting an open ended pause on the deal to dispose of the Shay to Ken Davy, means we have the ideal moment to sit down and look for some common ground with the new administration.

The scrutiny and opposition that the proposed deal has met with, including a sharply focused legal case funded by people like you, has already prompted the new administration to commit to reviewing the sale. We hope that the review is an in depth one that gets underneath the headlines and into the detail. Whilst this decision to review doesn’t guarantee us anything, it does demonstrate a that there could be opportunities to discuss alternative options to secure the future of the Shay for the people of Calderdale.

We have Shared a Discussion Document with Councillor Sutherland
The document sets out a high level framework for a self-sustaining, community-anchored stadium model—one that protects local taxpayers and supports our home clubs. At the heart of our thinking is ‘Sweating the Asset’ - making it a valuable, well used community hub, that generates income from multiple angles, has very little in the way of downtime, creates employment opportunities as a result and is much, much more than simply a sports stadium. In summary, our vision has its foundation in three distinct areas;

Financial Transparency - only with complete financial transparency can we truly understand the funding gap. For example, Calderdale MBC occupies office space in the East Stand which has an estimated rental value of £110K per annum, however it doesn’t pay any rent. The Stadium also has to cover the utility costs for those areas, which probably equals in the region of £60K annually. Costings also include up to £170K per year in internal recharging to cover the Council’s corporate overheads. These items alone represent over two thirds of the annual net liability (estimated around £470K) shared in the most recent financial summaries for the Shay.

Innovation - The key to bridging the financial gap in a sustainable way. As illustrated above, we know that there are opportunities for rental income. Add to that the the development potential at the Shay, which with some well thought out private/public partnerships, would generate significant annual income. We also see the stadium has a major role to play in the community, building on its link to the sporting history of Halifax through a range of regular, ongoing leisure related events.

Governance - Finally we need a governance model that is about protecting the stadium for the future and removes the responsibility from the Council, including the financial reliance it currently has. This is where the concept of a Community Benefits Society comes into play and there are multiple examples of this working at other sports stadiums across the country.

We remain completely opposed to the sale of the freehold of the Shay. It makes no sense from either a financial or community perspective. It also goes against the advice of the Coucnil’s own property advisors, Carter Jonas. We hopeful that next weeks dialogue will be productive and will keep you posted on the outcomes of our meeting.

On Friday, our solicitors, Richard Buxton Solicitors, issued the first formal Pre-Action Protocol letter on our behalf to Calderdale Council’s solicitors, Weightmans LLP. This letter was drafted on the direct advice of our barristers, 6 Pump Court (a top‑ranked public law Chambers).

This is a significant step forward.

So what is Richard Buxton’s letter challenging?

Our legal team has narrowed the focus to current, “here and now” legal defects—fatal procedural and statutory flaws that exist today, before any exchange of contracts.

On the explicit advice of our solicitors, we are not publishing the letter itself or broadcasting the specific statutory text on the internet. While the Council’s legal representatives have obviously received our full, detailed arguments, keeping these formal documents off the public web is standard, disciplined legal practice. A high-stakes judicial challenge must be fought strictly by court protocols, and maintaining professional boundaries gives our legal team the cleanest possible environment to protect the stadium.

To keep our community informed, the formal challenge focuses heavily on these four core pillars:

• 1. Open space consultation (newspaper advertising): The Shay is used for public recreation and is allocated as open space in the local plan. Under section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council must advertise its intention to dispose of open space in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks and consider any objections. The Council has done neither. Without this, any disposal would be illegal.

• 2. No up‑to‑date “Red Book” valuation: Formal Heads of Terms were agreed with Mr Ken Davy in January 2026. The Council has a continuing legal duty to obtain the “best consideration” reasonably obtainable. It cannot rely on an old draft report. A full, formal valuation based on the actual terms is required before exchange of contracts.

• 3. Bypassing elected Cabinet members: The original March 2025 decision was a “key decision” because of its significant impact on the community. Circumstances have changed now that Heads of Terms are agreed. The Council’s own constitution does not allow officers to execute key decisions without returning to elected Cabinet members. Proceeding without fresh, public Cabinet consideration raises a serious legal issue.

• 4. The £4 million redevelopment risk: If a buyer later applies to discharge the restrictive covenant that limits use to a sporting stadium, the redevelopment value of the land could be as much as £4 million as at February 2025. The Council has not properly considered whether the proposed sale represents “best consideration” in light of this risk.

What will happen if the Council refuses to act:

If the Council refuses to halt the sale to properly address the robust legal objections raised by our team, our solicitors are fully prepared to launch immediate judicial review proceedings in the High Court, including an application for an urgent interim injunction to block the exchange of contracts.

What has the Council said?

The pressure we are applying is working. Weightmans has recently confirmed that the new political administration wishes to review the proposed disposal of the stadium, likely through a Cabinet meeting later this year.

Crucially, the Council has agreed to voluntarily refrain from exchanging contracts with the proposed buyer until at least seven days after they have provided a final, substantive response to our legal correspondence. We have made it unreservedly clear that any attempt to push through an exchange without fully resolving the serious legal errors highlighted by our legal team will face an immediate challenge in court.

What happens next?

We remain entirely willing to engage in constructive dialogue. We are hopeful that the new Leader of the Council, Councilor Daniel Sutherland, will meet with us at the earliest opportunity to resolve this transparently.

The Bottom Line

The Council is not yet legally entitled to exchange contracts. The defects identified by our legal team are fundamental, stand-alone, and fatal to any legal disposal.

We have the right legal team, a sharply focused claim, and the law on our side. We will update you again the moment formal court proceedings are file. Again we thank you for your continued support, which is helping to fund this crucial part of our activity.

The newly elected Council have decided to review the current deal to sell the Shay. The Reform Party group, who now have a controlling majority in Calderdale, confirmed the move through their social media channels, saying ‘The Shay will be on the agenda at the very first Reform cabinet meeting to review Labour’s decision to sell’.

Whilst this is a welcome step forward in the right direction FotS are clear that this must be more than a single cabinet meeting. It needs to be a decision to carry out a full and detailed review of the stadium’s future with all options appraised, including public ownership, before making a final decision.

Legal Impacts

In light of the decision we received contact from the Councillors Solicitors Weightmans, stating that ‘Council will agree to voluntarily refrain from exchanging contracts with Mr Davy’. Previously they had put a time limit of 26th May on a similar pause in the disposal. This new ‘refrain’ is now dependant upon the outcome of Cabinets’ proposed review.

At the same time our legal advisors have reviewed the details of the sale and confirm that our case against the way that the council have administered it is “very strongly arguable”. The key point remains the classification of the Shay as an Open Space, which means it can’t be disposed of without advertising the intention to sell, inviting objections and then giving them due consideration. We are now in the process of agreeing with our legal team what this means for us in terms of next steps.

A substantial element of this part of our activity has been funded by you and people like you. We remain eternally grateful for your financial support and hope everybody recognises the impact this has had in getting us to a much stronger legal position. Whilst the battle is not yet won and there is more to do, it does feel like we have turned a very significant corner.

Time to Step up Kate!

Meanwhile, local MP Kate Dearden, continues not to challenge the proposed disposal. This, despite multiple correspondences and meetings between her office and FotS where we have outlined very clearly problems in relation to the Open Space status of the Shay.Because of Ms Dearden’s simple acceptance of the Council’s line without any further investigation, we do feel completely let down and have asked her again to probe more deeply into the issue on behalf of her constituents.

And so our campaign continues amidst these encouraging signs. The Shay estate has been in public ownership since 1889, approaching 140 years. It remains a unique asset in our town, full of history and cultural significance. Its as relevant today as it was back in 1920 when Bob Suter, Halifax Town goalkeeper, groundsman and trainer was pictured laying the turf (pictured left below) ahead of the first football season at the ground. We remain committed and focused upon protecting this unique place for the future generations of Halifax.

Support our Crowdfunder

We have reached a pivotal moment in our fight to save The Shay.

Thanks to your incredible generosity, Friends of the Shay – now operating through The Shay Community Stadium Ltd – has formally engaged Richard Buxton Solicitors, one of the UK’s most respected firms specializing in environmental, planning and public law.

They will be supported by Six Pump Court, a Chambers ranked as Band 1 in the leading UK directories and recognized nationally and internationally for its expertise in planning law, environmental law and public law.

Why this legal team is the right fit for our case

Our case is a public law judicial review – a challenge to the lawfulness of Calderdale Council’s decisions and processes regarding the proposed disposal of The Shay.

Richard Buxton and Six Pump Court are recognized leaders in this field. They act for community groups, campaigns and individuals across the country, challenging public authority decisions that affect local assets and communities. This is precisely the expertise we need.

What this means for our case

With this legal team now on board, we can move from general objections to a focused, legally‑privileged strategy. Their immediate priorities are to:

• Review all evidence, including the Council’s own FOI disclosures

• Identify the strongest legal grounds for Judicial Review

• Advise on next steps, including the potential need for an urgent interim injunction to prevent exchange of contracts

We are not disclosing the full detail of our legal grounds at this stage – for obvious reasons. But you can be confident that we have put the Council on notice of serious concerns across key areas of public law, including:

• The lawfulness of the consultation process

• Compliance with the Council’s statutory duties in disposing of a public asset

• Proper adherence to the Council’s own Constitution and decision-making rules

These are not minor technicalities. They go to the very heart of whether this disposal is lawful at all.

We still need your help

Engaging a Band 1 Chambers and a leading public law firm does not come cheap. A substantial donation got us started, but we now need to fund the next stage of active case preparation.

Please support our crowdfunding campaign today. Every pledge, large or small, brings us closer to a full Judicial Review.

Other ways to help

• Fundraising ideas or experience – get in touch through this website

• Business sponsorship – local businesses can sponsor us directly

• Share this article – the wider the support, the stronger our case

We thank you, from the bottom of our hearts, for getting us this far. Now, with Richard Buxton Solicitors and Six Pump Court fighting alongside us, we have a real chance to hold the Council to account – and stop the sale of The Shay.

Let’s save The Shay – legally, fairly, and together.

Support our Crowdfunder

Click to Support our Crowdfunding

Our crowdfunder kicked off just four days ago and already we have pledges exceeding £1,500, with the average donation hitting a very impressive £40. We have to say a massive thankyou to people for their support up to this point. This money will help to meet some of our immediate legal costs which are concentrated on reviewing our case in detail and pulling out our strongest points in preparation for a Judicial Review.

There have been some encouragning signs lately from the Council, but we still have a way to go on this journey and your financial support remains vital to us. So our ask remains and;

• If you plan to pledge but havent yet, please don’t hold back. We are already incurring costs and these will continue as our campaign builds further. Any amount big or small will help our cause.

• Ask a mate to donate - we all have close friends who are occasional visitors to the Shay or follow sport on the TV or care passionately about their home town and the community. Speak to them, tell them about the Shay and point them to our crowdfunder. Again, any amount helps.

• If you have a businesss or contacts to a business who might be interested in supporting us in any way, please get in touch through this website or email us at friendsoftheshay@gmail.com. We would be interested in exploring any possibilities that might be out there.

And as ever, spread the word about this issue because;

• The Shay is more than a stadium; it’s a community icon.

• We simply ask for complete transparency from Calderdale Council regarding how they manage the disposal of the Shay and that they show us that they have stuck to the legal processes

• Your pledge funds our legal action focused on protecting The Shay for local sports and residents.

• This is about preserving Halifax’s heritage and ensuring accountability.

• Every pound brings us a step closer to achieving our aims.

Thanks again for your continuing support.

Support our Crowdfunding

We have reached that moment where we need your financial support. Today we have launched a crowdfunding campaign to help cover the cost of obtaining specialist legal advice. We have been able to kick things off already thanks to a sizeable donation but we will soon need more.

Please click on this link to our Crowdfunding Page and pledge what you can to support our campaign. Whatever you can give us will help. We thank you in advance for your support

Our current direction is to build a case that can be used to trigger a full Judicial Review of the planned disposal of the Shay. As you would expect, that is quite an expensive process and its not one that we are qualified to conduct. The initial focus of legal advice will be to identify and prioritise from our list of objections, the topics that will have the greatest chance of success at Judicial Review.

Of course at the same time we are working hard in the background, undertaking research and doing all we can to help prepare the necessary supporting material. This is one practical way we have of keeping costs down.

Also, if you have any fundraising ideas or experience, or perhaps are a business person who might want to sponsor us in some way, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us directly through this website.

Support our Crowdfunding

Pledge whatever you can right now to help fund our legal costs in helping to protect the Shay for future generations and protect Halifax’s sporting heritage.

The council have offered to ‘voluntarily refrain from exchanging contracts ' on the disposal of the Shay up to the 26th May. The offer was made this week by Calderdale’s solicitors, Weightmans. The correspondence also went on to suggest there is still something to be resolved in relation to deal, saying;

‘Council officers are continuing with their efforts to advance the proposed sale, but that it presently appears unlikely that the Council will be able to exchange contracts in the near future.’

This is a noticable change in approach from Weightmans’ previous letter of the 2nd of April, which gave the Friends of the Shay (FotS) a deadline of 16th of April to provide evidence of how they would meet the Council’s Judicial Review costs and any potential damages that might be incurred. This was accompanied by a deadline of 23rd of April for FotS to commence proceedings or the matter would be considered closed and the disposal would continue.

That earlier letter closed with the phrase ‘The council remains of the view that the claims assered against it are hopeless and destined to fail’. It is therefore of great interest to us that the Weightmans are now in effect asking for more time to review our submission.

We can only speculate which exact point has prompted this extension but our most recent correspondence (14th April), concentrated heavily on;

• Precieved failures in the process adopted for valuing the Shay Estate

• How certain processes should have been followed because of the Open Space Sports and Recreation allocation that we think properly applies to the site.

• Our beliefs regarding the lawfulness of the decision making processes that have been applied as part of the deal.

We had asked in that letter for a response by 21st April. However, we have since issued an in principle acceptance of the offer of the 26th May extension, subject to certain conditions and clarifications.

Support our Crowdfunding

Pledge whatever you can now to help protect the Shay, preserving Halifax’s sporting heritage and protecting it for future generations.

We have fed into articles that have featured in the local press this week which report on the disagreement between Calderdale Council and the Friends of the Shay regarding the legal status of the stadium and the application of Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972.

The articles accurately record the council’s position that The Shay is “not open space” under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it is a “ticketed rugby and football stadium with no public access.”

We would like to set out, for the record, why we do not accept that position, drawing on the council’s own documents and recent comparable cases.

The site is larger than the stadium alone

The council’s own valuation report, prepared by Carter Jonas on 11 February 2025, describes the disposal site as an 11.45-acre mixed estate under title number WYK793725. The report confirms that the site includes:

• Areas of woodland along Skircoat Road and Shaw Hill; and

• A pay-and-display car park off Hunger Hill.

These are areas to which the public have access. The council is treating the stadium, the woodland, and the car park as a single legal title for the purpose of this disposal.

The whole site is allocated as open space

Under Policy GN6 of the Calderdale Local Plan, the entire site is allocated as “Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facility.” The council’s own planning authority recently assessed the land under that designation when determining planning application 25/00115/LAA for pitch improvements at The Shay.

Section 123(2A) applies to land that “forms part of” an open space

Even if the council were correct that the stadium itself is not open space – a point we do not concede – the legislation applies to any disposal of land that “consists of or forms part of an open space.” Because the woodland and car park form part of the same legal title, and because those areas meet the statutory definition of open space, the requirement to publish notice and consider objections is engaged.

The council’s own internal correspondence considered this requirement

Through a Freedom of Information request, we have seen internal council correspondence from November and December 2024 in which officers are recorded as expressly considering the need to comply with Section 123(2A), including the potential need for Secretary of State consent.

A comparable case from Doncaster

We have also obtained an Officer Decision Record from Doncaster Council dated March 2026 concerning the disposal of Cantley Park Training Ground to Doncaster Rovers. In that case, Doncaster’s legal team acknowledged that because the land was classed as open space, Section 123(2A) required newspaper advertisement and consideration of objections. That land is a secure, gated training ground with no public access – analogous in its access arrangements to The Shay.

Our request to the council

We have written to the council seeking confirmation of its formal legal position and asking a number of specific questions, including how its current position is reconciled with the Carter Jonas report and the Doncaster case. We have requested a response by 4pm on 1 May 2026.

Our position

We are not asserting bad faith on the part of the council. We are, however, pointing to what appear to be significant inconsistencies between the council’s public statements and its own documentation, including its valuation report, its planning determinations, and its internal correspondence.

We believe the proposed disposal raises important legal questions that should be properly considered before any agreement is finalised. The purpose of Section 123(2A) is to give the public an opportunity to be aware of and raise objections to the disposal of open space land. That opportunity has, so far, not been provided.

We await the council’s response.

Support our Crowdfunding

Pledge whatever you can to help preserve Halifax’s sporting heritage and protect the Shay for future generations.

A key aspect of the Shay Stadium’s legal status is that it is allocated in law as an Open Space Sport and Recreation Facility. The purpose of the allocation, which was made initially in 2006 and recently confirmed in Calderdale’s planning policy of 2023, is to protect the stadium from development for other uses. The designation comes with strict rules on disposals. They state that if a Council plans to dispose of an Open Space it must advertise the proposals in the local paper for two weeks, giving people full awareness of the intention and presenting the opportunity for objections. It is then up to the Council to fully consider any objections it receives.

Having checked thoroughly with the local press and interrogated online Government planning portals, there is no evidence that this step has been followed. Its omission has effectively removed the opportunity of the electorate to formally raise any concerns they might have. We believe this fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the proposed disposal and feel it needs urgent intervention before any disposal agreement is finalised.

There is zero ambiguity in the law set out in Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires the Council to:

1. publish notice of the proposed disposal for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper, and

2. consider any objections received.

Comparable test cases relating to disposals of Open Space land tell us that this step can not be sidestepped and other broader, council led consultations that may have happened in this instance don’t replace it. This section of the law is current and was last updated in April 2020.

This is a very niche area of legislation, but we have noted that the Council are applying the correct rules in relation to another recently advertised asset disposal at Shelf Village Hall, part of which also carries an Open Space allocation. This comparable disposal, which includes reference to the same law that we have quoted in this update, strongly illustrates that the Council is quite aware of this piece of legislation. To reinforce the point regarding the Council’s general awareness of the requirements, the Open Space allocation of the Shay was clearly set out in a report from property experts Carter Jonas, who provided paid advice to the council in relation to the disposal in February 2025.

We have contacted both the Council and their legal representatives in relation to this issue alongside other ongoing questions relating to the valuation process. We are awaiting their responses. We have also written to Halifax MP Kate Dearden asking that she too talks to the council to understand why they have not followed the law. At the same time we are in discussion with legal experts regarding the wider approach we take from here and how we best escalate this significant breach.

It’s not yet clear what the full impact of this omission will be on the current Shay disposal plans. However, relevant test cases prevent the Council from simply retrospectively covering off the point. One possible outcome is that the council will have to rewind fully on the deal and undertake this missing step. If they proceed without properly addressing the matter, they risk doing so in complete disregard for their statutory duties - which their advisors, both in house and paid externals, are unlikely to recommend as it it would be completely contrary to their professional duties.

This is where the people of Halifax come into the equation

• In the event that objections are properly heard, we will need to present a strong, clear and consistent voice that shows why we are concerned and what options should be considered as an alternative. We will need your support and the support of the wider local population to do that.

• At this stage this means doing what you can to spread the word and engage others in the town in protecting this vital community asset for both current and future generations. Be clear this is a big risk and once the stadium is gone, its gone.

We will keep you updated in real time through this site and other media. We will likely ask you for more specific support over the coming days and weeks. If you have any questions or ideas, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Support our Crowdfunding

Pledge whatever you can to help preserve Halifax’s sporting heritage and protect the Shay for future generations.

Friends of The Shay were in attendance to discuss key points the group felt were crucial to raise before the Council’s proposed disposal of The Shay.

• The consultation point - Calderdale Council say 55% supported the disposal, however only 3 of the 1,545 respondents surveyed supported selling The Shay on the open market – this a figure being used to justify their decision.

• There is no basic due diligence – Calderdale Council has confirmed it holds no option appraisal and no value-for-money assessment. This is basic information one would expect for any disposal, let alone a public asset.

• The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is effectively blank – The EIA contains blank sections for all protected characteristics and Calderdale Council has admitted it has no data, yet they have concluded there is no impact.

• The Football Foundation risk was not disclosed – Cabinet were not told about a £400,000 grant with a 21-year charge and potential clawback liability. These are material financial risks.

• The Decision to dispose of The Shay appears pre-determined – Work on implementing the disposal started before the formal decision was taken and external parties began referring to the ‘confirmed sale’ immediately after.

• The key legal point – The decision that has been approved was not a completed disposal – it was ‘in principle’, with key terms, valuation and risks still unresolved. Friends of The Shay wished to question whether a proper decision has been taken yet.

• Where Kate Dearden MP’s potential understanding of the disposal is – prior to meeting with Friends of The Shay Kate Dearden’s understanding of the disposal was shaped by what Calderdale Council had disclosed to her, yet their own documents as cited above, raise serious questions that do not appear to have been addressed.

We encouraged Ms. Dearden as an MP to subsequently ask Calderdale Council to explain their decisions based on said documents.

On most points raised Dearden had minimal feedback, but did re-iterate the Council’s need to ensure sport remains at The Shay,

“THAT’S A GUARANTEE. They [Calderdale Council] will not sell it without that guarantee, and that reassured a lot of people”

Due to this need for said safeguards before disposal she added,

We’ve been working very hard on that mechanism. It’s glacial [the pace of sale] because we need those safeguards in place, but I’m sure Ken Davy [the perspective buyer] is getting frustrated now. Ian Day said they were still in negotiations and they’re making them ‘longer’ than Ken wanted. They want to nail down these protections – what happens when he [Ken Davy] finds somewhere else? From what we understand it, it’s not a done deal, but we don’t get sight of terms”.

Friends of The Shay asked for an update on Mr Davy speaking of ‘having a ‘Supporters’ Board’, something Dearden said she could “pick back up again” before expanding to say that Davy was happy to,

“…have this conversation ONCE THE PAPERWORK HAS BEEN FINALISED. Ken Davy needs a solid legal basis to put money into the ground. CONTROL and OWNERSHIP and was promising to put £5-6m into The Shay”.

Dearden further added that she,

“..hears our concern and [is] trying to get as much information out of the Council as she can. [It is a] tricky time with negotiations, BUT WHAT I AM CLEAR ABOUT IS HAVING THOSE SAFEGUARDS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CLUBS. When I met Ken the first time it was about the fans and ‘what does this mean afterwards?’ The fans need structure and be engaged along the journey too. Ken Davy was up for it at first, but because of negotiations it has become a bit trickier, but I’ll pick that back up with him”

She also spoke about her ongoing correspondences with David Bosomworth (Chairman of FC Halifax Town), and “The Consortium” (a name given by Dearden to differentiate the latest iteration of the Halifax Panthers from the previous Halifax Panthers that was liquidated),

“We didn’t get a lot of concern back from David Bosomworth regarding the sale. I’d say we have a good relationship with him; it’s been quiet the last couple of months. We can reach out and check in again – see how things are developing. The Panthers we’ve been much more heavily involved with the past few months. I need to catch up with them now they’ve ‘settled in a bit’”.

When asked about a counter bid for ownership of The Shay by the ‘new’ Halifax Panthers, Dearden added, “we’ve had conversations about that”.

As disclosed in a Freedom of Information request, it was shown that the ‘new’ Halifax Panthers currently operate on a game-by-game licence to continue to play at The Shay. This is paid upfront prior also due to the ‘previous’ Panthers mounting up rent arrears of over £45,000 before liquidation. Having now played both the London Broncos (and since the new licence agreement FOI) North Wales Crusaders, Friends of The Shay enquired on any update/changes to the licence agreement,

“[It is] hard to get information out of the Council. It’s a ‘moving situation’”.

When asked about the ‘faulty’, or muted microphones during the Monitoring Officer delivering his findings on the ‘handling of the disposal of The Shay’ back in January 2026,

“They need to think about the wider public and ‘bring people with them’ – have that transparency and I’m very keen for that to happen especially if you feel this has not been the case (we certainly do not). WHEN YOU’RE QUIET FOR A WHILE PEOPLE WILL SEARCH FOR THEIR OWN ANSWERS. If we can have the opportunity to ask them directly, we’ll be on the same page”.

We closed the conversation speaking of Friends of The Shay allowing Calderdale Council’s legal representatives Weightmans an extension for a response to our rebuttals of their previous correspondence with Dearden telling us to “keep us updated”.

“Keep us updated” – if only we would have known during the meeting

Whilst in discussion with Kate Dearden MP said response from Weightmans did arrive.

Friends of The Shay were warned that pursuing this matter could expose us to substantial legal costs that would be prohibitive for a volunteer group. In a lot of cases ‘noting replies’ but then dismissed them completely. On legislation put forward they were also dismissed as being ‘misjudged’ or not relevant. The lean heavily also on Halifax Panthers’ liquidation as further justification for their disposal of The Shay.

Calderdale Council are relying on a ‘Term of Disposal’ document dated the 11th February 2025 which does not factor in the £400,000 Football Foundation (granted in March 2025) for the new pitch laid at The Shay, or crucially, the clawback mechanism should the Football Foundation’s own terms be breached. FC Halifax Town must have a 21-year lease on the ground or The Council, FC Halifax Town, or both have a huge liability. Cabinet were not told about a £400,000 grant with a 21-year charge and potential clawback liability. These are STILL material financial risks.

As part of the Friends of the Shay’s most recent FoI request we sought to clarify several key issues. We have summarised in a series of short articles on this site, click on the links below to find out more. They include;

• Confirmation that the Shay has yet to be formally valued. The stadium has a book value in excess of £20M but a only an nominal value in commercial terms because its a financial liability. If it was ever developed for another purpose, most likely residential, the value might be between £2M and £4M.

• The Council claims that the Shay is losing £470K per year. The latest financials differ from previously released information and don’t give the sort of breakdown that tells the full story.

• The Council have will have ‘right to first refusal’. If the shay is ever resold in the future, the council will be given the first option to buy it back. Professional advice also urges that care is taken to ‘grant any purchaser a ground lease with a strict user clause’ in order to ensure the stadium continues to be used as a sporting facility.

This information leaves us with continuing concerns, particularly around the exact nature of the terms of any proposed disposal of the Shay. Our aims to hold the Council to account on this issue remain in motion. We will be meeting with the local MP next week to discuss the issue and continue to seek specialist legal advice on our next steps.

The most recent FotS Freedom of Information request asked for clarity on the running costs at the Shay. We asked for this because there has been a lack of consistency in the data that has been shared and published since the disposal was first revealed in the local press. This most recent release gives us another set of financial information that doesn’t quite match with earlier versions.

This latest detail provided gives insight into how losses have built over the last ten years. Back in 2016/17 the deficit was just shy of £19K, in 2026 its forecast to reach £494K, which is a staggering twenty six times more than it was just a decade ago. During that period of time cumulative inflation in the UK amounts to around 34% and there has been a significant hike in energy costs, but these two factors come nowhere near accounting for such vastly increased deficits.

This startling difference does beg the question, how has this asset become such a financial liability in this short time? Comparing 2016/17 and 2025/26, income has dropped by 42% and costs have more than doubled (up 104%). The graph below illustrates the financial trend over time, including the dip in costs in 2019/20 at the start of the Covid pandemic.

One thing that doesn’t feature in the figures is any rental income for the office space at the back of the East Stand, which is currently used by the council. It is suggested by Carter Jonas, local property experts who provided professional advice on the proposed disposal, that the rental values of the space used could be up to £105K per year, which immediately reduces the deficit by almost almost a quarter.

In relation to this aspect, it’s not clear from the financials which costs relate to sporting activity and which relate to everything else. For example, the annual cost of energy in 2023/24 peaked at £196K equivalent to nearly £4,000 per week. Considering both sporting teams play around 40 games between them per season plus some nominal office costs, we can only assume that the figure also includes charges incurred by other tenants of the Shay e.g. the Council. That same question has to be applied to many other costs, such as general maintenance, which is consistently the highest expense year on year at roughly 20 to 30% of all expenditure.

Whilst we don’t question the fact that the Shay makes an annual loss, we are left wondering what exactly that loss is truly attributable to. At the same time there appears to be missed opportunity in relation to income and earnings potential which could significantly reduce the annual financial liabilities quoted. It is highly unlikely that any new owner or custodians of the Shay would facilitate, accept and absorb such a level of regular financial loss.

A major element of disposing of a Council asset for a fee below it’s current value, requires a formal, independent valuation that follows a strict legal protocol. This is step in the process is designed to protect the public interest and ensure valuable community assets aren’t simply given away. Our most recent FoI request gives insight on the current position on this requirement.

The formal valuation of the Shay has not yet been completed, however the Council did seek professional advice about this in February from Leeds based property experts, Carter Jonas. The book value is quoted at over £20M. But because the Shay makes an annual loss, something that is unlikely to change as long as the site is used as a sporting venue, its not seen as a a commercially attractive proposition. Consequently its real value is likley to be much less than the book value, possibly only several hundred thousand pounds or less.

The report also shed some light on two commercial rentals on the Shay Estate, a car wash and car dealership. Both are subject to long term leasehold agreements (up to 82 years) and generate no real income. Interestingly, the car dealership is being sublet by the leaseholder for a current annual rent of £90,000. Carter Jonas are clear in suggesting there is little value in including these two plots of land within any deal to dispose of the Shay Stadium.

Whilst the report didn’t commit to coming up with an actual figure on value, it did provide a recent ‘comparable’ example relating to the sale of Odsal stadium. This was disposed of by Bradford MBC for a reported £260K back in December 2022. At the time Odsal was reported to be losing £250K per annum, almost half of the £470K the council currently suggest the Shay costing them each year.

Carter Jonas see the most likely alternative use of the Shay estate, were it no longer used for sport, to be residential development. It’s current value in this respect is estimated between £2M and £4M, but with site clearance costs likely to eat into this quite significantly. Any move to pursue this option would be subject to significant planning challenges, partly because of the Shay’s current status as an ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facility’ applied in 2006, which states; ‘There will be exceptional occasions when it will be appropriate to release open space for development’

Whilst this report was only commissioned for opinion, it’s easy to see that there are clear indications that any disposal of the stadium will be for a nominal fee. Based on the presented financial evidence, at face value it could be understood why such a position might be taken. However, there is still only partial financial information being made available, headline figures rather than real detail, and little activity undertaken by the Council to maximise the earning potential of the stadium. It could be strongly argued that the current level of loss is much to do with missed opportunity and therefore skew the valuation process.

The most recent FotS Freedom of Information request included questions relating to how the Council will take steps to ensure the Shay remains a sporting venue. Calderdale obtained professional advice from local experts Carter Jonas, who were particularly clear that steps needed to be taken to protect the Shay in the event of a sale for a nominal fee. Their report concluded that;

‘we would strongly recommend that any disposal of the Shay Stadium for a nominal sum should be on the basis that it must continue in its present use. This must be a contractually watertight obligation on any purchaser and its successors. In our view the best way to achieve this would be to grant any purchaser a ground lease with a strict user clause.’

It’s not clear at this stage what the exact terms of the proposed disposal are with regards to a leasehold versus the possibility of a freehold. A leasehold agreement an agreement should offer no issue to a pilanthropic buyer or custodian. It is vital for the protection of this important public asset that the Council follow the professional advice that they have paid for.

We do know that as part of the currently proposed deal, the Council have agreed in principle with RR Sporting Solutions Ltd, the company involved in negotiating the sale, that there will be a clause where the they get a ‘right to first refusal’ in the event that there is ever a move to resell the Shay. However, it’s hard to see a point in the near future where the Council would be keen to re invest in a net liability.

Other restrictions should include an often mentioned covenant stating that the space must be used as a sporting venue and the current status of the Shay as an ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facility’ which was applied in 2006. That designation is there to ensure that open spaces in urban environments are retained unless there is a compelling reason for change.

In terms of current sporting occupants, FC Halifax Town have an licence to use the stadium, which guarantees their tenure and restricts rent rises to annual maximum of 3%. Although there is a clause which would allow the licencees to change that agreement within a 6 month notice period. In contrast, the newly formed Halifax Panthers have yet to establish an agreement with the Council. They have so far used the stadium for one game, which was permitted with the issue of a one day licence. They are currently in negotiations to establish a longer term agreement.

There are clearly some things in place that have the potential to safeguard the stadium and its continued use as a sporting facility. However, its hard for us to say that they are ‘watertight’ as suggested by the professional advice. There are clearly points of uncertainty and risk - particular around the exact nature of the terms of the proposed disposal and the current position of the Panthers.