It's true that there are a number of Dale supporters that would like to see Hornets fail. Unfortunately for them though, unlike Hornets, the Dale is not a Co-op and so they have very little influence on the BOD, and I don't think Mr Dunphy or the rest of the board are idiots.
Of course there are plenty of Dale supporters who would like to see Hornets fail. And we all know the reasons for that are not some anti RL feeling or like some spoilt child suddenly having to share a bedroom. It is due to historical financial problems that have stemmed from Hornets not paying their way, the subsequent financial knock on effect that has had on us, and allowing a shareholding within the stadium to fall into a third party. Of course, 95% of that is down to the old Hornets. I genuinely think that despite it being a bumpy ride at times, had the old Hornets been run like the current Hornets the vast majority of any ill feeling would never have been there in the first place. I said it before, but I think at times there is a real head in the sand mentality as to the impact the running of the old Hornets has had on the football club and the finances of the stadium.
I'd like to think that at Dale, we have a support base that deals with financial reality more than any the club in the country. We know that in footballing terms we are competing at a level where our income from our fanbase is probably smaller anyone else in the division (much like yourselves). We are very fortunate to be as well run as we are, and having a genius like Keith Hill in charge has ensured that we have a conveyor belt of young talent coming through that brings much needed income into the club. Without it, we'd be fighting it out with Stockport in the Conference North. But in doing so, there's an awareness that every penny is crucial, and in that there is a recognition that running the stadium on our own would be more difficult. If Hornets had not reformed, there would have been a need to find a replacement club to help with the running of the stadium. Even the biggest of the "kick them out" brigade would acknowledge that.
It is clear the current situation is not working. The level of debt is unsustainable in the current format, and something has to give. The RFL aren't going to put any money in, and there's too many problems in this town as it is to expect the council to do likewise. So who's going to sort it out? The alternative to us taking over the stadium and taking the responsibility for the debts would be to let the Stadium Company go into administration.If it was to get to that stage, there'd be no fairy godmother waiting in the wings, it would either be someone buying it for houses or it would be us purchasing the stadium that way. In many ways, it'd be a gamble but this could even work out cheaper for ourselves to head down that way.
But it would be a gamble. Which brings me back to the question I asked originally. If there was an entitlement for a rent paying Hornets to remain at Spotland, what would be the problem with the stadium being owned 100% by ourselves? Why would we put the rent up to unaffordable level when your continued presence at Spotland would only be to our advantage?