There comes a point in any 'conflict' where you have to park the past if you want to go forward.
So, for what it's worth, here's my view...
It's clear that the Football Club wants control of the stadium - to own it outright - and, for mine, there are two ways for them to do that.
We need to remind ourselves that Hornets can't afford either the asking price of the shares - or to service the historical StadCo debt, so it's not tenable for us to regain ownership of the shares from the RFL, so...
Firstly, if we support the RFL's sale of the shares to the Dale, they have put a deal on the table that will retain us as tenants at Spotland (as we already are) for the next 25 years, on significantly more favorable terms that benefit us financially, which is crucial at the moment as revenue/cashflow are - as always - very tight.
The existing deal was forced on the re-founded club based on the Dale's experience with our predecessor - and it's a disproportionately large amount that we have to find every month in order to stand still - but beggars can't be choosers and we were begging a lot to get the new club off the ground.
The new deal - which comes bound to a 25 year tenancy agreement - is financially much more beneficial. By my cursory calculations, the next five years would cost us £84,000 less than the previous five. In our club that sort of money goes a very long way.
Since the reformation of the club in 2009, the Co-op has always been a tenant of the StadCo. We were always going to have to rent in order to have a place to play.
It's taken five years to demonstrate that we are not cut from the same cloth as our predecessors - and we need to capitalise on the hard won trust we've had to build with the football club, by demonstrating some trust in them.
The alternative approach would be to block the RFL's sale, which would leave the status quo in place. In this scenario, the Dale could viably let the StadCo go bust and buy it back from the receiver for next to nothing. That way, the RFL not only loses its share of the StadCo, it also loses the £120k it paid for the shares.
This leaves us in exactly the same situation, but without the incentive of the rent deal - and with five years worth of goodwill-building with both parties in tatters.
So, what would the alternative be?
1. Buy land and build a ground? We'd need ten times what we've been able to raise in the last five years just to pay our rent to create something even approaching Championship standard. That might remain a long-term goal, but we also need to address our immediate and medium-term future.
2. 'Acquire' a ground on the cheap? I refer us all to Whitebank - and we don't have the capital reserves to stretch to that!
3. Rent out of town? Become like Swinton? Nomads playing wherever and whenever. We've battled to (re)build a fan-base here, a move out of town would kill us.
The reality is, our choices are few. We are hamstrung by the actions of our predecessors - and by what remains, in reality, a hand-to-mouth existence where literally every single penny counts.
If - at the relaunch of the club in 2009 - the deal currently on the table was offered, we'd've seen it as an opportunity. Then as now, we needed a place to play and Spotland offered the most favourable option. The new deal gives us the same option at improved terms. Why wouldn't we consider it if it improves our chances of survival? Which is what we're really talking about here.
Not winning games, or losing games or getting promoted. Survival. Our existence - as always - is fragile. Do not take our club for granted.
Ultimately, we have no bargaining power. No leverage, no chips in the game - other than improved relationships with the Dale and the RFL salvaged, from the car-crash we inherited in 2009.
If - in 2009 someone offered us a 25 year lifeline - we'd've taken it. We're the same club, the same people, in the same situation. Why do anything differently?