[Wildthing]

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:27 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

You can all read what does it say, I know you could say the land but are we not looking to run a business on that land.
I find a reference to bile from Vastman quite funny considering most of his posts are the apotheosis of bile.

He has a point, you only post re: ground issues and obviously have a hidden agenda, yet you have zero desire to
reveal yourself (your choice, I accept that) but can't expect to be taken seriously as you aren't here as a 'proper' Trinity
supporter are you?

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:57 pm  

Wildthing wrote:

He has a point, you only post re: ground issues and obviously have a hidden agenda, yet you have zero desire to
reveal yourself (your choice, I accept that) but can't expect to be taken seriously as you aren't here as a 'proper' Trinity
supporter are you?

At the end of the day all that matters is the club not any personal vendettas. I asked the question for clarification because it does not agree with what some believe.
With regard my support I have watched the team for over 40 years. I was there before the ground was moved and the stands pulled down. I remember the two girls who stood behind the posts.
You are correct I am only interested in the club because that is permanent the rest of us including those in charge are only caretakers for the time we are here.

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:59 pm  

Okay, I will try and clarify.

The deal at Newmarket which was put to and accepted by HM Planning Inspector was that in return for planning consent that took a great swaith of land out of Green Belt the Developer had to build, with a £2m contribution agreed by the Council a 12,000 capacity stadium and assiociated sporting facilities.

The Developer then had to transfer the land on which the stadium and other facilities sat to the Wakefield and District Community Trust (the Trust) for a peppercorn on a 99 year lease, effectively giving the stadium to the Trust.

The Trust in turn was then to sub-lease the Stadium and associated facilities to Spirit of 1873 Ltd (the Club) for a rent to be agreed between the Trust and Club - not the Developer or the Council.

The Trust agreed that the most economical and sustainable way to ensure that the Stadium was managed efficiently for the benefit of all was that the Club would take a FRI (Fully Repairing & Insuring) Lease whereby they are fully responsible for all costs associated with the running of the stadium such as Insurance, Council Tax/Rates, Heat, Light & Power, Maintenance and Repairs etc. etc. In return the Club would be able to generate revenues from the use of the stadiium on non match days such as conferences, weddings, concerts etc. in order to sustain the Club and ensure that the stadium would be maintained to a high standard and ensure its long term sustainability. There would be a covenant in the lease whereby the Club would have to make the stadium available for Community uses.

So the Club would be faced with a big bill in order to maintain and run the Stadium so I cannot see where the view that the Club is wanting a stadium without spending a sinle penny and then wants to benefit from the using the stadium comes from.

So that is the deal that we are looking for - nothing more than what was promised at and agreed at the Public Inquiry so I dont think the Club and the Trust are being unreasonable and the view by some that the Trust is "not fit for purpose". Unfotunately some appear to have a different purpose in mind to the Club and Trust.

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:12 pm  

thebeagle wrote:

The thread title is 'Clarity'.
Think I am clear regards the content of TRB's post,except for one thing.
Is it the actual land the club cannot gain/profit from ,but as someone alluded to would be able to utilise the actual stadium to generate income.

Absolutely. The business of the Stadium - the risk and reward - would be the clubs - on a full Insure and Repair lease. This avoids having to duplicate management systems. This was always the intention.

The Club would NOT have control of the Stadium ownership to sell or borrow against.

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:16 pm  

Thanks for that TRB.

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:21 pm  

A question Sandal Cat.
Is it possible to make more public your explanation/clarification of the situation or does that affect the legal advice being taken?

[PopTart]

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:31 pm  

Thanks for the update Sandal Cat and TRB.

Everybody wants to know the answers these guys are giving. Leave the bickering for a less important thread

If someone asks a question, please let it be answered by someone who knows rather than what you might think you know.

[PopTart]

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:41 pm  

One question i think worth clarifying.

I'm assuming the details about the trust and what was agreed applied to Newmarket.
Does the same apply to the proposed redeveloped Belle Vue?

That I think is where the questions over rent and income are getting confused.

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:51 pm  

PopTart wrote:

One question i think worth clarifying.

I'm assuming the details about the trust and what was agreed applied to Newmarket.
Does the same apply to the proposed redeveloped Belle Vue?

That I think is where the questions over rent and income are getting confused.

As far as we understand - bearing in mind that the deal offered 6 weeks ago was never put in writing - no - and that is a fundamental issue for us!

Re: Clarity : Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:53 pm  

thebeagle wrote:

A question Sandal Cat.
Is it possible to make more public your explanation/clarification of the situation or does that affect the legal advice being taken?

We will in due course but we do not want to predjudice our position legally.

I may have said more than I should have but I got totally peed off with hearing that the Club want a stadium totally free of charge at the ratepayers expense and then be able to generate all the income from it. Running the stadium will cost a substantial sum.