Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:53 pm  

charlie63wildcat wrote:

It looks like Michael is coming to the end of his tether to me. That, combined with the fact that this will now need YorkCourt and Walker to back track and deal with the original Trust, does not give me much hope

Unless Rodney invited all the other members of the old Trust, other than MC and CB, on to the new Trust. Not sure why it has to be the old Trust, unless there is something in its constitution that they want to preserve.

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:53 pm  

jakeyg95 wrote: If anything that's arguably one of his most concrete ideas. His numbers might not add up when he's costed things like scrapping tuition fees by increasing corporation tax without considering the harmful effect Brexit will have on those receipts, but he says he will fund the £250 billion investment by borrowing. It's not exactly difficult for a country to borrow that kind of money. Don't bother trying. Honestly. Spare yourself. What the IFS actually state, despite Vastman's clear confirmation biases, is that it would be impossible to tell if Labour's manifesto would end up fully costed because there are too many ifs and buts. But hey ho. As stated in this very article from the IFS: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9218

jakeyg95 wrote: If anything that's arguably one of his most concrete ideas. His numbers might not add up when he's costed things like scrapping tuition fees by increasing corporation tax without considering the harmful effect Brexit will have on those receipts, but he says he will fund the £250 billion investment by borrowing. It's not exactly difficult for a country to borrow that kind of money. Don't bother trying. Honestly. Spare yourself. What the IFS actually state, despite Vastman's clear confirmation biases, is that it would be impossible to tell if Labour's manifesto would end up fully costed because there are too many ifs and buts. But hey ho. As stated in this very article from the IFS: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9218

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:55 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I don't dispute that, and I don't for one moment believe they are wrong in what they say, just the wisdom of saying it. Sleeping on it and sending a warm email conveying the same offer, regardless of whether they mean the warmth, might achieve a better outcome.

It sounds also like the determination to control revenue streams might be one of the thorny issues. The club needs it. The question to ask is if that is one thing that won't be guaranteed, who is intended to make the profit?

What if that 'profit' is ultimately what the developer will pay for the stadium with? Without it = no funds = no stadium.

The developer and new trust have backed MC & CB into a corner. It's obvious the stadium won't be built on the current turns, quite simply Yorkcourt can't afford it which is why they will only deal with a new trust, one more receptive to negotiation to make it a better situation for themselves. What if Yorkcourt say sorry, we don't agree to your terms? There will be no stadium built and the club seems like the bad guys even though it really isn't. And we end up at Dewsbury for god knows how long.

In reality it will probably prove to be an empty gesture by MC & CB as it seems Yorkcourt won't take part in talks with a trust containing them yet they won't resign until a deal is signed. It will be dealock again. Quite frankly i wouldn't blame MC & CB from walking away from the club altogether, i doubt they need the hassle anymore with no end in sight.

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:55 pm  

But in a nutshell, on the weekend that we have the last of the regular rounds and enter the Super 8's, after one of the most successful seasons for years, we are either goosed for ever or on the up for ever.

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:05 pm  

Adam_Harrison9 wrote: Don't bother trying. Honestly. Spare yourself. What the IFS actually state, despite Vastman's clear confirmation biases, is that it would be impossible to tell if Labour's manifesto would end up fully costed because there are too many ifs and buts. But hey ho. As stated in this very article from the IFS: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9218 Will you two sod off and discuss politics elsewhere...this thread is about the future of our rugby club

Adam_Harrison9 wrote: Don't bother trying. Honestly. Spare yourself. What the IFS actually state, despite Vastman's clear confirmation biases, is that it would be impossible to tell if Labour's manifesto would end up fully costed because there are too many ifs and buts. But hey ho. As stated in this very article from the IFS: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9218 Will you two sod off and discuss politics elsewhere...this thread is about the future of our rugby club

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:06 pm  

FIL wrote:

Will you two sod off and discuss politics elsewhere...this thread is about the future of our rugby club

Well said

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 pm  

Sat in Dubai airport reading this sorry tale.... sounds to me like the council and the developer have enlisted the help of a renown public figure to politically manage a potentially very difficult and possibly litigious situation. The owners at Trinity have stated their intention of holding to account those who have failed to hold themselves to account in the past.

Clearly Rodney Walker is not an independent in this issue as his previous actions(leading to his removal from the trust) has shown. I believe that his involvement now is to throw further disarray confusion and division into the situation... and ultimately politically remove the risk factor of Carter and Beresford...

The only real movement I have seen on this issue is since Michael and Chris started to take the hard line...

My experience in risk management say first option is to remove the risk... eliminate the cause... and I see a clever yet transparent risk elimination strategy by the council and the developer...


Create a confusing diversion which might split opinion then get rid of the strongest protagonists....

There is no new trust and no agreement with the council and developer... IMO it's smoke and mirrors to divert the possibility of legal action!


And it makes me so angry!!!!

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:11 pm  

Well done MC for putting that out....it is quite clear that Walker, Yorkcourt and Box are all on an ego trip, whereas MC, CB and the other Trust members just want what is best for Wakefield Trinity, ie a future for our club.
The ball is now firmly back in their court for them to finally deliver on their long-overdue promises....but I'll believe it when I am sitting in it !!

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:29 pm  

Partly agree and thinking of the same conclusions here as roverman.

Is SRW not wanting Michael or Chris involved with the club, which considerering what theyve done in past 4 years to run the club, think hes got a nerve.

Is SRW wanting to take over the reins of the club.

Well done Michael and Chris for standing up to him.

Can we not work closely with Manni and 88m group and do a full re vamp and stay put.

Re: New stadium disinterest? : Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:31 pm  

God this saga just keeps getting better. They know that MC/CB have broke their backs turning the club around & wouldn't accept any deal just to get a new stadium.

IIRC before Marwen took over, the stadium deal that Salford agreed to initially nearly broke the club?