Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:30 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Maybe the old trigger points are gone and it's all about the housing development?

If so how box could allow this to be the deal is completely staggering

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:31 pm  

ball-in-hand wrote:

We might as well call there bluff as it is never going to happen and extend our a stay at Belle Vue . Surely superleague cannot throw us out until Sir Rodders fails to deliver the stadium in 2019. At least we will get two more seasons of watching this Fabulous team playing in the old girl.

We are at the mercy of the RFL. However if MC presents them with the full facts of this con, maybe,just maybe, they could have an ounce of compassion and see we have done everything and more to try and sort our ground. No other club could have done anymore than we have, then again no other club has had to deal with Box, Mackie and nice person.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:33 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

Another point is why are YC stipulating trust and club have to submit viable business plans as what happens once it's built is nowt to do with them unless of course they intend to retain a link to the walker trust to cream more money off.

I'm guessing that the club's business plan with a commercial rent will tell Rodney how much profit there is to be made on the peppercorn rent he's being charged. If the club is in charge of maintenance but gets revenue streams but then pays, for example, £100,000 a year rent, the "Trust" can just pay a peppercorn £1 or whatever and trouser £99,999 a year.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:34 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

Another point is why are YC stipulating trust and club have to submit viable business plans as what happens once it's built is nowt to do with them unless of course they intend to retain a link to the walker trust to cream more money off.

Not that far fetched, Walker is holding back on who his trust buddies are. Colin Mackie could be a director and it would not surprise me in the slightest.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:35 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I'm guessing that the club's business plan with a commercial rent will tell Rodney how much profit there is to be made on the peppercorn rent he's being charged. If the club is in charge of maintenance but gets revenue streams but then pays, for example, £100,000 a year rent, the "Trust" can just pay a peppercorn £1 or whatever and trouser £99,999 a year.

But what has that to do with YC. Their obligation is to build it nothing more nothing less

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:37 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

But what has that to do with YC. Their obligation is to build it nothing more nothing less

Walker included that part most likely, as slugger says he needs to calculate how much he can cream off.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:46 pm  

But box could tell YC they don't get to pick and choose which trust they deal with and why would they need to know the trusts business plan if they weren't planning on taking a slice

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:53 pm  

Just a thought:
Is there a mechanism to block or object to the registration of walker's new limited trust with companies house?
It seems like a hostile replacement of an existing body.

Edit:
It seems that only objections to names that are 'too like' is possible. Adding a couple of words gets round it.
It is possible to take civil action for 'passing off' though as they are in the same business and the general public could be confused. Judean people's front territory.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:02 pm  

Hmm doesn't make great reading that does it. If fact it hardly makes any reading at all which is part of the problem. Nobody could be expected be expected to just accept that, it needs some flesh on the bones, timescales, cpsts, trigger points etc. Has the council made its statement in relation to it yet?

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:06 pm  

coco the fullback wrote:

Just a thought:
Is there a mechanism to block or object to the registration of walker's new limited trust with companies house?
It seems like a hostile replacement of an existing body.

Edit:
It seems that only objections to names that are 'too like' is possible. Adding a couple of words gets round it.
It is possible to take civil action for 'passing off' though as they are in the same business and the general public could be confused. Judean people's front territory.

Don't think you can stop him setting up a Trust but the solution is simple. The Council tell him to go forth and multiply as they will only deal with the W&DCT which you have heard before was set up by the Council to facilitate the delivery of the Stadium.

There is no need for another Trust, it's being set up to deliberately to make sure the stadium does not get built in my opinion or another off the wall hypothesis is to try and remove Chris and Michael and someone else will then take control of the Club.