Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:34 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Where have you seen that ? Is it being confused with the first Glasshoughton stadium on the Stadium Business Park land by the station.

I was sure it was a radio interview two or three years ago with Steve Gill when he mentioned it but i might be wrong, time fogs the memory. I'm sure an email to him would clarify.

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:59 pm  

The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of Box! the only way to get rid of Box is to stop voting Labour! i know it will hurt alot of people to do so but it needs to be done. The meetings behind closed doors need to end and the public be told exactly what the council plan.

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:33 pm  

Daddycool wrote:

There’s a lot being thrown around. Keep calm and relax. Full statement after taking legal advice. Bottom line. Somebody made a lot of money after promising to fund and build a community stadium. New person stands to make a lot of money after promising to build and fund a community stadium. Recurring theme???

That'll do for me.....yes, we are all pi$$ed off at the continuing disgusting, underhand dealings of WMDC, but if MC - the man who has every right to be 100 times more pi$$ed off than the rest of us - says " Keep calm and relax", then that's what we should do...he has not let us down yet !!!

IN MC WE TRUST

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:34 pm  

They won't be getting my vote that is for sure.

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:42 pm  

Wildthing wrote:

Really? says zilch of interest to me.

The post does confirm the stench of Rodney though, in that if it is accurate, Rodney has "been in the frame"

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:47 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The post does confirm the stench of Rodney though, in that if it is accurate, Rodney has "been in the frame"

Another interesting post on there states all the way back at the public enquiry Walker stated that the club would pay a market rent on the stadium.

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:50 pm  

Wildthing wrote:

Really? says zilch of interest to me.

It ties in with what i was told, that 88M were serious about the plan. But i guess they want an income from it, like any landlord would i suppose. Otherwise what is in it for them? They be better off building housing or retail on it otherwise.

[Wildthing]

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:51 pm  

Sacred Cow wrote:

It ties in with what i was told, that 88M were serious about the plan. But i guess they want an income from it, like any landlord would i suppose. Otherwise what is in it for them? They be better off building housing or retail on it otherwise.

Exactly.

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:10 pm  

Sacred Cow wrote:

It ties in with what i was told, that 88M were serious about the plan. But i guess they want an income from it, like any landlord would i suppose. Otherwise what is in it for them? They be better off building housing or retail on it otherwise.

The council/Wallhead statement implies (I think) that the rental would go to the charitable trust, not to 88M. (That's why I asked previously what the charitable trust was going to do with the tenant's income).

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:26 pm  

We are all witnessing, and suffering from the consequences of, the failures and greed of a capitalist system; the unacceptable face of which belongs to a certain fat cat known as RMW.