Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:26 am  

Egg Banjo wrote:

My though on it is that if the club have a strong case, the lawyers will confirm this, then the council will start to worry. Worry them enough with the prospect of having to defend themselves in court where little secrets may become exposed to the public, and they will quickly throw the developer under the bus in the hope of saving themselves before it makes it to court. What happens then is anyone's guess. My take is that best case we can hope for is that the council will loan the trust the money to build a stadium which the interest will need to be paid on, and the council will force the newmarket developer to actually promote and develop the site so the council can recoup the costs

should not the council have been pushing the developer to promote newmarket for years now? Isn't that what a council should do?

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:40 pm  

djcool wrote:

should not the council have been pushing the developer to promote newmarket for years now? Isn't that what a council should do?

Yes they should, and have done to some notable success at other developments in the area. As a layman who is out of the loop, this is the angle which id want a legal person to investigate (amongst others) as this is the one which could lead to a public embarrassment of the council, this is something they will certainly be looking to avoid.

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:36 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I'm not a lawyer or a planning expert, but I'm involved in plenty of these cases in my professional life; and as I think Slugger (who is a lawyer) has said before, the receipt of legal letters and the prospect of a court case can often serve to focus the minds of everyone involved - we can all sit in our offices and agree with each other that a case has no merit and we're confident we'll win, but that confidence is quickly dissolved when the lawyers start advising - and sending bills.

So despite the battle lines being drawn and WMDC making bold statements apportioning blame, it's not beyond the pale that some kind of compromise could still be found; what I suspect they're doing now is daring the Trust to go legal - if they do, WMDC might be more pragmatic, especially if there is a risk of Box being embarrassed.

I suspect Box is still operating on the principle that he can bully everyone he wants into submission and thinks we won't go ahead with our threat. He is so used to getting his own way that he really doesn't know how to deal with anything else.

In my opinion we will see them suddenly start to be a bit more flexible/helpful once they realise that The Trust are serious about not backing down.

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:02 pm  

Fordy wrote:

I suspect Box is still operating on the principle that he can bully everyone he wants into submission and thinks we won't go ahead with our threat. He is so used to getting his own way that he really doesn't know how to deal with anything else.

In my opinion we will see them suddenly start to be a bit more flexible/helpful once they realise that The Trust are serious about not backing down.

What I don't get about Box is that, as leader of Wakefield Council you would think that he would be doing his level best to get a community stadium for the good of the district. There's no wander that people think there's more to this whole business than meets the eye.

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:35 pm  

[- if they do, WMDC might be more pragmatic, especially if there is a risk of Box being embarrassed.[/quote]

Don't think Box can be embarrassed Bren. He would put the blame elsewhere amongst his minions. What's the betting that should the case go to court that during the period of the hearing Mr Box would take retirement (He can't be far off anyway) and be absolved of all legal responsibility if the case is taken out against WMDC and not individuals.

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:46 pm  

Trinity1315 wrote:

What I don't get about Box is that, as leader of Wakefield Council you would think that he would be doing his level best to get a community stadium for the good of the district. There's no wander that people think there's more to this whole business than meets the eye.

Do we know if he has any official ties with Yorkcourt at all? We know he's a Cas shareholder, so maybe he's doing his best to ensure we don't get our own home in hope that we have no other choice but to move into the new Cas ground? If that ever get's built

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:41 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I'm not a lawyer or a planning expert, but I'm involved in plenty of these cases in my professional life; and as I think Slugger (who is a lawyer) has said before, the receipt of legal letters and the prospect of a court case can often serve to focus the minds of everyone involved - we can all sit in our offices and agree with each other that a case has no merit and we're confident we'll win, but that confidence is quickly dissolved when the lawyers start advising - and sending bills.

I'm purely a criminal solicitor, and most of my professional life has been spent as a prosecutor, so I know nothing about planning or administrative law, but the principles are the same: you look at what you want out of a case, and the extent to which you waver from that is all down to how confident you are of winning.

Slightly different in this situation, as there are greater financial implications in losing, but there is an argument that the club/Trust are in the stronger position by having nothing to lose. You're gambling the risk of the club going bust if the case is lost against the certainty of the club going bust if the current deal is accepted. The council, on the other hand, are risking their dealings being exposed along with the potential loss to the council tax payer (although whether they have legal insurance that covers that, I don't know).

The approach from the council might be, or may be an option explained to them, that if they lost and the ground was ordered to be built on the terms as demanded by the Trust (if that is a possible legal outcome) they will have the loss of the commercial rent and non-match day income PLUS the legal fees. Whereas just losing the commercial rent and non-match day income might be the better of the two negative outcomes.

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:55 pm  

Willzay wrote:

Could the club possibly have a case for restraint of trade? The astronomical and ridiculous figure mentioned for rent of BV would surely hamper the clubs ability to conduct its business?

3 years ago Hull FC were paying £15,000 per game for the K Com stadium. Even if you add on inflation you would still be being charged almost double that.
I suppose the devil is in the detail and I don't think Hull get any of the matchday refreshment money.

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 am  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

3 years ago Hull FC were paying £15,000 per game for the K Com stadium. Even if you add on inflation you would still be being charged almost double that.
I suppose the devil is in the detail and I don't think Hull get any of the matchday refreshment money.

Peppercorn rent is the key phrase

Re: Fight for justice - Club Statement : Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:45 am  

Redscat wrote:

What's the betting that should the case go to court that during the period of the hearing Mr Box would take retirement (He can't be far off anyway) and be absolved of all legal responsibility if the case is taken out against WMDC and not individuals.

I think you're overstating the case - or underestimating Mr Box. The basis for any legal challenge is most likely to be that WMDC has failed to enforce a s106 agreement - or more specifically, a UU - and there's no way on earth he would let that cost him his job.