Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:34 pm  

rugbyball wrote:

Is this not happening now?

Also I am surprised none of the people"in the know" did not correct this at the time.

The theory behind Yorkcourt acquiring BV instead of the cash coming from Cala is that the land value that transfers to their balance sheet exceeds the £2m required by WMDC.

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:37 pm  

bigalf wrote:

It took Waystone 11 Month to obtain Outline planning!!!

Good luck to Yorkcourt if they get it in 3 months

Told you so !

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:03 am  

bigalf wrote:

Told you so !

It is very interesting looking back at some of these threads. I particularly like the ones where Sandal wild cat explains why the new government would not take Newmarket to PI. MMMMM that gets me thinking where has SWC gone????

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:29 am  

rugbyball wrote:

Is this not happening now?

Also I am surprised none of the people"in the know" did not correct this at the time.

No idea. I imagine events over the past six months have put paid to that.

I suppose it's a fine balance. The PI appears to have been the catalyst for everything to fall off the rails. Had it been granted then this can of worms would certainly never have been opened and everyone but a few people at the top would've been in ignorance.

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:18 am  

I have been informed that there is no requirement for financial input from WT and that there is no requirement for BV to be part of any deal either.

NM is the basis of our new future - anyone who stands in the way of this is standing in the way of RL in Wakefield - no exclusions.

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:36 am  

TRB wrote:

I have been informed that there is no requirement for financial input from WT and that there is no requirement for BV to be part of any deal either.

NM is the basis of our new future - anyone who stands in the way of this is standing in the way of RL in Wakefield - no exclusions.

As TRB has stated above, clarifications were sought by SWAG and RFN (via TRB) about the requirement of financial input from WT and BV. We have indeed been informed that there is no current or indeed anticipated future requirement for financial input from either WT or BV on Newmarket. The current Newmarket proposals already stand and continue to stand on their own merit, business plan and economic return.

I will add to what TRB has said and also say that not only will anyone standing in the way of Newmarket be standing in the way of the future of RL in Wakefield, but also other field sports, world class community sports facilities, future educational opportunities and new jobs!

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 am  

TRB wrote:

I have been informed that there is no requirement for financial input from WT and that there is no requirement for BV to be part of any deal either.

NM is the basis of our new future - anyone who stands in the way of this is standing in the way of RL in Wakefield - no exclusions.

TRB, I wouldn't be surprised if the person who "informed" you of this was the same person who "informed" me that input was required.

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:45 am  

RDM wrote:

TRB, I wouldn't be surprised if the person who "informed" you of this was the same person who "informed" me that input was required.

I think if you send either TRB or myself a PM telling us who has informed you of this fact we can confirm or deny if indeed it is the same person.

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:49 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

I think if you send either TRB or myself a PM telling us who has informed you of this fact we can confirm or deny if indeed it is the same person.

PM on its way to you now.

Re: The Problem With Newmarket : Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:52 am  

Why the big secret?! Was it Daddy Cool?