Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:16 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Good point.
I think the community stadium side of things has been lost in all this for locals.
Too many think it's just a Trinity stadium.

Quite so but within the current & latest proposal where are the Community sports facilities that were just as big a part of the SOS ruling as the stadium was?

The oft quoted mantra of ‘we just want what we were promised’ seems to conveniently exclude the sports facilities which were to serve the sporting communities of Wakefield. At the moment it looks like we’re happy to sacrifice those facilities just to get a deal.

If we want to recruit support for this cause from the wider community of non Trinity supporters then the non Stadium facilities need to be fought for just as hard, in fact they need to be at the forefront of every conversation or media release. Anything less and it will look like we’re only bothered about getting a free stadium for Wakefield Trinity.

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:39 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Quite so but within the current & latest proposal where are the Community sports facilities that were just as big a part of the SOS ruling as the stadium was?

The oft quoted mantra of ‘we just want what we were promised’ seems to conveniently exclude the sports facilities which were to serve the sporting communities of Wakefield. At the moment it looks like we’re happy to sacrifice those facilities just to get a deal.

If we want to recruit support for this cause from the wider community of non Trinity supporters then the non Stadium facilities need to be fought for just as hard, in fact they need to be at the forefront of every conversation or media release. Anything less and it will look like we’re only bothered about getting a free stadium for Wakefield Trinity.

No we have not sacrificed the other community facilities. We have made it clear that if the stadium is to be at Belle Vue then there still needs to be those facilities that were to be provided at Newmarket provided in the Stanley area. Maybe that is why we are being unreasonable.

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:03 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

No we have not sacrificed the other community facilities. We have made it clear that if the stadium is to be at Belle Vue then there still needs to be those facilities that were to be provided at Newmarket provided in the Stanley area. Maybe that is why we are being unreasonable.

Well my apologies if I’ve missed it or misread the previous press releases but I can’t remember it being mentioned at all as part of this recent Belle Vue Development proposal.

Can you quote or point me toward a passage from the clubs or councils press release where this is covered?

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:35 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Well my apologies if I’ve missed it or misread the previous press releases but I can’t remember it being mentioned at all as part of this recent Belle Vue Development proposal.

Can you quote or point me toward a passage from the clubs or councils press release where this is covered?

The only press releases have been made by the Council and they do not cover it but the Trust has stated to the Council that there is still an obligation to provide those community facilities which must be met and covered by any subsequent Section 106/CIL Agreements between the Council and Yorkcourt as and when new planning applications are submitted.

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:58 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

The only press releases have been made by the Council and they do not cover it but the Trust has stated to the Council that there is still an obligation to provide those community facilities which must be met and covered by any subsequent Section 106/CIL Agreements between the Council and Yorkcourt as and when new planning applications are submitted.

That’s good to hear, as I said earlier I think much more needs to be said about this part of the developers obligations as to the casual it seems all about and only about the stadium.

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:31 pm  

That's a very good point.

I do think to get the general public onside, you really do need to highlight what benefits and amenities will be available to the wider community. As a non Wakefield fan and Wakefield citizen, I have absolutely no idea what these are. I could probably research it but, it's unreasonable to think all Wakefield citizens will do that. They need the information on a plate, so they have something to support.

Unfortunately, at this point too many people consider it to be a "free stadium for Wakefield trinity paid for by the tax payer" and the community benefits appear to have been lost in the murky waters surrounding it all.

The council have done their best to get the voters and tax payers on their side with regard to the situation. The trust need to show that their number one priority is the citizens of Wakefield, with an added benefit for Wakefield trinity rlfc. Not the other way around.

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:33 pm  

JINJER wrote:

MC always comes across as being comfortable in front of the cameras, the club should be looking at an interview on Calendar and Look north, give the facts as they are regarding the use/non use of public money, otherwise if people think public funds are going to be used there could well be a backlash publicity wise.

Good idea but I don't think either would give MC free reign to push his cause.
However if they could get Box and MC on at the same time that would really make a good watch.
They'd need Paxo in between them.

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:30 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

Good idea but I don't think either would give MC free reign to push his cause.
However if they could get Box and MC on at the same time that would really make a good watch.
They'd need Paxo in between them.

Box couldn't a confrontation on TV he'd soil himself

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:07 pm  

Having heard box speak in public at that open council meeting some months ago I was surprised at how poor a public speaker he is. He seemed to have no confidence and relied on cheap humour to overcome his nerves. For someone in such high position he is a very poor orator. Come to think of it has anyone ever seen him speak on local TV? He would probably instruct a more eloquent lacky to stand in for him in any public confrontation with MC

Re: DEADLINE : Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:11 pm  

DAVE@CAS1990 wrote:

That's a very good point.

I do think to get the general public onside, you really do need to highlight what benefits and amenities will be available to the wider community. As a non Wakefield fan and Wakefield citizen, I have absolutely no idea what these are. I could probably research it but, it's unreasonable to think all Wakefield citizens will do that. They need the information on a plate, so they have something to support.

Unfortunately, at this point too many people consider it to be a "free stadium for Wakefield trinity paid for by the tax payer" and the community benefits appear to have been lost in the murky waters surrounding it all.

The council have done their best to get the voters and tax payers on their side with regard to the situation. The trust need to show that their number one priority is the citizens of Wakefield, with an added benefit for Wakefield trinity rlfc. Not the other way around.

The only people who are peddling the " it's a stadium for Wakefield Trinity paid by the tax payer" are supporters of other clubs desperate for us not to get a stadium as they fear we have bigger potential than them. The general Wakefield public know WMDC are either currupt or inept or both. The points raised on this thread regarding the community facilities the 4 g pitches etc that were promised along side the community stadium show this so called council have shown no political will just contempt.
Up the Trin