Re: 2018 season : Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:07 pm  

How much will the high court case cost and if we lose who pays to which you can add the council costs. I will say it again the building of Newmarket was subject to a certain area of land being developed. I would point out that even if we added the area covered by the white structure they are still to reach the agreed area.

Re: 2018 season : Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:18 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

How much will the high court case cost and if we lose who pays to which you can add the council costs. I will say it again the building of Newmarket was subject to a certain area of land being developed. I would point out that even if we added the area covered by the white structure they are still to reach the agreed area.

If you were the owner of the club what would you do ?

Re: 2018 season : Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:35 pm  

Wakefield No 1 wrote: SP finally unmasked!! https://goo.gl/images/ckR3mH Which one ? The lump of wood or the bloke wearing it?

Wakefield No 1 wrote: SP finally unmasked!! https://goo.gl/images/ckR3mH Which one ? The lump of wood or the bloke wearing it?

Re: 2018 season : Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:56 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

How much will the high court case cost and if we lose who pays to which you can add the council costs. I will say it again the building of Newmarket was subject to a certain area of land being developed. I would point out that even if we added the area covered by the white structure they are still to reach the agreed area.

Can you tell us who decided the uu was acceptable?
The SoS suggested the stadium should be built asap with no more than 60 000 sqm built. This was then twisted to become 60000 sqm built out first.
What is the process for accepting such a deal?

Re: 2018 season : Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:28 am  

Wollo-Wollo-Wollo-Wayoo wrote:

Sums you both up perfectly.

There's a surprise Mr Benson agreeing with Rhubarb.

Re: 2018 season : Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:08 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

If you were the owner of the club what would you do ?

I haven't been able to sleep, waiting with excitement, for the answer to all our problems and he's not replied to you Ian.

So disappointed.

Re: 2018 season : Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:30 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

No vendetta and you can ignore me that is your prerogative however remember you do not represent the average supporters and there are only about 10 of you.
I admire your blind faith that we know what we are doing however I think it is now more of a battle of testosterone with the club and it’s existence at the centre.
I have had my say and will now leave it to the remaining ostrich’s on the forum to bury their heads as we head towards an unnecessary abyss.

really??? Are you really such a coward?

Re: 2018 season : Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:01 am  

coco the fullback wrote:

Can you tell us who decided the uu was acceptable?
The SoS suggested the stadium should be built asap with no more than 60 000 sqm built. This was then twisted to become 60000 sqm built out first.
What is the process for accepting such a deal?

The Inspector said, in his report, that he was prepared to accept a UU S106, as opposed to a Multi-Party S106 in this case. However, although the SoS was prepared to accept a UU it is not his job to agree the conditions within the UU. As long as it, in his opinion, will ultimately deliver a stadium and meet the principle conditions they told him during the inquiry, which it should have, he will make (and did make) his recommendation to approve the application. So, although it is a UU and therefore Yorkcourt prepare it and give it to WMDC, it is the responsibilities of those party to the contract to negotiate it's condition's. In this case Yorkcourt, their Bank (Yorkshire), the landowner and WMDC. We know that WMDC did ask for a change to be made to the UU around their £2m contribution in that it originally said that it would come from then, but it was amended to say from either them or the Trust. Finally, the SoS does not grant planning permission. The final decision actually comes from WMDC. He makes a recommendation and then WMDC either pass or don't pass it. Now, given there had been a PI then of course they would have to have some really damming reason not to grant it, but if they were not happy with the UU at this point then they could have said that and not granted PP until they found the S106 satisfactory.

Now, the reality is that no one at the time thought the S106 was quite as loose as hindsight now proves. However... the big point and problem is what happened next, when Newcold came along. Why did WMDC knowingly accept, recommend for approval and pass a planning application that circumvented the S106? It is their job to enforce S106 agreements, not the SoS! They claimed to have took LEGAL advice, but they lied of course, they hadn't and have since claimed they took internal 'legal' advice, but it is not written down and they don't know who gave it. So, no one has any idea what that 'advice' actually was! That is of course because it is probably total bull and it never happened!

But what did happen, why did they excluded it?

Re: 2018 season : Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:51 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

The Inspector said, in his report, that he was prepared to accept a UU S106, as opposed to a Multi-Party S106 in this case. However, although the SoS was prepared to accept a UU it is not his job to agree the conditions within the UU. As long as it, in his opinion, will ultimately deliver a stadium and meet the principle conditions they told him during the inquiry, which it should have, he will make (and did make) his recommendation to approve the application. So, although it is a UU and therefore Yorkcourt prepare it and give it to WMDC, it is the responsibilities of those party to the contract to negotiate it's condition's. In this case Yorkcourt, their Bank (Yorkshire), the landowner and WMDC. We know that WMDC did ask for a change to be made to the UU around their £2m contribution in that it originally said that it would come from then, but it was amended to say from either them or the Trust. Finally, the SoS does not grant planning permission. The final decision actually comes from WMDC. He makes a recommendation and then WMDC either pass or don't pass it. Now, given there had been a PI then of course they would have to have some really damming reason not to grant it, but if they were not happy with the UU at this point then they could have said that and not granted PP until they found the S106 satisfactory.

Now, the reality is that no one at the time thought the S106 was quite as loose as hindsight now proves. However... the big point and problem is what happened next, when Newcold came along. Why did WMDC knowingly accept, recommend for approval and pass a planning application that circumvented the S106? It is their job to enforce S106 agreements, not the SoS! They claimed to have took LEGAL advice, but they lied of course, they hadn't and have since claimed they took internal 'legal' advice, but it is not written down and they don't know who gave it. So, no one has any idea what that 'advice' actually was! That is of course because it is probably total bull and it never happened!

But what did happen, why did they excluded it?

And what part did Sir Rodney Walker play in this process and how did he influence or was influenced in his role as trust member???


It will be interesting to see if this comes out in court! Certainly hope so!

Re: 2018 season : Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:55 am  

spookDU2018 wrote:

And what part did Sir Rodney Walker play in this process and how did he influence or was influenced in his role as trust member???


It will be interesting to see if this comes out in court! Certainly hope so!

He was told, in advance, at a meeting held at WMDC, that they were going to exclude Newcold from the UU. The Trust was not meeting on a regular basis at the time and he has admitted he did not tell any of his fellow Trustees at the time (of which only one is still a current Trustee), so they were not aware.