Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:57 pm  

Sacred Cow wrote:

But as PB has said the stadium build relies on funding from Yorkcourt. Even a win in court, which is far from guaranteed, will not result in them building a stadium at Newmarket or anywhere else, it will just mean the land up there won't be developed and in all likelihood be returned to greenbelt. To try and flog it to another developer willing to shell out £10-12 million out of their profits for a stadium build, planning costs, plus the land already used for the freezer is unlikely to happen, especially in any kind of timescale that gives us a chance of survival. It might screw Box up which would be very nice indeed, but will we get a stadium out of it? Nah.

Why would that happen. Councils can be sued and the Trust can sue the Council. Forget about YorkCourts its the Council who will be sued I suspect and sued on behalf of the Ratepayers who they have failed.

Of course they won't want that and will then and only then find the solution that is needed and part of that will be to force Yorkcourts hand. Remember Yorkcourt don't own the site where the stadium will be built nerd they have planning permission to carry on. 88 group don't have planning permission either. Can you imagine how easy that one would be to block especially if the Council were forced to swap sides.That is how I see it.

Truth is you're not an expert and neither am I. We don't have the knowledge or all the fact, in fact I doubt many people do have the knowledge of such a complex case including the Council.That's why the Trust are taking it slow, we can't afford to make mistakes.

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:10 pm  

The planing permission for the new stadium at bell view as been past two weeks ago

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:11 pm  

Wasn't so long ago Box was telling yorcourt to pull away from the project ! Now it seems there chums again...
My own opinion is that there trying to sicken MC off ..
let's not panic just yet... if the council had naff all to worry about why even bother with the statement today...

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:04 pm  

From an outsider looking in, so please be patient with me!!

The trigger point has not yet been reached with the builders?
Is this right? Because if it is, I honestly cant see what recourse MC has. I get the outrage over false promises, under-handedness etc. I truly do. But from a legal viewpoint, I just can’t see how you are in any position to be demanding anything. To be honest, I dont think your chairman is doing your club any favours with his tweets. To me he’s coming across as a bit of a spoilt brat who isnt getting his way. I expect a bit of flack for that comment, but seriously, the time for cryptic tweets and snide remarks has long gone. If you have something to counter the claims against you, just say it! You don’t need advice from a lawyer to offer counter arguements made against you!
The majority of people will now be of the opinion that your chairman wants to have his cake and eat it. You will not like this because you are emotionally involved, but its true. The time for a response is now. Even if its just a re-hash of a previous statement, just offer something to get the population of Wakefield back in the picture.
Tell the world what you are legally owed....

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:11 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Again, without knowing Carter's response it is difficult to back his cause.

The council are saying they are giving all natch day income and match day priority to Wakefield as well as full access to training areas.
They say Wakefield want full control instead.

If that is not correct, why not just come out and say well take it and let the trust manage the other days?

I'm completely willing to back the trust and the Trinity board.. but what am I backing?

Comments on here saying don't worry seem to be based on what they'd like to think is happening rather than what they know is happening.

I welcome facts to enlighten me if anyone has them, but I haven't seen any yet.

But which trust? Are WMDC manoeuvring to let another trust take control?

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:16 pm  

JINJER wrote:

But which trust? Are WMDC manoeuvring to let another trust take control?

Or someone else take over the club?

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:18 pm  

I know it's all speculation, but what would happen if MC sold the club to someone from out of the area, eg Toronto, and WMDC built a stadium on Belle Vue with Wakefield Trinity Ltd running a rugby club from it (ie, the limited company that has recently been set up, as per Companies House)?

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:22 pm  

The council do not need to appease the few on the forum. If they convince the majority of Wakefield ratepayers that the club are greedy by wanting a ground but not willing to contribute towards it.
What the council has done with the statement is to fill the void left by the clubs silence. If what they say is correct or not it is all that the ratepayers have to go on,
The club are not helped by 88M also pointing out that they are being ignored by the club and have not received official instructions regarding next season.
The club are now boxed in (I know) if they follow through and move out of the city they can never return without agreeing to what the council have asked for. They could stay away from the city but that would mean a slow death.

[PopTart]

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:25 pm  

JINJER wrote:

But which trust? Are WMDC manoeuvring to let another trust take control?

Again, although it isn't very nice, why is it a problem either way?
If we get match day control and match day income why do we care who does what on the other days?

Re: DEADLINE : Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:30 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Again, although it isn't very nice, why is it a problem either way?
If we get match day control and match day income why do we care who does what on the other days?

I'm guessing it's becoming about getting exactly what we were promised when Newmarket was first proposed. Whether we should compromise that principle to get something workable is a point for debate. Perhaps the point is to do with a commercial rent being offset by having all the income, or a low rent offset by not having all the income. Two sides maybe wanting the best of both worlds?