Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:48 pm  

chissitt wrote:

The fiasco as you put it on Denby Dale road had nothing to do with Yorkshire CCC, there was still an offer on the table for Wakefield Trinity after Y.C.C.C. were legally advised to decline the invitation to join W.T. the then leader of WMDC Mr Colin Croxall the Labour representative for the Eastmoor ward invited Lord Ted to a meeting which he attended and subsequently declined an offer from the council to have a new ground built.

I'm a bit confused with your statement regarding that, and I'll quote you if I may it deffo happened on Walker's watch, that being the case why did you finish the sentence with, as far as I can recall, simple question did it deffo happen on his watch in which case you'll provide proof of this, or maybe your recollection of the proceedings are clouded with your loyalty to uncle Ted.

I am not old enough to remember this personally, but know about it from what family have told me, so please stay with me

I believe Ted owned belle vue... which is why were are in the current predicament, following its repossession by the BOI and the new current owner (88m?). Do you think Teds ultimate decision to decline the offer a ground being built for us had anything to do with any personal financial benefits of taking a rent paid from WTRLFC to Ted's holding company. I have heard numbers thrown around but don't know exact figures. Like I said, I wasnt around at the time so dont know the exact timescales regarding ground sales from club to ted etc.

It does seem to me an absolutely ludicrous decision that a chairman/ owner of a club would refuse a new ground to be built for them by their local council. To think this situation could all have been avoided, had it been for some better advice here or there.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:51 pm  

Dont think SRW was involved with the club when the move to Durkar was being discussed.

According yo Wiki, SRW was chairman of the club between 1986 and 1993. Plans for Durkar didnt become known until around 1996. Wasnt Paul Caddick interested in the club about this time. He has just recently celebrated 20 years of owning Leeds and Headingley Stadium.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:58 pm  

chissitt wrote:

Well while your giving your new found wealth away acko old boy, would there be any chance of buying snowie a new beer shed in the new ground

Yep Snowie would get a shed BUT only if he served Lager




Up The Trin

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:59 pm  

Although we know nothing of the terms, and this is speaking purely hypothetically, you have to take a step back and ask whether we would accept those terms if the development didn't have the history that it did. Doesn't matter who's making a quick buck, the issue is purely the favourability of the terms. There's too much at stake for it to be lost on a point of principle, however noble those principles are.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:01 pm  

Eastern Wildcat wrote:

Dont think SRW was involved with the club when the move to Durkar was being discussed.

According yo Wiki, SRW was chairman of the club between 1986 and 1993. Plans for Durkar didnt become known until around 1996. Wasnt Paul Caddick interested in the club about this time. He has just recently celebrated 20 years of owning Leeds and Headingley Stadium.

There you have it in a nutshell Caddick wasn't interested in Wakey or the new ground, he already had everything at Headingley including a Test Match cricket ground, remember this Caddick did not own Yorks. CCC but had a certain amount of influence over them as their landlords.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:09 pm  

TheMightyTrin wrote:

I am not old enough to remember this personally, but know about it from what family have told me, so please stay with me

I believe Ted owned belle vue... which is why were are in the current predicament, following its repossession by the BOI and the new current owner (88m?). Do you think Teds ultimate decision to decline the offer a ground being built for us had anything to do with any personal financial benefits of taking a rent paid from WTRLFC to Ted's holding company. I have heard numbers thrown around but don't know exact figures. Like I said, I wasnt around at the time so dont know the exact timescales regarding ground sales from club to ted etc.

It does seem to me an absolutely ludicrous decision that a chairman/ owner of a club would refuse a new ground to be built for them by their local council. To think this situation could all have been avoided, had it been for some better advice here or there.

I honestly could not comment on Ted's financial status as I know nothing of it, there was one reason and one reason only why he declined the offer from Wakefield council and that's the same reason John Kear did not become the coach at Catalan's, pure greed.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:16 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Although we know nothing of the terms, and this is speaking purely hypothetically, you have to take a step back and ask whether we would accept those terms if the development didn't have the history that it did. Doesn't matter who's making a quick buck, the issue is purely the favourability of the terms. There's too much at stake for it to be lost on a point of principle, however noble those principles are.

Totally agree. If we take the optimistic view and SRW's comment that 'all he wants is a new ground for Wakefield Trinity' as genuine, then even if this isn't on exactly the terms or negotiated with exactly who we would have liked, I suppose we will have to swallow it. I can't see any other option being viable as much as I am sure we would all like to tell SRW and YC where to shove it if the 'Magic Money tree' would appear

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:19 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Although we know nothing of the terms, and this is speaking purely hypothetically, you have to take a step back and ask whether we would accept those terms if the development didn't have the history that it did. Doesn't matter who's making a quick buck, the issue is purely the favourability of the terms. There's too much at stake for it to be lost on a point of principle, however noble those principles are.

That's the problem neither the Trust nor the Club know what the terms are because we are not permitted to see the Heads of Terms as they are being discussed.

In the Star article Rodney Walker said that he wanted the Club to be anchor tenant but no one has made contact with the Club.

The Statement refers to the terms that the current Trust would look to lease the stadium to the Club which would enable it to be sustainable and provide a community facility. If the terms are fundamentally different then the Club will have a problem. But why should a Developer be allowed to profit from what was promised as a result of a substantial planning gain.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:48 pm  

acko wrote:

Yep Snowie would get a shed BUT only if he served Lager




Up The Trin

I'm shocked Acko, you're too old to be drinking Lager, real ale is the way forward

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:48 pm  

charlie63wildcat wrote:

Totally agree. If we take the optimistic view and SRW's comment that 'all he wants is a new ground for Wakefield Trinity' as genuine, then even if this isn't on exactly the terms or negotiated with exactly who we would have liked, I suppose we will have to swallow it. I can't see any other option being viable as much as I am sure we would all like to tell SRW and YC where to shove it if the 'Magic Money tree' would appear

The "magic money tree" is only only available whether it be for stadiums, or to burn wood in barns to People who wear far too much orange.