Re: Through the past darkly : Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:46 pm  

Sacred Cow wrote:

As a point of note Box never said there would be a 'perfect agreement' for this BV deal, that was about Newmarket back in April. Yorkcourt kyboshed that one with the pointless 'new' HoT and they have no legal requirement or no intention to change the S106 now. For this one Box stated that there would be a commercial rent to pay to a trust. How much and which trust is the key.

Be interesting to know the full facts of what the deal was then. However, the council were able to negotiate a s106 that will see a private entity in cas tigers own a new ground for a quid but seemingly cannot make yorkcourt deliver a community stadium that they promised and appear to have aided and abetted them in avoiding doing the right thing

On a side note I believe Box is 70 now. Surely he must have to retire soon?

Re: Through the past darkly : Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:34 pm  

I don't think £100k for a revamped BV is that bad considering Trinity were paying £125k to the BOI, however I said a while back the club should accept the terms as council/Yorkcourt would go for an angle where the club are portrayed as the bad guy and sadly this has proved to be the case. Hopefully Michael Carter and the Trust's response will get the same coverage by the local Box mouthpiece.

Oh and Wallhead, I've never heard of you but I'm aghast at the amount of rate payers money you so called earn.

Re: Through the past darkly : Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:27 pm  

SHOMOZZAL!!!!!!! at all it means is no more Wakefield team in the city regardless of whos fault it is!!!!!!!we the fans are the ones that are short changed

Re: Through the past darkly : Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:09 pm  

Wildthing wrote:

I think he supports a club with a Multi Millionaire owner.

That narrows it down a bit.

Re: Through the past darkly : Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:14 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I don't think £100k for a revamped BV is that bad considering Trinity were paying £125k to the BOI, however I said a while back the club should accept the terms as council/Yorkcourt would go for an angle where the club are portrayed as the bad guy and sadly this has proved to be the case. Hopefully Michael Carter and the Trust's response will get the same coverage by the local Box mouthpiece.

Oh and Wallhead, I've never heard of you but I'm aghast at the amount of rate payers money you so called earn.

It's shocking when you consider how much Yorkcourt and 88m stand to make from the deal. Whatever it costs to build the stadium it's fraction on what they will make out of N/M and the BV development.

Even if we do get the stadium where are the other amenities originally promised as part of the agreement. No services to build nothing. Just a stadium that in real cost terms is about 6 million then they have the cheek to ask us to pay to play at a stadium that should rightly be owned by the trust! WMDC nor anyone else should have any say in how much we get charged, only the Trust.
It's so bent it's almost straightened up again. As for the running cost isn't that included in the lease payments which I assume are separate or have I got that bit wrong, must admit it's confusing.

Re: Through the past darkly : Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:14 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I knew one post from me would generate a reply, even from Cyprus. I regret that this just confuses things more because I am sure (but I am willing to be corrected) that the most recent plan involved the council and current owners rather than YC.
I expect you will want to put the clubs reasons why they withdrew when you return.
I only posted to make some on the forum think before they carried on making wild accusations and to point out that we are not the most important item on ratepayers mind and many would think it is not the council’s place to help what is a private company.

This game playing. Wild accusations? I think not. Explain why you did not make Yorkcourt fulfill their obligations. Will you do that? Of course you won't.

Re: Through the past darkly : Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:17 am  

Wildthing wrote:

So basically you have no idea what is currently going on do you?

No he doesnt. Just another bell with no idea and his ignorant comments

Re: Through the past darkly : Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:21 am  

Trinity1315 wrote:

Do you work for Yorkcourt or do you just like playing Devil's advocate ?
I had high hopes of this deal being done but I can see now how MC et al have been shafted by the council - can't you?
My faith entirely in MC and CB. They've done exactly the right thing!

It is hard to be positive who this is but the possibilities are limited. The overall situation is that the games being played are obvious. Wild accusations my ....

Re: Through the past darkly : Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:26 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

The council have a duty to consider all their ratepayers. I would expect that they must ask for a commercial rent to be applied or they would be in breach of their responsibilities.
If you were a resident of Featherstone and the council were to proceed on a peppercorn rent then would feel it was a good use of a council’s limited funds.
I would remind some that it was the club who withdrew from the arrangement, so I suppose unless they tell us why we will never know leaving some posters to make wild accusations which are currently based on nothing more than hear say or the famous man in the pub.

You really should make yourself known. You are so obviously such a fair minded and righteous individual. We all need to know who you are so we can learn more

Re: Through the past darkly : Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:49 am  

BOJ042 wrote:

SHOMOZZAL!!!!!!! at all it means is no more Wakefield team in the city regardless of whos fault it is!!!!!!!we the fans are the ones that are short changed

Don't sound too excited eh.