Re: Today's council meeting? : Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I am sure I will be corrected but we can all agree that currently the basis for building a stadium at Newmarket is still to be reached.
We argue that the council are letting the people of Wakefield down by not building a community facility. I am sure that the council have stated that they still intend to develop Belle Vue as a community stadium. The difference is that it will be a simpler design if we are not staying.
Please correct me if I am wrong but all the arguments we are putting forward appear to be answered with the possible exception that it was the agreement that we must be the anchor tenants in any community stadium at the peppercorn rate indicated.

Where are all these extra Community sports facilities that are going to be potentially built down at Belle Vue? That's where the wider Community at large was going to get access and use of at the Newmarket development. Yes the stadium was going to be anchored by Trinity, but what's in it for the rest of Wakefield. Except for Trinity fans, I can't see who else who'd use Belle Vue as a Community Stadium. As I've pointed out before, from what the Council put out a couple of weeks ago, it mentions that Trinity would have to put money into the redevelopment if we stay. So how would that all work, considering we wouldn't own it and they want us to pay a crazy rent on top. Quite a difference from what was meant to happen at Newmaket, to what we'd get and have to pay for at Belle Vue, especially when it's meant to be getting paid by Yorkcourts pockets eventually anyway.

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:10 am  

M62 J30 TRINITY wrote:

It's warehousing as well as brewery more of a storage facility, a north east company has taken them and fam over. It's definitely happening next year don't know how big the unit is but imagine fairly substantial.

Up the Trin

As I said before it is still not enough to reach the trigger point

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:25 am  

Trinity 61 wrote:

As I said before it is still not enough to reach the trigger point

The trigger point is a maximum not a minimum ... according to the SOS findings!

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:43 am  

spookDU2018 wrote:

The trigger point is a maximum not a minimum ... according to the SOS findings!

Where does it say this? If true it blows Box's argument out of the water about not being able to enforce anything

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:57 pm  

Jizzer wrote:

Where does it say this? If true it blows Box's argument out of the water about not being able to enforce anything

It states it in the 106 as usual the devil is in the detail.

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:52 pm  

Trinity 61 wrote:

As I said before it is still not enough to reach the trigger point

But where would we be with Newcold and the 'brewery' facility?

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:24 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

It states it in the 106 as usual the devil is in the detail.

So that begs another question, why was Box saying at the meeting that there is no 106 just a UU...more lies?

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:35 pm  

spookDU2018 wrote:

The trigger point is a maximum not a minimum ... according to the SOS findings!

It says 'FOLLOWING' 60,000 square metres having being built out and occupied e.g, 60,000 sq.m has to be built and occupied first. So it is a minimum.

As for the question regarding Section 106 and UU, TRB and IA will correct me but there are varying forms of S106 agreements. Yours is a Unilateral Undertaking which is entered into by those with a stake in the site (Trust, landowner, Yorkcourt and the bank). It isn't a Multi-lateral agreement like is at Five Towns Park for Cas.

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:14 pm  

Fully wrote:

It says 'FOLLOWING' 60,000 square metres having being built out and occupied e.g, 60,000 sq.m has to be built and occupied first. So it is a minimum.

As for the question regarding Section 106 and UU, TRB and IA will correct me but there are varying forms of S106 agreements. Yours is a Unilateral Undertaking which is entered into by those with a stake in the site (Trust, landowner, Yorkcourt and the bank). It isn't a Multi-lateral agreement like is at Five Towns Park for Cas.

Sorry for being pedantic but you have just described a multi-lateral agreement as all those have entered into it. A unilateral undertaking is a promise by one party alone to the other, which can be enforced if not carried through. Or seemingly ignored ....

Re: Today's council meeting? : Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:37 pm  

Fully wrote:

It says 'FOLLOWING' 60,000 square metres having being built out and occupied e.g, 60,000 sq.m has to be built and occupied first. So it is a minimum.

As for the question regarding Section 106 and UU, TRB and IA will correct me but there are varying forms of S106 agreements. Yours is a Unilateral Undertaking which is entered into by those with a stake in the site (Trust, landowner, Yorkcourt and the bank). It isn't a Multi-lateral agreement like is at Five Towns Park for Cas.

I'm talking about the SOS findings... which guides the UU (which is still a 106!).. that clearly states the maximum... and suggests 'as soon as possible) ... given the seeming acceptance by the developer (smoothed beautifully by the acting chair of the trust) to move forward and act honourably.. the UU used the figure as a trigger point to assist funding streams...

We all know what happened to their honourable position after that!!!

They threw a dummy to their team mate the council ... used big Rodders as a foil and left the Trinity defence for dead ... rounding the community full back for a sweet victory!

Thank god for the video ref as the defence have claimed an obstruction... we are all staring at the screen ... waiting for the ruling!!! While Box and Hussain are screaming in the referees face... the try scorer (Yorkcourt) slink off to the substitutes bench winking at their support staff!