Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:54 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

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.

I entirely agree with you on a point of principle, but if that's the only way to get the stadium, that must trump the point of principle. I suppose the issue is how fundamental the differences are, if any. If it's not economically viable, then that's a different thing altogether, and other options have to be considered. If it turns out to be economically viable but just not quite as much so, then we're over a barrel, I guess. Given that not much honour has been shown by the other parties to this, a little more dishonour is just in keeping.

We'll know by the end of the regular season, if someone tells us anything. The one thing I do know, from the comprehensive statement on this thread and the heartfelt one from the club, we'll find out the truth eventually.

[PopTart]

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:14 pm  

I don't agree Slugger. If the only way to get a stadium is to agree to a 'site unseen' agreement it vantage be good for the club.
The only reason to keep something a secret is if you feel someone will take advantage of the info or if they won't like it and you don't want them to call you out on it.

If Sir Rodney is all above board, and I've no reason to doubt it, bring it all out in the open.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:37 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.

I have to agree here with the caveat of it depending on what the terms are of course. It has to work for the club as well as the developer and it is in the developers interest to ensure we are a viable concern if they want the stadium to make money. Price us out of it and the club goes pop, they are stuck with a large problem on their hands. But the club are going to back down to some degree as quite simply it won't get built otherwise. Yes in principle that is wrong but it is the harsh reality of where we are at. Yorkcourt can't afford to build it at the previously agreed terms, i doubt they ever could. Remember they originally wanted 100m2 as the trigger point, i imagine they went along with 60m2 fully intending to throw in the 40 m2 Newcold build outside the allowance once it was reduced. Hey presto there is the 100m2. If the trust/club won't budge at all whatever the offer is then we better get used to playing at Dewsbury, ultimately in the championship, until the club is no more. A halfway house HAS to be found.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:08 pm  

PopTart wrote:

I don't agree Slugger. If the only way to get a stadium is to agree to a 'site unseen' agreement it vantage be good for the club.
The only reason to keep something a secret is if you feel someone will take advantage of the info or if they won't like it and you don't want them to call you out on it.

If Sir Rodney is all above board, and I've no reason to doubt it, bring it all out in the open.

Aren't the only issues these:
1. How many will it hold?
2. How much is the rent?
3. Who pays for upkeep?
4. How many catering and hospitality outlets are there?
5. Who pays for the rent or running of those outlets?
6. What is the profit-share for the tenant from those outlets?

From that, I assume you can work out a business projection. It may be that the answers to 2, 5 and 6 may not be what was envisaged by the original Trust, but once you take the heat out of the debate it would surely be possible to determine whether there is the potential to run a viable and growing club from those figures.

If, of course, anyone outside the club had the desire to make money out of this business proposition, beyond what was originally intended, they could hardly be said to have the club's interests at heart, purely their own. We'll find out soon, hopefully, where peoples' interests lie.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:35 pm  

Have no opinion whatsoever or axe to grind re: Rodney Walker , but didn't he pay off a six figure tax liability for the club during the reign of Ted ?

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:42 pm  

vastman wrote:

Very good point. Although I know Ted Richardson has played his part in our current woes. He often gets blamed for the YCCC fiasco at Denby Dale which I think is what you're referring to. That deffo happened on Walkers watch as far as I recall. Rodney has a real knack for blame shifting doesn't he.

Well the thing is in recentish history, we have been usually on the verge of another financial disaster and complete meltdown, through various chairmen making ill judged and downright bad decisions, and maybe a bit of bad luck and the RFL being ridiculous along the way. It's hurting more now because finally we seemed to have turned the corner both on and off the field, and have rightly, optimism especially on the field that may achieve relative success over the next few years......if only we had a ground to play in!! The thing that can't be argued against is, that Belle Vue has been falling to pieces for the last, 20, 30, maybe 40 years, take your pick. We are now in 2017 and still no shiny new stadium. How many have been built in the UK in that time?! It's not pie in the sky for the biggest city in the UK without a pro football team to get a say 12,000 capacity stadium is it?!! Is it really asking that much, is there that much red tape to get through, how have these other stadiums got off the ground, no lessons to be learned form them?! Previous chairmen and politicians should hang their heads in shame.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:57 pm  

Wildmoggy wrote:

We are now in 2017 and still no shiny new stadium. How many have been built in the UK in that time?!

It depends how far back you go, but it would not be unreasonable to say every single Super League club except us and Cas (exempting Headingley as it has been revamped).

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:05 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

It depends how far back you go, but it would not be unreasonable to say every single Super League club except us and Cas (exempting Headingley as it has been revamped).

Well yeah there you go! Which brings me back to my original post about Mr. Walker making 'false' promises in the early 90's, when over at Wigan, his good mate Maurice Lindsay actually delivered a new stadium. I'm just not sure about Rodney Walkers' 'involvement' in certain things over the years, I hear now he's the head of basketball in this country?! You only have to go on his wiki page to see the heights he's risen to, but i'm not sure his motives are completely honourable shall we say......but who knows.

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:36 pm  

Yes Beagle, I believe he did, but I think the agreement was a loan to the club, to be paid back.

Still though, regardless of this, I wouldnt consider him as the knight in shining armour and would be very careful

Re: Statement from Wakefield & District Community Trust : Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:53 pm  

anyway back on track, I personally think they are at it again stalling for a means for their own self profit, for Walker to think he can start a fresh is unbelievable