Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:18 pm  

Reading SC and DC posts they both appear to be alot angrier/attempting to hide it less which suggests they have seen the proposals and know it would actual reduce the clubs income from what it is now.

It really appears to be a grubby dirty deal by RW and YC, facilitated by PB. Why would MC or others continue to knock their pan in for free while somebody else sat in an office miles away profits on it?

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:06 pm  

4th in League and we still have the stadium issue overshadowing what should be such a joyful season.

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:09 pm  

Why are the Council letting Yorkcourt dictate this whole thing on their terms...do we know whether Box could profit in someway by it not getting built? If not, then why wouldn't he/the council put their foot down?

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:36 pm  

thebeagle wrote:

4th in League and we still have the stadium issue overshadowing what should be such a joyful season.

=3rd

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:41 pm  

It's all doublespeak from peter box ,but he cannot stop us on the field 4th in the league and a real credit to mc and the players and coaching staff .

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:34 pm  

Jizzer wrote:

Why are the Council letting Yorkcourt dictate this whole thing on their terms...do we know whether Box could profit in someway by it not getting built? If not, then why wouldn't he/the council put their foot down?

Excellent question. Answers on a postcard please.

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:08 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Excellent question. Answers on a postcard please.

Why is it even a question

staying away from the Box is a Cas fan angle

Peter Box was instrumental in getting the greenbelt reclassified as land that could be built on....no ?
Assuming he doesn't benefit financially from the deal, and yeah, I know its dangerous to assume anything, he gets the green to brown on the back of a new stadium promise.
Now either he doesn't want to look like a chump in public after being swindled out of the public property he's been charged with the care of, or he does benefit financially, in either case, he isn't going to want to be put under any scrutiny.
You'd think he'd be doing a bit of his own dictating to make this thing happen as promised and avoid attention, unless of course the other 2 members of the bermuda triangle have too much 5h1t on him.

I'm gonna go with that last line till proven false, it seems like the whole thing is on a cliff edge and the triangle is doing the only thing it can do, front it out.

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:09 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

They are and as I say they are totally unacceptable.

Looks to me like its time to get some top class specialist Barrister in to give us some advice and help us with this predicament.

Re: Peter Box : Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:33 pm  

Trinity1315 wrote:

SC what I don't understand is why isn't all this being aired in the local press ? If it was a public body they would be crucified in the press but it seems private enterprise are excused from public exposure.
Where the hell are the Wakefield Express in all this anyway - do they have reporters nowadays with the bottle to get into this white collar crap? It's absolutely scandalous that greedy individuals can basically cheat the system so blatantly and get away with it!

the Wakefield Express is more bothered when there a trunk fast under the bridge on donny road that's their level of media

Re: Peter Box : Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:51 am  

Very convenient that the trust didn't receive the heads of terms until after the Box appearance on radio