Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:41 am  

I was just interested about the year ago bit. When he was still chair of the trust and supposedly negotiating hard. 'I still believe Colin Mackie is an honourable man' ' don't bid for BV you'll only push the price up, Colin has got it'

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:42 am  

Brian Briggs Ghost wrote:

On an e-mail I received several days ago from Sir Rodney.

I can forward it to you if you would like to see it.

That seems a dumb thing for Rodders to do.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:44 am  

Daddycool wrote:

I was just interested about the year ago bit. When he was still chair of the trust and supposedly negotiating hard. 'I still believe Colin Mackie is an honourable man' ' don't bid for BV you'll only push the price up, Colin has got it'

Jeez. I thought my blood was boiling with all this. Yours must be off the scale.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:45 am  

Unfortunately, it has now become quite clear that none of them are honourable men....we have been right royally shafted by perhaps the 3 most current dishonourable men currently residing within the Wakefield District and it is now time that the people of Wakefield are made aware of exactly what they have done

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:54 am  

FIL wrote:

Unfortunately, it has now become quite clear that none of them are honourable men....we have been right royally shafted by perhaps the 3 most current dishonourable men currently residing within the Wakefield District and it is now time that the people of Wakefield are made aware of exactly what they have done

I bet the Wakefield express aren't the ones to take up the gauntlet!

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:04 am  

Agree with you on that one Jinjer, so who will ??

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:11 am  

FIL wrote:

Agree with you on that one Jinjer, so who will ??

It would be great if somebody like James Deighton or Gary Carter could get involved. Questions need asking publicly and now.

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:11 am  

Quote from Box in last weeks Daily Star....

"The Council's legal team will review the new proposal to make sure it is capable of delivering the stadium"

Well, it is quite clear that those two pages of BS that Mackie's tea boy has produced will never deliver a stadium, so what do we think Box will do about it ???

Sweet FA, that's what

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:13 am  

FIL wrote:

Quote from Box in last weeks Daily Star....

"The Council's legal team will review the new proposal to make sure it is capable of delivering the stadium"

Well, it is quite clear that those two pages of BS that Mackie's tea boy has produced will never deliver a stadium, so what do we think Box will do about it ???

Sweet FA, that's what

Box is to make a statement today

Re: Newmarket 'new' Heads of Terms Document : Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:14 am  

So comparing our 2 "perfect" agreements:

Castleford - Developer agrees to transfer freehold of the stadium land to Castleford Tigers for £1
Wakefield - Developer retains freehold of land

Castleford - Stadium will be managed and run by Castleford Tigers entitling them to the full benefit of revenue streams from matchdays and conference/hospitality facilities
Wakefield - Stadium will be leased and managed by Rodney's Trust at a peppercorn rent. Trust will then lease stadium to Wakefield Trinity for a commercial rent and they will have no access to revenue streams from conference/hospitality

Castleford - Stadium to be built and handed over prior to any retail unit being opened to trade (I couldn't find a specific trigger point linked to quantity/footage of retail units)
Wakefield - Stadium to be built when developer has assessed viability of housing, received planning permission for said housing and built sufficient quantity (no reference to what constitutes sufficient quantity)

And many others but these conditions show the intentions of developer and his mates.

Time Councillor Box grew a pair and put the Castleford s106 in front of Mackie and said this is what you need to provide or else we are revoking any planning permission you will ever receive