Re: Clarity : Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:17 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The ground is not a pot of gold. The land is. But maybe you're right. I'm sure Manni will regret not being able to turn a large piece of prime real estate on a major route into a sports ground and be stuck with a lease that can generate an annual income but never be able to sell it on to a developer who might want to turn into a housing/retail/commercial/entertainment complex. Given how much he'll regret it, I'm sure he is currently battling alongside MC to make sure the Council do the right thing, rather than speaking and acting in a way more likely to ensure we move.

Oh, hang on ....

The land and the ground are the same thing
You seriously aren't getting it


The ground is the easy fast deal for him, it can be commercial / retail or what ever it needs to be next to the stadium

Turning it in to housing might not even be possible and it will be a long process

He's battling with mc to get the deal he wants not the deal that we want, if it were that easy and profitable to turn it in to a housing estate do you not think he would have done that already!?!

Go and read IAs post in the statement of dilapidation thread
He is one of a very small handful of people who has a knowledge of what's going on here

You lack understanding in theatre and sales, I'm not having ago here but trying to make you see what you can't see
Theatre is what you are seeing on social media and in the press, everyone wants the stadium to happen now
It's just the terms that aren't right for everyone (at the moment)

Re: Clarity : Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:12 pm  

musson wrote:

The land and the ground are the same thing
You seriously aren't getting it

No, they are not. The ground can only ever be the ground. The land can be whatever Manni wants it to be.

I don't doubt that 88M would be content at getting a deal he likes over rent and other incomes from the ground, because it's an easy churn. But if he won't get it on his terms, because MC won't agree those terms, I doubt he'll be bothered. I don't think for a moment he bought Belle Vue for the opportunity to own a sports ground and collect rent from it. He bought it because it was a rock-bottom price for a large piece of land, because the club was told not to bid for it.

If we won't agree his rent, I'm pretty sure he'll shrug his shoulders, let us leave, and the bulldozers will be in by Christmas as he works out how he can best get a return from his land. There is a desire to make it work on his terms, and there is a desire to make it work. Two different things. If the club's terms are different, Manni won't bat an eyelid, I'm sure.

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:14 am  

Tweeted Aaron Bower: Wakefield Trinity expected to make their position clear on stadium situation in next 24 hours. Club’s hierarchy been in dialogue all day

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:54 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

If we won't agree his rent, I'm pretty sure he'll shrug his shoulders, let us leave, and the bulldozers will be in by Christmas as he works out how he can best get a return from his land. There is a desire to make it work on his terms, and there is a desire to make it work. Two different things. If the club's terms are different, Manni won't bat an eyelid, I'm sure.

Absolutely right - developers are quite used to banking land for future profit, and you can bet your bottom dollar that there is WAY more profit in that land if the club folds and he gets a blank piece of paper to fill with whatever he wants; and given his coordinated work with Box in terms of forcing the club into a corner, it's safe to say that planning permission for whatever he wants to do will be waved through.

I don't see the argument that WT holds a strong hand in that regard - for all his nice speech when the fantasy drawings came out, he is quite clearly not interested in the long term welfare of WT - he's interested in profit; which seems to be the common motivation of all the vultures currently working against the club, including Rodney Walker.

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:18 pm  

Who advised MC not to bid for the ground?

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:24 pm  

Joe Banjo wrote:

Who advised MC not to bid for the ground?

I believe it was a "knight" in tarnished armour

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:31 pm  

NEwildcat wrote:

I believe it was a "knight" in tarnished armour

You mean Sir Rod(the quango kid).

[PopTart]

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:56 pm  

Joe Banjo wrote:

Who advised MC not to bid for the ground?

I'm amazed we took that advice.

Re: Clarity : Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:05 pm  

I wonder if MC had bought the ground would WMDC secured funding for the trust to redevelope BV.

Re: Clarity : Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:37 am  

PopTart wrote:

I'm amazed we took that advice.

After everything that had gone on up to that point, so am I tbh. At the very least it would have been an asset and we wouldn't be in the very precarious position we are now & given us somewre to play in the mean time. If Newmaket ever had come about, MC and CB could have probably made some decent money on it, considering it was up for £600k. Wonder what 88m actually paid for it in the end?