Re: Newmarket back on? : Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:10 am  

Put me off when it says the council now can come up with a new 106 agreement. They are that thick which they are who knows what they will mess up.
I wouldnt trust the council to put a empty pack of monster munch in the bin

Re: Newmarket back on? : Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:56 pm  

Willzay wrote:

I just hope this isn't another case of Greeks bearing gifts.

Would that be Petros Box and Aristotle Mackie ???

Re: Newmarket back on? : Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:39 pm  

This could be really good news for the club but just fear we are starting to run out of time.

The comments on Twitter the other day regarding two local businessman who are backing Ossett Albion though are very interesting indeed.

They have ambition of getting professional football into the city, but re developing their existing stadium to the extent of levelling it and re building the stands.

It may come down to only one stadium being developed away from WF10, and this one may become the better option.

A pro football side in the city would have use of the stadium for about 25 weeks of the year, in comparison to ours. Now I don't follow football too closely these days so aren't sure what the average crowd of 4th tier teams are at this tinm, but there could be advantages here to the city if this were to happen, revenue wise

Re: Newmarket back on? : Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:18 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

What cards, we hold no cards other than our name and heritage which may equate to some good will but nothing else.
We gave notice to leave Belle Vue and pulled out of negotiations with the council regarding redevelopment, tell me what do we hold.
When I said we about captain beaky (Vastman) and his gang you have two of the usual suspects above, just waiting for the other two to make the set.

Did we?
The club have said we didn't because they have never been given the information to allow them to make that decision.
The council said we did.

The same council that spent 5 years saying the enforcement of the s106 was "nothing to do with us" and are now saying "well actually it is us, but we can't do anything till the trigger points are met"
The same council that said we will negotiate a new s106 upon the application for planning for the extension of Newcold, and then wrote a load of tosh on the back of a fag packet.

For me it's not difficult to decide which of these two parties to believe - It appears that it's not difficult for you either but you appear to have a vendetta against MC and therefore choose to believe the perennial liars. Your choice - but don't be surprised that others on here think you have your own agenda that is not really in the best interests of Wakefield Trinity.

Re: Newmarket back on? : Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:32 pm  

It's good news for us interesting to see next step will the council step up and fulfill their responsibilities to ensure the community stadium and facilities are built at Newmarket in accordance with the 106 agreement. Also what will they say about Belle Vue now Newmarket should be back on the agenda.

Up to Trin

Re: Newmarket back on? : Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:48 am  

around around in circles we go again! somebody lay a brick and then we might have some good news....

Re: Newmarket back on? : Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:52 am  

I'm reluctant to see this as good news; obviously it's in the interest of YCP to renew the planning permission - but that doesn't mean their intentions or plans have changed in terms of diddling the district out of the stadium they had to agree to in order to obtain planning gain. The interesting thing will be if Mr Box makes good on his public promise to force them into a s106 agreement that WMDC can enforce - and that I guess is the clever part of the Trust statement. As it stands however, we are no further forward, and I can't imagine that Mackie is any more willing to spunk 12 million quid on a stadium than he was before - I expect him to be as slippery with the new situation as he has been up to now.

Re: Newmarket back on? : Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:16 am  

We will know where we are when the council makes a statement, always assuming they make one. They will probably say nowt and let it drag on and on and on.

Re: Newmarket back on? : Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:43 am  

Wasn't there something in the budget about councils being able to take over unused land with planning permission to stop 'land banking'? I do wonder if Yorkcourt were just biding their time waiting for Trinity to fold, and when it became clear that wasn't going to happen seeking help from (ahem) other parties to try and divert attention from their obligations re. Newmarket. As others have said, it is a prime location and you cant imagine it NOT being built out if the will was there.

Just imagine if the council had felt compelled to take the land back!

Re: Newmarket back on? : Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:16 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I'm reluctant to see this as good news; obviously it's in the interest of YCP to renew the planning permission - but that doesn't mean their intentions or plans have changed in terms of diddling the district out of the stadium they had to agree to in order to obtain planning gain. The interesting thing will be if Mr Box makes good on his public promise to force them into a s106 agreement that WMDC can enforce - and that I guess is the clever part of the Trust statement. As it stands however, we are no further forward, and I can't imagine that Mackie is any more willing to spunk 12 million quid on a stadium than he was before - I expect him to be as slippery with the new situation as he has been up to now.

I just posted something similar on the other thread.
I don't profess to understand it all so may be wrong on this but:
WMDC have it within their ability to insist upon a new s106 agreement in order to grant this permission.
They could insist that that s106 is the "perfect agreement" like Cas' and that the stadium build has to come first.

They COULD, but will they???? What it does I guess is put Box in the limelight given his recent statements at the televised council meeting. He can't carry on blaming the Tories for our imperfect agreement if he fails to deliver a new agreement when they are perfectly able to do so.