dboy wrote:
Wakefield FC is a Trojan Horse, designed for someone I find unsavoury, to get their hands on BV.
I am sure Mr. Carter knows what he's doing, but like some others on here, I am uncomfortable with any form of relationship with them.
See this is the bit I don't get, this is the paranoia that others I expect are referring too.
No offence dboy but your argument seems flawed IMHO.
For a start we don't own BV in any real sense, nor does it currently have any real value as either an RL ground or a football ground. If we had no mortgage on it, which I assume is a 100% and that at least some of it was up to any decent standard then yes it might be a gamble to let others in but it isn't. It's actually a dump that we paid over the odds for and requires millions spending on it just to be half-decent, we quite literally have nothing to lose because if it doesn't become half decent and soon we will be kicked out of SL and we will die anyway.
With that in mind, why would Wakefield FC or RW even need a Trojan horse? Also, BV has been available for purchase for more or less the last ten years so if RW had wanted it to develop BV for Wakefield FC he could have bought it at any time and simply kicked us out or milked us as tenants. They didn't need WTRLFC to do that did they, so where is the advantage in doing now when Trinity has a bit more of a hold on the stadium rather than less, it makes no sense.
I have no issue with you regarding Walker, I find him odious and his practices dubious a lot of the time, however like many others I don't see the issue as regards Wakefield FC with or without RW.
Let be honest, there is no way a struggling club in a struggling sport like RL could by itself develop BV, we just don't have the cash or the access to borrow it, that's a fact and in that respect, we are fairly stuffed as far as I can see.
We will need the support of others to do it and in return, they will want their piece of flesh and if Wakefield FC backed by RW is where that support is coming from then so be it, personally I can't see any option. As I said before if you can then my ears are open.
At the end of the day if we pay for the land and the rest pay for the stadium and we end up as say a 50% shareholder then is that so bad. So long as we don't lose our ability to influence the way BV is run and thus our right to be there at a fair rate then fine, why not? In truth, if the stadium were converted into an Ltd company with a BOD including one from Trinity we would only need 31% of the shares to be able to block anything we didn't like (that's how I understand corporate law, others may know differently).
The 30% theoretically is quite important for another reason. The cost of buying the ground at a rough guess would be around 30% of the eventual cost of a full revamp of BV. Just a thought. Basically I'm struggling to see the conspiracy
Still it's a change from vastman.
