Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:34 am  

kinleycat wrote:

Didn't Cas set up a trust, after thinking they already had one and didnt have?
I'm sure i recall reading something along those lines on here, some time last summer(ish).

Before anyone says it, i am aware not everything on here is true or (even real)!!!

They haven't set one up yet... as far as I am aware, but they will if they want to use the £2m security. I think RW is hoping he does not have to and I understand his reasoning on this if he wants to keep GH wholly private venture.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:01 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

They haven't set one up yet... as far as I am aware, but they will if they want to use the £2m security. I think RW is hoping he does not have to and I understand his reasoning on this if he wants to keep GH wholly private venture.

They want to use the tigers trust i believe. This although a registered chatity is adminstered by cas themselves and as such isn't independent so i'm not sure if it is feasible. If so wakey could have just used the wildcats trust rather than having to be tennants to an independent community trust.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:08 am  

Theboyem wrote:

They want to use the tigers trust i believe. This although a registered chatity is adminstered by cas themselves and as such isn't independent so i'm not sure if it is feasible. If so wakey could have just used the wildcats trust rather than having to be tennants to an independent community trust.

This was the problem, and the reason they were looking into an independent trust, as i recall it.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:16 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

As you point out, this also does raise questions about how Cas, if they do a deal with Opus, will fund GH from the Nestle site and the sale of WR. I actually think that a section 106 agreement will not be signed and that Opus will pay over the actual value for both sites and therefore it will be a legitimate commercial deal which will give Cas the money to fund the majority of GH from the proceeds, in cash. This is another problem I understand Cas and Opus are looking into because unlike a section 106 agreement where building work is being directly undertaken by a developer, the cash sale will mean the HMRC will want it's share, and much work is been done to try and work out how to avoid HMRC taking a big chunck out of RW's GH's funding money!

!

But Opus are not a charity and like any other business will only pay over the odds for something if they get a pay back from somewhere else. I am really interested how they intend to achieve this. Could there be the smell of corruption in the air ?

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:27 am  

I'm no expert but I think providing all funds from a sale of the ground are put into the new build then capital gains tax can be avoided. But if any of it is used for paying off debts or Jack Fulton loans (as has been suggested by one shareholder) then part of the proceeds are taxable.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:28 am  

jack in the box wrote:

But Opus are not a charity and like any other business will only pay over the odds for something if they get a pay back from somewhere else. I am really interested how they intend to achieve this. Could there be the smell of corruption in the air ?

That confused me also. I cannot understand how Castleford can get anything but the OMV for Wheldon Road. How can they get any value from the Nestle site.

Opus can, if they wish give them £15m for Wheldon Road but they as you say are a business and will not pay over the odds.

I'm sure it will all be above board.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:01 pm  

D-61 (sigh) and counting! #newmarketnewopportunity

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:10 pm  

TRB wrote:

D-61 (sigh) and counting! #newmarketnewopportunity

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:49 pm  

Spongebob wrote:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

It is frustrating but equally it is once again actually yet another positive sign in terms of a potential successful outcome, so a 20 day delay to the 19th June (but again, on or before the 19th June) is worth it!

The SoS office has written to the people/groups who spoke at the inquiry and given us the opportunity to make a further written representation in light of the new National Planning Policy Framework, which came into force on the 17th March. As I posted and the media reported, the new 50 page framework is significantly more pro-development than the old 1000 page document that it replaced. As such, this document supports the development much more than the old document did and although it does have some things I am sure the objectors will point and cling to as being clear indicators of why it should still be turned down, there are many more new points that outweigh these quite significantly.

Also, I am little suspicious (but pleased, if true) that the SoS office has seen and grasped an opportunity to once again slightly delay the PI outcome announcement so that the LDF outcome will be published before the PI decision!!! They surely know that it looks highly likely the LDF inspector is going to agree that Newmarket indeed is (and always was) the best site available to meet the plan for the required B8 development on the M62 and that as there was no significant objection to the Stadium, they want to put themselves in the strongest possible position to pass the site. The final LDF report should be in the public domain before the 19th June and it therefore makes the decision to pass the PI both very easy and in light of the LDF, very uncontroversial!

So, just a few more days to wait but genuinely, I think it is going to worth the wait!

Re: Tick Tock : Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:28 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

The SoS office has written to the people/groups who spoke at the inquiry and given us the opportunity to make a further written representation in light of the new National Planning Policy Framework, which came into force on the 17th March.

Out of interest I_A, have you been given a deadline to file 'further written representations'?