Ha. Knew it wouldn't take long for the trolling to start.

This isn't anything to do with the club, or Richard Wright, and isn't smoke & mirrors. The developers have given a very detailed statement on why there is a delay, and to cut a long story short it is so they can ensure they do the best possible job of covering every angle and maximise their chances of approval at the first attempt.

If the delay was because of RW smoke & mirrors and 'spin' the developers wouldn't be assuming responsibility for the delay; they would deny all knowledge of a delay and claim it was always their plan to submit in October.

Anyhow, the delay doesn't scupper, derail, or even inconvenience the GH build in any way.

Nothing to see here...

Have you ever heard the term

The best laid plans of men and mouse ?

I understand why you asked the questions in the first place but you don't seem to now want to hear an answer that does indeed, as best as I can, answer your question.

The key issue is that you don't have to run this stadium at profit to repay the capital investment, because that is being recouped from other sources. So you have a brand new stadium, that will require little serious maintenance investment in the first decade and probably much longer than that. So, you just have to cover your running and overhead costs on a per annum basis. You have two anchor tenants and possibly three as well as income from the conference facilities and the communities use of the sports facilities (although in fact they will probably be subsidised by the other incomes in reality). This sounds like a reasonable plan to me?

I fully understand the way that the initial capital outlay will be recovered , however I think you seriously underestimate the running costs of a stadium of this type , and ultimately there is always somebody that has to underwrite those costs

This sounds very similar to the situation at Leigh , and I think you will have the same problems , the council did not pay for the building of the stadium , they did however underwrite it's running costs , those running costs , or more specifically , the loss of income that have occurred as a result of the stadium running costs will be a massive loss to WTW , these losses will not be offset by savings in costs , if WTW don't draw at least 10,000 fans on average to the stadium , they will lose money , all IMO of course

Why always? Only if the stadium operating company runs at a loss? They don't plan to run at a loss because they have other offset income streams, the largest of which is the conference facilities. It was felt that Wakefield could operate a Championship side from the new stadium if they were not given a licence, without the need for anyone to underwrite any losses. I understand it was tight, but possible. However, it was felt that a second tenant would be required to make this a longer term solution (if Wakefield were never to return!!!) and keep the rental costs lower.



Who did pay and how did they recover their capital investment? Serious question?

Greenbank construction , they received other building land from the council

Nobody ever ' plans ' a loss , but it tends to happen quite a lot , that's why an underwriter , usually central or local government is involved