You are correct that the developer has done nothing illegal. Morally and ethically somewhat questionable, but legally OK.
I would think any court proceedings (judicial review ) would be against the local authority and its role in all this rather than the developer.

I would think that any court would look at facts of law and judge on that rather than morality no matter how morally wrong 1 party has been. Ateotd if no one has broken a legally binding contract or broken any law then morals don't come into it. There would be no case to answer for anyone.

The audited accounts state the land & buildings were valued by a chartered surveyor. It came up at a public meeting that of that, the land was valued at £14million. The issue that I have is that what chartered surveyor in their right mind would value a sports stadium? I have trouble finding a surveyor who will put their name to a stadium valuation on sports clubs bigger than St Helens, because they know its worthless, but St Helens RLFC can find one???? Not saying anything untoward is happening because the audit opinion is clean and unqualified but still!!

Regards

King James

I think the issue is how the developer was enabled to use a legal loophole to renege on their obligations under a s106 Agreement that was adjudicated by HM Inspector - and WMDC's continued intransigence in enforcing said Agreement. This is not a court case in the way you might imagine - a judicial review is somewhat different.

"Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached."

Because they are valuing the land & not a sports stadium? Presumably the value is how much a developer can recoup from developing the land for its most lucrative legal purpose - probably housing - less the cost of site clearance, build costs, legal fees etc.

For the purposes of insurance would be a pretty obvious reason.......

What?? You don't need a professional valuation to insure a sports stadium at all.

Regards

King James

Insurance against loss is not related to value of land.

The question was asked as to why someone would value a stadium, not the land.



Of course you do.

Why have you added the word "million" to that sentence

Stop trolling. No you dont. A football club client of mine has never had a valuation undertaken, purely because no decent valuer worth their salt would put their name to a stadium valuation, yet still has it insured. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about

King James

And is that insurance for millions? Does he know if he's under or over insured? Maybe the valuer was appointed by the insurance company to ensure they weren't going to be ripped of on the event of a claim? And since you don't know who I am or what job I do maybe I do know what I'm talking about

Sorry but you are wrong on that point. All owners of stadiums will have to account for their value as an asset in their report and accounts and they will usually do so based on advice from a valuer

Aaron Bower has tweeted that the council are planning on going ahead with the re-development of BV irrespective of what Trinity decide to do. Not show what this means and as an outsider looking in, just confuses me even more. Is this good or bad

Probably going to allow 88M who own the site to develop it without a stadium knowing WMDC

they obviously think they have trinity over a barrel and they will accept the deal regardless as without it they will be kicked out of super league with realistically no way back.
on the other hand if they call the councils bluff they end up having a stadium with no one playing in it. unless they have a football or union team lined up as alternative tenants.

Quote ="rollin thunder"they obviously think they have trinity over a barrel and they will accept the deal regardless as without it they will be kicked out of super league with realistically no way back. on the other hand if they call the councils bluff they end up having a stadium with no one playing in it. unless they have a football or union team lined up as alternative tenants.'" Looks like 88M may be enforcing Wakefield's notice to quit BV.... www.totalrl.com/wakefield-counci ... d-trinity/

Quote ="rollin thunder"they obviously think they have trinity over a barrel and they will accept the deal regardless as without it they will be kicked out of super league with realistically no way back. on the other hand if they call the councils bluff they end up having a stadium with no one playing in it. unless they have a football or union team lined up as alternative tenants.'" Looks like 88M may be enforcing Wakefield's notice to quit BV.... www.totalrl.com/wakefield-counci ... d-trinity/

Selling season tickets beyond the current rental period of the ground - what implications would that have on the rest of SL and the fixtures for next season ? www.seriousaboutrl.com/wakefield ... iod-10679/

Selling season tickets beyond the current rental period of the ground - what implications would that have on the rest of SL and the fixtures for next season ? www.seriousaboutrl.com/wakefield ... iod-10679/

According to Wakey Council WT were offered all matchday income from bars restaurants etc but wanted them to pay a commercial rent. While WT wanted all income from the stadium whether it was on matchdays or not. It sounds to me that Wakey want something for nothing.

All while this has been going on over the past week, i've heard nothing from WT over all this. Are they being greedy? Is MC just playing games because he's had a too good to refuse offer for the WT franchise?

Carter's been on holiday. He went the day or the day before they released the first statement, coincidence hey. All we know is the Club are seeking Legal advice before saying anything.

It's obvious to me though, that after all the years of the Council going on record saying the Stadium issues of Wakefield Trinity is nothing to do with them, they're trying to make Cater look like the bad guy in all this mess and in turn get fans to turn. Even though it's them that passed the S106 in 2011 and so did the Secretary of State. WMDC can't seem to work with the developer to enforce said S106 for the Newmaket build during the past 6 years. Even going around the S106 and taking huge plots of land that have now been built on which originally should have gone to the trigger point. For a lot of people this isn't just about getting Trinity a new Stadium, it's about having some quality sports facilities in WMDC, which there are non that was promosed all those years ago. The thing is there's probably plenty of Trinity fans who are thinking just get it signed and built. But ateotd we've seen no figures about what the rent will be.

I'd disagree with that entirely SC. It's a very small circle of people who have that train of thought. The majority of people in the district think the total opposite - that the development is a rugby stadium for Wakefield Trinity. The community aspect has been lost in all the detail.

Has the trigger point been reached yet?
I’m trying to look at this in the simplest way possible. If its not yet been reached, whats the problem?

No - the trigger point has not been reached. Even if the Newcold site (big white fridge) was counted it wouldn't be reached but would obviously be a whole lot nearer. Yorkcourt cannot be pursued into funding anything.

Thanks. Not sure if you’ll know. But if the fridge is included, is it anywhere near the mark or still some way off?