Quote ="dboy"Then we agree. My point, perhaps badly made, was that the club NEVER made the promises so widely repeated on social media. They never said they would play 50% (or all TV games), at Oakwell. The club never promised to build at ground at Pugneys/Durkar/Thornes Park/Newmarket, or indeed now Belle Vue. They were all other people's schemes (WMDC/Yorkcourt/Pearman/Caddick/SirRW/Manny Hussein) - and ALL seemingly designed to make certain individuals get very much richer, very quickly, by taking advantage of WT. Make no mistake, the mis-management that for decades, undermined WT (the loss of the Theatre Club, pulling down a wooden stand (which wasn't actually wooden), losing the ground to the control of WMDC, Pearman promising the world, then doing a runner, Richardson mortgaging the club for personal gain, etc, etc, etc.), are all the fault of the club, or whoever has been at the helm at the time. Please don't make the mistake of believing that Carter is mugging people off. He is extremely principled and should be supported in his ongoing battles, to deliver what many think WT "promised" - i.e. other people's promised and legal obligations.'" So these 2 reports by Dave Hadfield www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 84624.html and www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 80793.html were making things up?

Quote ="dboy"Then we agree. My point, perhaps badly made, was that the club NEVER made the promises so widely repeated on social media. They never said they would play 50% (or all TV games), at Oakwell. The club never promised to build at ground at Pugneys/Durkar/Thornes Park/Newmarket, or indeed now Belle Vue. They were all other people's schemes (WMDC/Yorkcourt/Pearman/Caddick/SirRW/Manny Hussein) - and ALL seemingly designed to make certain individuals get very much richer, very quickly, by taking advantage of WT. Make no mistake, the mis-management that for decades, undermined WT (the loss of the Theatre Club, pulling down a wooden stand (which wasn't actually wooden), losing the ground to the control of WMDC, Pearman promising the world, then doing a runner, Richardson mortgaging the club for personal gain, etc, etc, etc.), are all the fault of the club, or whoever has been at the helm at the time. Please don't make the mistake of believing that Carter is mugging people off. He is extremely principled and should be supported in his ongoing battles, to deliver what many think WT "promised" - i.e. other people's promised and legal obligations.'" So these 2 reports by Dave Hadfield www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 84624.html and www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 80793.html were making things up?

Go on then, point out where the club/Richardson say that.

He quotes Richardson extensively, but the bit about Oakwell is entirely unattributed.

Quote ="Mr Dog"So these 2 reports by Dave Hadfield www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 84624.html and www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 80793.html were making things up?'" You said that, not us. But I suspect that the lack of a direct quote regarding the club playing all televised games or 50% of their games, or whatever else at Oakwell should tell you what you need to know. Seems that some folk will believe whatever a journalist chooses to publish. Personally I don't think those articles from 20 years ago hold any more credibility than the ones currently being published. Both sets lack any quotes from Wakefield Trinity that back up what the journos are claiming as fact. You choose to believe what you like, I'll choose to believe what I like. In my opinion Michael Carter is a far more honest and honourable man than Peter Box and nothing that anybody says will convince me otherwise.

Quote ="Mr Dog"So these 2 reports by Dave Hadfield www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 84624.html and www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 80793.html were making things up?'" You said that, not us. But I suspect that the lack of a direct quote regarding the club playing all televised games or 50% of their games, or whatever else at Oakwell should tell you what you need to know. Seems that some folk will believe whatever a journalist chooses to publish. Personally I don't think those articles from 20 years ago hold any more credibility than the ones currently being published. Both sets lack any quotes from Wakefield Trinity that back up what the journos are claiming as fact. You choose to believe what you like, I'll choose to believe what I like. In my opinion Michael Carter is a far more honest and honourable man than Peter Box and nothing that anybody says will convince me otherwise.

With no statement coming from MC or WT regarding the latest development then the only thing people have to look at and believe is the statement from Wakey Council. A simple statement from the club stating they are in conversation with their legal team etc. would have been enough but unless i'm mistaken there's been nothing.

You are mistaken there was a statement and they are speaking with their lawyers

Quote ="Fordy"You said that, not us. But I suspect that the lack of a direct quote regarding the club playing all televised games or 50% of their games, or whatever else at Oakwell should tell you what you need to know. Seems that some folk will believe whatever a journalist chooses to publish. Personally I don't think those articles from 20 years ago hold any more credibility than the ones currently being published. Both sets lack any quotes from Wakefield Trinity that back up what the journos are claiming as fact. You choose to believe what you like, I'll choose to believe what I like. In my opinion Michael Carter is a far more honest and honourable man than Peter Box and nothing that anybody says will convince me otherwise.'" ....and they were still planning to play some games at Oakwell in 1999..... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... is_raised/

Quote ="Fordy"You said that, not us. But I suspect that the lack of a direct quote regarding the club playing all televised games or 50% of their games, or whatever else at Oakwell should tell you what you need to know. Seems that some folk will believe whatever a journalist chooses to publish. Personally I don't think those articles from 20 years ago hold any more credibility than the ones currently being published. Both sets lack any quotes from Wakefield Trinity that back up what the journos are claiming as fact. You choose to believe what you like, I'll choose to believe what I like. In my opinion Michael Carter is a far more honest and honourable man than Peter Box and nothing that anybody says will convince me otherwise.'" ....and they were still planning to play some games at Oakwell in 1999..... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... is_raised/

Quote ="Mr Dog"....and they were still planning to play some games at Oakwell in 1999..... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... is_raised/'" Nope, that quite clearly says that the Bulls hoped to play a game v Wakey at Oakwell. Stuart Farrar (Wfd), when quoted, makes no such mention. Try again.

Quote ="Mr Dog"....and they were still planning to play some games at Oakwell in 1999..... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... is_raised/'" Nope, that quite clearly says that the Bulls hoped to play a game v Wakey at Oakwell. Stuart Farrar (Wfd), when quoted, makes no such mention. Try again.

I'll add more...it's an urban myth.

The same as evidenced a couple of posts earlier, when someone says "if only Wakey said they were taking legal advice"...erm, they have.

WMDC announced to the world in a press release that WT had walked away from talks...that was a bit of a shock to Carter who was actually on holiday abroad. Mr Wallhead may be needing a libel lawyer himself very soon.

Quote ="LifeLongHKRFan"With no statement coming from MC or WT regarding the latest development then the only thing people have to look at and believe is the statement from Wakey Council. A simple statement from the club stating they are in conversation with their legal team etc. would have been enough but unless i'm mistaken there's been nothing.'" Fill your boots https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... urt-latest www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinit ... igh-court/ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/club-statement/

Quote ="LifeLongHKRFan"With no statement coming from MC or WT regarding the latest development then the only thing people have to look at and believe is the statement from Wakey Council. A simple statement from the club stating they are in conversation with their legal team etc. would have been enough but unless i'm mistaken there's been nothing.'" Fill your boots https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... urt-latest www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinit ... igh-court/ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/club-statement/

Quote ="King Street Cat"Fill your boots https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... urt-latest www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinit ... igh-court/ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/club-statement/'" The key point here is WMDC have negotiated a S106 for Cas which will see them as a private entity own their own ground and keep all revenue (including non-matchdays) in exchange for a quid. Yet the same local authority expect Trinity to agree to pay GBP 500k a year whilst York Court appear to get off scot free in seeking to avoid their obligations to provide a new community stadium. I can't wait for this whole sorry affair to be laid before the courts and Box and his cronies to get their comeuppance!

Quote ="King Street Cat"Fill your boots https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... urt-latest www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinit ... igh-court/ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/club-statement/'" The key point here is WMDC have negotiated a S106 for Cas which will see them as a private entity own their own ground and keep all revenue (including non-matchdays) in exchange for a quid. Yet the same local authority expect Trinity to agree to pay GBP 500k a year whilst York Court appear to get off scot free in seeking to avoid their obligations to provide a new community stadium. I can't wait for this whole sorry affair to be laid before the courts and Box and his cronies to get their comeuppance!

Quote ="King Street Cat"Fill your boots https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... urt-latest www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinit ... igh-court/ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/club-statement/'" This sort of statement is what I was hoping to see pretty much soon after the council's statement.

Quote ="King Street Cat"Fill your boots https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... urt-latest www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinit ... igh-court/ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/club-statement/'" This sort of statement is what I was hoping to see pretty much soon after the council's statement.

You need to understand how underhand the council are. They released their statements whilst Michael Carter was away on a well deserved family holiday which he only came back from at the weekend

That's before you talk about the council releasing statements on a Thursday which then always manage somehow to make it into the following mornings Wakefield Express giving no right of reply.

Plus, it's quite a big decision to take the council to court which would require a certain amount of legal advice. I don't think a hastily chuntered "see you in court" the next day would have been the way to respond.

Good statement from the club.

I have often been rubbed up the wrong way by Wakefield's holier than thou fans (on here) and got myself banned from their page for telling the truth.

That said I think they have been completely shafted - I say that as an outsider looking in - over the ground and the dealings of the council are looking more and more dodgy. The silence from the local MP's has been deafening and I'm saying that as a labour voter. Personally I think it stinks.

I have no affiliation with Wakefield at all but I have lived in the area for a couple of years now. As a Wakefield tax payer I want to know I'm paying for what I want. From what I've seen I don't think I am and will be happy to help support the club and fans' campaign to get the stadium they deserve.

Wakefield Express is a rag I wouldn't wipe my backside with. Half the articles in it are lifted from their parent paper and they are doing the council's bidding for them.

As for the RFL throwing Wakefield out?!?! Get real, I'm all for expansion but clubs have to be where they are on merit. They have central funding reduced due to the ground that's enough of a punishment in my opinion. The league loses it's credibility if you parachute clubs in because they are fashionable. Also the ground regulations should be relaxed In the current economic climate.

The Star reports that the annual rent for a revamped B.V. was proposed to be £500K.

Now, I'm sure I read someone believed that Hull pay around that for the K.Com & I was interested to know if other supporters had a rough idea how much their clubs pay?

In 2015 Wigan paid approx £320k for the DW, not seen any more updated figures.

From the last published accounts, apparently Wigan pay c.£400k, and that's for a 25000 capacity Premier League standard soccer ground - which the proposed rebuilt Belle Vue certainly won't be!

Thank you, interestingly the current owners & proposed developer, want that much for B.V. next season as it is - I know!

Hull don't pay for maintenance, is that proposed 500k commercial rent to include maintenance/pitch resurfacing, stewarding, security. ongoing management etc? Even if it were it's way too much for the stadia proposed.

No figure for rent has been proposed to Wakefield: [i"The current proposal that we pay a commercial/reasonable rent (of which we have yet to see any detail or figures) for the new Community Stadium at Belle Vue is unacceptable."[/i (taken from WT's statement). Maybe the figure banded about includes the interest on the £12m+ loan the Council will be taking out to get the stadium built, which only a few weeks ago the Club said they would be happy to pay!

What's your beef with trinity as you only pop up to try and blame or question the club wherever you can when it is plain to see who is being economical (and that's been kind) with the truth - the LA and the developers

I bet the nights fly by in your house.

And again I quote....

The reason we are in the present predicament with no security of tenure for the future of Wakefield Trinity and its new Super League Stadium is entirely the fault of Wakefield Council. 
 
Six years ago after three weeks of evidence, a Public Enquiry paid for by the ratepayers of Wakefield, concluded that a Community Stadium compliant to Super League standards should be built and funded by the planning gains which accrued to the property developer of the Newmarket site adjacent to the M62.
It was the duty of Wakefield Council, as the Local Planning Authority, to ensure that in return for the land coming out of the green belt, the Community Stadium was constructed. The Developer has its planning consent but not a brick has been laid on the Stadium site. We simply require the Council to fulfil its statutory duties.
The Council now seeks to lay the blame for the mess which it has created, at the door of Wakefield Trinity. It should be borne in mind that a Labour controlled council has managed, as a result of the planning consents obtained by the developer, to line the pockets of a property speculator and has neglected to enforce the planning obligations due to its ratepayers, the Community at large, and of course, Wakefield Trinity Rugby League Club.
The current proposal that we pay a commercial/reasonable rent (of which we have yet to see any detail or figures) for the new Community Stadium at Belle Vue is unacceptable. There is a legally binding obligation for the Council to provide a 99 year lease at a peppercorn yearly rental to the Wakefield & District Community Trust. The Trust in turn would create a lease to Wakefield Trinity, as anchor tenants, at a nominal rent to cover the Trust’s operating expenses. Wakefield Trinity would then enjoy the rewards from the Stadium, but would also be liable for all associated risks in operating a Stadium. This was and remains entirely acceptable.
Chris Brereton and myself, have spent four years of our business lives resurrecting what was a bankrupt rugby league club. We have injected over one million pounds of our own hard earned money to reach this situation. However, we are happy with that situation because in playing terms and the fact that we only narrowly missed out on the play-offs, the Club is unrecognizable from the mess we inherited in September 2013.
Unfortunately it is obvious from the attitude adopted by Wakefield Council that they are not prepared to help us secure the long term sustainable future for the Club. It was and remains entirely within the Council’s power to compel the developer at Newmarket to deliver the Stadium. The draft lease approved by the Planning Inspector and prepared earlier by the Councillor or the developers provides for a 99 year lease with no rent reviews at a peppercorn lease in favour of the Wakefield & District Community Trust. Why on earth would we now consider a rental at commercial rates?
Councillor Box is on record in the Council chamber during the recent past making the definitive statement, that he will deliver the perfect agreement, to ensure the Community Stadium is delivered.
We are aware that the Tigers will own the freehold of their stadium at a transfer cost of £1. In legal terms a freehold interest is always more beneficial than a 99 year leasehold which we were prepared to accept. As a result of the Councils decision to relinquish their intention to develop the Stadium at Newmarket that opportunity is denied us.
We are now offered a lease at a full commercial rent at a revamped Belle Vue. That simply puts the Club back to where we were in 2013- an uneconomic proposition, which would quickly cause the demise of the Club, created by the Councils change of attitude or its negligent failure to implement the terms of the planning consents contained in the Public Enquiry findings. This is a breach of the Councils duties as a public body and dereliction of its duties to Wakefield Trinity.
Mr Hussain, the developer of the Belle Vue site has publicly criticised our stance. We were asked by the Council to engage with all the other business people involved in the new Belle Vue proposals. We issued invitations to all concerned on 28th September to attend a meeting to discuss any possible alternative solutions. Mr Hussain never responded so he cannot be critical of our efforts. We sold our season tickets in good faith believing that we would be able to remain at Belle Vue in accordance with the prospect of reasonable terms for a new stadium at Belle Vue. The deal we are now offered bears no resemblance to the lease at Newmarket. It is totally unfair to criticise the Club when there are no meaningful or viable options on the table. When we finalise our playing options for 2018, anyone who has bought a season ticket, and is not happy, will be offered a full refund. However I would hope that our loyal fan base would stick with us at this time.
So far as the Council press releases are concerned we respond:
‘We understand that the Super League deal with Sky pays them a significant sun to cover accommodation costs including reasonable rentals’ –Our Super League payments have no stipulations about rental payments. The fact remains that we have been penalised to the tune of £50,000 for this season ongoing, because Belle Vue fails to meet the minimum operating standards.
To the following comments:
‘I have asked the Club to clarify their intentions as I am aware that they are selling tickets to fans for games at Belle Vue beyond the date the Club have indicated they wish to leave the ground’ – M Hussain
‘I urge the clubs owners to put the fans first’ – D Jeffreys
‘My greatest concern is for the fans’ – M Hussain
We simply reply to the Council – deliver the Newmarket Stadium in accordance with your statutory duties and in response to Mr Hussain, we point out to our loyal fans that we have never received any indication of the expectation of rent for next year, despite being asked many times. We put forward our heads of terms requiring the equivalent of the Newmarket deal and have had no response from Mr Hussain other than a threat of the service of a schedule of dilapidations (repairs) for Belle Vue amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. These are not the actions of anyone who has the interests of our fans at heart.
We are now preparing our case for presentation to the High Court. For reasons we know you will understand. We have waited since June 2012 for the Council to deliver Newmarket Stadium. We are no nearer today then we were then!
We have a duty to our fans and the City of Wakefield to ensure the long term survival and success of the Club.
We will not be deterred by the unhelpful bullying by the Council and the developers at Newmarket or Belle Vue. We have no mandate or authority to accept anything less than the Community facilities promised at Newmarket on the legally binding terms set out in the Public Inquiry Planning decision. The findings of the Public Inquiry are a matter of public record. Do not rely on our interpretation of them. We have nothing to hide. Look for yourselves at the results on the government website. You will see where the blame lies for this farcical situation. The Club has been used as a Trojan Horse to secure planning gains for property developers which are worth millions of pounds and take land out of the green belt. Meanwhile the bargaining chip used to obtain the consents is nowhere near delivery.
Finally, there are times when there is no alternative other than to stand and fight to enforce what we know to be our rights for the future of our great Club – Wakefield Trinity rather than to see it sacrificed on the altar of the Council and Developers greed.

Chris Brereton & Michael Carter
Directors, Custodians and Fans of Wakefield Trinity

Some of us appreciate alternative views & questioning of club statements.