Always annoys me how fev,dewsbury and Batley can fund there OWN tidy stadiums but others can’t...
In 1998 when wakey beat fev in the final to go in super league they promised it then,,,18 years on and only one of them 2 clubs has spent money on its ground while getting far fewer through the gates

As has been said on the Wakey forum, the club has pulled out of nothing. The club and the Trust that is going to run the stadium were told to submit a document spelling out how it would run the stadium and how the club would generate an income. The club and Trust have done that, and have used as a template what Wakefield Council called a "perfect" document used by Castleford.

The Council have spit out their dummy because they don't like it. The club haven't pulled out at all.

A complicating factor, of course, is the presence of a third party who wants to run the stadium and make the money. Wakey have done nothing wrong, but unfortunately there are other snouts in the trough getting in the way.

Another mindless sheep lacking the critical faculties ensconced within their brain. Are you still buying the austerity lie? How long will you buy it for? Another year? Another 5? Another 10? Or just for as long as the Conservatives can get away with blaming all their incompetence on it?

P.s The council agreed to let green belt land be removed for York Court properties to build on as long as a community stadium was built in return under a section 106 agreement. This obligation was never fulfilled and it is now obvious the developer NOR THE COUNCIL never had the intention of having this happen - just another corporate swindle where the suits get the dollars and the taxpayer sees nothing in return - except a giant fridge of course. Once this was highlighted in mainstream media and the truth started coming out about the council's blatant disregard for its own community, the council changed their tune to come up with this brilliant revamping of belle vue plan. Guess what... it has always been said by the club that the essence of the deal has to remain the same as Newmarket. That the rent is a peppercorn rent where the club pays a rent to be the main beneficiary of the stadium and can retain all profits on match days in order to keep the club sustainable financially. The council somewhat bemusingly have obviously changed the goalposts and want Trinity to pay more despite their previous ups an are trying to paint Trinity as the reason why this deal is not viable. All smells a bit funny doesn't it when you consider the context of the situation and not what you see from your club shared with a football club financed by a millionaire.

Nobody needs to read or write anyhting else other than this - this is exactly what the position is. Only thing I would add is that Box (WMDC leader) will not permit a stadium for Wakefield until the Castleford one is built. ATEOTD no new stadiums in Wakefield district.

I know I’m going to go from one of the most respected posters on rlfans to the level of vastman, saleslim, boytoy29 and Sheldon with this post but someone needs to address the elephant in the room. Why should Wakefield Council spend millions of our tax pounds on a stadium that 1% of the Wakefield population care about? If Wakefield are serious about protecting their future they need to cut ties with their toxic council and find someone else willing to bank roll it (easier said than done ofc)

Regards

King James

and funnily enough the thing is Carter has publicy said that if he and Gill were in charge of the Clubs 10 years ago, that's what they'd do. But since then we've had the fiasco of Yorkscourt and all that was prmosed to the Wakefield Community and Cas and have gone on to a scheme with Lateral.

Because they should get it back from YorkCourt as what's meant to be happening. You know that place in Newmaket where that Stadium and training grounds etc were going to be built. We even got a S106, planning and The Secretary of State to rubber stamp the development, for what it was worth. They can now buld on that plot of land another huge Coldstore or 2 and make millions and millions. Which is all totally feesable if the Council had some balls and will. Cater has also agreed to pay any interest , until WMDC get the money off Yorkcourt. By the way you do know no money will come from the rate payer full stop at any stage and the Council will just do what Leeds do and get finanace from the City.

Oh and as a Trust member as said on our forum Trinity haven't walked away from any talks, so he doesn't know what that Politician is on about.

Yes but we only get a small % of the match day takings on bar and food. We also get some ticketing but our benefits are being eroded by the spiteful owner of Hull city who runs the stadium management company. The deal we have is a poor one for the club but we;re stuck with it

you truly are a troll/thicko of epic proportions!

Pointless explaining to the troll, he full well knows that Wakefield have being fooked over by what sounds like unlawful actions by the council not to mention the impropriety, benefiting financially by being offered land unopposed at tender on the back of an offer/contract being fulfilled with what seems no intention whatsoever to fulfill is despicable at best and all aided and abetted by the council.

courts will enforce s106 planning obligations but this is going to be long and drawn out and cost money.
I've no dog in this fight but WMDC are a bunch of villainous shysters.

Spot on - and lets not forget that the reason 88M now own Belle Vue, is because WMDC colluded with our very own Sir Rodney Walker (then a member of the Stadium Trust) to advise the club not to bid on the land when the bank put it up for sale, so that 88M could acquire it unopposed.

So far, WMDC have conspired to make 2 property developers very rich, have failed to enforce a s106 agreement, and I have no doubt that at some point, Rodders will emerge as having benefited financially from all of this; and to top it off, they've lied about having obtained legal advice to enable the original developer to build on Greenbelt land without fear of triggering his obligations under the s106.

As stated previously - no new stadium has been developed without the support of the local council; not only does our council not support us - it actively opposes us at every opportunity.

Good to see someone actually gets it and isn't full of faux outrage

Wouldn't surprise me that someone has taken backhanders, I hope that Wakey get the end result and that the criminals at the helm/involved get their fingers burnt, need to get the police involved as it sounds dodgy as fook.

Pretty much, but I'd change Trinity to Local Community, because these dealings have cost the local area a community stadium

Shifty mate, the only S106 he knows about is from the menu of the local chinese.

Sorry but I’m being called a thicko (sic) by someone who always struggles to string a coherent sentence together

Regards

King James

Quote ="Tigerade"A statement from the council with the club a month back that clearly states 'Commercial Rent' begs to differ. This was dated 20th September so unless someone at the club has missed something again then WT knew it was a commercial rent the council were proposing. [i"The future of the new Belle Vue proposal now rests with the Club and a Trust who need to produce a robust business plan that clearly demonstrates how they will generate income to meet the running costs and commercial rent."[/i Here :- www.wakefield.gov.uk/planning/re ... ty-stadium'" Now I don't know the full details any more than you do but it looks to me like Trinity's business plan involves us keeping match day income and being allowed to generate non match day income, whereas WMDC (and some of their business associates) want us to pay rent and have no ability to make any money to cover it. As has been stated by loads of people the council have once again tried to make themselves look good and discredit the club by proposing a solution that no club in the world could make work. Not satisfied with Yorkcourt making millions off broken promises it now seems that somebody else wants to run a trust (NOT the charitable trust that was set up for that purpose) that will also make money from the club and line their own pockets. Is it really surprising that Trinity are not interested in being truly shafted by that deal??

Quote ="Tigerade"A statement from the council with the club a month back that clearly states 'Commercial Rent' begs to differ. This was dated 20th September so unless someone at the club has missed something again then WT knew it was a commercial rent the council were proposing. [i"The future of the new Belle Vue proposal now rests with the Club and a Trust who need to produce a robust business plan that clearly demonstrates how they will generate income to meet the running costs and commercial rent."[/i Here :- www.wakefield.gov.uk/planning/re ... ty-stadium'" Now I don't know the full details any more than you do but it looks to me like Trinity's business plan involves us keeping match day income and being allowed to generate non match day income, whereas WMDC (and some of their business associates) want us to pay rent and have no ability to make any money to cover it. As has been stated by loads of people the council have once again tried to make themselves look good and discredit the club by proposing a solution that no club in the world could make work. Not satisfied with Yorkcourt making millions off broken promises it now seems that somebody else wants to run a trust (NOT the charitable trust that was set up for that purpose) that will also make money from the club and line their own pockets. Is it really surprising that Trinity are not interested in being truly shafted by that deal??

Wasn't that deal brokered by Pearson when he was Hull City head honcho? Tbf Allam does seem to make things hard for both clubs their fans and himself which must be costing him money? But the skim off City is so large he can be as obstinate as he likes? I can do you a deal on a few thousand tennis balls.. Shorpe footy team seem to be in a similar situation as Wakey and it seems every ray of hope turns into a false one.Councils are hard to pin down to major investment as few politicians will want their neck on block if it turns into a huge loss of money and votes

Councils need to learn that when they agree a deal with a developer to build a public amenity under section 106 that the contract stipulates that the public amenity be built before the rest of the development.

There shouldn't be any need to have this level of 'protection' with a S106 as it is a legal obligation and enforceable should a developer renege on it's obligation. In a fair world, it would not seem unreasonable for a developer to pay for that obligation from the profit made on development, in simple terms a win win where the local authority can see an overall benefit in granting planning permission for something that would not have been normally granted a share in profit against a mitigated loss

I have no idea what the details are in this case and why the developer is refusing to comply, or why the local authority seems unwilling to pursue this matter but on the face of it, it is a sad situation for Wakefield Trinity

I believe the Development has yet (even if the controversial cold store is included) to reach the critical size to trigger the stadium build. The developer is of course, according to Wake fans anyway, holding back on further building, and thus depriving themselves of profit and allowing potential customers to go elsewhere to avoid building the stadium!

Well if that's true and I'm not doubting you, then it's a reasonable position by the developer and possibly a poorly constructed S106.

Trigger levels will more than likely involve a 'dodge' where they aren't reached unless absolutely necessary, for example the killer deal that is so good that it can absorb what the developer would think of simplistically as a tax, whilst they rather unfairly and conveniently dismiss earlier development and the 'pure' profit already banked.

The difficult thing here is that the cold store *would* have contributed a significant chunk of the trigger, but WMDC inexplicably agreed to allow them to build it under a separate planning application, thereby dodging it altogether. So you're right that a developer may well look for loopholes, but one would expect the enforcing authority not to collude with them to do so.

To make matters worse, the sainted Sir Rodney worked with them on this scheme as a member of the Trust, and agreed it during an unminuted meeting; this is the subject that WMDC now claim to have taken legal advice on, but have been unable to produce any evidence of having taken that legal advice.

It's a rum do.

It does seem like a rum do indeed was the cold store on a different parcel of land, for example is the development made up of more than one title? I've seen green belt mentioned earlier in the thread and previously is there a green belt issue and is all the land in green belt or part of it hence a separate application and their potential S106 loop hole?

Mind you if it was all this simple you would have thought that their case would have been made as such rather than all this cloak and dagger stuff

Good luck it must be so frustrating and on the face of it unfair

Or wait til WT are in such a position that a new stadium would be not required, ie gone to the wall.