Exactly! Hmmm...

[urlhttp://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1742[/url

Didnt know that there were other areas in the town the were comepeting to gain planning permission. Could be something and nothing though.

What a surprise - delayed. Anyone reading R Wright's previous statements would know it's all smoke and mirrors (again).

I don't know which other sites are being looked at (although Tesco are wanting to build a superstore in Ponte) but Wheldon Rd is hardly ideal due to its poor access. The land area is also relatively small for a superstore (about 2/3rds that of the nearby Asda store)......... and it's on the flood plain.

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...

Never a truer word said re your stadium plans!

No mention of 'other competition' previously.



So why was RW statingonly just before the SL licencing announcements that the application was going ahead as planned in August?



Not sure how you can reach that conclusion - any 'delay' delays the GH build - now already moved at least 2 months further away

As I've said since it was first announced, this supermarket scheme is nowhere near as cut and dried as RW or all Cas supporters on here would have you believe.

Leeds have now announced a delay in the supposed redevelopment of the condemned South stand.

Now imagine if Wakey or Cas were relegated due in part to having an out of date stadium, and then a few months later Leeds dropped plans to redevelop the Southstand, and instead just left it derelict as may be the case next season.

so to summeries once every three years some SL chairmen turn in to the biggest lieing b'stards you'd never want to meet.

They wont get dropped just put away only to resurface in three years time with the line "we're really REALLY gonna do it this time"

Difference is Leeds are a Grade A club in every respect, and even without the S Stand Headingley would still meet the A Grade stadium criteria. Besides which Leeds were never appraised on the S Stand as part of their franchise application; given its tortuous progress through Leeds City Council's planning department it was never considered certain until planning permission was given last month.

There is now however something fishy going on as to why it has been "deferred". The funding arguments presented in today's press release don't stack up and I expect there will have to be a clarification very shortly.

Maybe a big tax bill has had to take priority? Just wondering?

Has the test case been concluded?

This was my thought.

legal fees for the test case must be quite high now as well.

I also wonder if this is a manoeuvre to put in a revised planning document in future years. One that presents facilities more in keeping with the original plans, which called for a structure that mimicked the Carnegie stand.

Such a facility would be worthy of Leeds. The final adopted proposal was a real big let down IMO.

I appreciate it didnt, however fans of the relegated club would not have thought so and would have raised hell with the RFL.

It is rather a disgrace that Leeds, the richest club in RL are playing in a stadium that was predominately built prior to WW2.

Aye, although all of it has been tarted up over the years.

Meh, maybe so

But this needs to be done at some stage in the very near future and to pull the plug now is extraordinary unless something else is going on. I'll have to do some wider digging on what kind of state the wider Caddick group is in - Leeds are talking about commercial loans but the millions spent on the complex in previous years have been funded out of loans from the parent company. If that well has dried up then it makes some sense especially since as the club acknowledged the final version of the stand that scraped through planning "left a scheme with little or no added value in terms of commercial opportunities." Maybe if Caddick hadn't p1ssed the best part of £10m down the drain over the past decade on Leeds RUFC he would be better able to assist on funding the stadium requirements of the primary tenants.

But we come back to this point: if Leeds are to remain at Headingley, this needed doing. It's never going to get cheaper and (IMO) it's never going to get bigger than the version which has been approved. So where do they go from here?

The redevelopment of the Halliwell Jones has started. Looks like that might get completed. God bless Take That.

Ok Starbug, I will tell you the whole story, so you will then understand!

The Newmarket Stadium will, if all goes to plan, be owned and run by Wakefield Community Stadium Trust (I think that is the exact name, but don't shoot me if not - which is a trust company registered as such at companies house) and not WMDC. The trust (as a not for profit organisation trustee organisation) will be the sole shareholder/parent company of what I am sure will be an operating company that will be formed in due course to run the stadium and community sport complex for the trust. Simple!

The current board does not have anyone from WMDC as a trustee either however, I think it possible that the board will be added to if the PI goes as hoped and work commences on the project. I think WMDC, Wakefield Trinity Wildcats, Wakefield College/Leeds University and interested people from the community could be invited and form part of the trust board/become trustees in the future. But that is up to the current trustees of course, but I am sure that is likley!

Yorkcourt - They have an agreement with Wakefield MDC to part fund (the major part) the construction of the facility for the trust. This deal is in lieu of effective section 106 agreements, for this site AND some other sites that Yorkcourt are already developing and looking to develop within the district. They are not the sole funder and Wakefield College/Leeds University will be contributing to provide the new shared community sport facilities at the site which will also house the sports, tourism and leisure students. The remaining funding comes from the £2m land security loaned to the trust from WMDC and the smallest part from various grant aid, Sport England, lottery sports funds already identified etc.

One final thing on this, I would speculate that Yorkcourt might continue to own the land upon which the facility sits and lease it to the trust on a 99 year lease at peppercorn rent. This is a good fall back position for their investors.

The point (I think ) you are trying to make about underwriting and also the developer looking to try and recoup their investment, as with Salford and Peel, doesn't apply here because it is the section 106 lieu deal and the overall development of this and the other sites which generate Yorkcourt their return. The trust will own a brand new stadium facility and they only have to cover the costs and overhead of running and maintaining the stadium, not deliver a return to any investors. Wakefield Trinity will be a paying a tenant BUT as the stadium trust doesn't need to profit from this to pay anyone back, so this cost will be reasonable and sustainable to the club.

Of course, the cost of running a stadium is high and, as we all know, the more use the stadium can be put to the better. Hence the large conference and banqueting suite that will be part of the main stand. It will be 450 seated table covers (which will probably be around a 1000 in theatre style) which will make it the largest of it's kind in West Yorkshire (the ICC at Harrogate probably being the only place in the whole of Yorkshire larger). This will be used for match day corporate and when not, then all other types of corporate, conference and wedding/party events (it splits into three of course). The area is well served with beds with two other hotels close by and several hundred more within less than 15 minutes drive. The hotel planned as part of the wider Newmarket development is, in part, to serve and benefit from this facility. The hotel site will of course be offered out to one of the budget chains I expect to develop and, given it is right next to the M62, they will probably have quite a few who would be more than interested!

The revenue from this facility will be used to keep any tenant rental costs low and it is widely expected that Wakefield will not remain the only regular stadium tenant and that maybe a football club will be part of the set up at some point!

The stadium trust is also hoping to operate a park and ride service in conjunction, I expect, from Aviva and Metro.

I hope that explains everything and the current proposed overall business model for the site... any more questions?

Who will underwrite any losses incurred in running costs ?

Who is planning to make a loss?

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