Great article in the League weekly today from Danny Lockwood. He yet again raises the question, Who owns Belle Vue and where as the money gone?? As fans sometimes I think we are way too tolerant of what going on down at our club, are we just going to shrug our shoulders and carry on?. We are talking money to the value of 2.8 Million ££££ that has disappeared into the unknown! As result our club is on the brink, if we are expected to keep paying our money as least we deserve an answer to this question?

What gets me most, is the article headed, "Cats call in Lawyers" when really it should be " Ted Calls in the Lawyers" . Stop making your personnel battles into the battles of Wakefield Trinity Ted!

danny must think they have a very strong case and the rugby papers too re-itterate what our board of directors are looking into taking legal advice about to print it again and have another go

After a Panorama programme about dodginess in football transfers, many big names in that sport threatened the BBC with legal action. None has been forthcoming. Nor certain celebrities (who, of course, can't be named) who do the same when caught out by the Red Tops.

Unless it is settled in, or our, of court, 'legal action' it means nothing.

Yes come on ted, it's not just our supporters but supporters of the game as a whole who want answers, you've tarnished our once great name. We know you read this board, register a username log on and give us your explanation. Or even better resign now

Looking at the browser list there are a couple on there would like to know as well, but I doubt their urge to know the anwers are in the best interest of the game itself,but simply a chance to further embarass the club by whatever bits and pieces of scandal they can latch onto from our fans knocking lumps off each other.

so far all we have had is a bit of bluster from Ted, Mr Lockwood seems to have the courage of his convictions.
Ted seems to be seeking strength in numbers with his "statement from the board", when the questions everyone are asking are just aimed at Ted.

Silence is as good as guilt

Anyone who reads" the Press", published in Dewsbury, can see that Danny Lockwood is very forthright in what he publishes, his campaign against the then Dewsbury MP, Shaid Malik and others into dodgy dealings, bears witness to that.
I believe that if DL is sticking to his guns over what he publishes, there must be provable facts behind what has been written.
Well done I say to Danny Lockwood.
GO NOW TED !!!

Time to Go TED, for the sake of our fans,club,team, and city let go, you have to move on too....

He's come out defending himself in todays league express saying hes saved the club on six seperate occasions and being chairman of us has cost him a great deal of money that he can never reclaim. Also at the time of the ground sale the club needed funds and £1.7 million was put immediatley into the club. The balance of the purchase has been pledged to the NM development.

Firstly why did he need to keep 'saving' the club? Wouldn't putting a sustainable business plan in place first time round have been a better idea?

Also I thought we'd been told that NM didn't require any financial input from the club?

Somebody is telling lies again I reckon.

Speaks volumes! If he was the saviour he declares himself to be why is nobody else defending him? He geniunely believes he is the answer to our problems when the reality is he's the underlying problem and takes us from one disaster to another under his stewardship

Whatever Ted has or not done in regards to screwing us over, whether he's saved us numerous times or contributed significantly to our plight.

His posistion at the club has now become UNTENABLE and therefore he has to go.
Our club's fans don't forgive easily, and many have had suspected ted of wrong doing, if somehow he gets the slightest bit of evidence he's not screwed the club, the fans won't believe, won't want to believe.

He just cannot stay under any circumstance (unless he wins £50mill on lottery)

Whether you have or have not ted, you must realise that from now on WTWRLFC isn't your's, you can't have it, and its most important stake holders don't want you either.

A chairmans job is not to be popular but to be vigorously hated and scrutionsed they cannot do the job.

BYE TED

If the money coming in cannot support a club in Super League, so be it, rather than spend cash of crap Aussies, executives and the like and put the future of the club at risk.

Just to clarify if we do or do not go into admin who legally owns BV?
The BoI or the Richardsons via the IoM holding company?
I know this is the $1m question but it's got to be between these two, someone with a legal mind must have a handle on it!!
I'm just thinking that if Ted is on his 'arris then his creditors are going to want to know about his (or his kids trust fund) nest egg, equally if it's the BoI then surely someone with some nowse can do a deal and sell it later on when land is at more of a premium, either way someone benefits and it ain't Ted or the brats.
Answers on a postcard please!

The same Danny Lockwood who has previously stood for selection as a Conservative candidate? The same 'independent' The Press which settled out of court with Shahid Malik when he sued them for libel?

Of course, it is free and it is in print, so it must be independent and true.

Take your point, but however cocky Danny Lockwood is regarding his allegations, the fact that he stood for selection as a Tory candidate (assuming it's the same person) doesn't make them wrong, even if his party political inclinations do prove, in my opinion, that he's a complete dick.

Mr Lockwoods paper has published ' News ' stories in it based on ' anonymous ' text messages in the past , well that is what he told me when I challenged him over it , make of that what you will ?

So anyone who doesn't agree with your politics is a complete dick!



Ain't that just fine and dandy!

Pffff.... they may be. I was talking about my opinion of Danny Lockwood, but if you want me to add you to my list...

That's me first against the wall then!

Come on guys, someone must have a legal mind on here, there were a few calls of foul earlier on about the story not being quite right. Anyone?

And what about Teds claim that a million quid of BVs sale was to go towards Newmarket? Is this correct as we were told differently last week?

What I read on here earlier was that the ground was owned by this IOM company. They will be the legal owners.

Whowever owns that company, ultimately as individuals, does NOT own the ground - at least not directly - since the owner is a corporate body with its own separate legal identity.

But that company is apparently in receivership. That means that the receiver will have taken control of the asset, and will be charged with realising it on behalf of the chargeholder.

If one of the owners of that company happened to be in some form of insolvency, then it is likely that the insolvency practitioner administering the insolvency would have possession of the shares, and would be seeking to dispose of them for the best available price subject to any restrictions that may be placed on transfer of those shares. Almost certainly very messy. Especially since, with the company itself being in receivership, the shares will anyway be worthless.

Bank of Ireland appear to have a first charge on the ground, so they can probably repossess the ground and sell it regardless of the wishes of the receiver. Once their debt has beenn settled (if indeed it ever is) then any surplus is disbursed by the receiver according to a specified order of preference. Seems unlikely there will be any surplus if a bank has had to put a property company into receivership.

I would imagine the books will explain whether or not we received that cash, my question relates solely to the ownership of BV and if that changes with administration or not.
Ted still hasn't explained himself on this, yet (he) the BoD are taking Legal Advice, it just doesn't add up!!!
He wanted £500k not just for the club but to save his investment.
I think if he owns BV then his creditors should be made aware of it, as to me he is guilty of hiding his assets and guilty of duping the fans of Wakefield Trinity into helping him, the sneaky little devil!!
I dont normally go along with the silence is a statement of guilt mob, but i do on this one.

Cheers adey i was hoping for a yes or no!!!


Pretend im a six year old and say it again slowly:
The company that owns it (Ted) is insolvant? so the bank owns it?
the bank can do what it wants to get its money back?
will the administrators (what with this being an IoM company in his childrens names) draw a line from A-B baring in mind was clearly an asset of the rugby club once that was bought with money the company (Ted) never had, for personal gain?