Thank you... I think! However, lets address your points.

They did not have a gun to their heads but equally the lease was one small part of the club as an overall entity and business, and thank god they did take it on... or it would already be dead! They did not sign or agree the lease and the question is do you not take on the club and let it die because it was so burdensome making it not worth taking any shot as saving the club? Well, given they have been paying it since they took over then the answer is clearly no, but that still does not mean it was ever fair and reasonable!

I don't think they have whinged about it being too high, they have said it is too high because it clearly is (that is not hard to see) and indeed they have tried to negotiate a reduced fair new rent. They have made two very fair and reasonable offers to the BOI and O'Hara (trust me, they are reasonable, they are not trying to take the proverbial) and assume they had hoped for negotiations to continue, but as of this morning, they had not heard from either O'Hara or the BOI about the offers. So, I think is feeling that the club has brought on a game of brinkmanship with the BOI is not strictly true, I think it is the BOI that have done that and not the other way around.

Today was the day you either keep paying the lease into next year or give notice to quit, there were only two choices and one of them had to be taken! I don't think anyone on this thread and any others on FB etc has posted what I consider to be a good enough reason to keep paying what is a very large lease cost for a poor facility for the money being paid!

I also think that your opinion of the BOI, who are still up the creek with no paddle, is over-simplistic! I know someone who is a very good friend of the BOI CEO and he is indeed a very smart man but like my friend, he is a banker, and if this ever got as far as his door I am sure he would want to know why asset on the BOI books, albeit one that is showing as a negative asset, that was generating a very good income in the circumstances is now suddenly costing the bank £5k a month it doesn't need to spend and adding to that negative asset value on the books? He will not give two figs about what it has made him to date, he will want to know why it is now costing him money when it didn't have to! I think the BOI plan is simple, don't spend money when you don't have to... they can play the long game and while ever some money is coming in and they still own a negative asset, that negative value continues to head towards the positive, you don't want it going back the other way!

I think the BOI executives will only want to know, is this the best deal we could do under the circumstances, did we draw out a potential bluff? The answer, unless you know different, it going to be yes, we did and we are still getting an income and if of course a better offer comes along in the meantime, we will reconsider our options.

being force to make a business decision I meant, means a hole lot to me to stay but I too have to been looking into a plan b but this has happen fear quicker than expected

Some culpability does lay with the club, albeit not the current incumbents. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but had Ted Richardson not been so quick to sell the ground to himself without an cast iron alternative to move to the club may have still owned the ground and have an asset of which to borrow from to aid redevelopment. I'm not sure whether it would've been lost as part of the administration process but the point remains this situation was sowed nearly 10 years ago.

As an aside, did we ever find out what happened to the missing half (c. £1.2m) of the total selling price of BV?

Fair points but by the 'club' I did indeed mean the current incumbents as you surmised. My hindsight is bloody marvellous but I don't think Ted had many options at the time and had he not done something, it would have died.

As I understand it the £1.2m (or variations of that figure) never really existed and while Ted gave the club circa a £1m from the deal he ultimately got nothing because he owed the BOI and defaulted on the mortgage. It is the BOI who lost out and are owed money, the only party that benefited from any real cash were the club. Trust me, Ted did not pocket any of the BOI cash, the club did, but he didn't.

I really don't think it will happen mate, but as you know, as a business you have to plan and take tough decisions. The club really only had one option, despite what anyone may post, and they rightly took it in the best interests of the club and fans. I would not start panicking just yet!

Again, to break away from the doom and gloom, I am taking bets on how many more posts are made before someone posts on here, however apocryphal and untrue it actually is, about the ground been sold back to the club for a £1?

I think it will be less than 3!

Easy to say when your playing with someone else's cash though.

Who knows, if all works out, we could be playing SL rugby at Belle Vue and paying less to do so, this in turn giving us more money to put into the squad.

That thread has only one, possibly two, posts that seem to take any enjoyment from the situation the rest are either asking similar questions to those from wakey fans on here or sympathetic. Why are you trying to stir the pot? I thought you were better than lowering yourself to the level of the some of the buffoons both clubs have to be honest.

Michael Carter was talking of whats needed this year and next and I dont believe he would make such forward thinking comments glibly. I think this could be an informed decision made by a very astute business man with the aim of getting more financial stability for next year

Do BoI own the hospitality suite and all other ground fixtures and fittings? Or just the land?

it's just the land, all fixtures and fittings above ground belong to and are the responsibility of the club

My understanding is that MC said at the Business Meeting yesterday that after expiry of 6 months notice they would be playing at Leeds, has anyone else heard this?

You will be pleased that I don't intend to go through your reply point by point! However -

The compliment for you / TRB is genuine.

People buying a club do their due diligence and then either proceed or not. The lease was accepted. Notions of fairness and reasonableness are irrelevant. If you don't like the terms of a contract don't sign it.

I have a pretty good idea about Irish banking and Dublin business life. To use your analogy BoI are in a 'creek' far more benign than 2008/9 and they have been given some almighty paddles (by the Irish Government).

The BoI CEO sets the tone. There is no reason a deal like Wakefield's would get to his door.

The BoI have finance , extensive contacts with successful property developers, city centre land for development in a country with a growing economy. They could possibly decide renting out the stadium is not the way to go. Just one moderate business decision to them but significant implications for 120 years of rugby tradition for Trinity fans.

To go slightly off topic I am however fairly confident that you will be in SL next year.

I'm 100% certain of that fact.

You seem to suggest that when a business is bought, the buyer does so with no expectation of at some point in the future being in a position to change material things that impact on the running of that business; which is clearly and patently not the case.

Michael Carter bought the business I would imagine, in the full and reasonable expectation that when a break clause came up, he would attempt to renegotiate the terms of the lease, which he considered to be above market value; he's attempted to do that, BoI have not responded, so he's enacted the break clause.

Which part of that is difficult to understand?

It all looks pretty straightforward to me - and I'd be disappointed if he hadn't done it; it's a crippling amount of money to pay for a dilapidated old shed of a stadium, on land that has significantly less commercial value than people might imagine; he's done absolutely the right thing and it doesn't look like brinksmanship or game-playing of any sort to me - just business.

It was about five years ago that a plan app from a Midlands based construction company for I think 80 houses. It was in the construction news. 80 dwellings paying council tax to wakey council at lets say £100 month soon adds up. Money in the bank for our council friends. How much do wakey pay to the council.

I heard yesterday it would be the South Leeds Stadium but didn't give it much credence as I thought it would be too small.

Thought the hunslet ground was 4500 in the main stand only. Room behind both sticks and on the far side. Not sure if supporters can use areas other than the main and only stand.

Capacity wouldn't be an issue. Crowds would likely be sub 2k anyway. It would be an awful choice.

While I agree Capacity prob wouldn't be an issue (apart from when playing Leeds or Cas) I quite like the South Leeds stadium.

I have made no such suggestion. You are tilting at windmills. Feel free to misrepresent any other posts that take your fancy.


The owner signed up to a deal that he 'hoped' would change in the future. BoI may not play ball and Wakefield fans may be travelling to Dewsbury (?) Leeds (?) etc to watch their club's home games. A great shame.

Just had a look, capacity is 3,450 but the running track means you are some distant from the players but it doesn't seem to bother the Hawks fans.

What is the capacity at Featherstone....surely that would be a more acceptable option ??

There is no misrepresentation - your basic premise is that Mr Carter bought the business with the lease included, so he should live with it forever and stop moaning; that's nonsense and you know it is. Any prudent buyer who makes a business acquisition will do so with a plan to rationalise the costs within that business - either to maximise profit or to improve viability; it's basic common sense.

If a developer has the money to throw around then it follows that the Trin will be leaving.

Down to the ££££££