You are right of course but if a resolution cannot be reached by negotiation and by God the Stadium Trust have tried and tried what other alternative have we.

My own personal preferance has always been to stay at a revamped BV although whether the costs and practicalities stack up i don't know. You would have thought that land at Newmarket would be a good bargaining tool though as putting industrial units on the stadium plot must be worth a pretty penny, hence Yorkcourts stance. Avoiding costly legal battles and risking losing would also surely tempt them. But i'm guessing this has all been put to them already without success so is a non starter also? If so i guess its the threat of legal action and hope it spurs them into action.

I say stick with Newmarket and legal action if needed, but another serious question here, how do we pay the bill, is the 50k available to the club/trust ?.

By the sounds none. Do we know what, if any, upcoming plans Yorkcourt have for the site? Do we think they are planning the same trick again?

Also what is Yorkcourts reasoning for believing they no longer have to comply with the s106? Is it the removal of the £2m council contribution, or the fact that since they sign the agreement they have wound that company up to use another? Or are they just a set of lousy bar-stewards?

Well I for one would be willing to contribute to a fighting fund, but it needs a lot of us to achieve what may be required.

This - unfortunately however, they're lousy bar-stewards who understand the planning rules and how to circumvent them; the only party that could have held them to account was WMDC, but they clearly don't give a stuff. Makes you wonder why - what's in it for Box and his cronies, that they've been prepared to take such risks to exonerate YCP from any responsibility under the s106 agreement?

Interesting comment from IA earlier in the thread, that the Trust was threatened with libel action prior to the meeting; I assume that was by Mackie? In my experience, that kind of threat suggests that they're not entirely comfortable in their position and wanted to supress some or all of what was going to be said, so tried scare tactics.

It seems to me that legal action is the only way forward - I would imagine that even starting proceedings, given the shonky nature of both YCP and WMDC's position on this, might be enough to get some kind of resolution; YCP won't want the whole site tied up in years of legal wrangling, and Box won't want his bullyboy tactics scrutinised in the public eye.

Speaking of which - has anyone from the Trust tried getting a national media outlet to have a look at this? One would imagine that any of the Tory rags would enjoy the opportunity to highlight a bent Labour council leader - and whilst this is relatively small beer, it is depriving the community of a significant development; in contrast with our woeful lack of sports facilities and our increasing obesity, it would make a good story - volunteer Supporters Trust tries to secure sports facilities for the whole community *and* safeguard the future of the City's only pro sports club, but is thwarted by the joint forces of the evil property developer and a bent council. Classic David v Goliath stuff, and it might be enough to get the wheels turning.

Don't know what upcoming plans Yorkcourt have but we'll keep monitoring the planning portal.

The removal of the £2m contribution certainly helps them but my personal opinion is that as they have managed to exclude Newcold from the obligations of the S106 Agreement they feel no longer obligated to honour the agreement and build a stadium, even if the Council put the £2m back on the table.

Anyone know how to get in contact with Private Eye, I think they have a page for this kind of thing

Not sure that Yorkcourt know the planning rules any better than us (or our legal advisers).

The threat of libel action was from the Council not Colin Mackie.

And I agree, my person opinion is that legal action is the only way to resolve this.

Yes that's democracy at work the Wakefield way. They have been in power for 41 years due to the misplaced blind loyalty of the wider
Labour voting public and now they think they are totally untouchable and can do anything they want.

I bet the threat of legal action did no come direct from Box, he will have instructed his £ 130,000 per year, jack booted henchman Andy Wallhead or his Labradoodle Denise Jeffres to make the threat.

Just had a phonecall from the Labour Party asking if I had sent in my postal vote yet, had to explain to her why after many years of voting Labour this issue has changed me. She was sorry to see me go, although I do not know if she was aware of what I was on about.
Whether me voting against Labour locally and nationally will make the slightest bit of difference I am not sure, but it feels right.

I have lived in Wrenthorpe 23 years and no-one has knocked on my door or canvassed me for my vote If they do this time they are in for a hard time- especially if they are Box's cronies

I asked the labour run-around who came knocking on my door (Outwood) her feelings on the matter, and her reply was simply, YC's lawyers were better than the ours!! After 20 years of ticking the same box, i am done with them. This now gives me a serious problem as the only other option im not sure i can bring myself to do!

I will be honest, i don't get the why's & what nots, but from my basic understanding, it is clear we have been royally shafted. If a fund is to be started count me in.

And those that even consider an 8k option too small, have you been this year? If we average half that at the seasons end, i will be amazed! We can only dream of filling that. And if we do, we will be doing something right and may well be in a position to extend it ourselves

YC's lawyers are better than whose? The Stadium Trust is not a party to the S106 so have not been involved so I guess she must mean the Council's lawyers.

If you can read it 'another way' then it is 'ambiguous'.

If it is 'ambiguous' then it is not clear.

If it is 'not clear' then it is not presented correctly.

I ain't no lawyer, but there are some things I can understand!

Let's not go down without a fight, show the public what a clown box is, couldn't run a bath never mind a council.

Having looked through all the PowerPoint presentations from last night I have to congratulate those involved for their thoroughness in preparing everything.

Without a shadow of doubt something shady has gone on here, you'll probably never prove it because nothing will be written down, the best we can hope for is to catch those involved in a lie and then stick a finger in the wound until someone gives us something.

Sorry to labour the point, but are any of the Stadium Trust/Swag reps able to say what reason the council gave for pulling the GBP 2m and what have they done regarding the similar offer to Cas?

Although committed in the PI, the £2m was approved by cabinet with conditions that, in our opinion, could never be met! After we passed the deadline, the offer was withdrawn for both clubs!

Morning all, I'm genuinely sorry for you and your predicament, if you go back 10 or so years, my club Salford, were going through the same horrors.
Substitute Yorkcourt for Peel and Wakefield council for Salford and all the promises sounded great. As time went on we felt more and more let down by broken promises.
Even now we have the planning application that required the road system to be finished, before any of the warehouses can be built, has now been amended by the council at Peels request this will now impact on the stadium traffic problems.
I just hope that like us you don't fall for "the new stadium is the answer to everything position" because it's not and you probably won't want to hear this but if you don't have total control of any new stadium then the future will become even more traumatic.
Sorry for being so negative

Throughout all this Sir Rodney Walker has been very quiet. I wonder why.

Well I have said exactly the same regarding Sir Rodney……..very quiet indeed.

Sorry of this has already been explained but, is a revamped BV completely out of the question? If so, why?

And as such could probably be argued either way in court!