I thought the new Cas ground was being built using money from an S106 agreement? If so, it is technically public money as the council can decide where/on what that money (coming from the developer)is spent, whether that be new cycle ways, parks, pedestrian bridges, social housing, community sports facilities or even (as Salford has recently done) to upgrade existing and open MORE public libraries.

I had always believed they were meant to be for the benefit of the community, so never actually understood how Cas (as a private business) are going to end up as sole owners of their new stadium.

There is an S106 but that doesn't necessarily mean public money, the money to fund the Cas build is being set up via a "hedge fund" with investors in the whole of the Development get a payback once it's fully complete, all the monies are from the private sector, the S106 ties it all together to allow the planning permission become reality.
Some years ago I was a school governor that sat on the schools finance committee, a property developer was building on land adjacent to the school, we agreed with the development to not object to the planning application on the proviso that some of the land was handed to the school and developped in to a car park drop off Area and some cash was given to the parish council for other schemes in the parish, all from the developer, all private money, but bound by an s106 agreement

An interesting new poster on casforum claims to be a friend of Manni's. worth a read.

I don't know about the latest plan but Cas said the sale of Joe Westerman (£175,000) was to fund planning for the GH scheme.

Really? says zilch of interest to me.

That was my understanding also.

But I would pay £100,000 myself for planning if in return I received a £13m or so asset for £1 - much better return than putting your money in a Post Office Savings Account.

I was sure it was a radio interview two or three years ago with Steve Gill when he mentioned it but i might be wrong, time fogs the memory. I'm sure an email to him would clarify.

The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of Box! the only way to get rid of Box is to stop voting Labour! i know it will hurt alot of people to do so but it needs to be done. The meetings behind closed doors need to end and the public be told exactly what the council plan.

That'll do for me.....yes, we are all pi$$ed off at the continuing disgusting, underhand dealings of WMDC, but if MC - the man who has every right to be 100 times more pi$$ed off than the rest of us - says " Keep calm and relax", then that's what we should do...he has not let us down yet !!!

IN MC WE TRUST

They won't be getting my vote that is for sure.

The post does confirm the stench of Rodney though, in that if it is accurate, Rodney has "been in the frame"

Another interesting post on there states all the way back at the public enquiry Walker stated that the club would pay a market rent on the stadium.

It ties in with what i was told, that 88M were serious about the plan. But i guess they want an income from it, like any landlord would i suppose. Otherwise what is in it for them? They be better off building housing or retail on it otherwise.

Exactly.

The council/Wallhead statement implies (I think) that the rental would go to the charitable trust, not to 88M. (That's why I asked previously what the charitable trust was going to do with the tenant's income).

We are all witnessing, and suffering from the consequences of, the failures and greed of a capitalist system; the unacceptable face of which belongs to a certain fat cat known as RMW.

I imagine the plan is the lease is eventually handed to the trust who then sub let to the club as anchor tenants. The trust would have to pay 88M the commercial rent and as such charge the club and any other clubs/groups using the stadium a rental fee. What 88M charge would reflect how much the club pays.

Next question i suppose is did/does the trust know how much 88M want to charge for the privilege?

That's not how it works in the real world, the terms of the lease is where the land owner makes his money, the leaseholder makes the rental revenue, if a commercial rent of say £250k is going to a "charitable trust" where's the £250k ending up?
I can tell you, in some fat cats pocket that is neither the landowner/developer or council official, I private individual who draws a wage out of the charities profits, unfortunately that won't be the wakefield community trust that should be getting the rental, it will be some other charitable trust


I don't mind telling you, I'm fuming and my offer in a previous thread of donating £500 to the legal battle is now being doubled to £1000

£100,000 a year rent appears to be the rent we're supposed to be paying, I wonder what other SL clubs pay in rental Wigan, Hull FC, Salford etc?

Looks lie Rodders is behind this unfortunately.

Actually ive just looked back and it was £1k I offered so I'll stick to my original figure of £1k, must have been a different rugby club I spent £500 on

No problem, I'll sort that as well, sir Rodney is a long time family friend, he attended my mums funeral back in may and helped write an article about my dad in the wakey express when he died 13 years ago, I reckon I'll wrap him round my finger no probs

The rent is supposed to be paid to the trust, does it say which Trust? Maybe it's Rodders Trust

That's what I'm assuming.

See MC, it's sorted!