I'm not going to add much to this discussion regarding the finances/ground and Ted Richardson other than i do hope all fans get behind the players and coaches throughout what will no doubt be a tough season. Whether they win, lose or draw let's at least remember there are numerous people still within the club who need our support more than ever!

Everyone questioned why the investors backed off at the last minute, many thought it was because the franchise application was all but doomed before the season started but now its obviously clear that there was other reasons behind it too.

I don't believe that our application is doomed - provided we get through this mess quickly and with new owners and new hope!

Sorry, but I dont share your enthusiam, I and many others are concentrating fully on playing in the Championship next season.

I believe theres more chance finding Frankie Sandford naked upstairs in my bed than us playing in SL next season. If you feel I am way off the mark, I'll be taking two viagra and having a wander to see if the life size cut out has come reality.

Understandable, given the current position, but things can and do change and, as we know, money talks!

I'll keep my own counsel as to the revelations but as said earlier, as part of the Supporters Trust, I’ll be seeking some answers!

The only thing I'll add to the thread is this; apart from a few visitors everyone on here is a Wakefield Trinity supporter and now MORE THAN EVER the supporters of Wakefield Trinity need to stick together. Tearing strips of each other for being positive, negative or any other stance is not what's required now, what is needed is a united front that demands a resolution to this pantomime.

Forget "Together we are stronger" from our (the fans) point of view its "United we stand Divided we fall".

Lets not vent frustrations at the wrong people, save it up, let it fester a while and then let those who deserve it have both barrels!

Like TRB I also think we are not doomed yet, I feel it is unlikely, but while I feel it is unlikely it is what we should be chasing.
I would not employ anyone who didn't believe, they're is nothing wrong with being a realist, but there is no need to be defeatist.
A lot of water is still to flow under a lot of bridges yet.
Who knows the RFLs view of us may change with Teds exit, afterall if I were the RFL I wouldn't want him running a franchise, and they would have had more of an insight into the running of our club than us mere spectators had.

The rfl don't like Ted and we stand a better chance of getting franchise without him at the helm.

Never heard of him ,is he a rugby player

Google is your friend.

not as far as I know although I do have a lot of admirers

I read the article in LE.

All I can say is that if I was a Wakefield Supporter, and assuming what I read was true, then my probable reaction would be that if I ever got my hands on Richardson, I'd want to make the bügger's eyes water. For a long time, and very slowly.

A very few years ago, a big customer of the group I was FD of went bust. After the event, it became very clear why. A number of reasons, but one, within the dealings, was that the owner had transferred the company's property to himself - at an undervaluation. The administrator pretty well made the thieving barsteward pay a substantial further sum to the company, or face the prospect of criminal action being brought. Not the same situation, but I cite it as an example of what's done not necessarily being what's done.

One wonders what the administrator (as surely it will be now?) and maybe the authorities will make of these particular transactions? Although since Richardson seems to be bust himself one suspects he's made sure there are no assets to act against?

Well said the fans should stick together now , as I said a few weeks ago and you have said now United we stand. We need to make existing and new owners realise the fans are a very vital part of our ONCE great club.

If she'd shack up with Bridge, you have a chance.

Next week can't come soon enough, sweep out the deadwood once and for all.

Without wanting to appear as a Ted-lover, and struggling to get my head round the technicalities, is the gist of what's happened this:

The club needed capital, so we sold the ground. Except that it was sold to a company that Ted & Co now own. And so Ted raised capital by doing his own gamble on the property market, in that he bought Belle Vue, hoped to cash it in as land value increased, but it didn't turn out that way as the property market went the other way. So Ted's gamble didn't pay off, and so he is having to off-load his devalued asset to another company.

If Belle Vue wasn't sold at an undervalue, is it much different to a director loaning money to a company? Ted took a risk in order to raise capital for club, and it has been to his personal cost? What is the actual mischief here? Or is it the fact that he concealed his potential profit on the land deal, in that Belle Vue could have doubled in value?

Also, if the administrator might uncover wrongdoings, is there a danger that the directors could just wind up the company and avoid the administrator, and so where would we stand then? Can the directors avoid the administrator?

think we all have to face facts that this is about the biggest farce in sl history and realise we about to have a season that makes it worse, however.....from there I want my club back, in whatever league that has to be, and i want honesty, integrity and openness from tha people at the top.
from whatever players we have........simple....put the shirt on, try your ass off and ill follow and support you, you wanna lie down, leave!

Just about sums it up for me as well.

agree with all that ...join the Supporters Trust and re the players if everyone gives as much as Hendo and Obsty every game I will be happy

A bit of honesty and openess along the way might have helped . Took them long enough to tell us the ground had been sold at all.

Chancer : a reckless, improvident, often somewhat unscrupulous opportunist

As I stated earlier,gambling with the heritage that was not his to gamble with. No transparency, and only now 3 years on because it's all gone wrong do we get the whole messy truth unfolding.

So the complaint is that people feel that Ted wanted to invest in property and used Belle Vue as his gambling chip when it wasn't his to use, in that he bought it when it didn't need to be sold, and he would have taken the profit when it increased in value, rather than the club selling a more valuable asset at a later date, against which it could have raised finance (like the Crusaders did)?

I think I understand the furore now. Where's my pitchfork?

My apologies for trying to be charitable. I should have learnt by now.

Is it just me clutching at the straw that with our new found IOM provanance we may be considered an expansion club - could this be our salvation????

well done, see, best to wait to the end before revealing the culprit.

Usually when you buy something you pay for it.

The LE article is questioning whether or not WTWC were paid the full £2.8 million.

Hey yes that is the answer