I have contacted my councillor and pointed out how I feel about the issue and said that for the first time in my life I will be voting Conservative at the local elections.
I await his response as I asked him also to raise the issue at council meetings.
Will see if he has any 'bottle'.

Theres nothing wrong with Labour, they have some hard working councillors, problem is they are all afraid of Box.
Like Belly said its not about voting Tory its a matter of outing that maggot Box. Once he goes you probably will see a much
improved Labour Party operating for the good of Wakefield.

I think this is a salient point, i know my councillor is a labour rep and he is a hard working fella who has done good things for my area. I feel it would be churlish not to vote for him based purely on what one idiot who rules the roost does to feather his own castleford nest. I will be voting for him as he has done a good job but what i will do is get into his ribs about who they are electing as their leader.

All those that live in Wakefield area should email, phone or write to their local MP and councillor and complain to both demanding that they make representations and respond to them. This type of pressure I know works due to my current area of work. A standardised letter that could be copied by all fans would be the quickest and consistent way of doing it.....


Would Sky Boots n All or Toby Foster on BBC Inside Out do a feature on it?

yes, thats it keep voting labour and get absolutly nothing.

Inside out is a idea.

Quote ="roverman"yes, thats it keep voting labour and get absolutly nothing.'" All politicians are the same and anyone that thinks otherwise is deluded. It's pressure around the specific issue of the stadium fiasco that is required.... What about a complaint against the council via the Local Government Ombudsman Scheme? www.lgo.org.uk BBC TV Inside Out Twitter Page will be monitored by BBC researchers...... https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCInsideOutYL

Quote ="roverman"yes, thats it keep voting labour and get absolutly nothing.'" All politicians are the same and anyone that thinks otherwise is deluded. It's pressure around the specific issue of the stadium fiasco that is required.... What about a complaint against the council via the Local Government Ombudsman Scheme? www.lgo.org.uk BBC TV Inside Out Twitter Page will be monitored by BBC researchers...... https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCInsideOutYL

im, not deluded i will use my vote and vote against the labour party they are the party in power in wakefield and they dont give a damm about the stadium or wakefield trinity.the proof is there for everyone to see.vote labour and you will get what youve been getting nothing.

Vote for the others and you'll get the same...it's about doing things that highlight the issue through the media, through investigative organisations like the Local Ombudsman or pressurising those MPs and Councillors in power to do something for their money. Casting a vote does not address any of this. Can't see it in anyone's manifesto about the stadium fiasco and even if it was they don't honour everything in manifesto's.

I understand your point and respect it. However we are playing by the rules they have imposed upon us. I expect if you take that approach he will react with sympathy to what you say. However I can guarantee that if you tell him you respect what he has done but will not be voting for him because of the actions of Box it will have a greater affect on him and will definitely sting him into action.

exactly, its called democracy if you dont like what there doing you vote them out.

Great. Let's all vote Conservative or UKIP as they'll do a better job...

Quote ="Tigerade"No he doesn't. He is the leader of WMDC. www.local.gov.uk/councillor-prof ... 41/ARTICLE'" Quote ="Tigerade"I'll give you Whitwood then but altofts doesn't come under Cas.'" it's less embarrassing

Quote ="Tigerade"No he doesn't. He is the leader of WMDC. www.local.gov.uk/councillor-prof ... 41/ARTICLE'" Quote ="Tigerade"I'll give you Whitwood then but altofts doesn't come under Cas.'" it's less embarrassing

we might get more support.

All you have to do is look at Rotherham to see what happens in Labour rotten boroughs.

So the alternative is keep voting Labour under any circumstances

Without endorsing any party, I have been in touch will all 4 parliamentary candidates for Outwood & Morley and had no response from either the LibDems or Labour, but offers of assistance and support from the Tories and UKIP.

There were representatives from UKIP at the meeting last night. There was one Lab councillor there who IS a Wakefield Supporter, but holds the Labour Whip and must therefore vote as instructed.

I also have a meeting tomorrow with Antony Calvert, who is standing for the Tories in Wakefield.

Mary Creagh has just replied to my e-mail and I will read the reply in full before commenting.

If the Tories get in again I'm off to live in a PNG village or some such like because it will be better than here

if labour get in again im gonna e mail nicola sturgeon , perhaps mr box will take notice of her .

The Council appoints its Leader for a 4 year term of office. The current term of office will expire in May 2016 so Cllr Box is not going anywhere. The current make up of the Council is Lab 54 Con 6 UKIP 2 Ind 1.

The Labour Party is defending 17 seats so if it lost all 17 it will still be comfortably be in control of the Council.

Trying to be as neutral as possible, I see the council's position as this:
1. Yorkcourt promised to build warehousing on land that was about to be removed from green belt, providing a lot of employment in financially-difficult times
2. As a side issue, they get the fringe benefit of a new stadium for Wakefield.

I can imagine that the principal reason for approving the development was jobs, not to rescue Trinity.

Up step Yorkcourt, who decide to remove the fringe benefit. What do the council do next? They ought to say you must stop developing and instead build that ground. But that is saying that many jobs cannot be provided just so a club can be bailed out that has lurched from crisis to crisis. The council might feel they are entitled to say that the creation of jobs takes priority over a point of principle.

It has to be remembered that part of this difficulty seems to be because the owners of the club back in the day gambled on Thornes Park by selling the ground to themselves, in the guise of a limited company, presumably to bank the profit at the time of economic boom when they could sell it to developers once Thornes Park was built. We are very much the authors of our own misfortune and the council may feel that the creation of jobs comes first.

I'm not saying its right, but if you weren't a Wakefield fan, or a sports fan or a rugby fan, the argument for jobs over a point of principle is one to understand. The villains are Yorkcourt and they will bring the club down. The council are guilty only in not spending money and time going after the villains.

It has to be remembered too that if there is some miracle and the funds are somehow found to develop Belle Vue, we will need to deal with the council for the various permissions. Sometimes it's better to be inside the tent urinating out, than outside urinating in.

Maybe I'm being too fair.

You know exactly how Peter box thinks and what his priorities are when at the meeting the radio broadcast tape was played and his first words to Ian were "Are you going to watch Cas at the weekend?". Sums him up in a nutshell!

Some of this is right, but:

1 The Stadium was a cornerstone of the proposal, not a 'fringe benefit', as it justifies the removal from GB of a large section of land. Only part of this site was re-designated under the LDF to B8 warehousing. Much of the NM site remains in GB and can only be developed under the outline PP. If YC decide not to develop the rest of the wider site, we may not have a leg to stand on!
2 The urinating quote is a favourite of SandalCat. We have tried that for years but thought that it was time to try a different approach. Sir Rodney has been left out of this current process so, in effect, he remains inside the tent.
3 The money from the sale of BV was essentially used to sustain the club. I think we all know by now that there isn't enough revenue to cover the costs at the club. This kept us going for several years - pro-longing the Ted era for that time. When that ran out, and the bank would not provide the balance of the deal, the whole thing collapsed.
4 If the creation of jobs is so vital (only 154 jobs created for Newcold btw), then why were the 120 jobs at Aldi in Castleford not important? It is because to grant planning for Aldi would undermine the 5 Towns Park - this is known as a 'material effect'. So why was the 'dis-aggregation' of NM not also a 'material effect'?

1 So if YC decided to just build the 60,000 sqm of buildings on the resdesignated land, make a tidy profit on that and walk away from the rest then we are screwed and can't do a thing about it. Until we wither and die, no stadium required and then they go back to the council with a new plan. Theres whats going to happen then.
2 Was Rodders not in agreement with this action? And more importantly which one of the trust members is picking up his dry cleaning bill for urinating on him?!
3 Are the bank actively at this time trying to sell BV to a developer. And other than 6 months grace does asset of community value status really make any difference anyway?
4 I would guess that YC can't actually afford the stadium and the attempt to build it would put the rest of the development in doubt. In the councils eyes they see the creation of jobs as more important than a now 8k stadium for us so will not force the issue thus leaving us in limbo.

1 Possibly, but there is a substantial element of the site which he would be unable to develop if so.
2 Sir Rodney is head of the Stadium Trust and acts on our behalf
3 Not to our knowledge at this time, but they have tried to remove the planning condition which relates to NM. The ACV would only protect us for 6 months
4 That would be one conclusion - yes!