That's fair enough. And the football team will have to pay rent.
But if Wakefield Trinity have to pay a rent it will be to themselves......and not to Carter or Minards.

How do they pay rent to them selves?

The company that runs the SMC at Hull, some of the board members of the SMC are also board members of Hull Football club. That stadium was also funded by monies from local authority.
There nothing stopping if / when the sale goes through, a SMC is set up and Carter and or Minards are on that board is there ? Obviously would need agreement by all parties.

I wrote a long reply to explain how silly that reads but I think it stands by itself. No need for me to point it out.

Am I on my own or am I just the only one who doesn't see the unicorns?

I'm reliably informed they do exist and are hard at work on the pitch as we speak ( figuratively speaking )!

Didn't MC say in his pre match interview, that his replacement will be in place by the end of May.

I'm sure he did, but I've since deleted it from my SKY recordings

He said that at the fans forum too though Minards did jump in and say "maybe".
I don't think the club have ever said who is in takeover talks, though it's widely known. And we don't know who he'll bring in as CEO. Shouldn't think it will be anyone from his own company.

I got told yesterday that it is almost a done deal and that both sides are now doing their "Due Diligence", so hopefully we might hear something this week ??

Nobody has asked or even explained, why now. We are at our lowest in forever, probably going down. So why buy what will almost certainly be a championship club? Are we basically thinking that Ellis is going to invest enough in the ground and the product, that we become an A, so get straight back in? If so, why is anyone too concerned. We get to clear the decks of all the deadwood. If that is the intention (to invest to grade A standard) that must be the first thing revealed by the new owner. I see no other reason someone would chuck money down the drain, if the above isn't the plan.

Well, if’s that’s your attitude and thinking, I’m certainly very happy that you are not involved in any of these negotiations.

The answer to this question is obvious.
The price will be one hell of a lot lower in our current position that, say, Saints, who are the top club in RL in this country.
Anyone wanting Trinity right now "could" be getting a bargain and despite our absolutely shambolic season.

Yes, it will take plenty of cash but, that's the theory of it.

The company that I worked for specialised in buying businesses on the brink and turning them into viable concerns and they were pretty damn good at it.
Mind you, they had no interest in RL clubs.

That reply makes zero sense.

What does a seemingly wealthy man want now (could have bought us over the last 10 years when we had something worth buying, ie; a team competing). If he isn't planning on making us a grade A, then he may as well sit at home ripping up £50 notes. My point being, he obviously has some kind of plan, a plan that can only benefit WT in the long term. Isn't that what everybody wants?

Understand that, but how are we cheaper than 2-3 years ago. If anything, we are on paper more expensive. We have a asset now with the stand. The ground loan is the only extra cost.

3 years ago - no loan but no stand and pay rent.
Now - 3mil loan but a 10 mil stand and no rent.

So on paper, we appear more expensive.

This isn't a negative post, on the contrary it appears from the outside that this guy sees value. We don't hold that value as a championship club, so he must have solid plans and be confident to get us back up, based on grading.

I don't think it's particularly cheaper now. It's not like Carter is selling shares at a profit or loss.
Itscabout the potential I would think.
3 years ago we were only ever going to struggle along even with investment in the team.
Now when Minards is talking him in to it he can talk about the potential of the club and the possible A grade status. That is worth an investment.

Out of interest, does anybody know the difference between the council loan repayments and what was payed in rent to the previous owners.

The loan payment is higher per month but is more beneficial because at least we own the asset.

125k vs 200k or so I have read, but as above better long term. Not with a 200k fee for the SMC if that is true though. If it were, as landlord, id charge the SMC 300k per year!

Thanks both of you.
I understand the reasons, just wondered what the figures were, to compare with what other clubs are paying to rent or buy.
Liking your last sentence.

Am I right in thinking we couldn't earn from the food vendors and drinks either while we were renting?
Or have I made that up?

Yes I believe you are correct which I believe was stated as a plus at the time.

Going back to 2012, it was decided that the vending would be outsourced, and the company concerned were charged a rental, though the monthly payment didn't seem to be enough really.

The reason they did this, was to save accounting hassles, due to quantities of invoicing etc.

That used to be the case, first brought in under Glover and carried on by MC for a while but i think since about 2017 it has been in house again.

Rightly so too.

I got bored half-way through, but trustees cannot profit personally from a trust, as they are holding the asset on behalf of someone else. If the stand is owned by a trust AND it is charging £200K a year, it isn't going to MC or JM. Perhaps, and a guess, perhaps it is to fund the community elements of the community stadium, as trustees have to act in the best interests of the trust; ie, a community trust.

If it's been answered elsewhere, I apologise.

Could we get clarification if this is now dead in the water?

Thought it was a done deal and going through due diligence.