Who’s going to fund the legal battle?

Yorkcourt & possibly the Council have very deep pockets

Please don’t try and cause a fall out - who said that I was suggesting the trust been deceitful?? The trust chairman has been a true friend for over 40 years so please don’t go there!!! What I said was the guy from planning I considered to be open with what he told us & put what I considered factual information forwards.

Crowd Funding.

I know it’s tough to give an estimate but have you got a figure in mind.

A protracted legal challenge could run for many hearings and last for years, as I’m sure you will already know. Yorkcourt are likely to use tactics that are designed to drain your finite financial resources

A couple of years ago Mike Carter said he would fund the costs of a legal challenge, has he gone back on that promise?

I would suggest the crowd funding is to fund against the council rather than Yorkcourt? From what I was told by the wmdc planning guy the big screw up is from wmdc not getting the right document signed originally? The planning guy said that wmdc made a mess when the original agreement was only signed by YC and the SOS?

Michael did say he would fund it but the Trust does not wish to put the burden on him but would rather raise the money.

We have a good idea of how much will be needed and that will be confirmed by our Lawyers and announced when we launch the crowd funding.

If we end up with a Judicial Review or appeal to the Planning Inspectorate Yorkcourt will not I believe be able to use tactics designed to frustrate our case, that will be in the control of the Judge or Inspector.

That’s strange because the SoS did not sign the UU. He is not required to sign the UU or any 106 Agreement, the signatories are those party to the Agreement.

He is right when he said WMDC had screwed up the Agreement, I’m surprised he said that as his boss maintains that it’s nothing to do with them and blames the SOS.

He said it directly when I asked him - also said it was prior to his handling. Confirmed that wmdc didn’t sign when they should have (I am unsure what document they refer to as there was a lot of planning terms discussed.

Please see nm thread - I’ve added in some of the parts that Phil didn’t include.

He was not Director of Planning at the time the UU was signed or employed by WMDC.

The agreement would have been better if had been a Multi-Party Section 106 Agreement with the Trust, Club, Council, Developer all party to it and signing it. It would have spelled out exactly who did what and when and how much etc. and pretty much left no wriggle room.

Peter Box claims that the Council wanted a Multi-Party Agreement but the SoS wanted a UU. If you read the Palnning Inspectors Report /Consent it states that the SoS would prefer a Multi-Party Agreement but would be prepared to accept a UU. What I can't figure out is if the Council and the SoS both wanted a Multi-Party Agreement why did the Council not insist on such an agreement. So yes Neil Rodgers is right, the Council screwed up.

I would also say they screwed up Newcold as well by allowing it to sit outside the UU and not taking proper legal advice from a specialist Planning Lawyer or Counsel.

The sooner we start the crowd funding page the better surely?

Right timing is better.

Just out of curiosity which Trust and Chairman have you been a friend of for over 40 years.

Doesn't take much imagination to begin to open up to the possibility that the screwups just aren't screwups at all.
I mean, its an incredible sequence of on the bounce failures....its almost as though they had a purpose.

Lies, loop holes & convenient mistakes...all by design, without a doubt

That’s what I wondered, he’d have had to have known Trb since he was 12 and IA similar, Rodders on the other hand!

Hi Ted

Thanks SC,

I hope you’re right about the prevention of dirty tactics because without a doubt Yorkcourt will attempt anything to wriggle out of their responsibility.

Question, with regard to the Yorkcourt/Kitcost letter on the planning portal. Surely their stance is in complete contravention of the SoSs “disagregation” clause?

With the shenanigans surrounding the Newcold precedent, like the non existant legal advice, late notification & poorly explained/hidden information about its trigger point exclusion, then their assertion that they have a legal route through the planning process will be shot to pieces.

We think so as well but they are claiming that as the approved LDF took the land out of greenbelt then the obligations set out in the SoS consent are no longer valid. I cannot believe that the 2 planning inspectors when conducting the respective PI's would have though this but I feel its going to take the High Court or Planning Inspectorate to sort this.

It will also be interesting to see what a Judge's view is on Newcold.

The hardest part is going to be getting this to Law as you can bet your bottom dollar there will be some political manouvering to prevent this.

On the surface, one can see a Judge looking favourably on a volunteer led CT taking on the combined shenanigans of a property developer and an incompetent (at best) LA; particularly if the stated aim is to secure a community facility rather than a gift for a private business. Ducking and diving to avoid meeting the requirements of a s106 agreement is likely to draw the ire of a crusty judge - particularly if counsel can demonstrate that HM's Inspector had a clear intent in his report and recommendations, which has subsequently not been adhered to either in letter or in spirit.

As you say however, actually getting it before the court will be difficult - YC and WMDC will use every dirty trick in the book to avoid being held to account for their actions, or lack of; probably because they understand the above likelihood just as much as we do.

Even so - if it does eventually get to court and his Honour were to order that the stadium be provided as per the original agreement, you can guarantee that YC and WMDC would employ all possible means to delay and obfuscate, such that there could still be years of expensive legal wrangling before anything was delivered.

It's very depressing.

Political pressure may also help, Mary Creagh only had a 2176 majority at the last election.
Not much swing needed to lose it but maybe votes to gain for positive action for the city, and I know, don't hold your breath.

I know ted but the friendship with IA is much longer at 42 years (since he was 5).

I can beat that.

I might know you too then?

I doubt it. I never lived in Outwood or Newton Hill. I lived in Flanshaw for a couple years then moved to Leeds. Funny how I remained the Wakey fan and he ended up supporting Leeds.

www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/Visi ... 5fa732b-ds Another borough/council set to show our sorry lot up. Hark the difference in attitude.

www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/Visi ... 5fa732b-ds Another borough/council set to show our sorry lot up. Hark the difference in attitude.