That was around the time when it became apparent to the wider populace, they've been building the thing for a while now.

I know that Khlav but it says on the post that it is stand alone, I thought the trust said they had not been able to find that condition any where in any portal.

If my understanding is correct they couldn't until after it was too late to lodge an objection.

Thats why I asked earlier in the thread what date the dead line was for objections.

Again - very helpful! Who do you think we are? I work in Landscaping, but it hasn't stopped me trying to apply myself to try and get a resolution. Others clearly have more foresight than me, or is that hindsight?

Put it this way, we need a dose of reality as much as we need supporters who know how it should have been done better than we did!

NB - you don't have to be a die hard supporter to understand that a massive injustice has occurred, in fact I would suggest that is exactly what we are looking for, rather than just being disgruntled RL supporters!

As for Box, no, we cant touch him, but we can make life difficult for him if he remains stubbornly unreasonable.

Everyone knew it was a stand alone application, it had to be because of the height of the building. What we did not know was the development had explicitly been excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking - why would we, we thought the development would contribute to the 60,000 m2 trigger, and we thought that the Council were going to enforce the UU but apparently it's nothing to do with them

Dates for objections were irrelevant if it was not made clear that the development had been excluded from the UU, why would anyone object to a development that it was believed was contributing to the UU.

What is relevant and crucial is that the Council have stated that they had no choice but to exclude the development because they took legal advice which confirmed that but claim that they do not hold the advice. They either took advice or they did not and I believe that will be crucial if or when Lawyers are instructed.

I've just been back to the casforum to read it again. The post is on a thread entitled "Newmarket" and is towards the bottom of the 5th page. It says in the words of the planning application "The application is a stand alone and is in no way tied to the extant outline consent to the site". The big mistake I made when reading it the first time was getting the year wrong,. This was posted July 9th 2013 not 2014 2 days after the application went live. I don't know if "tied to the extant outline consent" means the same as a s106 but the info would seem to have been in the public domain for some time. Sorry but I don't know how to do a link to this. "The nutjob forum" I mean.

Tha's a watered down Vinniedog thee !!

Firstly I don't read the Cas Forum but all that is saying is that it is a stand alone application rather than a reserve matters application.

The S106, in my opinion relates to the site and not the outline consent granted by the SoS and applications, even stand alone applications should be caught by the S106. The Council think differently and even took legal advice - oh how we would love to see that advice, but as they have said they don't hold it.

Ha Ha love it. Apparently Vinnie hasn't been on the nutjob for ages. Rumour has it that he's too busy running Wakefield council Mashy mate.

It just goes to show how complicated it all is, as some one else has said its usually the lawyers that get rich from these type of cases.

More like the far right winger got himself banned and re-invented his-sen in watered down version.

*devils advocate mode*
It says in no way is it legally tied to the existing development. Which bit of that made anybody think, oh ok that doesn't effect us then?

Because straight away it says to me that is nothing to do at all with the original permission. And at all would include the 106.

And because someone posted it on a forum for another RL club we are all supposed to be aware?

We were told that the application would take us to two thirds of the way towards the trigger point of the 106 agreement. I only wish I'd been party to the Trust at that time, but as it is the Trust would have been Sir Rodney, David Hinchliffe, Andrew Glover and James Elston. I have asked 3 of them about this and not one of them has said that they were aware that it did not contribute.

This is all fundamental to the councils position, but they will not provide any of the details they suggest support their position! Strange!

Not sure what point you are making. Just because someone writes that it is not tied to the existing development makes it right or even lawful to disaggregate it from the site.

I believe, and have dealt with many S106 Agreements, that once the consent was granted by the SoS on condition that a Unilateral Undertaking be entered into then no development on the site can be excluded from that undertaking.

We'll have to see what the Lawyers think.

So no then, the trust did not request legal advice. I am not singling anyone out but you can't be surprised that questions are now being asked with the number of months all we heard was things are going on but we cannot tell you.
I did not notice any requests for advice from other supporters from anyone involved so you can't blame me for asking questions because all I am receiving is the clubs side.
With regards an injustice once again the majority of supporters were kept in the dark so did not have the benefit of the information you had to judge the position.

It was written on the planning portal on the 8th july 2013, so not just on a forum. Whether you were aware or not you can't say that wasn't there to question as has been alluded to because quite obviously it was. Whether the others understood the ramifications or not i don't know but that won't really matter come court time, it will be based on technicalities. At that point it probably will be who has the best lawyer.

The point is despite the rhetoric that i keep reading that the trust haven't seen anywhere where it says it doesn't count. It is there in black and white from the beginning. Whether actually legal or not is not the point it was surely worth questioning and if in doubt get clarification at the time. But it was missed, end of. What is coming out is that there are an awful lot of holes in our attack moving forward that a good lawyer will tear to shreads and by no means is it a foregone conclusion that we would win a court case. It seems you haveade up your mind so as you say we will have to see what the lawyers say. I hope you have deep pockets.

Right ! Here goes!

The question that needs answering is - Why the trust board/advisors/ helpers/ swag etc who had been so "forensic" in their knowledge of the scheme and planning process up to date, did not pick up on the "stand alone" and "no way legally tied " statements in the Newcold application?? ( ignoring the councils claim that pre-application meetings had pointed this out)

They should have done and should have asked "serious questions" of the planners / council as soon as the Newcold application went in!

Surely that statement would have set alarm bells ringing with the people involved, but it appears not!! for whatever reason

I cannot believe they showed no interest in looking at the application documents in detail (not that a detailed look was needed) and if they did , I absolutely refuse to believe they missed it!!!

Maybe it's time for someone to say - "Sorry we f.....d up in the case of Newcold but we won't let it happen for future applications" and move on!!

#WheresRodney

Don't bother with any abuse I really could not care less! (and I won't bite either)

But it does not say its excuded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking. Was it missed, why should anyone have been looking for it, we thought the Council was going to enforce the S106 Agreement, as is their duty, and deliver a Community Stadium for the people of Wakefield, not wash their hand of the whole affair. The fact is that the Council said they excluded after taking legal advice that when asked to see a copy they state that they do not hold it. Maybe a good Lawyer will tear that to shreads.

You are right no legal case is a foregone conclusion but we have 2 alternatives after negotiation and compromise failed. We either give in and accept that we are going to get nothing or we fight and I can assure you that the Stadium Trust, Supporters Trust and the Club are not going to give in. You can back us or not, that's up to you.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. Had the Stadium Trust known that the Council were going to exclude it from the Unilateral Undertaking and were going to deny being party to the S106 Agreement when clearly they are the benificiary and claim that the delivery of a Community Stadium is nothing to do with them but between the Club, The Stadium Trust and the Developer when clearly as they are definetely NOT party to the Agreement so cannot enforce it then maybe they would have objected.

Future applications are now irrelevant as they all will be stand alone so as not to be caught by the S106 and the Council can take legal advice again and may be able to produce it.

Just a thought, I wonder if the Council f.....d up in excluding Newcold from the obligations of the UU because my experience of 106 agreements is that they relate to the site that has received the consent. Stand alone applications don't get around that and even if the site is carved up or sold on the S106 goes with the land. Just a thought.

It doesn't say it isn't excluded either! That is the point, to me is shouts it out loud, obviously to others it doesn't. It should have been questioned by those who attended the meetings and was part of the trust at that time. Sorry but its a cock up by rodders & co who were guys on watch.

You are probably right we have two choices. We go to court and lose and we get nothing. Result = club dies. We could to court and win and in all likelihood Yorkcourt walk away before the trigger point as the profit isn't there and we get nothing. Result = club dies. Does anybody really think they are going to build it whatever the result? Yes we have been used by the developer, yes we should have had more support in making this work from the council and yes there were things we should have done better ourselves. And quite obviously yes i'm negative right now because quite honestly i see no positive result possible. For me the only very faint hope is strong political pressure after the election, and that is highly unlikely whoever gets in. Or maybe a reduced deal that might save the club but it been made quite obvious that it isn't an option. So good luck in hoping Colun Mackie and co suddendly develop a consious.

Although I still think that large mob with big sticks outside the yorkcourt offices might be the last hope.

Choose what the outcome of any legal battle and that's looking like the option be it loose and get nothing or win and Yorkcourt walk away for a few years looking at the club folding before continuing with any more building the one option for me is AT LEAST GO DOWN FIGHTING and don't be a white flag man.

I'll be stood right net to you Sandal, definitely up for the fight and whatever it takes.

Nobody should be bullied out of something that they deserve and especially by tin pot politicians who are working to their own agenda, instead of serving the public.

As you have shown little regard or respect for the position we were in, why would I grant you a reply?

As it was, we have taken legal advice informally, but without money we cannot take it any further forward. That will alter shortly I suspect.

We were TOLD by all parties that the NC would count, but at that time we were not part of the Trust, so we're not involved in the negotiations. In the time since then we have tried to negotiate a position which avoided a very public and very expensive legal battle and have been digging around for all the information you now have laid at your door on a plate!

Every individual can decide for themselves, you can either get behind us fighting for the future of the City of Wakefield, or you can not. I do not lose sleep because of the lack of effort in trying, but I do in regards to how we make this work! I also get frustrated when people come out and tell us what we could and should have done, having done nothing. The group of people involved in this I did not know before all this, yet we are now good friends, and this came about because we were the ones who took the time out to get involved - no more, no less! The same opportunity was there for all, including you, so if you want to help, please try and first consider that there may be reasons why we have done what we have that you may not be fully aware of! I don't profess to getting this right all the time, but I have done what I have done for the right reasons!

Apologies. Rant over.