I have to agree, while I support WT if that happened it would leave a bad taste in my mouth ... I am nowhere near as passionate
about RL as I was 10 years ago, and it would be another nail in the coffin for me.

If somebody wants Carter out, rather than come up with convoluted stadium arrangements, they could always offer him a quid for the club.

As I said before, this is all posturing by the council (Box) who clearly now more than ever is scrambling to hide whatever interest he has in the development at Newmarket.

Box, Jeffries and Wallhead want MC and CB to pack in, that is what they have been trying to achieve, their mates Hussain and MaKay then get everything they want given by the Council. Do you honestly think that the reported comments from Hussain were his words, he has council backing, Box Jeffries and Wallhead have told him what to say to ramp up the pressure on the club. MC , CB and The Trust really are having to deal with the a set of of lying, cheating low life scumbags.

The in-fighting regarding MC might be just what some people wanted!

The chairman and chris need backing on this they want whats right for the club city and fans they have my backing totally and thats even if it means the club going down and starting again hes always done what he believes his right for this club financially and put a bloody good team on the park for us on a tight budget how anyone can not believe hes not doing what he feels is right in standing up against this council is beyond me in carter we trust

I don't have a problem in trusting M C . the clubs looking in good shape. I don't understand how he could be forced out so maybe someone could explain. The whole sagas been a complete mess and I don't see it improving any time soon.
The club should have responded to the first press release legally and that would have set the agenda out in a more structured form. To let the council make statement 2 seems ill advised and only adds to the confusion.
What the hells going on.

They did respond they stated they were making no further comment and seeking legal advice before responding. Leave it to those that know about this mess!

Just to clarify in case I have misunderstood your comment.

There is no infighting between the Club and Trust.

Can't agree with that statement about if we have to go down and start again so be it. That just means we've bloody well rolled over and let them win NEVER.
If Michael has had enough that has to be his decision but I hope he wouldn't consider that he's done well for us . If he did I would be gutted but I wouldn't be going with him we must still support our club and fight for our rightful place in Super league and our right to play in a stadium that was promised. Surely there is a compromise somewhere.

If he was to walk away, It would be a shame, as I think having him at the helm has been the best thing to happen to this club for a long time.

He has my back all the way in what is decided.

That said though, I will always support this great club.

Wimbledon or MK Dons it is then?

Because Matchday income alone is not enough to run and sustain a viable business.
The club need to be able to run their business from the stadium 52 weeks a year, not just on 15 or so matchdays. If the club don't have the ability to generate income from conferences, parties, weddings etc then they cannot grow the business.

Do you think Cas would be accepting moving into a new stadium (if/when it ever gets built) with no facility to generate income from it on anything other than on matchdays??? They know that their deal provides them with a long term arrangement to grow their business. That is what Trinity have always said was required for us, so why should we accept anything less?

+1

Why then are we not willing to pay a commercial rent or do we we want all the income with no financial input other than the name Wakefield Trinity.

Think most of us had the feeling that the powers that be have no intention of delivering what was promised to the club/city. All we get is one move on the chess board after another to save face and/or waste more time until we go away - ultimately resulting in no stadium. Unless of course the council/developer can make loads of money out of it...but hey lets forget what the original deal that took the Newmarket land out of Green Belt in the first place. Let them build the stadium and find someone to pay unsustainable amounts to play in it



Interesting that the last council statement says they are looking for local clubs to become tenants so they can incorporate their needs into the designs, I thought this was all already designed and planned out?!

Why should WT pay a commercial rent at BV when the original terms at Newmarket was a peppercorn rent ,its the councils idea to do up BV.

The problem is that reading the post from TRB we were not to make any returns on the use of the land.

One thing thats cropped up on both council statements that i don't think has been mentioned on here is..

Wakefield Trinity’s owners then walked away from the talks, stating they were ‘proceeding with alternative arrangements’.

Is this actually true? If so, what are those arrangements?

Another thing that doesn't seem to add up. The club were submitting a business plan for the 31st weren't they? So why would the club spend time putting a business plan together for the 31st then walk away prior to said deadline? Surely the likelihood is that the club submitted a business plan that the council/developer didn't agree with then rejected, resulting in talks being halted. Not the other way round as suggested?

And why would the club arrange to put a business plan together for the 31st October knowing the Chairman would be on holiday and not in a particularly good position to address any problems/developments?

I think you will find the trust submitted heads of terms (proposed) then the press release came from the council.

And that was over a week ago

schhhhhomzallllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!

[url=http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/userfiles/documents/resources/S106_challenges_-_DK.pdfThis[/url, on the subject of the enforceability of a s106 agreement, is interesting reading, if you can be ar5ed.