I asked this earlier but no one replied

Do we have any other funding in place or if not in place then guaranteed should the project go ahead or funding that we know 100% is accessible to us once we sign contracts to build or more speculative possible sources of funding identified that yet need applying for?

If yes to any of the above, can someone categorise the sources for me and give approximate values?

Thanks

Having contacted Mr Ed Balls regarding the stadium issue, I have now received a reply telling me how he is fully in support of the stadium project and how "everyone" needs to get back round the table and get the stadium "back on track".

I have reminded him that our council have said this is not a matter for them and I will let people know if/when he responds.

Do we know what was said in the meeting(s) between Glover & Elston and the developers?

coughbrownenvelopescough

Finally got a response to my email to Ed Balls on the eve of the election!!!
This is what he had to say:

The Wakefield Wildcats and their supporters deserve a new stadium. That is why from the outset I have supported proposals for a new community stadium.

Back in 2012 we were told this development was the only viable proposal for a new stadium. As well as being a home for the Wildcats, a new stadium would bring badly needed jobs and investment into our part of the district.

I wrote to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles to back their plan and to urge him not to put planning obstacles in its path. Sadly, plans for the new community stadium have stalled; but the need for a new stadium has not gone away. Fans, the club and local people deserve a community stadium and the whole area would benefit from the new, good jobs it would bring.

That’s why everyone needs to get round the table again to hammer out a way forward. We need a renewed effort to get the stadium back on track.

With my Labour colleagues Mary Creagh and Jon Trickett, I will continue to work with the community stadium trust, fans and the Council to secure the future of the club and the new stadium.

Here is the statement we have made to the Council and to the Wakefield Express:

“Wakefield Trinity Wildcats’ proud history is at the heart of the city’s sporting life. We have supported the community stadium process for several years, contacting Wakefield Council on several occasions. We will continue to work with the community stadium trust, fans and the Council to secure the future of the club and the new stadium. We stand ready to support the club in any way we can.”

We need a new stadium and I will always do everything I can to support the club.

Ed Balls

I got the exact same reply - a true mark of respect for my position on the Trust he claims to be working with!

Make of that what you will.

It's better then nothing, but what can you do with a hill of beans?

As a result of all the procrastinating we are having to go back to the drawing board, so no, we don't have any values committed at this time! There ain't much point until we get to a point of knowing what we might get from our major funding source!

i ALSO GOT THE SAME REPLY!The guy is a joke Andrea JenkYns time! WORDS INTO ACTION !!!!

Given that the stadium was back on the agenda and moving forward, does the Stadium Trust have a round about figure they feel is achievable, could raise or would need to raise to add to the funding from YCP?

I'm not going to get drawn into numbers on here, but the fact that we offered a significant compromise suggests the number we think will be available ultimately will be lower. Investigations are ongoing.

Anyone still thinking that Newmarket is a good idea if someone else will build it for us just take note of what is happening at the AJ Bell. Only 1900 for the last home game and 40 percent of season ticket holders { and I believe they have less than us} not even going. It will be the same story for us if Newmarket ever gets built. Rebuilding Bellevue is the only option although I don't know how we are going to manage that!

Especially now with work going on at the gym & super bowl ( don't know what type of work)

Demolition?

perhaps the players are using it!

BV is not even an option at the moment, never mind the only one!

NM would not be an AJ Bell in so many ways!

NM will be the same because success is what supporters want not a nice shiny stadium. If the club does not change the latter any new stadium will still not attract the supporters.
To give you a chance why do you think NM will be different to AJ Bell.

Of course success is important. But if I thought for one second that we would have less than 2k supporters watching our team in NM, whilst sitting in the top 4, then I wouldn't be here now, doing this.

This is a sleeping giant, almost comatose, but waiting to be awakened non-the-less.

As things stand, BV is not an option. It may yet become one, but the legal side all says we go to NM. If we give up on that, we may have no home at all.

Let's not sugar coat this - we may end up out of Wakefield altogether and face a slow, Swinton style, death. Choosing between that and a viable future at NM is a no-brainer for me!

Great words TrB yes Wakey is a sleeping giant .if we can get a stadium at nm ..that will be a start of great things to come

Well the gym is all boarded up www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?!

Well the gym is all boarded up www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?!

Quote ="wtw"Well the gym is all boarded up www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?!'" Yes, there is an established access route across the area.

Quote ="wtw"Well the gym is all boarded up www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?!'" Yes, there is an established access route across the area.

So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.

So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.

Quote ="deeHell"So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.'" As you say a strange thing for the Chief Excecutive of the Council to say. It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That seems to be a S106 Agreement to me but what is clear is that the Secretary of State is NOT a party to the Unilateral Undertaking so how is it between the Developer and the Secretary of State. The Council is not the beneficiary - well they are named in the document and it states "AND IS GIVEN TO" Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and I always thought if something is given to you then you are the beneficiary but the Coucil think differently. So we have a Unilateral Undertaking that apart from the Developer no one else is party to - very strange. They are not party to it, had nothing to do with it and the matter is between the Developer, the Club and the Stadium Trust but the Club and the Stadium Trust are NOT party to the UU so how can they enforce it.

Quote ="deeHell"So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.'" As you say a strange thing for the Chief Excecutive of the Council to say. It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That seems to be a S106 Agreement to me but what is clear is that the Secretary of State is NOT a party to the Unilateral Undertaking so how is it between the Developer and the Secretary of State. The Council is not the beneficiary - well they are named in the document and it states "AND IS GIVEN TO" Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and I always thought if something is given to you then you are the beneficiary but the Coucil think differently. So we have a Unilateral Undertaking that apart from the Developer no one else is party to - very strange. They are not party to it, had nothing to do with it and the matter is between the Developer, the Club and the Stadium Trust but the Club and the Stadium Trust are NOT party to the UU so how can they enforce it.

Quote ="deeHell"So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.'" We will go there to listen, but we know what our position is. As for the council - well they have taken legal advice - or have they???

Quote ="deeHell"So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.'" We will go there to listen, but we know what our position is. As for the council - well they have taken legal advice - or have they???

So going by the document in theory the stadium is to be handed over, in the first instance at least, to the council and NOT the trust? So could the council, again in theory, say they didn't actually want the stadium anymore and would prefer the land to be used for something else, say business use, so to benefit from the jobs and rates it would bring?

Yet obviously the caveat to all this is that the council keep saying they are not the beneficary but it states nowhere that anyone else is either. If they don't want to enforce the build what happens then? This makes absolutley no sense to me!

Makes no sense to me either.