It would be good for Ossett Town but not so good for Guiseley and there fans to travel there, and with both Wakey teams playing there Steve Dutton would certainly have his hands full.

How can you have a theory based on speculation and guesses?

That would be a brilliant comment if it were true but from what I see it isn't. The ground was not sold as far as I'm aware, it has charges on it and that's not the same thing. Who or what exactly owns BV and there ability to service the debts held against it is up for debate. The Bank of Ireland clearly has a charge against the ground but unless we/they or someone doesn't default they don't own it. As far as I can tell Ted owns it, but has so much debt secured against it he can't do anything with it. One thing I believe is that Andrew Glover knows who owns what and must feel OK about it or why else would he pay 35k for the club for absolutely nothing. Of course this like everything else on here this is pure speculation.

Personally I think BV is still in the mix but I've no idea where

His theory is a speculation or guess

Smart money? Who's that then

Yes it was sold to the tillion trust. Go on the land registry website the information is in the public domain.

Have you seen how many bars and food places are in stanley and Rothwell 5 mins drive away from Newmarket. Wonder what the RFL would say on the matter of Belle Vue being developed would this mean that Belle vue is Super league standard? Interesting the Rfl input is on stadia. They cant just kick us out and not offer any input.

Yep, and isn't that a Ted company?

There seems to be some myth here that somehow the club and thus the ground was owned by the club and thus the fans. This is not really the case. The club was owned by Ted Richardson as he owned over 70% of the shares. Thus he owned the ground and could move it about as he wished. I'm not sure on the rules but it seems clear he didn't have to inform the other shareholders otherwise he would have committed a fraud? As the only serious investor in the club Ted bought BV or at least guaranteed the loans required so as far as I can tell it was his to do as he wished with. The old club was a LTD company, there was no trust or supporters control other than a small group of minor shareholders and that's exactly how it was run and that's the problem with limited liability companies running RL clubs.

Not saying it's right but in reality that's how it is as far as I can see.

The valid question here is: What would be different from where we were with the old regime to where we would be with the new regime if they were to buy the ground? Unless the ground were to be purchased through the club there would be no difference apart from the names and faces. I generally prefer the idea of NM being owned and operated by a Trust as a separate entity to, but with links to, the club itself - and I would further suggest that a Supporters Trust member should be a condition of the Stadium Trust - in order to ensure that the supporters cannot have the rug pulled from under them by whoever so be in charge of our club!

Indeed. Fans have never really moved on from the days when RL clubs were members clubs and thus every season ticket holder (I think) had a say. Once a club becomes Ltd and has a majority shareholder then that is who it belongs to, the ground, the name , the history the whole lot. The fans are in theory at least just customers. That's why I don't get the Ted bashing, why antagonise someone who still holds some of the keys. And for those who don't believe me look at the Tony Gartland?? issue and what it did to Halifax - it can get real nasty.

The best way to run any club IMO is to have the ground and thus the heritage of the club owned separately. Either by the local Council or a trust of some sort.

Agree totally, just like Barcelona !!!!

Did not think that Ted still had hold of the keys Vasty? Thought the BOI had repossessed the ground.

In a sense, it's a shame the Trust was around a lot earlier and we could have been in charge of our own destiny, and if that meant starting at the bottom then so be it.

Have they? Not sure they can as I don't think they are the only ones with a charge on it but you could be right. However it's not a great deal of use to them at the moment. Despite what some seem to think the covenants on the ground are IMO strong enough to make it very difficult for them to realise the debt. Perhaps we will find out more at the big meeting.

Remember Ted is a property developer and I'm sure he knows the value of what he has. He also has strong connections with Yorkcourt and as far as I'm aware still has some involvement in the trust both directly and third party. Either way, keep your friends close and your enemies (not mine obviously) closer is a good motto to follow.

Sainsburys must have forgotten that,when they took him to the cleaners.

The whole point of having a charge over any asset is to enable you to take possession of the asset in the event of the borrower defaulting on their debt.

So assuming ted has not the funds to pay the BoI, BV becomes their's?
I know this has all been done to death, but nobody still seems to know exactly what the state of play is with BV.
Hopefully all will become clear in little over a week.

Does that mean that someone with enough money couldn't do a deal to buy it back!

Not as far as I can tell - the BoI will be aware of the value of the land; will know the value of cash against assett and will also be aware of the complications involved in the site. Not easy I would say - but not impossible.

The Richardsons no longer have any stake in the ground, the BOI in effect now own it. Tillion borrowed from the bank to buy it, used the land as collateral and then defaulted on the payments and thus the bank called in the charge, effectively repossessing the ground as a mortgage lender would do if you defaulted on your mortgage. The bank will sell it to recover their losses. So yes its feasable someone could buy it back and in fact could make a tidy sum on a future re-sale should it be handled correctly.

Indeed, I hear there is quite a bit of money in selling a parcel of land to a supermarket.

Where have you got this from, not what I hear. Can you provide a link to back up your statement. Not saying you're wrong but anyone can come on here and post what you have said by guessing. Who's defaulted? Why are we still at the ground? Why is it not for sale? What happened to the second charge?

You appear to be making an assumption all be it a very possible one. Now I know for certain that Ted put all his companies in an IVA so I'd guess that whichever one owned BV would be included, wouldn't you? Ted is not a bankrupt so I can't see why he's default on a potential asset would you.

I'm not convinced by what you say, sorry.

Who says he's defaulted, that's an assumption.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Sainsbury's are not the problem - try again

That's how I understood it, and that we are now renting the ground from the BoI at a pretty reasonable rate, based on last years terms.

That's partly why I'm sceptical about vasty's precious covenants; if I was the BoI for example, and I wanted WTW out of my newly acquired stadium so I could do the property developer thing, I'd just put the rent up for next season to such a level that it wasn't affordable by the tenant - that way, whilst they still move out, I'm not officially kicking them out without an alternative being available and am therefore safe from the covenant being invoked.

All of that notwithstanding, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone has done a deal with the BoI to acquire BV from them; they're in the shizzle and need cash, and that's a fact (not a Fully style one) based on my business dealings with them - I don't think therefore that they have the luxury of speculating about the future value of a land asset; I reckon that if they could shift BV and clear a debt in one deal, they would be all over it like a rash.