I like this bit! The reality is that the council itself is run by a minority of 1. Sure there are elections, but in this authority Labour will always win and, to be a Labour councillor you need to be a Labour member. Then you are vetted by Mrs Box. Then when you are elected you are appointed to a position in cabinet by, erm, Mr Box! There is no room for dissention, only room for those who tow the line.

But if you want to talk statistics, what about the promise to 15,000+ people who's support allowed a developer to make a Kings ransom from a piece of GB land that remain unfulfilled because the council were either too weak, or incompetent, or worse, to make him deliver!

This is about justice and fairness - are you with us or agin us? Make your mind up!

It’s the hysteria on the forum I struggle with. You may be right about the secrecy of the council but how many times were we promised updates only for nothing to be forthcoming. Those in the know were quite happy to continue to withhold information from those they were suppose to be representing.
I ask if the chairman of the trust at the time RW was made aware of certain elements of the deal by the council could it not be argued that his failure to pass this on does not detract from the fact that the council did keep the trust up to date.
I really do hope you win but I am also aware of what could happen if it fails.

Surely you mean WE Scarlet?

I think that's what WE call a Freudian slip

You in the terms of the club and trust, they made the decisions to follow the current course. I don’t use we because it isn’t a decision I think will be successful.
I suppose if the supporters had been consulted then you could say we.

How tedious you are being SP - really tedious.

One sad, sad individual.

I would strongly refute that suggestion - in fact it would appear that in fact RW was more representing the council and the developers than he was the Trust, the Club or the People who supported this! He took the job having been requested by the council and he has remained, right up to now, acting on their behalf. He betrayed us - he betrayed me, and I cannot ever forgive him that after I, incorrectly, gave him more credit and was responsible, in part, for giving him the leash he used to strangle us! I made him aware of this upon his announcement of resignation and I am wholly in line with the club when I say that he can play no part in this process or anything that relates to the Community Stadium or the club.

He'd that information been passed beyond RW we would have acted, but we were not told. RW even at one stage, after dodging the question 3 times previously, suggested that 'as I told you earlier'. The guy has lost all of my respect! In summary, the Trust under his term was very much "him and us".

It is not me you have to convince but the court that the notification to the Trust chairman is not considered notifications to the trust. The fact he declined to pass the details to the other Trust members is I agree unforgivable but he knew and by virtue of his position could it be argued the Trust knew.
I hope that an agreement can be reached without going to court.

This is far from being the only wrong here. But I have probably already said more than I should at this time!

Sorry Scarlet. I usually defend your right to speak and question the vague and factually incorrect comments on here but you just got a straight from the horses mouth comment there and so with no facts to say otherwise I would take it and not question someone's integrity that put their own personal experience out there.
I'm speaking as a supporter not a mod. It isn't a question of AUP. Just a question of personal character.

your far better not even replying to any comments on here Phil while the fans are frustrated like me would love to know more let it come out in the courts

It is a delicate balance.

I am not questioning anyone’s integrity but if it goes to court it will be something I am sure the councils solicitor will raise. I am actually just trying to highlight the pitfalls that litigation can produce because I don’t want everyone to think the win is guaranteed or that the council will cave in by threatening such action.
What I fear the most is we go to court lose have the costs awarded against us and have no ground because we have alienated the very people we need and have left for Dewsbury.
I guess time will tell but like Brexit the clock is ticking and time is short.

I do not say this lightly, because I am concerned about SP's agenda, but I can imagine a court agreeing with SP's assessment.

I don't doubt TRB's assessment as a correctly-expressed view, and if anyone should know, he should, but if the issue is whether the Trust were informed of various things, I would imagine a court would find that communication to the Trust head, the person given the role of direct communication with the council, would be sufficient.

Of course, the council could be put to proof as to what they actually communicated and when, because if the Trust say they weren't told various things, the Council would be required to show the communication.

If, however, they can show that they discussed and communicated and negotiated at all times with the Trust head, speaking on behalf of the Trust, it becomes a problem. The council have absolved themselves of responsibility.

The analogy I can think of, and this has no direct correlation to anything happening here, but imagine if someone appoints a solicitor to act on their behalf in a civil claim, and that solicitor negotiates a settlement. If it transpires later that the solicitor had some connection with the other side, or perhaps didn't do a very good job, it becomes a disciplinary issue for the solicitor, not the other side.

Exactly what ground? we don't own one and the owner seems to me to have layed it's cards on the table with what he wants to do and Newmarket is still a million miles away from being built. It's not like the Council can or should build one, so when will the next Newmarket S106 scheme come around, 5 years, 10 years., whatever it might be it's too long to wait.

You never give any alternatives to how the Club should progress in all this, even when basically telling everyone they're doing it wrong and tbh you generally keep to a similar theme. So I'll ask, what would you do if you were running the Club atm, knowing what has gone on at Newmaket that past 6/7 years and as I say we don't own the ground. How would you move forward in all this?

To add, I don't think no one thinks a Court case will guarantee anything, but hopefully one thing it will do is air this sorry saga in the full view of the public & once and for all find out whether any wrong doing has happened during the last few years. Plus also give us a clearler picture on what actually WMDC should have been doing in all this to make the S106 agreement work for the us & the Community at large. Ateotd when you've got no ground and the dvelopment is no nearer than the day it was passed, what do we do as a Club. We've been backed into a corner and have been left with no alternative imo.

Here we go again, speculating with authority that both you and Slugger don't have.

Yes I know you both know your legal stuff but as I've said before I know my stuff in my job but without all the information I still can't do it.

TRB, IA and Sandal Cat are smart people. I've never met MC or CB but I suspect they are the same.

I don't think any of them would embark on anything like this without feeling reasonably confident of a result. One thing I do know, these are not vain people so ego plays no part - a huge advantage they hold over Box.

To put it bluntly there are things that have gone on that none on here are privy to - fact. That includes me.

I suppose I could find out for certain what they are if I wanted to but I don't - the legal stuff is not my cup of tea. However I do know they exist and I have a good idea what they are.

Thus IMHO we have a strong case, trust the Trust so to speak. Do you honestly think they can or will divulge their case on here - come on folks we are not that important.

It's serious now and all this speculation, even the 'expert' stuff is just ill informed nonesense for me. You have every right to express it but let's not make out you have any special isight please.

Finally the indulging of SP is frankly embarassing - he's laughing at us.

True. We are stuffed when WMDC release the minutes of those meetings and undermine any suggestions of abuse of office that may be floated.

Oh...wait...

I wasn't talking about the merits or not of any case, and we have to do something. I was talking specifically about the potential for information being communicated to the designated head and point of contact for the Trust as being sufficient to satisfy any requirement regarding communication. The concept of deemed service is common across all legal fields. TRB's post appeared to suggest that RW had royally sold the Trust down the river when head of the Trust, but he was still acting as head of the Trust at the time.

What was actually communicated and what was actually done, or not done, and the rights and wrongs of council dealings are a whole different thing, and the club has to fight it. Better to die fighting than die not fighting. Like you say Vasty, the people who know all the ins and outs will take advice from people who know their field, and these are smart people ready for a fight.

What will become interesting is that if the Council is going to defend any action, they might have to also throw Rodney under the bus, because I imagine their best case is "we told Rodney everything when he was head of the Trust and, on behalf of the Trust, Rodney agreed with everything we did. It's all Rodney's fault."

But it was only on that one specific issue I was commenting, the concept of deemed service, which is what SP was alluding to. I wasn't talking about whether we have a good legal case. I have no idea.

Eh? Am I missing something but where am I speculating with authority exactly. Which part exactly has got your back up.



Even reading it back I've no idea where you're coming from at all. I've never said anything about those in the Trust, so what's that about and I completely back them going the way they have just because I know they want the best for the Club, leaving aside some things that have come out in the media since about the redevlopment, such as rent and money to build etc.. I also never gave a specitic Legal opnion either, just said that no one's under the illusion of a guranteed win in the Court, which you must even agree with. Even though Trinity and the Community have been royally shafted through all this and we think we have a great cse, there's no certainties. Hopefully like I said, it will air everyones dirty laundry for the Public to see and let the Court decide exactly how much power WMDC had on the development at Newmarket and everything they did was completely above board.

Seriously I made 3 paragraphs in reply to SP, one about the fact we don't own/have a groud. The 2nd asking SP how he'd run the Cub in the current predicament and the 3rd giving my opinion of why we're going to court & back it whether we win or lose, which I've seen plenty of other people do as well and it's been talked about on here at length. I see no 'speculating with authority', anymore than what anyone else does, yourself included. I haven't handed out any Legal lessons or expert stuff LOL.

I'm not sure what you don't get from their points either.
Neither have given an opinion. They are pointing out what could happen in court. That doesn't necessarily correspond to what is right.

Trusting the club and the Trust is fine. But it's faith not fact.
If I were in MCs shoes I'd do the same but that doesn't mean he'll win. We won't know that until the facts are presented.

Saying they are intelligent so must have a good case is all well and good but unfortunately Box and SRW are pretty clever too and probably think they'll win too.

Mr Box just wants a stadium for cas and if it mean's getting rid of W T he will do. This Guy looked me in the face and told me W C was going to buy the lease of the ground off the owner of belle view ,and when they had got money back to cover the lease they would give it to the trust

Can you prove this?

Well I've just watched it and I think he comes across as a bully that's been used to saying and doing whatever he likes the rest of them look frightened to death of him ,now we know what mc and the trust are having to deal with ,how will they ever get any sense out of that man he's lmposible .

No i can not prove it. It was at a W C meeting about 8 week ago and it was before the meeting had started .He new I watched W T as I had a coat on that had their name on.