8000 capacity isn't enough if we want to stay in super league. Maybe we don't and the powers that be are more interested in ensuring Cas are O.K.

Who instigated the conditional offer, the trust or yorkcourt?

Well glad that's all clear then ..

8'000 no way 12'000 maybe

The Trust!

It was an attempt at a compromise that would fulfil minimum criteria.

Carter said on the radio last week that the rent was 120k a year so the 250k must be the total running cost.

Thought tonight's meeting was the best entertainment at Belle Vue this Season. Real Eye opener . Full credit to every body responsible

Great meeting the guys have done a excellent job. I appreciate how they couldn't say anything now. Sandal cat, Trb, armadillo. Amazing job tonight.
I don't want us bending over with special offers we need to get the deal what was or nothing. At least we offered a compromise though. What a mess Mr Box as created disgrace

To say where we are now the revised 8000 capacity 3000 main stand and I take it 5000 popular stand covered terrace is a good option. Not what we set out for but better than we have + always have option to build stands on the 2 open ends at a later date or on initial build if we get extra funding.

And have YC been helpful or are they still not playing ball? Sorry for the questions, couldn't make tonight.

So not really an offer... More a minimum demand that will keep us from going into battle.

To try and answer your points.

The rent on Belle Vue is £120,000 pa, the £250,000 is the cost of playing at Belle Vue, rates, utilities, insurance etc.

Yorkcourt did not make an offer of a smaller ground, that was made by the Stadium Trust on a "without predjudice" basis in an attempt to reach a resolution and demonstrate that the Trust has acted reasonably. It was not accepted so we are no further forward.

Not wishing to be picky but there is no covenant on the ground it is a planning condition on the consent for housing on Belle Vue. I could give a detailed explanation as to how that came about but it would bore people to death. There is a condition that states that no development on the site can take place on BV until Newmarket is available to the Club which seems good for us. However the receivers who effectively own the ground with the Bank of Ireland applied for permission to remove the condition.

The Supporters Trust and Sport Engand objected and permission was refused so the condition still stands but there is nothing to stop further applicationsbeing made. That is why the Trust made an application to have BV listed as an Asset of Community Value. I gave an update on the application this evening but the main point is that the application is being considered by the Council late tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon. In view of tonights meeting I wonder what the outcome will be. I should be informed on Monday of the outcome and that will be posted on Social Media.

Can someone clarify. Is the new stadium to be at Newmarket? Am I right in thinking that the proposal would be for a ground with stands along the sides and open at each end???

I am a long way away but now the solution seems simple... Put in place plans to take the club away from the city... Barnsley FC or Elland Rd seem sensible solutions... I am sure the facility will be commensurate when compared to our current commitment...

Or even further afield... It's clear that we are likely to suffocate or implode as a club without significant change.

Did the council actually do anything illegal by passing the Newcold application as a stand alone build? Or did they have no choice by law?

Firstly, illegal is a strong word and the words potentially unlawful are a better way of describing what might have happened, although that is only an opinion and would need to be tested in court.

So, in summary we cannot find anywhere in the publicaly available documentation for Newcold where it was said that it would not count towards the S106 agreement. The first time it is ever mentioned in any official documentation is in the agenda pack and planning officers report issued a week before the meeting! Meaning that the first time it became publicaly known is was outside the 106 is when it was too late to object and even then, we would argue that it is not made very clear in the report... I will post a link so you can make up your own mind!

Also, the council have not explained why the officer recommended the application for approval. Initial Cllr Peter Box said is was because they had taken legal advice and as it was a standalone application and not a resevered matters one under the original application, they could not enforce the 106. It did need to be a standalone application, as it was taller than 18m high, but we could not understand why it was still not caught by the 106. So we submitted a FOI request and asked the council what legal advice they asked for (the questioned they asked a lawyer being important), what the answer was and who gave (which lawyers) the advice. After much too'ing and frowing the council told us that they had in fact no record of any legal advice. They still have not explained why the officer recommended approval of the scheme outside of the S106 agreement?

So our informal legal advice would suggest that maybe (and only maybe) the council have acted unlawfully or outside their power, but equally that is still only a matter of opinion and would have to be tested in court.

Sorry, so the council appear to be saying they had no choice (despite, so far, not being able to show us any legal advice to say that and still giving no other reason for recommending approval) and we would argue (from our informal legal advice) that they did, but ultimately that would have to be tested in law and that may it may not happen.

So if I am interpreting the information provided on here correctly the council cocked up (possibly deliberately), their leader lied about it and said it was nothing to do with the council yet clearly it is and then to add insult to injury they remove the 2m land for support?

Do we know if the council are still offering the money via land option to Cas?

What I haven't seen on here is what Yorkcourt have actuallly said to justify their position if anything.

Surely the DCLG have an interest in this and could do something about it?

Sandal, this was only touched on at last night's meeting but, what exactly do Yorkcourt say about their obligation to build a stadium (in return for planning consent at NM.
I know that they had offered some airy fairy staged contributions ? but, how do they intend to build further units at Newmarket, without fulfilling the obligations of the planning
consent ?

Cheers

Were the press at the meeting?

Couldn't make last night, but I'm sure the Torys, lib dems, UKIP and all the other political parties will have a field day with the contents IA's post. I got a leaflet through the post the other day claiming WMDC is run like a private members club due to the safeness of the seat, that post kind of backs that claim up.

Seems to me from reading about the meeting on here that the council have let the club down badly. The community stadium is for the benefit of the city because the lack of such, in a city the size of Wakefield is a disgrace. We can have a new local government buildings, a Hepworth gallery and the like but a facility that would improve the whole outlook of the city is just a bad smell that won't go away.
IF the council were genuinely interested this whole Yorkcourt farce would have been monitored from the outset, by the council who should have ensured Yorkcourt delivered.
They have failed the people of Wakefield and Peter Box must shoulder the blame. He clearly does not give a damn.

So it could be seen as, Yorkcourt "we want to put the biggest units on the development on separate planning, keep it out of the 106 agreement so we don't have to build the stadium that got us the planning in the first place" Council " er er what's that bulging brown envelope, oh let's see what we can do"

There was a guy from the Wakefield Express in the front row, don't know about anyone else.

Although, with an Election just around the corner, The WE wont be printing anything that has any element of political bias.
Its a real pity that the WE aren't willing to help the City's only professional sports club, a real pity.

I cannot say what is in the mind of Yorkcourt but they do not appear to believe they have any obligation to build a stadium despite what is laid out in the Section 106 Agreement. They have already built Newcold without it contributing to the 106 with the agreement of the Council who claim to have taken legal advice on the matter but cannot produce that advice. I can only surmise that they feel they have no obligation to build anything but that is only my opinion. We however think differently.

The deal they offered was based on payments as development takes place - jam tomorrow and in any event I thought the deal was flawed and to me totally unacceptable.