Its not a problem, the council are funding most of our rental costs.

Quote Tigerade="Tigerade"You've changed your tune Slugger since posting this :- viewtopic.php?f=2&t=511926&tsmp=1339488266&start=910 9th post down.'" No, I haven't. I have always consistently said that I want both clubs to have stadiums. No groundshare, no merger, and both teams in the top flight. What I didn't want was you keeping your place at our expense. That post was a nudge towards the anticipated press release from RW about how once again you are almost about to fund it, and how Fully maintains a rosy view of that prospect. This thread is about the LDF removing an obstacle or whatever towards your stadium. If the diggers move onto Newmarket, I would be delighted if RW ran out of the Tesco head office holding a bag containing £12,000,000 in used notes. Two grounds and two clubs kept apart for ever and a day. No inconsistency at all. Hope this helps.

Quote Tigerade="Tigerade"You've changed your tune Slugger since posting this :- viewtopic.php?f=2&t=511926&tsmp=1339488266&start=910 9th post down.'" No, I haven't. I have always consistently said that I want both clubs to have stadiums. No groundshare, no merger, and both teams in the top flight. What I didn't want was you keeping your place at our expense. That post was a nudge towards the anticipated press release from RW about how once again you are almost about to fund it, and how Fully maintains a rosy view of that prospect. This thread is about the LDF removing an obstacle or whatever towards your stadium. If the diggers move onto Newmarket, I would be delighted if RW ran out of the Tesco head office holding a bag containing £12,000,000 in used notes. Two grounds and two clubs kept apart for ever and a day. No inconsistency at all. Hope this helps.

Generally speaking, renting any property is going to be costlier than owning, running and maintaining it. Basic economics dictate that there would have to be something left for a landlord after his running and maintenance costs, so that he can buy his new Jag and swan off to the Seychelles.

Stands to reason really...

I can't see that been correct - not in this economic climate. I know they have always looked after you and WTW always "come out of the barrel smelling of roses" but in a stadium you do not own you will be charged the going rate to pay for the stewarding costs and general running of the game day.

Cheers Slugger.

I'll be glad when things become clearer (and we are both hopefully moving in the right direction) then we might start talking about the on-field issues instead of stadium threads like this.

WMDC are cutting back left, right and centre. They will not cover the rental costs for WTW and even if they did, they'd have to do the same for Cas. It would be an unfair use of taxpayers' money.

It is my understanding from listening to the Wakey fans over the years that WTW will be responsible for paying a 'piece-meal' (?) rent to Wakey District Community Trust, who will be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the ground and ancillary facilities?

I thought it was too good to be true Fully - a stadium built for nowt and then not paying for its running - dream ticket or what ?

peppercorn?

Means nominal. Depends whether the Trust is aiming to make money over and above maintenance costs. The fact that it was always meant to be Wakefield's ground, paid for by a developer to be a sweetener for the bigger development, might mean that the rent may not be too high. If it is a council-owned ground, then in that situation, the council has an obligation to make as much cash as possible.

I suppose only the Trust and Wakey will have any idea, but I reckon we will achieve the 10K average, given that we will hit 8K at Belle Vue this year.

Yes Fully, that is correct.

The Stadium and community sports facilities will be ultimately owned and run by the Wakefield Stadium Community Trust. As a trust and therefore a not-for-profit organisation, the principal aim of the trust will be to cover the running and maintenance cost of the stadium and ancillary facilities for the benefit of their anchors tenants (proposed to be WTW & any others?) and the subsequent potentially subsidised use of the wider community. In the short term, the trust will have to look to finance any loans required for part of the build, thought to be around £2m and secured against the land WMDC have offered to both clubs. The rest of the build is covered under the section 106 (from the developer), funding streams identified and accessed, and Wakefield College. As such and unlike the City of Salford Stadium, the repayment of capital is relatively small so this should keep the short term rental income required relatively low and the longer term, only to cover maintenance and running costs. So while WTW rent will not be quite peppercorn, it is thought to around the same as they currently pay as tenants and the for the maintenance at Belle Vue.

It is unclear at this stage who will take the revenue from the conference and banqueting facilities and match day food and drink sales etc, but it is likely to be the trust. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing, as while WTW will not benefit from the income or profit, the trust will, and as a not-for-profit trust then the money will have to be put back into the facilities and ultimately mean any tenants will have to pay less rental income, along with greater subsidised cost for community use.

This model is very different from the City of Salford Stadium, where the large capital invested by both Peel and the City of Salford has to be met and repaid through rental income.

I think that while this not is quite as good as owning your own stadium outright, as Cas aim to do, I don't think it will be much more expensive for WTW to be anchor tenants based on the proposed model. James Elston has said that with an average crowd of 10,000 that WTW will be able to spend the full cap and be a self sustaining club, and even turn a profit.

RW said a similar thing!

10k will break even so any extra revenue coming in on top of that (new sponsors are bound to come in with a new stadium) equals profit

In respect of them all pushing for this condition to be inserted into the LDF, then they all did it to keep their own site options open, for obvious reason.

I a bit out of the loop now as I am working in a fairly niche sector at the moment, but I still understand that a potential and quite complicated deal involving Opus, Tesco, Nestle, Persimmon and Cas Tigers is still in the offing.

That would be fantastic news for the whole district. Imagine us battling it out for the top positions! Let's hope it comes off for both clubs.