Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:07 pm  

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

When I said ‘they’ I was referring to the paper, do the council have any savings in the Icelandic bank?

If so, they (The W.E.)should be bleating about that, because that cash won’t be coming back any time soon.

I see, apologies for the crossed wires.

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:07 pm  

rubber man wrote: I think we should look beyond the motives of the WE and look at the significant positives from the content of the Cabinet report. The report is available to view on the Council website. Anyone who has anything to do with Local Authorities at the moment will know that the idea of effectively approving the ring-fencing of an allocation of £150k, recognising it may not be capable of being repaid, is a much, much bigger issue then it was a couple of years ago when this kind of figure would be allocated without too much trouble. To me this suggests a level of Council support for the project which cannot be broadcast for reasons of transparency, particularly in relation to their role as Local Planning Authority. Fair point and it does signify a degree of confidence from within the council to act as a guarantor, they are seen to be doing their bit without any financial burden on themselves as long as the scheme gets approval. Here are said documents. http://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/Published/C0 ... ocA.ps.pdf http://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/Published/C0 ... ocA.ps.pdf

rubber man wrote: I think we should look beyond the motives of the WE and look at the significant positives from the content of the Cabinet report. The report is available to view on the Council website. Anyone who has anything to do with Local Authorities at the moment will know that the idea of effectively approving the ring-fencing of an allocation of £150k, recognising it may not be capable of being repaid, is a much, much bigger issue then it was a couple of years ago when this kind of figure would be allocated without too much trouble. To me this suggests a level of Council support for the project which cannot be broadcast for reasons of transparency, particularly in relation to their role as Local Planning Authority. Fair point and it does signify a degree of confidence from within the council to act as a guarantor, they are seen to be doing their bit without any financial burden on themselves as long as the scheme gets approval. Here are said documents. http://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/Published/C0 ... ocA.ps.pdf http://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/Published/C0 ... ocA.ps.pdf

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:38 pm  

Can someone explain to me what the WE has against this development? If we weren't involved in this would they take such a negative stance? This is of massive benefit to the whole district, it provides sporting facilities that we simply don't have. Why would they be not be taking a stance that shows at the very least a neutral take on proceedings?

I completely understand that the WE can't show favouritism to either side, pro or against, I also understand that there will be people that oppose this project, but up to now I just don't see that they are doing this. Any coverage and it is very little seems to have a negative connotation and I can't understand why. Do they just have it in for WT? I don't remember this level of sinnicism at the announcement of Trinity Walk and still they seem to favour this development even after all it's documented troubles. So what is the problem? They did the same with Thornes park. Do they see this as the wildcats against the rest, and if so are they completely overlooking the point here?

Also why the hell are the WE still using that pie in the sky artist impression picture. Instead of using a sketch of god knows where why not show what it will actually look like using the actual pictures of what it will look like?!

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:32 pm  

The WE can, and do, show favouritism on many issues - usually what will make the highest number of readers happy to buy the paper again. Scaremongering at its worst, getting up there with the Daily Mail. (See the pointless campaign against the car parking firm…)

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:11 pm  

I've read this twice now and the second time I didn't get the same feeling as the the first time I read it,
we have a negative attitude to the WE which makes any comment made by them come in a negative way,
I decided to read it as a positive way in that the Council would support the Wakefield and District Community Sports Trust backing it with paying the fees if it didn't happen and I did have to stop a few times and keep reminding my self to read positive support, one word 'liable' made it sound negative but the council have said they would act as guarantor for a loan for design fees so they would be liable,
Denise Jeffery said the final decision on planning permission rested with the secretary of state and not the council, that's just a statement that is true and is out of the councils hands,

so thank you WE proving we have the support again from the WMDC

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:16 pm  

I think we need to keep reminding ouselves that this is "poop or bust"

if this scheme goes belly up so dose professional RL in the City of Wakefield... as I understand we have sold the ground so whoever is the buyer will not remain patient forever to get their mitts on the land... we will not get a superleague license...


no superleague money... no ground... end of days....


that is how vital this current scheme is to the future of Wakefield Trinity!

so the stadium plans folding cannot be considered as an option! this really is death or glory!

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:01 am  

underground wrote:

I think we need to keep reminding ouselves that this is "poop or bust"

if this scheme goes belly up so dose professional RL in the City of Wakefield... as I understand we have sold the ground so whoever is the buyer will not remain patient forever to get their mitts on the land... we will not get a superleague license...


no superleague money... no ground... end of days....


that is how vital this current scheme is to the future of Wakefield Trinity!

so the stadium plans folding cannot be considered as an option! this really is death or glory!

Getting permission to develop the current site without their being a replacement ground is not a straightforward issue.

Personally I feel the best option is not to give negative talk the oxygen of publicity, it can only serve to strengthen the voices of anybody with a gripe against it or us.

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:43 am  

Don't get the WE.
Did they publish any of the letters of support which were written in response to a plea on this site?

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:46 am  

moonriverman wrote:

Don't get the WE.
Did they publish any of the letters of support which were written in response to a plea on this site?

Don't read it myself but i'd like to bet they have no printed anything it support.

Re: WE - Council will foot bill if stadium plan folds : Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:25 am  

BIGAL1 wrote:

Don't read it myself but i'd like to bet they have no printed anything it support.

There was a 'romantic' letter about the connection between 'Wakefield' and 'Trinity' from an ex-pat last week. The previous week had my letter and one against the proposal. This week has a letter backing up the 'romantic' one - but nothing directly for or against.

We are expecting there to be letters this week following the aritcle about the under-writing, so if any of you can spare the few moments it takes to get a letter in about how this is a 'Community' facility and the benefits to health and welfare it can bring about, as well as preserving our heritage, then PLEASE, PLEASE send one in for us. I would write again, but we cannot be seen to be making this personal - for obvious reasons!

Thanks.