Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:43 am  

A CPO is a compulsory purchase order - it allows the LA to buy land without the consent of the owner.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:05 am  

bren2k wrote:

A CPO is a compulsory purchase order - it allows the LA to buy land without the consent of the owner.

And the chance of it happening is zero! A very costly exercise for an aurthority that is already struggling due to government cuts and have not exactly been overflowing with support for the place. Not even sure it would qualify anyway and be a 'compelling case in the public interest', the recent evidence of a couple or three thousand local people using it maybe 14 times a year isn't really compelling enough for these things sadly. And the new owners would be bound to fight it tooth and nail.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:34 am  

Sacred Cow wrote:

And the chance of it happening is zero! A very costly exercise for an aurthority that is already struggling due to government cuts and have not exactly been overflowing with support for the place. Not even sure it would qualify anyway and be a 'compelling case in the public interest', the recent evidence of a couple or three thousand local people using it maybe 14 times a year isn't really compelling enough for these things sadly. And the new owners would be bound to fight it tooth and nail.

I didn't say it was likely - I was answering Wrencat's question.

And FWIW, I agree.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:48 am  

bren2k wrote:

I didn't say it was likely - I was answering Wrencat's question.

And FWIW, I agree.

Sorry, wasn't meant really as a direct reply to you, rather the situation in general. My bad.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:06 am  

Sacred Cow wrote:

And the chance of it happening is zero! A very costly exercise for an aurthority that is already struggling due to government cuts and have not exactly been overflowing with support for the place. Not even sure it would qualify anyway and be a 'compelling case in the public interest', the recent evidence of a couple or three thousand local people using it maybe 14 times a year isn't really compelling enough for these things sadly. And the new owners would be bound to fight it tooth and nail.

The couple of three thousand using it is a bit misleading, there is plenty of evidence and a solid argument that the condition of Belle Vue is the cause of the diminished crowds. The uncertainty around ownership is the key factor in Belle Vues condition and also the lack of investment to improve it.

So it becomes a vicious cycle which would be broken by a CPO making the couple or three thousand an argument for the council to step in.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:15 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Yes, it was a planning condition. There is no covenant on Belle Vue regarding playing rugby on it. The planning condition was on the housing consent but as you say that expired in February so there is no current planning consent on Belle Vue.

The Council could reinsert the planning condition on any new consent it may grant and I will object to any planning consent being granted unless the condition is included on any consent and will also seek Sport England's support as well. I dont think moving out of Wakefield weakens the position as we will want to come back to Wakefield and paly in a new/refurbished stadium. If we were to move to paly at Featherstone then I feel that would weaken our position considerably as we would be playing in Wakefield.

Also the ACV applies to any new owner and the fact that its listed is a material consideration in considering any planning application and indeed the Council could refuse consent and even utilise its CPO powers if it wished.

The Council is key to all this and you will I'm sure have your own opinions as to whether they will assist us or not.

I feel with regards the move to Dewsbury neither opinion is right or wrong and that it is down to circumstances. In these cases it will come down to whether the club/trust either enquired and was refused or were offered and turned down another ground in the area. If it has taken the choice to move outside voluntarily as opposed to accepting an offer from Fev or Cas then yes it weakens us as it was our choice to go. If there was no other options available then yes, it won't make a great deal of difference being at Dewsbury. I guess Mr Carter is the man to ask about that.

Remember the point though that we are in the eyes of the law choosing to leave a lease just one year into a five year deal, we are not being kicked out at this stage. We could stay if we wanted and there is nothing from that point of view stopping us spending our money on BV and making it safe as opposed to spending extra on players and extra staff. A court wouldn't care what our salary cap is. We may know that it isn't feasible in reality to run the club like that but the lawyers would run rings round us on that point.

As for the ACV yes it will apply to a new owner, but will only have any real weighting should they try and move it on before it is removed from the register. According to its website this company freely admits to land banking so it is doubtful that will happen in any case. As for them refusing any planning application if the club had nowhere to play then yes, they might. But once again as soon as they have taken the option to leave and the ground is empty then it would increase the chances if a successful application a thousand fold.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:29 am  

The Avenger wrote:

The couple of three thousand using it is a bit misleading, there is plenty of evidence and a solid argument that the condition of Belle Vue is the cause of the diminished crowds. The uncertainty around ownership is the key factor in Belle Vues condition and also the lack of investment to improve it.

So it becomes a vicious cycle which would be broken by a CPO making the couple or three thousand an argument for the council to step in.

Even if that is the case sadly the possible increase wouldn't be in any way close to justify a CPO. They are seldom used and tend to be things that will benefit many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people like new road or rail systems, not a little rugby club which most of the city couldn't give a flying hoot about. And with my council tax paying hat on the council shouldn't be spending anything on us or any other club in the district at this time when other services are being cut to the bone.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:43 am  

This is my take on the options available to us.
If anybody has any more, please feel free to throw them into the mix:

WMDC provide the stadium trust with enough money for Wakefield Trinity to carry out improvements to Belle Vue
- in the current economic climate, and with WMDC making cuts all over the place, this option is highly unrealistic.

Wakefield Trinity undertake improvements to Belle Vue
- given the ground is not fit for purpose, requires annual investment, depends on time from volunteers to reach a minimum viable level of service, and is failing to meet health and safety obligations (reduced capacity only serves to illustrate this), and is not actually owned by the club (now in the possession of 88m Property Group), it seems illogical that serious investment would be pumped into funding this option.

Wakefield Trinity stay at Belle Vue as tenants and renegotiate rent with its new owners 88m Property Group
- given they have already flattened SuperBowl, it would be surprising at best if 88m were happy to enter into an agreement of this kind. Their motivations can be assumed to be to develop the site and for Wakefield Trinity to leave Belle Vue altogether. Also, the ground is falling to pieces. It's well documented that the upkeep is something the club just can't afford.

WMDC gift land to the Trust on which to build a community stadium
- even if the land existed on which to build a community stadium, it seems impossible to imagine the trust has access to hefty enough routes of funding from which to develop it. In January 2009, Wakefield Council agreed to extend its offer of land assets to the value of £2m to both Wakefield District Community Trust (Wakefield Trinity Wildcats) and Castleford Tigers on the understanding that both clubs are in Super League and need to upgrade facilities to meet Rugby Football League criteria. It's unclear whether any of this money is still offered by the Council to either club, and even if all of it were still available (seems unlikely in current financial climate), it still wouldn't be enough to build a stadium. Yes, it would be enough to redevelop Belle Vue, but given that Belle Vue is not an asset of the club, it would be akin to flushing it down the toilet.

WMDC enforce the conditions set following the Public Inquiry
- given WMDC both in Council chambers and the press (print and radio) continue to accept zero responsibility for enforcing any planning conditions set following the outcome of the initial Public Inquiry into the Newmarket Lane site, it seems very unrealistic to assume that any future planning applications won't also contribute zero towards triggering the build of a community stadium on the site.

Wakefield Trinity or the Community Trust take legal action against WMDC and/or Yorkcourt
- both Yorkcourt and WMDC know that there's no money from which to do this and it seems a highly unlikely event. And even if the club or trust win, where does that leave things? Land that the developer owns but refuses to develop?

Yorkcourt build a community stadium at Newmarket Lane
- almost as improbable as WMDC enforcing planning conditions. Given the WMDC planning stance on Newmarket Lane and the previous process for approval of NewCold (passed outside the terms of the original Public Inquiry ruling as a new planning application altogether), this act in itself has seemingly removed Yorkcourt from upholding any responsibility towards delivering a community stadium on the site. They have essentially been absolved from any obligation tying them to the condition of the Newmarket site being an enabling development and the preset trigger percentage is arbitrary.

Yorkcourt provide the stadium trust with enough money for Wakefield Trinity to carry out improvements to Belle Vue
- given they seemingly have no apparent obligation (with the exception of a moral one), tying them to providing the club with anything, this option too seems highly unlikely.

A different developer offers to build and fund a community stadium on a different site in the city
- this option is pure wind in the willows (quite). A cautionary tale of misguided disbelief. A real Hail Mary. Roy of the Rovers stuff. Almost improbable.

Wakefield Trinity leave Belle Vue voluntarily and find a temporary home
- this option seems most likely. Dewsbury has already been well documented as a potential ground-share. Other possible options:
ground-share with Dewsbury
ground-share with Featherstone
ground-share with Castleford
move to Oakwell (used previously)
The concern with this is that 1 even 2 years into this move, which of the other options documented here will have shifted enough to offer anything other than an indefinite tenure at a different home? And that's not to say the temporary to permanent shift isn't necessarily at the same place. Baring in mind it's now 4 years since outline planning permission was awarded for Newmarket Lane and to get to that point took several years more, as things stand, what option are we left with that would make this move anything other than a permanent move out of the City? Even if a covenant does allow the club to move away from Belle Vue in the knowledge that it's still there should a time come to improve it, there's been no meaningful change there for years, what would prompt one now? There doesn't appear to be any viable route to funding improvements while the club is out of the City.

In summary, the club have no meaningful assets with which to work. They've no land on which to build a new stadium, and nothing to use as collateral to fund a build even if they wanted to. They're supported by a Community Trust with no access to the kind of funds from which they too alone could build a new stadium. There's a Council who continue to shy away from any responsibility or planning obligation on the Newmarket site, distance themselves from the development at any given opportunity, and a developer who have absolved all ownership of everything but the land. But all that said, even if WMDC did enforce planning obligations at Newmarket Lane and Yorkcourt did adhere to them, we're still potentially years off reaching a percentage of site build that would even enable community stadium development.

The day we lost ownership of Belle Vue was the day we lost this battle. That was our lifeblood but most importantly our leverage. Of course it wouldn't solve all our problems, but what it would give at the very least is a starting point. We haven't even got that. But from the day we lost it we've been chasing our tails ever since, and continue to do so today. Sadly, there's still only one event truly responsible for this shambolic saga. It wasn't WMDC, Box, Yorkcourt, Mackay, SWAG, Michael Carter or anybody else that caused that event. Fact of the matter is, it was Ted.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:00 am  

gowerthegroap wrote:

This is my take on the options available to us.
If anybody has any more, please feel free to throw them into the mix:

WMDC provide the stadium trust with enough money for Wakefield Trinity to carry out improvements to Belle Vue
- in the current economic climate, and with WMDC making cuts all over the place, this option is highly unrealistic.

Wakefield Trinity undertake improvements to Belle Vue
- given the ground is not fit for purpose, requires annual investment, depends on time from volunteers to reach a minimum viable level of service, and is failing to meet health and safety obligations (reduced capacity only serves to illustrate this), and is not actually owned by the club (now in the possession of 88m Property Group), it seems illogical that serious investment would be pumped into funding this option.

Wakefield Trinity stay at Belle Vue as tenants and renegotiate rent with its new owners 88m Property Group
- given they have already flattened SuperBowl, it would be surprising at best if 88m were happy to enter into an agreement of this kind. Their motivations can be assumed to be to develop the site and for Wakefield Trinity to leave Belle Vue altogether. Also, the ground is falling to pieces. It's well documented that the upkeep is something the club just can't afford.

WMDC gift land to the Trust on which to build a community stadium
- even if the land existed on which to build a community stadium, it seems impossible to imagine the trust has access to hefty enough routes of funding from which to develop it. In January 2009, Wakefield Council agreed to extend its offer of land assets to the value of £2m to both Wakefield District Community Trust (Wakefield Trinity Wildcats) and Castleford Tigers on the understanding that both clubs are in Super League and need to upgrade facilities to meet Rugby Football League criteria. It's unclear whether any of this money is still offered by the Council to either club, and even if all of it were still available (seems unlikely in current financial climate), it still wouldn't be enough to build a stadium. Yes, it would be enough to redevelop Belle Vue, but given that Belle Vue is not an asset of the club, it would be akin to flushing it down the toilet.

WMDC enforce the conditions set following the Public Inquiry
- given WMDC both in Council chambers and the press (print and radio) continue to accept zero responsibility for enforcing any planning conditions set following the outcome of the initial Public Inquiry into the Newmarket Lane site, it seems very unrealistic to assume that any future planning applications won't also contribute zero towards triggering the build of a community stadium on the site.

Wakefield Trinity or the Community Trust take legal action against WMDC and/or Yorkcourt
- both Yorkcourt and WMDC know that there's no money from which to do this and it seems a highly unlikely event. And even if the club or trust win, where does that leave things? Land that the developer owns but refuses to develop?

Yorkcourt build a community stadium at Newmarket Lane
- almost as improbable as WMDC enforcing planning conditions. Given the WMDC planning stance on Newmarket Lane and the previous process for approval of NewCold (passed outside the terms of the original Public Inquiry ruling as a new planning application altogether), this act in itself has seemingly removed Yorkcourt from upholding any responsibility towards delivering a community stadium on the site. They have essentially been absolved from any obligation tying them to the condition of the Newmarket site being an enabling development and the preset trigger percentage is arbitrary.

Yorkcourt provide the stadium trust with enough money for Wakefield Trinity to carry out improvements to Belle Vue
- given they seemingly have no apparent obligation (with the exception of a moral one), tying them to providing the club with anything, this option too seems highly unlikely.

A different developer offers to build and fund a community stadium on a different site in the city
- this option is pure wind in the willows (quite). A cautionary tale of misguided disbelief. A real Hail Mary. Roy of the Rovers stuff. Almost improbable.

Wakefield Trinity leave Belle Vue voluntarily and find a temporary home
- this option seems most likely. Dewsbury has already been well documented as a potential ground-share. Other possible options:
ground-share with Dewsbury
ground-share with Featherstone
ground-share with Castleford
move to Oakwell (used previously)
The concern with this is that 1 even 2 years into this move, which of the other options documented here will have shifted enough to offer anything other than an indefinite tenure at a different home? And that's not to say the temporary to permanent shift isn't necessarily at the same place. Baring in mind it's now 4 years since outline planning permission was awarded for Newmarket Lane and to get to that point took several years more, as things stand, what option are we left with that would make this move anything other than a permanent move out of the City? Even if a covenant does allow the club to move away from Belle Vue in the knowledge that it's still there should a time come to improve it, there's been no meaningful change there for years, what would prompt one now? There doesn't appear to be any viable route to funding improvements while the club is out of the City.

In summary, the club have no meaningful assets with which to work. They've no land on which to build a new stadium, and nothing to use as collateral to fund a build even if they wanted to. They're supported by a Community Trust with no access to the kind of funds from which they too alone could build a new stadium. There's a Council who continue to shy away from any responsibility or planning obligation on the Newmarket site, distance themselves from the development at any given opportunity, and a developer who have absolved all ownership of everything but the land. But all that said, even if WMDC did enforce planning obligations at Newmarket Lane and Yorkcourt did adhere to them, we're still potentially years off reaching a percentage of site build that would even enable community stadium development.

The day we lost ownership of Belle Vue was the day we lost this battle. That was our lifeblood but most importantly our leverage. Of course it wouldn't solve all our problems, but what it would give at the very least is a starting point. We haven't even got that. But from the day we lost it we've been chasing our tails ever since, and continue to do so today. Sadly, there's still only one event truly responsible for this shambolic saga. It wasn't WMDC, Box, Yorkcourt, Mackay, SWAG, Michael Carter or anybody else that caused that event. Fact of the matter is, it was Ted.

Excellent post and spot on. Sadly.

I think the only hope is the 88m group are secretly in cahoots with the trust, council and club and are buying the site to refurb the place and charge the money back through long term rental and the fact that a stadium development would be a nice addition to their portfolio. This though is as likely as Santa Claus turning out to be real and be living in a one up one down in Agbrigg.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:07 am  

Yep Ted really cocked up with the ground. The really annoying thing is the BOI will have made far more out of what they have been paid in rent and the sale of the ground then what they originally loaned Ted's company.

Had we retained ownership of the ground we would have saved 100's of thousands of pounds over the period we havebeen paying rent.

One final point, I still think for a club of our size and lack of wealth, the condition on gaining entry to SL of foregoing two years sky money was a blow we never really recovered from.