Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 12:15 pm  

milopolly wrote:

So am I correct in thinking that the go ahead for the stand alone NC monstrosity was given prior to members of SWAG becoming members of the trust?

Yes.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 12:50 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

It doesn't say it isn't excluded either! That is the point, to me is shouts it out loud, obviously to others it doesn't. It should have been questioned by those who attended the meetings and was part of the trust at that time. Sorry but its a cock up by rodders & co who were guys on watch.

You are probably right we have two choices. We go to court and lose and we get nothing. Result = club dies. We could to court and win and in all likelihood Yorkcourt walk away before the trigger point as the profit isn't there and we get nothing. Result = club dies. Does anybody really think they are going to build it whatever the result? Yes we have been used by the developer, yes we should have had more support in making this work from the council and yes there were things we should have done better ourselves. And quite obviously yes i'm negative right now because quite honestly i see no positive result possible. For me the only very faint hope is strong political pressure after the election, and that is highly unlikely whoever gets in. Or maybe a reduced deal that might save the club but it been made quite obvious that it isn't an option. So good luck in hoping Colun Mackie and co suddendly develop a consious.

Although I still think that large mob with big sticks outside the yorkcourt offices might be the last hope.

The point that Sandal Cat is trying to get over and what you and others (bigalf inc.) are missing is this. It does not essentially matter what was written down or not, the fundamental point is that as a s106 is land charge then you can't simply avoid it by banging in another application and using some words in the application documentation to get you around planning law. Simple as that!

The discussion around what was and was not written down at the time has only come about from WMDC claiming they took legal advice & that they 'told' certain people and that no objections were received. The counter point we have been making it was not at all clear (certainly to the public and layman) and as much as Bigalf is banging on about it being clear because they wrote it was legal seperate, then that is just bull, because we are still arguing about it and if that is what they wanted to convey then it should have been written large and made ultra-clear from the outset. So why wasn't it?

However, if and when it comes to having this in front if a high court judge, then what matters is did WMDC act unlawfully or ultra-varies in granting permission for Newcold outside of the UU? We believe, as does our lawyer, that they probably did and therefore it is this upon this which we expect any ruling to hinge, the discussion around how they may or may not have tried to justify or alert the general public that this was their intention, is purely just mitigation.

You can write what the hell you like trying to justify (or not) what you may (or may not) be intending to do, but if it is ultimately an unlawfully act, it changes absolutely nothing and certainly does not change the law or absolve you from being lawful in your actions.

Hopefully, this clears that up?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 3:31 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

The point that Sandal Cat is trying to get over and what you and others (bigalf inc.) are missing is this. It does not essentially matter what was written down or not, the fundamental point is that as a s106 is land charge then you can't simply avoid it by banging in another application and using some words in the application documentation to get you around planning law. Simple as that!

The discussion around what was and was not written down at the time has only come about from WMDC claiming they took legal advice & that they 'told' certain people and that no objections were received. The counter point we have been making it was not at all clear (certainly to the public and layman) and as much as Bigalf is banging on about it being clear because they wrote it was legal seperate, then that is just bull, because we are still arguing about it and if that is what they wanted to convey then it should have been written large and made ultra-clear from the outset. So why wasn't it?

However, if and when it comes to having this in front if a high court judge, then what matters is did WMDC act unlawfully or ultra-varies in granting permission for Newcold outside of the UU? We believe, as does our lawyer, that they probably did and therefore it is this upon this which we expect any ruling to hinge, the discussion around how they may or may not have tried to justify or alert the general public that this was their intention, is purely just mitigation.

You can write what the hell you like trying to justify (or not) what you may (or may not) be intending to do, but if it is ultimately an unlawfully act, it changes absolutely nothing and certainly does not change the law or absolve you from being lawful in your actions.

Hopefully, this clears that up?

Fair enough. All i will say is surely then it would be better to get on with the court action then so we know where we stand as soon as possible. Forget about protests, facebook pages and piddling about with two-faced politicians and get the process going if you think that is the only option.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 4:23 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

It doesn't say it isn't excluded either! That is the point, to me is shouts it out loud, obviously to others it doesn't. It should have been questioned by those who attended the meetings and was part of the trust at that time. Sorry but its a cock up by rodders & co who were guys on watch.

You are probably right we have two choices. We go to court and lose and we get nothing. Result = club dies. We could to court and win and in all likelihood Yorkcourt walk away before the trigger point as the profit isn't there and we get nothing. Result = club dies. Does anybody really think they are going to build it whatever the result? Yes we have been used by the developer, yes we should have had more support in making this work from the council and yes there were things we should have done better ourselves. And quite obviously yes i'm negative right now because quite honestly i see no positive result possible. For me the only very faint hope is strong political pressure after the election, and that is highly unlikely whoever gets in. Or maybe a reduced deal that might save the club but it been made quite obvious that it isn't an option. So good luck in hoping Colun Mackie and co suddendly develop a consious.

Although I still think that large mob with big sticks outside the yorkcourt offices might be the last hope.

Give over!

It doesn't say that Englebert Humperdink won't duet with buster Bloodvessel in a concert to be held on top of the Newcold building either, maybe Sir Rodney should have checked that one out as well.

The fact is it is the Councils duty to uphold the U U as part of its obligations during the planning process. As SC says, at the time, why would anyone be looking for a loophole being used.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 4:24 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Right ! Here goes!

The question that needs answering is - Why the trust board/advisors/ helpers/ swag etc who had been so "forensic" in their knowledge of the scheme and planning process up to date, did not pick up on the "stand alone" and "no way legally tied " statements in the Newcold application?? ( ignoring the councils claim that pre-application meetings had pointed this out)

They should have done and should have asked "serious questions" of the planners / council as soon as the Newcold application went in!

Surely that statement would have set alarm bells ringing with the people involved, but it appears not!! for whatever reason

I cannot believe they showed no interest in looking at the application documents in detail (not that a detailed look was needed) and if they did , I absolutely refuse to believe they missed it!!!

Maybe it's time for someone to say - "Sorry we f.....d up in the case of Newcold but we won't let it happen for future applications" and move on!!

#WheresRodney

Don't bother with any abuse I really could not care less! (and I won't bite either)

If you don't care why post such a long winded load of crap - just go and do us all a favour you utter disgrace to Rugby League.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 4:28 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Give over!

It doesn't say that Englebert Humperdink won't duet with buster Bloodvessel in a concert to be held on top of the Newcold building either, maybe Sir Rodney should have checked that one out as well.

The fact is it is the Councils duty to uphold the U U as part of its obligations during the planning process. As SC says, at the time, why would anyone be looking for a loophole being used.

Actually that can't happen, concerts aren't permitted under under the planning permission....

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 4:44 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

Actually that can't happen, concerts aren't permitted under under the planning permission....

And with that sentence you've just undone your own argument.
Why would think a concert could take place if it's against the planning law. If wmdc now announced the concert we'd all be pointing at the line about not being in any way linked to the original planning so it was obvious they were going to hold a concert. Why didn't you object?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 4:49 pm  

coco the fullback wrote:

And with that sentence you've just undone your own argument.
Why would think a concert could take place if it's against the planning law. If wmdc now announced the concert we'd all be pointing at the line about not being in any way linked to the original planning so it was obvious they were going to hold a concert. Why didn't you object?

I was being sarcastic...

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 8:22 pm  

why are we blaming everyone apart from the previous owners and board, If it wasn't for Wakefield council where would we be?! people seen to forget they have helped us in the past. Yes I am as gutted at the current situation but playing the blame game isn't going to do anything.

I for one cant see any light at the end of the tunnel............

I cant see us being able to buy the super bowl and Oasis gym(which is under offer) cause even if we where given some money this could easily take £1,000,000 to acquire and then even if we did get that how do we get the stadium back from BOI? I do genuinely think we need to ground share it would cost less than the 250k a year we are spending now.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sun May 03, 2015 8:49 pm  

wtw wrote:

I do genuinely think we need to ground share it would cost less than the 250k a year we are spending now.

Please tell us where you would like to build this shared ground. You won't get a more central site than Newmarket.