Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:50 am  

lampyboy wrote:

The whole truth and nothing but the truth. I doubt it will ever be made public with warts and all and if it was it would probably be contested by one side of the participants.
I used to feel anger about the situation years ago , I couldn't care less now.
The council have no intention of assisting Trinity with any aspect of a new stadium and even if a stadium could be built in Wakefield I doubt the land would be made available.
I note with interest that the Leeds council have revoked an offer to Y C C and Leeds rugby for assistance with a stadium and redevelopment plan .
From Wakefield point of view the endless months of can't comment , negotiation at a vital stage and should be able to let you know soon killed it for me.
I'm convinced the moments gone and to look to who can shoulder the blame would be a pointless and frustrating .

I agree, its ending up a farce.

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:03 am  

lampyboy wrote:

The whole truth and nothing but the truth. I doubt it will ever be made public with warts and all and if it was it would probably be contested by one side of the participants.
I used to feel anger about the situation years ago , I couldn't care less now.
The council have no intention of assisting Trinity with any aspect of a new stadium and even if a stadium could be built in Wakefield I doubt the land would be made available.
I note with interest that the Leeds council have revoked an offer to Y C C and Leeds rugby for assistance with a stadium and redevelopment plan .
From Wakefield point of view the endless months of can't comment , negotiation at a vital stage and should be able to let you know soon killed it for me.
I'm convinced the moments gone and to look to who can shoulder the blame would be a pointless and frustrating .

Sums it up for me as well.

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:13 am  

All i want to know is why was Newcold allowed to circumvent the 106?

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:34 am  

That is the £15 million question that no-one at the council is prepared to answer !!!

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:39 pm  

TRB wrote:

It has been answered above, but for clarity - there were 5 people officially on the Trust at the time, none of those was me, Ian or Jonathan. 2 of those were on the Trust due to their being involved in the club and of the other 3, only 1 appears to have known the truth. Everyone else, including James and Andrew, were led to believe that NC would take us around 60% of the way towards triggering a stadium!

That still doesn't make any sense - it's far too cryptic an answer to a very straightforward question.

If there was a meeting at which WMDC advised the Trust that Newcold wouldn't count towards the trigger for the s106, why didn't anyone from the Trust object? It's the absolute point at which this whole scam was enabled - it's why we're no closer to a new stadium after several years of ducking and diving and secret, sensitive meetings, and why MC is now trying to cobble together a makeshift deal for BV, whilst spinning the plate of a potential move to bloody Dewsbury!

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:44 pm  

Well it's only a few months until planning permission runs out. It'll be interesting to see what happens after that. Does a new application go back in minus the Sporting facilities or does the land get banked until the club gets kicked out of SL and then a new application entered? Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of what going on but one thing I do know is that progress was only achieved by the actions of SWAG, demonstrations and Petitions. With PP due to run out shortly surely that time has come? One thing for sure sat with our thumbs up us jacksies isn't going to achieve anything.

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:50 pm  

There has been an effective start on the outline planning. All detailed plans will be under a reserved matters application I would've thought.

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:27 pm  

I'm pretty sure it would come out in court, anyone fancy a week in court?
I still find it inconceivable that the Wakey express aren't asking some of the questions offered on here.

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:39 pm  

For me it's more about being associated with a council that just happens to be Wakefield who don't care about the social history or connection with our club.
It would appear that the council does not care about Trinity and will never look to support or even acknowledge it's existence.
I have lived in Wakefield 60 years and been a trinity supporter for most of that time.
I have been proud to announce my city whenever asked while working all over the uk and it's always followed with that Rugby country is it Trinity.
If our council does not recognise the advantage of having a professional playing R L club within its city boundaries then Fffffff em.
Tout the name Trinity around and see if any interest can be raised elsewhere.
All councils it would appear are looking not only to increase revenue but to also cut costs and services.
The lack of support from both Leeds and Sheffield councils for Rl seems to outline problems in our sport in general..

Re: Newcold : Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:46 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I'm pretty sure it would come out in court, anyone fancy a week in court?
I still find it inconceivable that the Wakey express aren't asking some of the questions offered on here.

The Wakey express are useless, they've no idea what news actually is. Their website is just clickbait tosh and the majority of stuff they report has been broken days before in other sources.