Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Mon May 11, 2015 10:03 pm  

ball-in-hand wrote:

Anyone still thinking that Newmarket is a good idea if someone else will build it for us just take note of what is happening at the AJ Bell. Only 1900 for the last home game and 40 percent of season ticket holders { and I believe they have less than us} not even going. It will be the same story for us if Newmarket ever gets built. Rebuilding Bellevue is the only option although I don't know how we are going to manage that!

BV is not even an option at the moment, never mind the only one!

NM would not be an AJ Bell in so many ways!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Mon May 11, 2015 10:16 pm  

NM will be the same because success is what supporters want not a nice shiny stadium. If the club does not change the latter any new stadium will still not attract the supporters.
To give you a chance why do you think NM will be different to AJ Bell.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue May 12, 2015 5:43 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

NM will be the same because success is what supporters want not a nice shiny stadium. If the club does not change the latter any new stadium will still not attract the supporters.
To give you a chance why do you think NM will be different to AJ Bell.

Of course success is important. But if I thought for one second that we would have less than 2k supporters watching our team in NM, whilst sitting in the top 4, then I wouldn't be here now, doing this.

This is a sleeping giant, almost comatose, but waiting to be awakened non-the-less.

As things stand, BV is not an option. It may yet become one, but the legal side all says we go to NM. If we give up on that, we may have no home at all.

Let's not sugar coat this - we may end up out of Wakefield altogether and face a slow, Swinton style, death. Choosing between that and a viable future at NM is a no-brainer for me!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue May 12, 2015 6:36 am  

Great words TrB yes Wakey is a sleeping giant .if we can get a stadium at nm ..that will be a start of great things to come

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue May 12, 2015 11:03 am  

Well the gym is all boarded up http://www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?!

Well the gym is all boarded up http://www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue May 12, 2015 3:05 pm  

wtw wrote: Well the gym is all boarded up http://www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?! Yes, there is an established access route across the area.

wtw wrote: Well the gym is all boarded up http://www.pudneyshuttleworth.co.uk/dow ... aerial.pdf If someone buys it do they have to give us access?! Yes, there is an established access route across the area.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu May 14, 2015 12:50 pm  

So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.

So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu May 14, 2015 1:07 pm  

deeHell wrote: So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now. As you say a strange thing for the Chief Excecutive of the Council to say. It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That seems to be a S106 Agreement to me but what is clear is that the Secretary of State is NOT a party to the Unilateral Undertaking so how is it between the Developer and the Secretary of State. The Council is not the beneficiary - well they are named in the document and it states "AND IS GIVEN TO" Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and I always thought if something is given to you then you are the beneficiary but the Coucil think differently. So we have a Unilateral Undertaking that apart from the Developer no one else is party to - very strange. They are not party to it, had nothing to do with it and the matter is between the Developer, the Club and the Stadium Trust but the Club and the Stadium Trust are NOT party to the UU so how can they enforce it.

deeHell wrote: So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now. As you say a strange thing for the Chief Excecutive of the Council to say. It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That seems to be a S106 Agreement to me but what is clear is that the Secretary of State is NOT a party to the Unilateral Undertaking so how is it between the Developer and the Secretary of State. The Council is not the beneficiary - well they are named in the document and it states "AND IS GIVEN TO" Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and I always thought if something is given to you then you are the beneficiary but the Coucil think differently. So we have a Unilateral Undertaking that apart from the Developer no one else is party to - very strange. They are not party to it, had nothing to do with it and the matter is between the Developer, the Club and the Stadium Trust but the Club and the Stadium Trust are NOT party to the UU so how can they enforce it.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu May 14, 2015 1:17 pm  

deeHell wrote: So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now. We will go there to listen, but we know what our position is. As for the council - well they have taken legal advice - or have they???

deeHell wrote: So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now. We will go there to listen, but we know what our position is. As for the council - well they have taken legal advice - or have they???

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu May 14, 2015 1:36 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

As you say a strange thing for the Chief Excecutive of the Council to say.

It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That seems to be a S106 Agreement to me but what is clear is that the Secretary of State is NOT a party to the Unilateral Undertaking so how is it between the Developer and the Secretary of State.

The Council is not the beneficiary - well they are named in the document and it states "AND IS GIVEN TO" Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and I always thought if something is given to you then you are the beneficiary but the Coucil think differently.

So we have a Unilateral Undertaking that apart from the Developer no one else is party to - very strange.

They are not party to it, had nothing to do with it and the matter is between the Developer, the Club and the Stadium Trust but the Club and the Stadium Trust are NOT party to the UU so how can they enforce it.

So going by the document in theory the stadium is to be handed over, in the first instance at least, to the council and NOT the trust? So could the council, again in theory, say they didn't actually want the stadium anymore and would prefer the land to be used for something else, say business use, so to benefit from the jobs and rates it would bring?

Yet obviously the caveat to all this is that the council keep saying they are not the beneficary but it states nowhere that anyone else is either. If they don't want to enforce the build what happens then? This makes absolutley no sense to me!