Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 12:55 pm  

"So, tax and voting public of Wakfield MDC... what do you think about how your council is behaving? I think they are shameful and I will continue to hold them to account until we have exhausted every opportunity and avenue available to us! It is that simple!"

Excellent update I.A - my reply to Box's puppet - Neil Rodgers - has been printed on the letters page of this weeks League Express !

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 1:36 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

While all the discussion around the new SoS is relevant, in some ways it does not change the overarching situation.

We currently feel that WMDC may have acted unlawfully or ultra vires in the granting of planning permission for the Newcold development, in that it was not captured by the S106 agreement. We believe that the S106 is a land charge (and that is what the law appears to clearly say) and that therefore it can not be avoided, even via a new application that needed to ultimately be made, because of the size of the building.

The council's opinion is that this is not the case, but equally they have been unable, to date, to give a clear answer as to why they think it doesn't count and back-up that judgement with sound, factual and legal reasoning... despite us asking, over and over again! You will remember that they initially said they took legal advice, we asked to see this legal advice under and FOI request and they told us they had no record of this legal advice! Neil Rodgers, the new head of planning at WMDC, who was not in position during any of the planning stages for Newmarket OR in post when the FOI request was made (this is important) has gone on the record and said that legal advice was taken from WMDC own planning lawyer (we are still not clear on exactly what that means BTW?). Now, given that Neil was not in post, then in order to categorically state that legal advice was taken (from any lawyer) then he must have seen written evidence of such, or how else would he actually know? So, we have asked again to see the legal advice that they claim to have no record of but Neil Rodgers is now categorically referring to as existing in the media/public domain and to be able to do so, he must have seen it? We are now waiting for an answer to our follow-up FOI request!

So, back to the original point. We are of course going to try and ask the new SoS to look at the case and intervene. The question, which we don't know the answer to yet is to what extent can he, or not, intervene? What legal powers does he have, again, if any at all, other than maybe frowning on WMDC and writing some letters? Ultimately we are going to, if required, try and explore and use every avenue that is open to us to get both what we are morally owed (which we all know, even WMDC, although they won't admit this either) and we feel legally owed too! So, the moral side is without question in my opinion, and this is the biggest shame on WMDC for me, irrespective of any ultimate outcome, but in order to prove that then we have to explore all these legal avenues.

As we have said, because we have been morally wronged, we will fight all the way to the high court, the ultimate destination, if we have to and if we lose there then at least we tried everything possible and everyone (include the fans and public of Wakefield) can hold there hands up and say, we lost (the law in an ass as well probably) but we tried!

A couple of final points, we are still willing to talk and are indeed talking to all parties and that will continue as long as they (not us) let that continue. We do not want to go to court and spend loads of money fighting this if we don't have to, but we will if they do not provide what we were promised and what the public of Wakefield are owed. WMDC keeping telling everyone that there is door is open, but to be honest it is not really any more. they have shut it. As you can see, they are washing their hands of the whole affair and telling you the tax and voting public, that it has absolute nothing to with them, it is not their problem, they are not party to the S106, did not even see it or have any part in negotiating it (we disagree and feel we can prove different) and that despite neither the Trust or the SoS being named parties to the S106, unlike WMDC, it is all down to us to sort with the developer!!! BTW, we are trying to sort this with YC, and they are still speaking to us, and us to them and that is the way we would like it to continue as well.

So, tax and voting public of Wakfield MDC... what do you think about how your council is behaving? I think they are shameful and I will continue to hold them to account until we have exhausted every opportunity and avenue available to us! It is that simple!

So it's all the councils fault then, nobody else has played a part in this farce? Yorkcourt must have been whiter than white, the SoS didn't screw up by not seeing the section 106 for what it was before signing off the development and at no point did the people on the trust at that time (Glover, Elston, the great Sir Rodney etc) take their eyes of the ball and miss what was happening. Yes the council have been utter arses in this but there are others to take some blame as well, it has been a shambles from start to finish. Even if Newcold counted we wouldn't be anywhere near a stadium built yet, it's the whole document terms that are the issue. The get out clauses are all over it!

So i've already resigned myself to the fact that the ground is dead. Why?

There is no support from the council to push this through.
The developer hasn't got a pot to you know what in and will walk away if 'forced' to build as the s106 is useless.
The new SoS is a guy who thinks these decisions should be made by local government not central if he can actualy do anything.
A large chunk of the fans don't actually want to move to Newmarket anyway and think it is in totally the wrong place.
There isn't any money for VERY expensive legal action. Who is going to pay for it exactly?

I hearby advise everyone to check their backside to see if there is still a hole in it. As whilst there is there's no chance of a stadium getting built! Sorry if that is defeatist because it probably is but sometimes you have to take a step back and have a look at things. And to me it looks well and truly buggered.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 2:06 pm  

Wakey Til I Die wrote:

So it's all the councils fault then, nobody else has played a part in this farce? Yorkcourt must have been whiter than white, the SoS didn't screw up by not seeing the section 106 for what it was before signing off the development and at no point did the people on the trust at that time (Glover, Elston, the great Sir Rodney etc) take their eyes of the ball and miss what was happening. Yes the council have been utter arses in this but there are others to take some blame as well, it has been a shambles from start to finish. Even if Newcold counted we wouldn't be anywhere near a stadium built yet, it's the whole document terms that are the issue. The get out clauses are all over it!

So i've already resigned myself to the fact that the ground is dead. Why?

There is no support from the council to push this through.
The developer hasn't got a pot to you know what in and will walk away if 'forced' to build as the s106 is useless.
The new SoS is a guy who thinks these decisions should be made by local government not central if he can actualy do anything.
A large chunk of the fans don't actually want to move to Newmarket anyway and think it is in totally the wrong place.
There isn't any money for VERY expensive legal action. Who is going to pay for it exactly?

I hearby advise everyone to check their backside to see if there is still a hole in it. As whilst there is there's no chance of a stadium getting built! Sorry if that is defeatist because it probably is but sometimes you have to take a step back and have a look at things. And to me it looks well and truly buggered.

Well, your glass is clearly empty mate, and that is your call, but mine and the members of the Trust remain half-full.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth, that is your opinion but it is not mine, so don't try and force it on me for speaking my truth!

To clarify - I have just said that council may have acted unlawfully or ultra-varis and I did not blame them for 'everything' at all. All is told you was facts and my opinion and nothing more. Yorkcourt will I am sure have claimed to acted in best interests of its shareholder and investors, as such, they appear to have not acted unlawfully in any way and we are still talking to them. You might have an issue with them, but our own issue is trying to find a resolution and therefore while we have publicly said what we asked for, they have rejected it and offered an alternative deal which we don't currently think is good enough or as promised. That is what we are continuing to talk about and will do so for as long as it takes.

You are right, Newcold would not have been sufficient to trigger the build, but equally it was almost 2/3rd's, why do you think the council should have chosen not to enforce the S106 and let the developer off? The next development probably would have made up that shortfall and we would have no need to be debating on this forum? Irrespective of what people did of did not know, and the claim is that it was not clear, otherwise action would have been taken, then if WMDC acted unlawfully then it still changes nothing, they either did or did not!

As for Newmarket, well we have said and continue to say that we would listen to suitable proposals to redevelop Bell Vue and still will! However, no one ever promised or committed to redeveloping Belle Vue, they did to Newmarket, so if you give up on Newmarket then you get nothing and your wishes will all come true!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 2:12 pm  

Seems to me that it is going to have to go to court to clarify the decision. Then after a couple of years due the subsequent appeals Yorkcourt, by this time already having built 59,999 sqm of warehousing, will either carry on building if successful or if not will wander off and leave us stranded up the same creek we were always on but with a massive legal bill and no way to pay it.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 2:52 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

Well, your glass is clearly empty mate, and that is your call, but mine and the members of the Trust remain half-full.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth, that is your opinion but it is not mine, so don't try and force it on me for speaking my truth!

To clarify - I have just said that council may have acted unlawfully or ultra-varis and I did not blame them for 'everything' at all. All is told you was facts and my opinion and nothing more. Yorkcourt will I am sure have claimed to acted in best interests of its shareholder and investors, as such, they appear to have not acted unlawfully in any way and we are still talking to them. You might have an issue with them, but our own issue is trying to find a resolution and therefore while we have publicly said what we asked for, they have rejected it and offered an alternative deal which we don't currently think is good enough or as promised. That is what we are continuing to talk about and will do so for as long as it takes.

You are right, Newcold would not have been sufficient to trigger the build, but equally it was almost 2/3rd's, why do you think the council should have chosen not to enforce the S106 and let the developer off? The next development probably would have made up that shortfall and we would have no need to be debating on this forum? Irrespective of what people did of did not know, and the claim is that it was not clear, otherwise action would have been taken, then if WMDC acted unlawfully then it still changes nothing, they either did or did not!

As for Newmarket, well we have said and continue to say that we would listen to suitable proposals to redevelop Bell Vue and still will! However, no one ever promised or committed to redeveloping Belle Vue, they did to Newmarket, so if you give up on Newmarket then you get nothing and your wishes will all come true!

To your credit you have been glass half full all the way through, although so far it has been a tad misguided and it hasn't actually got us anywhere yet. So i might just add a pinch of salt to it for now if that is ok with you until i see a floodlight lit up there.

And yes it does come accross as you are blaming the council for everything whether you mean it or not. You mentioned YC not acting unlawfully and hinted that is what i thought, well i never said they did? In your original post you talk about the moral side and the council being in the wrong and of course they are. But just as guilty of this, if not more so, are the developer who to an outsider looking in seem to have done all they can to circumvent the rules. They don't do that first then the council don't get the chance to stuff up. Yet they seem strangley absolved of any public criticism? Why, are we frightened they may take their bat and ball home? That i feel is going to happen with them anyway so i think it is time to tell them a few home truths as softly softly isn't working. If you are confident in what you say and you have them legally by the short n curlies then what is to lose, it might just shock them into action. All depends whether there are the funds to follow through with the legal talk. Lambasting the council is fine, they have dropped a big one. But lets not just be firing the guns at them, there are others at fault as well who seem to be getting off scot free.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 4:27 pm  

So it The Club / Trust / SWAG were to take the Council to court (however high) would the losers be liable for the costs of all parties?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 15, 2015 5:00 pm  

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

So it The Club / Trust / SWAG were to take the Council to court (however high) would the losers be liable for the costs of all parties?

They could be but it depends on the judges ruling doesn't it?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 16, 2015 8:34 am  

I fully understand anyone who has lost faith in this process, most of us have had our 'moments', but we can't afford to give up as the very future of our club; professional sport and even, in many ways, the whole identity of the City is on the line here.

Michael is doing his level best for our club. He doesn't get everything right, but he does it for the right reasons, however his patience with the whole thing is not as great as ours and he will not wait another 10 years as we are.

The RFL don't have licensing any more, but they do have minimum standards, which we fail on almost everything and are under serious pressure to show progress towards some fixes.

The council are making plenty of noises, but accept no blame and offer nothing. They were right behind us at the start (could that be because they ballsed up on Thornes?), but they supported the process financially and technically. However they refuse to accept to either be a party to the 106 or their role in enforcing it.

The developer claims to have assisted the scheme by putting in a road and infrastructure as part of the NC scheme - this is true, but why did the SoS reduce the trigger point from 100,000m2 to 60,0000m2 and why did the developer sign up to this. The SoS considered the trigger point to be fair and the developer was happy to go along with it - all we needed was someone to police it!

Yes, we missed it - we missed the fact that the scheme for NC was not to contribute towards the UU! But maybe that's because it wasn't exactly shouted from the rooftops and, as the representative of the 15,000+ signatories I don't agree that it was right not to be informed of this significant change!

We have the basis of an offer from the developer. It's a bloody long way from being a deal, and whilst we will try and continue to negotiate a deal we will also be looking at all the possible options open to us. No-one wants to go to court - it will be expensive and can be unpredictable - but if that is ultimately where we need to go, then so be it.

'Confused? You will be after this weeks episode of Newmarket'

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 16, 2015 10:15 am  

TRB, what on earth has happened to Sir Rodney ?

I know that, at the recent meeting, it was said that he was staying in the background at the moment (or something to that effect).
This guy is a genuine "big hitter" and should know his way around slow moving government bodies etc.
Also, one would expect that he has serious contacts that can get things moving.

We appear to be hoping for movement rather than expecting anything and in the ruthless world of property development, it appears that Yorkcourt,
with the "help" of a passive local council aren't willing to do anything.

Although it's far too soon to expect any help from Ed Balls replacement, is Andrea Jenkyns in any position to assist or, were the positive noises made just
pre election hot air ?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 16, 2015 11:24 am  

Article on page 17 of this weeks Wakey Express states that the club (trust ?) were due to have a meeting with Yorkcourt yesterday, and it infers that Sir Rodders was due to be there. Did it happen, and was any progress made ?