Re: Ground : Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:08 pm  

financialtimes wrote:

I think you've missed my point
The reason I asked the question was because I was aware that the ground is still for sale and Sanderson weatherall are still accepting offers, this was brought to my attention by someone telling me they enquirered this week, which to me indicates that this isn't a done deal and I've not read anything on here that makes me think otherwise, there may well be an offer accepted and contracts looking to be exchanges, but that's still not 100% (ok ok maybe 99.9% but not 100%) I asked a sensible question and apart from the "in the know" getting the name of the main player wrong, there is not yet 100% certainty that this is a done deal. I did say I didn't want an argument, I have stated facts, all other views are speculative, I'm not sure why I should be on the end of your angst, but it's Friday and a long weekend so I'll say no more on this until the contracts are exchanged between the interested parties

Enjoy the weekend mate, I've read this thread through and as usual you seem to be "the voice of reason"

Re: Ground : Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:47 pm  

financialtimes wrote:

I think you've missed my point
The reason I asked the question was because I was aware that the ground is still for sale and Sanderson weatherall are still accepting offers, this was brought to my attention by someone telling me they enquirered this week, which to me indicates that this isn't a done deal and I've not read anything on here that makes me think otherwise, there may well be an offer accepted and contracts looking to be exchanges, but that's still not 100% (ok ok maybe 99.9% but not 100%) I asked a sensible question and apart from the "in the know" getting the name of the main player wrong, there is not yet 100% certainty that this is a done deal. I did say I didn't want an argument, I have stated facts, all other views are speculative, I'm not sure why I should be on the end of your angst, but it's Friday and a long weekend so I'll say no more on this until the contracts are exchanged between the interested parties

Whilst remote possibilities exist, the fact remains that contracts HAVE been exchanged. Don't tell the new owner he doesn't own it! If someone 'steals' it from him now, he will most likely sue!

Re: Ground : Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:21 pm  

financialtimes wrote:

I think you've missed my point
The reason I asked the question was because I was aware that the ground is still for sale and Sanderson weatherall are still accepting offers, this was brought to my attention by someone telling me they enquirered this week, which to me indicates that this isn't a done deal and I've not read anything on here that makes me think otherwise, there may well be an offer accepted and contracts looking to be exchanges, but that's still not 100% (ok ok maybe 99.9% but not 100%) I asked a sensible question and apart from the "in the know" getting the name of the main player wrong, there is not yet 100% certainty that this is a done deal. I did say I didn't want an argument, I have stated facts, all other views are speculative, I'm not sure why I should be on the end of your angst, but it's Friday and a long weekend so I'll say no more on this until the contracts are exchanged between the interested parties

Who's professing to be "in the know" and I'm not the one being pedantic about whether it's 100% or 99.9% and m88 or 88m

Wind your neck in

Re: Ground : Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:46 am  

Can any more units be built on Newmarket?

Re: Ground : Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:03 am  

Yes

Re: Ground : Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:19 pm  

Dreadnaught wrote:

The issue with taking the council to court is 1.) its expensive and I doubt WTWRLFC have the funds to do it, and 2.) if we do do it, the cost of fighting the case will also be expensive for WMDC and will need to divert funds from elsewhere to fund the fight, once the other 98% of the WMDC population who don't give a flying rats backside about Wakefield Trinity see that their services are being cut to fund a fight over a stadia for a sports team, any public sympathy is likely to disappear petty quickly.

How much did the hearing re the Secretary of State 5 years ago cost the Wakefield council tax payers, I wonder.

Re: Ground : Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:45 pm  

Would it not be beyond the realms of possibility for MC to put OFFICIAL weekly update bulletins ( for those who wish to know sooner rather than later) re the ground situation discussions on the WTW web site?

Re: Ground : Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:31 pm  

M88 might be positive for us & the community stadium trust with guidance from our WMDC so a bloke in the pub just said.

Re: Ground : Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:33 am  

What I don't understand is how there could have been any discussions around revamping belle vue as an alternative to delivering the community stadium at Newmarket, especially as a revamped belle vue would be nowhere near the spec of what was supposed to be provided at Newmarket.

Surely the council trust and York court can't decide to agree to a dumbed down alternative and circumvent the sos ruling?

Re: Ground : Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:42 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

What I don't understand is how there could have been any discussions around revamping belle vue as an alternative to delivering the community stadium at Newmarket, especially as a revamped belle vue would be nowhere near the spec of what was supposed to be provided at Newmarket.

Surely the council trust and York court can't decide to agree to a dumbed down alternative and circumvent the sos ruling?

I can assure you that the Stadium Trust are not looking to circumvent the Secretary of States ruling, infact the very opposite.