Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:52 am  

Manuel wrote:

Steady, I hear there will be a small carp pond for visiting anglers

Are you suggesting no one should ask questions?
If I was on the wind up there would be easier, cheaper laughs to be had (admitedly I do like the banter side of RL too). I know it's hard to spot the difference with so many posters quick to do it, but it genuinely was not my intention.
When private business wants to be involved with providing local authorities or communities with anything, they should be greeted with extreme caution, cynicism and down right mistrust because experience tells you they will ride roughshod over the top to secure maximum profits for themselves. Asking questions is how you spark debate and catch these swines out, everyone agreeing and back slapping only leads to further disappointment down the line and I'd think those on the Trust have had enough of that to last them a lifetime.

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:01 pm  

Calm down, we have known each other for years but you are not clear who I am. I was joshing with you.
We met in Ireland, I was bringing a rugby tour back, you had been fishing. Still selling ISC?

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:16 pm  

I appreciate there will have been a lot of hard working in getting negotiations to this stage, however the past four years have shown Yorkcourt and the council for what they are and what they will give to any community facility/new stadium. I hope to be proved monumentally wrong on this, I really do, but if a stadium build is reliant upon their co-operation then frankly we might as well start making preparations to depart the ground as per the thinly veiled threat in the press release.

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:35 pm  

There's a lot of different ways this development can be financed/mortgaged. What's to stop retail units built into new east stand reducing costs of stadium built etc, looking forward to seeing the plans.

Up the Trin

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:37 pm  

Manuel wrote:

Calm down, we have known each other for years but you are not clear who I am. I was joshing with you.
We met in Ireland, I was bringing a rugby tour back, you had been fishing. Still selling ISC?

Sorry my anger was meant for you, just private business!
I'm intrigued but think you have me mistaken for someone else (don't fish or sell ISC)!

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:39 pm  

The problem as I see it, is that at the moment YC have not triggered the obligation to provide a community stadium and until such time as they reach the level (including the newcold element) I don't see what basis any legal action would succeed on.

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:19 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

The problem as I see it, is that at the moment YC have not triggered the obligation to provide a community stadium and until such time as they reach the level (including the newcold element) I don't see what basis any legal action would succeed on.

Agree, not sure what we'd be suing them for at this point. Unless you could argue the whole thing was gotten under a false pretense and they just used the Community Facilities side of things to build, when they actually had no intention of fulfilling the agreement. Especially considering the amount of time they've had to build on the land and one building has gone up that doesn't even count to the required squared meters. But hey I'm no Lawyer. Obviously with hindsight there should have been deadlines written into the agreement, just to stop this kind of thing that's happened, happening.

From their point of view, if they do agree to redevelop Belle Vue. The land that was going to make up the Community facilities, can now be used as and when for warehousing and maybe that's financially better for them, which you'd think it would be. They gain all that extra land, don't have to build a big sports complex, instead put a few million into Belle Vue.

To be honest it's still mind boggling they went to all that effort to acquire all that land, spending god knows on architects etc and all these years later they've only built one building. Surely that's not good business.

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:03 pm  

Shifty Cat wrote:

Agree, not sure what we'd be suing them for at this point. Unless you could argue the whole thing was gotten under a false pretense and they just used the Community Facilities side of things to build, when they actually had no intention of fulfilling the agreement. Especially considering the amount of time they've had to build on the land and one building has gone up that doesn't even count to the required squared meters. But hey I'm no Lawyer. Obviously with hindsight there should have been deadlines written into the agreement, just to stop this kind of thing that's happened, happening.

From their point of view, if they do agree to redevelop Belle Vue. The land that was going to make up the Community facilities, can now be used as and when for warehousing and maybe that's financially better for them, which you'd think it would be. They gain all that extra land, don't have to build a big sports complex, instead put a few million into Belle Vue.

To be honest it's still mind boggling they went to all that effort to acquire all that land, spending god knows on architects etc and all these years later they've only built one building. Surely that's not good business.

I think it's a fair gamble that, when the ground issue is sorted out for Trinity (plus the community facilities, maybe still at N/M) and they have fully agreed the way forward, Units will be springing up at a rate of knots.

There seems little doubt that, once the deal had been done for the land at N/M, the developers have been trying to rid themselves of their obligation to provide a stadium etc for as little as possible and they appear (at least from the outside) to want to give very, very little, despite the original plans for a new stadium and community facilities at BV.

Let's hope that things do start to move forward but, it's still sounds as though it's some way off.

Just one thought, who is covering the insurance stuff at BV which MC was unwilling to sign his name to ??

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:05 pm  

Shifty Cat wrote:

Agree, not sure what we'd be suing them for at this point. Unless you could argue the whole thing was gotten under a false pretense and they just used the Community Facilities side of things to build, when they actually had no intention of fulfilling the agreement. Especially considering the amount of time they've had to build on the land and one building has gone up that doesn't even count to the required squared meters. But hey I'm no Lawyer. Obviously with hindsight there should have been deadlines written into the agreement, just to stop this kind of thing that's happened, happening.

From their point of view, if they do agree to redevelop Belle Vue. The land that was going to make up the Community facilities, can now be used as and when for warehousing and maybe that's financially better for them, which you'd think it would be. They gain all that extra land, don't have to build a big sports complex, instead put a few million into Belle Vue.

To be honest it's still mind boggling they went to all that effort to acquire all that land, spending god knows on architects etc and all these years later they've only built one building. Surely that's not good business.

The problem is YC are small fry in the developer stakes so I would imagine newcold may have given them a profit for now and they can sit on the rest for now in the hope the requirement for the stadium at NM is no longer applicable at some stage in the future.

All through this process I have been hoping YC would sell to a bigger developer who would have the ability to deliver on the stadium as part of filling the development

Re: Ground : Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:30 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

The problem is YC are small fry in the developer stakes so I would imagine newcold may have given them a profit for now and they can sit on the rest for now in the hope the requirement for the stadium at NM is no longer applicable at some stage in the future.

All through this process I have been hoping YC would sell to a bigger developer who would have the ability to deliver on the stadium as part of filling the development

Makes you think that the Council should have vetted them better with them being a small developer, at least to make sure they could meet their proposed obligations. It would have taken them no time to see if the Company had anything like the funds, partnerships etc to see if this project was even possible in the first place.

It still makes me think, if Yorkcourt wanted to build a Newcold and one or two other warehouses, they could have found elsewhere that would have been less hassle to acquire and far cheaper. Obviously that's from my opinion from the outside looking in.