Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:34 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Don't know, I'm not a lawyer but I know a man who is. I think the SoS will be a bit brassed off if he granted planning consent on condition that the people of Wakefield received a Community Stadium and they get squat.

It's a question I've asked before and I don't think an answer has ever been given, but is there any way the 15,000 signatories of that petition can somehow exert some influence to get the SoS office on the case.

Has anyone contacted the SoS to highlight the issue or are they blissfully unaware that terms imposed by them have been bypassed by WMDC?

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:14 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Don't know, I'm not a lawyer but I know a man who is. I think the SoS will be a bit brassed off if he granted planning consent on condition that the people of Wakefield received a Community Stadium and they get squat.

Thank you for that Sandal.

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:55 pm  

Fordy wrote:

It's a question I've asked before and I don't think an answer has ever been given, but is there any way the 15,000 signatories of that petition can somehow exert some influence to get the SoS office on the case.

Has anyone contacted the SoS to highlight the issue or are they blissfully unaware that terms imposed by them have been bypassed by WMDC?

Everything is on the table. We are taking professional advice as to the options available.

The parties involved are in denial - denial that there is an obligation to us, denial that it is a Community that has been failed, denial that the position the club is in is critical. It's all getting very interesting, but there are no certainties!

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:04 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.

I hope Box isn't reading this because you are giving him some great ammunition.

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:42 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I hope Box isn't reading this because you are giving him some great ammunition.

The inbred rat needs some ammunition

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:49 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Just to put a few things straight.

If there is to be any legal action then that action will not be brought by Wakefield Trinity it would be brought by the agrieved party which is the Wakefield & District Stadium Trust , Remember this is not a private stadium, it is a Community Stadium for the people of Wakefield which was supported by 15,000 people who signed the petition of support. Wakefield Trinity will merely be a tenant and lease the stadium from the Stadium Trust as can other sporting bodies in Wakefield.

The Planning Inspector recommended to the Secretary of State that over 200 acres of land be taken out of Green Belt on strict condition that the developer provide the people of Wakefield a Community Stadium as he believed there were "special circumstances" that warranted it.

This is not about Wakefield Trinity although some like to make it that way, its about the citizens of Wakefield being promised a Community Stadium by a Developer with a small contribution from the Council and at present getting nothing. Its about fairness and bodies delivering what they promised in return for substantial financial gains which they have received.

Exactly this is a community stadium not a private stadium but the council always refer to it as the wildcats stadium when asked about progess in the press, no mention of community stadium.

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:59 pm  

M62 J30 TRINITY wrote:

The inbred rat needs some ammunition

From around neck upwards

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:06 pm  

TRB wrote:

Everything is on the table. We are taking professional advice as to the options available.

The parties involved are in denial - denial that there is an obligation to us, denial that it is a Community that has been failed, denial that the position the club is in is critical. It's all getting very interesting, but there are no certainties!

Why is professional advice required to write a letter to the SoS advising that a tinpot local council leader and a bent developer have conspired to willfully and deliberately ignore the ruling of HM Inspector?

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:38 am  

We hear of Peter Box's arrogance, a couple of questions.
Is Box sitting back twiddling his fingers because.
A. He's very very confident in the legal position he finds himself and the council in and doesn't feel threatened?
Or.
B. He thinks that we're not in a position to financially/legally confront the council or Yorkcourt?

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:51 am  

JINJER wrote:

We hear of Peter Box's arrogance, a couple of questions.
Is Box sitting back twiddling his fingers because.
A. He's very very confident in the legal position he finds himself and the council in and doesn't feel threatened?
Or.
B. He thinks that we're not in a position to financially/legally confront the council or Yorkcourt?

In my opinion it's B.