Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:06 am  

MC has got this club financially sound again and overseen the assembly of our best squad in ages. Yet it appears that people still doubt his motives.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:09 am  

TRB wrote:

We are told that it wasn't sold to the highest bidder!

Why would the BOI take a lower bid?

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:26 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I think you are overstating our importance. We have given 88M an area of land to redevelop, so I doubt they will be bothered. We are ensuring that we are no longer in the WMDC area therefore they have only two clubs to be concerned about. With regards Yorkcout it would appear they have pulled the wool over the the club and trust and I doubt they fear what we can do.
I am reminded of the old saying out of sight out of mind.
If you feel we have a good strong hand please let me know what it is.

I don't feel I'm overstating our importance, every time Trinity play the name Wakefield is mentioned, I went to a wedding last year near Southend, when we got sat down talking most people reacted when you mentioned Wakefield Trinity, I think we're an important advertising tool.
Who are "we" that have given 88M the land? If I remember correctly they bought it from the BOI.
88M won't be bothered, I don't know how much our rent is per year but if we move out 88M will have a plot of land there with no income from it.
Someone else mentioned the soil, I thought it was the landfill under the terraces that were the problem, this sounds a bit odd but wasn't it arsenic that's under the stands? And would be very expensive to excavate.
Your last sentence, I think we have a poor hand so I can't help you on that one.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:19 pm  

JINJER wrote:

Why would the BOI take a lower bid?

Just speculating but if the higher bidder didn't come up with the money then the BoI would take the lower bid.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:29 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I don't feel I'm overstating our importance, every time Trinity play the name Wakefield is mentioned, I went to a wedding last year near Southend, when we got sat down talking most people reacted when you mentioned Wakefield Trinity, I think we're an important advertising tool.
Who are "we" that have given 88M the land? If I remember correctly they bought it from the BOI.
88M won't be bothered, I don't know how much our rent is per year but if we move out 88M will have a plot of land there with no income from it.
Someone else mentioned the soil, I thought it was the landfill under the terraces that were the problem, this sounds a bit odd but wasn't it arsenic that's under the stands? And would be very expensive to excavate.
Your last sentence, I think we have a poor hand so I can't help you on that one.

I don't think anyone has undertaken any surveys but my guess is that the terraces at Belle Vue will, like most things in Yorkshire, have had colliery spoil used as fill beneath. Colliery spoil/shale naturally contains heavy metals including arsenic. It's perfectly safe and will cause no problems but if you want to build housing on it it will have to be removed and the cost of disposal to licensed landfill will be very expensive.

The fill may also be ash which contains the same contaminants.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:45 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

I don't think anyone has undertaken any surveys but my guess is that the terraces at Belle Vue will, like most things in Yorkshire, have had colliery spoil used as fill beneath. Colliery spoil/shale naturally contains heavy metals including arsenic. It's perfectly safe and will cause no problems but if you want to build housing on it it will have to be removed and the cost of disposal to licensed landfill will be very expensive.

The fill may also be ash which contains the same contaminants.

Wouldn't the same expense also apply to a new ground being built on the same plot? Or is it the residential aspect?

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:11 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Wouldn't the same expense also apply to a new ground being built on the same plot? Or is it the residential aspect?

Different parameters are used to measure contamination within garden areas. Whilst it's under the terracing or hardstanding it's not a problem, notwithstanding handling the stuff, but it can be permanently buried under structures (and that also includes roads and houses). It can be buried under garden if there is sufficient clean cover placed as mitigation. It's no big thing to overcome, just makes the land less valuable.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:30 pm  

I wouldn't have thought it would be much of a problem for a retail development.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:47 pm  

Sacred Cow wrote:

I wouldn't have thought it would be much of a problem for a retail development.

It isn't really. Expensive to handle but it can be overcome. If 88m don't like the costs involved in sorting then who knows they could look to sell.

Re: Michael Carter : Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:24 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Wouldn't the same expense also apply to a new ground being built on the same plot? Or is it the residential aspect?

Khlav had answerd but yes, different threshold for residential. However if you wanted to remove the Northern terrace to build a new stand with concessions, toilets etc beneath then it would nave to be removed at considerable expense but if you just laid concrete on top of the fill you would probably be okay.