Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:34 am  

When the ground was bought it was announced they would be making plans for a redeveloped stadium. It appears to me they did those and just rolled them out at this announcement. No conspiracy here I’m afraid.

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:45 am  

Personally I think he comes across as a very honourable and successful businessman, much more than that of Yorcourt.

Wasnt there even the talk of him working with the club to revamp Belle Vue way back when he bought the ground back in 2016. Maybe these plans were drawn up back as far as then, maybe as a contingency if NM fell through.

He has been regularly tweeting and re tweeted about the club and stadium during this time. Have Yorcourt ever tweeted anything to do with the club in the past.

I am of the belief of we havent passed the deadline, and of the saying no news is good news.

Parking has been mentioned as an issue. It is, but maybe no more so than it is now. Manni has also worked with car parks in the past and am sure he is fully aware of this and am sure there will be steps in place to resolve these issues.

Dont some hotels actually have car parks underground these days?

Keep the faith and keep believing

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:50 am  

Mable_Syrup wrote:

When the ground was bought it was announced they would be making plans for a redeveloped stadium. It appears to me they did those and just rolled them out at this announcement. No conspiracy here I’m afraid.

Have you a quote from 88m?

I have a feeling, may be wrong, that that was a story started on here that somehow became fact.

Simple point - if BV is the best option why didn't the Council/Yorkcourt/the Club (who were advised by the Council not to) buy the ground and the Superbowl for less than a million pounds in total a year ago?

Mr 88m stands to make ten times that by simply re-offering the same deal that was available a year ago!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature but this one has gone way beyond theory - it just plain odd - none of it makes any sense at all.

Even if it happens it still makes no economic sense because somebody most notably YC and 88m are almost certainly going to make a killing at the ratepayers expense. Fact, this could have happened a year ago for far less money and without the need to bring in yet another developer. Also why do people think 88m are in any way more trustworthy than Yorkcourt?

As I say I hope it happens and I'm made to look a wally on this one - I'd happily live with it.

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:57 am  

Redscat wrote:

Having worked in a structural consultancy/architectural environment for 50% of my working life, the cynic in me has me puzzled as to how, after all Box's denials of involvement, the departure of RMW, the "public council meeting" etc etc, the plans and architectural impressions of the new ground appeared so quickly on announcement of the latest proposals.
I can imagine Box instructing someone in the Planning Dept in Wakefield One to find an aerial shot of a football ground in Spain, Argentina or somewhere; Photoshopping the Trinity badge onto it and superimposing it onto a an aerial photograph of Agbrigg. He could then sit back and think: "That'll keep them quite for another couple of months!!"
Seriously though, those layouts and details of the proposed development did appear rather swiftly don't you think? Mmmmm!!!!!

There were plans for a redevolped Belle Vue drawn up about 18 months ago that sounded suspiciously like what we got released all of a sudden a month or so back, those had the hospitality moving to the east stand, a new stand to replace the flats and a revamp of the terracting in the north & west stands with new roofing, toilets, bars etc added. I’d guess these were dragged out of a drawer somewhere, a few minor edits added and then some idealisation regarding retail and residential put in to make it look the works. I doubt the details were gone through with a fine tooth comb though which is what is happening now at a guess. It was said to me that these things normally take much longer but due to ‘some things already being available’ then it cut the time down required, although it was still said that 6 weeks is short and at least two months was the working brief to make sure it was right first time. I have heard nothing else since but this would still fit with that timescale. I’m not worried yet, ask me in a months time though and it might just be a different answer.

What worries me more right now is financing it. Most if the money will be borrowed, along with some from government grants. Now interest rates are due to rise next month making it more expensive straight away and as was mentioned earlier by someone there is also a budget next month. Local authorities will likely cop the cuts again and there is talk that government handouts will become harder to come by, so the grant funding could be affected. With business rates rising as well getting firms to sign up to the site won’t be easy, let alone the fact that rising inflation is likely to slow the economy. Throw in the fact that it was revealed this week that housing prices have been falling month on month now meaning building new ones isn’t as profitable for a developer then its potentially the perfect storm.

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:56 am  

I certainly remember them saying they would have plans for a revamped ground ready in 3 months, and that 3 months came and went. Comment was made on here about it. I’m suggesting they did the plans, other things occurred to blacken the waters but as this is seen as the way forward, out the plans come.

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:00 pm  

[quote="Sacred Cow"]There were plans for a redevolped Belle Vue drawn up about 18 months ago that sounded suspiciously like what we got released all of a sudden a month or so back, those had the hospitality moving to the east stand, a new stand to replace the flats and a revamp of the terracting in the north & west stands with new roofing, toilets, bars etc added. I’d guess these were dragged out of a drawer somewhere, a few minor edits added and then some idealisation regarding retail and residential put in to make it look the works. I doubt the details were gone through with a fine tooth comb though which is what is happening now at a guess.quote]
That’s what I seem to remember and how I see it

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:27 pm  

[quote="Mable_Syrup"] I think the plans were drawn up (i guess by either YC, the council or club/trust) whilst it was still under the ownership of the Bank of Ireland, they definately existed around easter last year. The sale to 88M happened about six months after that. You are correct though, they did at the time mention redeveloping the place so it is likely those plans were used to some extent along with a splash of there own take on it given the timeframe. http://sw.co.uk/property-consultancy/agency/974-wakefield-s-belle-vue-stadium-sold-to-new-owner

[quote="Mable_Syrup"] I think the plans were drawn up (i guess by either YC, the council or club/trust) whilst it was still under the ownership of the Bank of Ireland, they definately existed around easter last year. The sale to 88M happened about six months after that. You are correct though, they did at the time mention redeveloping the place so it is likely those plans were used to some extent along with a splash of there own take on it given the timeframe. http://sw.co.uk/property-consultancy/agency/974-wakefield-s-belle-vue-stadium-sold-to-new-owner

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:26 pm  

People are saying that Box has sold this pup to keep everyone quiet for a while, but why would he do that? Until that point, the stance of WMDC appeared to be that it was nothing to do with them, Yorkcourt too. They could have just carried on with that line and let MC sell up or go elsewhere. There'd been some fall-out, but there will be this time too, because they'd made public the financing plans.

Every decision involves weighing up all the options. Are people really saying that Box and WMDC made a conscious decision to embark on another doomed project, with all that follows from the doom, without any intention to carry it through? I can't see why anyone would do that, with all the work it involves.

I just don't see an advantage in going public with plans when refusal to get involved had worked just fine. If he had no intentions to see it through, he could have just maintained the stance adopted until that point.

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:27 pm  

The designs shown were obviously reworked ones from a couple of years ago, it's unlikely that an architectural design company would have used the old logo when we have a new one, but it is likely that they forgot to change the logo on some of the designs to the new logo which is why some of the designs still had the Wildcats logo on them

Re: DEADLINE : Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:12 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

People are saying that Box has sold this pup to keep everyone quiet for a while, but why would he do that? Until that point, the stance of WMDC appeared to be that it was nothing to do with them, Yorkcourt too. They could have just carried on with that line and let MC sell up or go elsewhere. There'd been some fall-out, but there will be this time too, because they'd made public the financing plans.

Every decision involves weighing up all the options. Are people really saying that Box and WMDC made a conscious decision to embark on another doomed project, with all that follows from the doom, without any intention to carry it through? I can't see why anyone would do that, with all the work it involves.

I just don't see an advantage in going public with plans when refusal to get involved had worked just fine. If he had no intentions to see it through, he could have just maintained the stance adopted until that point.

That's how I see it, Slugger

Time will tell