WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Box`s knew pet poodle

Board index Super League Wakefield Trinity Box`s knew pet poodle

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:25 pm
Posted by snowie on Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:25 pm
snowie User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 108
Rep Position: 22nd / 77,338

Quiz Score: 232

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
Posts: 18452
Sandal Cat wrote:
Because it’s a Unilateral Undertaking and not a Multi-Party Agreement. A UU is given by one party (Yorkcourt) to a beneficiary (WMDC). The Council are party to the UU but not a signatory as they did not need to sign it.

No Trust Board Members were in attendance as we felt it inappropriate but we had eyes and ears at the meeting.

I can't understand why when a public opportunity arises neither the club or the Trust is present to give as much grief as possible,
its then beggars belief the group that was there was requested by Box to stay quite through the meeting as they would get a moment with someone at the end that had been primed ready with enough info for them to fob of yet again.

Last year we even had an opportunity to publicly embarrass the council in front of the cameras, its not my position to get in he councils face but at some point the club if they want too progress have to pick up the anti.

As a support I've sat and waited patiently while the in and outs have been discussed behind closed doors trying too find the slightest bit of information that give us all hope of what should be sorted years ago is gradually fading away
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:51 pm
Posted by lad13 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:51 pm
lad13 User avatar
Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Reputation Points: 1
Rep Position: 107th / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 1720
Location: on the way to armarillo
I too was at the meeting & asked questions about the stadium. I too attended the meeting with planning officer who I thought spoke openly and honestly & answered directly anything asked of him (the exception of naming the second trust). The view given on here is incorrect & unfair on the guy. He was sat and prepared to talk & I was surprised that the trust wasn’t there to ask direct questions. Not knowing the whole sequence of events in detail then how could you question what he said?? I’ve been a fan 40 years and probably will be for 40 years but don’t slate the bloke who sat there and answered everything he could especially around new ground, bv and the occupation of newcold & kitwave.
I'm still laughing at Cas!!!
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:53 pm
Posted by snowie on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:53 pm
snowie User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 108
Rep Position: 22nd / 77,338

Quiz Score: 232

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
Posts: 18452
lad13 wrote:
I too was at the meeting & asked questions about the stadium. I too attended the meeting with planning officer who I thought spoke openly and honestly & answered directly anything asked of him (the exception of naming the second trust). The view given on here is incorrect & unfair on the guy. He was sat and prepared to talk & I was surprised that the trust wasn’t there to ask direct questions. Not knowing the whole sequence of events in detail then how could you question what he said?? I’ve been a fan 40 years and probably will be for 40 years but don’t slate the bloke who sat there and answered everything he could especially around new ground, bv and the occupation of newcold & kitwave.
you probably can't slate the bloke who sat there answering your questions but you can slate the bloke who put him there knowing full well you'd get nowhere with him, so this spokesman had now knowledge of the sequence of events in detail, does that ring alarm bells for you that the council put up a muppet in front of you
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
Posted by Prince Buster on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
Prince Buster User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 53
Rep Position: 55th / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 3757
Location: Orange street
lad13 wrote:
I too was at the meeting & asked questions about the stadium. I too attended the meeting with planning officer who I thought spoke openly and honestly & answered directly anything asked of him (the exception of naming the second trust). The view given on here is incorrect & unfair on the guy. He was sat and prepared to talk & I was surprised that the trust wasn’t there to ask direct questions. Not knowing the whole sequence of events in detail then how could you question what he said?? I’ve been a fan 40 years and probably will be for 40 years but don’t slate the bloke who sat there and answered everything he could especially around new ground, bv and the occupation of newcold & kitwave.



I think you are way off the mark here. First of all let me remind you the trust is an official legal entity registered at companies house. Also to be brief they are an extremely important component in all of this and their role is clearly defined in the inspectors report. In fact this proposed scheme will not function without the trust.


I would suggest you look at the official trust twitter feed and it will tell you how long it has been since the council even bothered to talk to them, Are you seriously suggesting the trust should have to come to a contrived briefing like the one you attended in order to find out what was going on! If the council and rogers were such honest upfront people they would be in touch with the trust at every opportunity. The fact that they are not even talking to them raises serious concerns in my opinion. However on your own admission Rogers refused to enlighten everyone to who he had REALLY been in discussions with. The fact alone tells you all you need to know. OK he may have spouted all the stuff which is mostly known our can be guessed by everyone and that may have given you a false impression as to his honesty. But don't be fooled by that.


Just one other point I am also informed he was asked another very pertinent question which he again failed to answer and looked uncomfortable about, perhaps you missed that !


Sometimes you should not be blinded by what people seem to tell you, its the things that they refuse to answer that give you the biggest clue about their true intentions.
Last edited by Prince Buster on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
Posted by Sandal Cat on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
Sandal Cat User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 8
Rep Position: 100th / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 3178
snowie wrote:
I can't understand why when a public opportunity arises neither the club or the Trust is present to give as much grief as possible,
its then beggars belief the group that was there was requested by Box to stay quite through the meeting as they would get a moment with someone at the end that had been primed ready with enough info for them to fob of yet again.

Last year we even had an opportunity to publicly embarrass the council in front of the cameras, its not my position to get in he councils face but at some point the club if they want too progress have to pick up the anti.

As a support I've sat and waited patiently while the in and outs have been discussed behind closed doors trying too find the slightest bit of information that give us all hope of what should be sorted years ago is gradually fading away


Maybe because we have asked all the questions before over the last 6 years and now is the time to give them grief in a Court of Law.

I have said on here and I will say it again, our Lawyers have been instructed and unless we get what we have repeatedly asked for and indeed been promised in Full Council Meetings then we will take this to Court. We have had enough of talking over the last 6 years, look where it has got us.
LOOKING FOR ACCOMMODATION IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA
//www.orlandovilla.org.uk
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:08 pm
Posted by Wakefield City on Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:08 pm
Wakefield City Eddie Hemmings's Wig
Eddie Hemmings's Wig

Reputation Points: 22
Rep Position: 86th / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:01 pm
Posts: 131
Prince Buster wrote:
I think you are way off the mark here. First of all let me remind you the trust is an official legal entity registered at companies house. Also to be brief they are an extremely important component in all of this and their role is clearly defined in the inspectors report. In fact this proposed scheme will not function without the trust.


I would suggest you look at the official trust twitter feed and it will tell you how long it has been since the council even bothered to talk to them, Are you seriously suggesting the trust should have to come to a contrived briefing like the one you attended in order to find out what was going on! If the council and rogers were such honest upfront people they would be in touch with the trust at every opportunity. The fact that they are not even talking to them raises serious concerns in my opinion. However on your own admission Rogers refused to enlighten everyone to who he had REALLY been in discussions with. The fact alone tells you all you need to know. OK he may have spouted all the stuff which is mostly known our can be guessed by everyone and that may have given you a false impression as to his honesty. But don't be fooled by that.


Just one other point I am also informed he was asked another very pertinent question which he again failed to answer and looked uncomfortable about, perhaps you missed that !


Sometimes you should not be blinded by what people seem to tell you, its the things that they refuse to answer that give you the biggest clue about their true intentions.


Who’s he REALLY been in talks with? What was the question he failed to answer and looked uncomfortable with?
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:21 pm
Posted by wakeytrin on Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:21 pm
wakeytrin Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 44
Rep Position: 64th / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:36 pm
Posts: 3230
Location: The sunny side of Wakey
Before the council meeting started and he was speaking to us I asked Box a question - last year at the council meeting when fans attended he said he had papers relating to Yorkcourt at Newmarket that he said he would pass on to the Trust and a week later he back tracked. I asked what had happened during that week to change this. He looked puzzled and didn't reply.
Continue to support the new stadium at Newmarket Lane.
You know it makes sense.
Wakefields roller coaster ride continues.
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 pm
Posted by cosmicat on Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 pm
cosmicat Cheeky half-back
Cheeky half-back

Reputation Points: 7
Rep Position: 101st / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:09 pm
Posts: 718
Sandal cat yes it's time for legal action
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:28 pm
Posted by wakeytrin on Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:28 pm
wakeytrin Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 44
Rep Position: 64th / 77,338

Quiz Score: 0

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:36 pm
Posts: 3230
Location: The sunny side of Wakey
Sandal Cat wrote:
Maybe because we have asked all the questions before over the last 6 years and now is the time to give them grief in a Court of Law.

I have said on here and I will say it again, our Lawyers have been instructed and unless we get what we have repeatedly asked for and indeed been promised in Full Council Meetings then we will take this to Court. We have had enough of talking over the last 6 years, look where it has got us.

Totally agree.
Continue to support the new stadium at Newmarket Lane.
You know it makes sense.
Wakefields roller coaster ride continues.
Re: Box`s knew pet poodle
Post Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:34 pm
Posted by snowie on Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:34 pm
snowie User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Reputation Points: 108
Rep Position: 22nd / 77,338

Quiz Score: 232

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
Posts: 18452
Sandal Cat wrote:
Maybe because we have asked all the questions before over the last 6 years and now is the time to give them grief in a Court of Law.

I have said on here and I will say it again, our Lawyers have been instructed and unless we get what we have repeatedly asked for and indeed been promised in Full Council Meetings then we will take this to Court. We have had enough of talking over the last 6 years, look where it has got us.
so the gloves are off :D
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adam_Harrison9, Kevs Head, musson, newgroundb4wakey, phe13, vastman, wakeytrin, Wollo-Wollo-Wollo-Wayoo and 100 guests

Quick Reply

Subject: Message:
   

Return to Wakefield Trinity


POSTSONLINEMEMBERSRECORDYOUR TEAM
4,827,4781,31277,3384,559SET
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
Sun 3rd Feb 15:00
SLXXIV
LONDON BRONCOS
v
WAKEFIELD
Sun 10th Feb 15:00
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
ST. HELENS
Thu 21st Feb 19:45
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
CATALAN DRAGONS
Fri 1st Mar 19:45
SLXXIV
LEEDS RHINOS
v
WAKEFIELD
Sun 10th Mar 15:00
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
HULL KR
Fri 15th Mar 19:45
SLXXIV
HULL FC
v
WAKEFIELD
Thu 21st Mar 19:45
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
WARRINGTON
Sun 31st Mar 15:00
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
SALFORD
Fri 5th Apr 19:45
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
HUDDERSFIELD
Fri 12th Apr 19:45
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
WIGAN WARRIORS
Thu 18th Apr 19:45
SLXXIV
CASTLEFORD
v
WAKEFIELD
Mon 22nd Apr 15:00
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
LEEDS RHINOS
Sun 28th Apr 15:00
SLXXIV
HULL FC
v
WAKEFIELD
Sun 5th May 15:00
SLXXIV
HUDDERSFIELD
v
WAKEFIELD
Sat 18th May 15:00
SLXXIV
LONDON BRONCOS
v
WAKEFIELD
Sun 9th Jun 15:00
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
LEEDS RHINOS
Sun 16th Jun 15:00
SLXXIV
SALFORD
v
WAKEFIELD
Fri 21st Jun 19:45
SLXXIV
WARRINGTON
v
WAKEFIELD
Thu 27th Jun 19:45
SLXXIV
WAKEFIELD
v
HUDDERSFIELD
ALL SCORES PROVIDED BY RLFANS.COM (SETTINGS)






33