Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:25 pm  

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 : Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:51 pm  

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.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:53 pm  

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 : Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm  

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.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm  

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.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:08 pm  

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 : Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:21 pm  

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.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 pm  

Sandal cat yes it's time for legal action

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:28 pm  

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.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:34 pm  

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