YCP are too clever to just walk away - hence all the time taken to get to this point. There does come a point where the talking has to stop and hard facts put down in writing - which is what we are seeking.

YCP may also not be worried about a bunch of 'tree hugging Wakefield supporters', or our equivalent, but other parties maybe. It all depends on who you are talking about when it comes to deciding what they have to lose. The council will not want this on their doorstep - we know they hate bad publicity and the press will be our weapon in this respect. YCP is a different matter.

He's been involved since day one hadn't he?
Look where we are.
That's not a criticism, just that we need some new "clout".

With the Tour de France done with hopefully he can fully concentrate on delivering a stadium for his City, Sir Rodney Walker isn't the kind of person to give in easily. He saved the Theatre now he can deliver a sporting theatre for Wakefield.

I agree but dialogue has to be tried first before commencing expensive litigation, we are not at that stage yet. I doubt the Government will be interested if our own Council is not showing a great deal of interest - yet.

As I have said before please trust us, be patient and be prepared to get behind us because "we are in this together".

Council can also keep the " can't build on Belle Vue unless alternative stadium within City is built" safeguarding B V for us

How much seeking has to be done to write a letter?

I'm not having a pop at you TRB, or the other volunteers who are doing their bit, but how many meetings will YCP duck and dive their way through before someone involved says, "enough - we'll refer it to the SoS and let them decide how to progress?"

It is more complicated than it sounds on here, but you are right in essence.

Again, from the outside looking in.

Maybe that's part of the issue, maybe it's not that complicated, take a step back from it and look from a distance, it's clear that YCP need 'shotgun wedding' tactics before they'll do the right thing.

At the risk of looking dafter than usual.

How can York Court be in a position to move away from what was promised and what we understood to be an absolute certainty that a new stadium would be built at Newmarket.
Again, at the risk of looking stupid, what was the point of the P.I. if there was even the smallest possibility of them being able to walk away from this and leaving another developer to "do very well" out of a deal, which was less than popular with local residents.
Although there are no certainties in life, apart form birth and death, the perception at the time of the PI was that the new ground was a cast iron certainty, with only the timing and size of the stadium that were open to some change.

All Wakefield supporters know and appreciate the time and effort that you have personally devoted to the cause but, is it even possible that it could end with nothing (apart from a small community facility) ?

The S106 has a loophole which allows Yorkcourt to build the enabling development under different planning applications meaning so that none of the built sheds count towards the target specified in the agreement. The cold store that's under construction right now for example won't count towards this target. I suppose the leverage is currently the plans allow for a stadium and only a stadium. This plot would make another rather large industrial unit so perhaps there's some scope with that.

Unless they just fence it off, leave it for god knows how many years, then apply for change of use once the fuss dies down. Whilst in the meantime living off the lovely profits garnered from all the separate 'one-off' builds. And the councils legal 'experts' missed this?

It depends who's holding the shotgun!

Sorry for being cryptic.

No problem.

Yes - that is a possibility. I'm no lawyer, planner or expert (unless you need some major landscaping undertaking), and we have relied on others to carry out the spirit of what we agreed. They haven't achieved that as yet, but the spirit of the agreement is still there in our minds and in the mind of the Inspector who granted permission. All of this means we either tackle the issue head on, or we negotiate to a position which we think fairly reflects what we agreed and worked towards. Both options remain on the table at this time.

Cant do that - the land is earmarked by the agreement for use as a community sports facility end of and cannot be re-assigned without another enquiry. I know we Brits like to paint the whole system as corrupt when in fact it isn't. In this case we are protected by the law and national level policies and thankfully not the local authority.

However they could do as you say IF they offer and alternative site i.e. BV and a much much smaller lump of NM. Which if NM in general is a success and it will be IMHO a few million fob off to the trust will seem a great investment.

PS: I'm no more an expert than you though I am probably a bit more in the loop but only just

Correct, I look at it this way - the trust effectively have a covenant on that part of NM for ever unless they relinquish it - and they would only do that if……..

Also it is a huge piece of land in the best part of the development, ideal for almost anything.

Notice Radio Yorkshire online.
May be interested in taking issue up on air ?

Many posters have expressed incredulity that the council have missed this loophole (which to be honest sounds like something that any competent lawyer should have found and remedied in short order). But I would like to know how the trusts own lawyers missed this - who were the lawyers for the trust anyway? In an earlier post it was stated that all parties signed the flawed agreement - I assume, of course, that the trust were one of these parties - so our own legal team has also messed up badly, not just the council. If you sign an agreement without properly scrutinising it, the results can be unpredictable and disappointing. Not looking to have a go at anyone, just pointing out that we can't just blame the council or everyone else when things go pear shaped...the Trust have also failed to spot this "loophole" in the agreement...

I'm certainly no expert in this!! Could they in theory just in effect 'write off' the stadium part and make smaller profits on the rest of the site as individual builds? Just, for want of a better phrase, leave it to rot for ever and a day? Now its a valuble bit of real estate definately but if all it does is cost them millions in building a stadium then it actually isn't worth that much to them?

It would be nice to hear the SOS view on this.

It would, I'd like to know if this loophole can be retrospectively closed so that the cold store unit currently being built is the only thing YCP can build up there. After that aid like to see the SOSs Office flex it's muscles and severely reprimand YCP for their scurrilous behaviour. Since the S106 isn't fit for purpose, I'd like the SoS to tell YCP that no other units can be built until either a deal for Belle Vue is agreed and signed with a 1st payment due prior to any further construction at Newmarket or a coterminous build of the stadium and the next unit at Newmarket. YCP are the ones who've acted outside both the legal and the the spirit of the PI so let them worry about how they get themselves out of the tish to achieve this.

The Stadium Trust is NOT party to the Section 106 Agreement. The 106 Agreement is a UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING given by 3 Parties (Yorkcourt, Yorkcourts Bank (as morgagee) and another landowner to a single party which is WAKEFIELD MDC who are the beneficiary of the Agreement.

As the Stadium Trust is not party to the agreement they would not have seen the agreement nor be expected to have it checked by Lawyers. That is the responsibility of whom the unilateral undertaking is given to and that responsibly falls squarely on the shoulders of the Council.

By the way if you wish to read the Section 106 Agreement it's on the Council's Planning Portal, that is where I read it.

What is Sir Rodney Walker's involvement in all this ?

Chair of the Stadium Trust.

Thanks for that Sandal Cat.

Appears to me Sir Rodney has been very quiet about any developments which is unusual for him.

He's quiet as you put it because he's in negotiations and has nothing to say - when or if he has I'm sure he will waste no time.