oh come on mutts please!

its true i tell ya , now peeps grab an abacus and work out the square root of troncs wage times it by 3 then dived by the number of pork reference made on this board and you will acquire mathematical ollocks

Ok chappers tell me where I have been ted bashing?
I have been critical of his lap dog and his rose tinted collar, for never seeing any wrong!
And I don't think I have been overly critical of the club in asking for them to let the supporters or shareholders know what's going on regarding teds position at the club.
As for boycotting sainsburys!! I'm off my rocker!!!

Was broughy anything to do with the finances of the club, I think not.
I don't particularly think it's a good idea having a bust businessman running the finances of the club or being in any position of trust at this moment in time. I think that would be called best practise.
Broughys finances were done to death on here, so will teds, get over it.

Correct kinleycat, people queued up to stick the boots into Brough after his money troubles, they'll do the same with Mr. Richardson.

The one thing the statement does mention was the Sainsbury's deal. Rumoured at the time to be a £1 mill deal. Yes it was but not for Wakey.

It was Ted's land - why should he put the money into Wakey - but he did!

What - so I'm in the wrong but Ted gets off scott free!

You really couldn't make this stuff up!



Don't, even for one second, believe that because I don't say much on here that I don't criticise the club and let them know when I don't agree with something. It is possible to be critical and positive at the same time!

That was worth 80k and Sainsburys didn't pay a penny to the club for the shirt deal.

Why mention Sainsburys shirt deal in the statement if it isn't linked to the situation ? www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 77905.html

Why mention Sainsburys shirt deal in the statement if it isn't linked to the situation ? www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 77905.html

Because Sainsburies paid for a 3-year deal for the shirts - and then extended it by 2 more!

A certain postcard you recieved was priceless though!

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2010/07/ ... -wildcats/

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2010/07/ ... -wildcats/

No they didnt go bust according to companies house.

In fact the ultimate holding company of Duncan Developments is very healthy.

Lets hope the club didn't use the same solicitors to draw up the agreement to sell Belle Vue, otherwise the club may eventually be out of pocket - and the club can obviously not afford another CVA

Can somebody explain all this to me, why is a" water tight" contract for £1 million only worth £80.000 .

I would guess this is due to the price of land, which has lowered significantly for commercial land since the downturn!

Lots of "property gurus" have failed due to the downturn - most people thought the price of property will never go down and always up which has been proved to be rubbish

like the banks confidence in the market and then it crashed

Usual rumour then, now i know you are just asking but why do people who have clearly no idea start rumours and pass them around like this.

Don't suppose you want to expose this person do ya.

manages his personal business as he does the management of this club.

Is it the same Duncan Developments?

I thought I could remember Ted explaining at an AGM what would happen to the shares as a result of their demise. It was over 15 years ago so I could have got it wrong



I know J Duncan was our deputy chairman and D Scougall was his representative on the board.

Also seem to remember that some, if not all, the shares were in leu of upgrading the stand

The value of the land is probably much less than £1M but higher than £80k, to Sainsbury's it was worth the £1M when they planned to develop it into a new supermarket.

Once they changed their plans from this land to a new unit inside Trinity Walk the value of the land, in Sainsbury's estimation, would not be anywhere near the £1M mark.

They have, in their opinion, therefore settled the contract for a nominal sum of £80K and the land will remain the property of the existing owner.

As with any contract, the devil is in the detail and I assume that the solicitors acting on behalf of Sainsbury have advised them on the settlement value and will have done so in the beleif that the contract allows them to do so.

Ted and his solicitors and perhaps the solicitors representing the bank, will disagree as they feel they have a "watertight" contract for the sale of the land at an agreed fee of £1M.

In the end I think a further settlement may be forthcoming from Sainsbury but it will be no where near the original agreed price of purchase.

Where that will leave Teds finances is anyones guess.

Oh yeah wild rhumour al, clearly wide of the mark!!

I must have missed him stepping down on friday, or maybe he did and i just missed it.

Could possibly be a different company if the original went bust that long ago,as i dont believe you can have two limited companies using the same name.