Delapidation is the matter here and,should we leave, are negotiable.

Interesting that Andy Wallhead mentioned the figure of £500.000, Peter Box started this has never been mentioned by himself. I strongly believe that MC, CB and the Council can get round the table and negotiate a deal. Forget the deal that Cas have, it isn’t going to happen for us. Another point to throw in the ring, what about Clark’s Brewery taking up square footage at Newmarket in 2018, how much are they having?
If the Council are going to go ahead and build the Stadium at Belle Vue, it will be a white elephant as no one would be able to afford the rent on the basis that Andy Wallhead has come up with a figure of £500k for us(allegedly) pro rata no one will be able to afford to rent it, see Emley FC paying £500k a year. So our bargaining hand is that we would offer ourselves up as the anchor tenants but at a proper rent which we would pay to the Trust. The Council will get their money back in rates from Newmarket and the proposed development around the new Stadium at Belle Vue built by 88M. To me it’s a no brainer , no High Court but a negotiated agreement.

All makes perfect sense, the one issue is the council in collusion with Yorkcourt and RW don't want the stadium built. Yorkcourt I understand why. I'll leave it up others to formulate why the other two don't.

Another point to throw in the ring, what about Clark’s Brewery taking up square footage at Newmarket in 2018, how much are they having?

What the brewery proposes does not go anywhere near to reching the trigger point unfortunately!

I am sure I will be corrected but we can all agree that currently the basis for building a stadium at Newmarket is still to be reached.
We argue that the council are letting the people of Wakefield down by not building a community facility. I am sure that the council have stated that they still intend to develop Belle Vue as a community stadium. The difference is that it will be a simpler design if we are not staying.
Please correct me if I am wrong but all the arguments we are putting forward appear to be answered with the possible exception that it was the agreement that we must be the anchor tenants in any community stadium at the peppercorn rate indicated.

Whilst, in isolation, it changes nothing, it should be remembered that the build-out trigger is not the MINIMUM that must be reached before a build must take place; it's the MAXIMUM allowed before a build has to take place.

It's a small, but important detail.

The government loan, suggested by Mr Carter, could be taken right now and the Newmarket stadium built!l

It's warehousing as well as brewery more of a storage facility, a north east company has taken them and fam over. It's definitely happening next year don't know how big the unit is but imagine fairly substantial.

Up the Trin

Is this shown in the minutes?

For clarity: I understand that it would be the Community Trust that has the lease on a peppercorn rent.
The Club's involvement is as anchor tenant to the Community Trust and, as such, the amount of rent would be determined between these two parties.
I cannot see how any other party would or should have a financial interest in the stadium.

Where are all these extra Community sports facilities that are going to be potentially built down at Belle Vue? That's where the wider Community at large was going to get access and use of at the Newmarket development. Yes the stadium was going to be anchored by Trinity, but what's in it for the rest of Wakefield. Except for Trinity fans, I can't see who else who'd use Belle Vue as a Community Stadium. As I've pointed out before, from what the Council put out a couple of weeks ago, it mentions that Trinity would have to put money into the redevelopment if we stay. So how would that all work, considering we wouldn't own it and they want us to pay a crazy rent on top. Quite a difference from what was meant to happen at Newmaket, to what we'd get and have to pay for at Belle Vue, especially when it's meant to be getting paid by Yorkcourts pockets eventually anyway.

As I said before it is still not enough to reach the trigger point

The trigger point is a maximum not a minimum ... according to the SOS findings!

Where does it say this? If true it blows Box's argument out of the water about not being able to enforce anything

It states it in the 106 as usual the devil is in the detail.

But where would we be with Newcold and the 'brewery' facility?

So that begs another question, why was Box saying at the meeting that there is no 106 just a UU...more lies?

It says 'FOLLOWING' 60,000 square metres having being built out and occupied e.g, 60,000 sq.m has to be built and occupied first. So it is a minimum.

As for the question regarding Section 106 and UU, TRB and IA will correct me but there are varying forms of S106 agreements. Yours is a Unilateral Undertaking which is entered into by those with a stake in the site (Trust, landowner, Yorkcourt and the bank). It isn't a Multi-lateral agreement like is at Five Towns Park for Cas.

Sorry for being pedantic but you have just described a multi-lateral agreement as all those have entered into it. A unilateral undertaking is a promise by one party alone to the other, which can be enforced if not carried through. Or seemingly ignored ....

I'm talking about the SOS findings... which guides the UU (which is still a 106!).. that clearly states the maximum... and suggests 'as soon as possible) ... given the seeming acceptance by the developer (smoothed beautifully by the acting chair of the trust) to move forward and act honourably.. the UU used the figure as a trigger point to assist funding streams...

We all know what happened to their honourable position after that!!!

They threw a dummy to their team mate the council ... used big Rodders as a foil and left the Trinity defence for dead ... rounding the community full back for a sweet victory!

Thank god for the video ref as the defence have claimed an obstruction... we are all staring at the screen ... waiting for the ruling!!! While Box and Hussain are screaming in the referees face... the try scorer (Yorkcourt) slink off to the substitutes bench winking at their support staff!

I actually thought I'd seen some wording to do with building to the maximum of 60k square meters when I was looking for the Peppercorn agreement.
Under the bit where it says

It also says

So there has been room left for it to be built earlier, but I suppose that's on Yorkcourts toes, which obviously was never going to happen.

Not that I am expert but this is the reply by the decision officer for the Secretary of State as shown in Annexe B of the proposed conditions as at paragraph 51.

51. No more than 60,000m2 of the B8 development shall be occupied prior to the completion of the stadium, MUGA and related infrastructure within the area shown on drawing 2009– 039/834B – Stadium Site Plan.

MUGA Multi Use Games Area.

It's a complete minefield trying to find the correct form on that portal tbh. I couldn't find the one that RWB found, which is the one I was looking for which I'd read before. Mine was from Yorkcourt themselves I believe.

The link: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... CT8QQ04200 look under associated documents. What's always struck me as strange is the director and director/secretary of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif resigned from their positions on the 25th October 2012 but signed the UU agreement on the 26th October 2012. Would this make the UU null and void?

The link: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... CT8QQ04200 look under associated documents. What's always struck me as strange is the director and director/secretary of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif resigned from their positions on the 25th October 2012 but signed the UU agreement on the 26th October 2012. Would this make the UU null and void?

There won't be any minutes! We have long since given up on the council taking minutes of meetings and now just take our own notes. There were four Trust members in the room when Wallhead stated £500k and Peter Box wasn't there, although he was supposed to be and we didn't get an advance apology, we were just told as we walked into the meeting.

Quote ="Last to be picked"The link: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... CT8QQ04200 look under associated documents. What's always struck me as strange is the director and director/secretary of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif resigned from their positions on the 25th October 2012 but signed the UU agreement on the 26th October 2012. Would this make the UU null and void?'" Finding the place where all the documents are isn't the problem mate, it's that there are 65 pages to sift through. Especially hard when the one you want is on page 40 or whatever and you have to look through them all to get there.

Quote ="Last to be picked"The link: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... CT8QQ04200 look under associated documents. What's always struck me as strange is the director and director/secretary of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif resigned from their positions on the 25th October 2012 but signed the UU agreement on the 26th October 2012. Would this make the UU null and void?'" Finding the place where all the documents are isn't the problem mate, it's that there are 65 pages to sift through. Especially hard when the one you want is on page 40 or whatever and you have to look through them all to get there.