Ha Ha love it. Apparently Vinnie hasn't been on the nutjob for ages. Rumour has it that he's too busy running Wakefield council Mashy mate.

It just goes to show how complicated it all is, as some one else has said its usually the lawyers that get rich from these type of cases.

More like the far right winger got himself banned and re-invented his-sen in watered down version.

*devils advocate mode*
It says in no way is it legally tied to the existing development. Which bit of that made anybody think, oh ok that doesn't effect us then?

Because straight away it says to me that is nothing to do at all with the original permission. And at all would include the 106.

And because someone posted it on a forum for another RL club we are all supposed to be aware?

We were told that the application would take us to two thirds of the way towards the trigger point of the 106 agreement. I only wish I'd been party to the Trust at that time, but as it is the Trust would have been Sir Rodney, David Hinchliffe, Andrew Glover and James Elston. I have asked 3 of them about this and not one of them has said that they were aware that it did not contribute.

This is all fundamental to the councils position, but they will not provide any of the details they suggest support their position! Strange!

Not sure what point you are making. Just because someone writes that it is not tied to the existing development makes it right or even lawful to disaggregate it from the site.

I believe, and have dealt with many S106 Agreements, that once the consent was granted by the SoS on condition that a Unilateral Undertaking be entered into then no development on the site can be excluded from that undertaking.

We'll have to see what the Lawyers think.

So no then, the trust did not request legal advice. I am not singling anyone out but you can't be surprised that questions are now being asked with the number of months all we heard was things are going on but we cannot tell you.
I did not notice any requests for advice from other supporters from anyone involved so you can't blame me for asking questions because all I am receiving is the clubs side.
With regards an injustice once again the majority of supporters were kept in the dark so did not have the benefit of the information you had to judge the position.

It was written on the planning portal on the 8th july 2013, so not just on a forum. Whether you were aware or not you can't say that wasn't there to question as has been alluded to because quite obviously it was. Whether the others understood the ramifications or not i don't know but that won't really matter come court time, it will be based on technicalities. At that point it probably will be who has the best lawyer.

The point is despite the rhetoric that i keep reading that the trust haven't seen anywhere where it says it doesn't count. It is there in black and white from the beginning. Whether actually legal or not is not the point it was surely worth questioning and if in doubt get clarification at the time. But it was missed, end of. What is coming out is that there are an awful lot of holes in our attack moving forward that a good lawyer will tear to shreads and by no means is it a foregone conclusion that we would win a court case. It seems you haveade up your mind so as you say we will have to see what the lawyers say. I hope you have deep pockets.

Right ! Here goes!

The question that needs answering is - Why the trust board/advisors/ helpers/ swag etc who had been so "forensic" in their knowledge of the scheme and planning process up to date, did not pick up on the "stand alone" and "no way legally tied " statements in the Newcold application?? ( ignoring the councils claim that pre-application meetings had pointed this out)

They should have done and should have asked "serious questions" of the planners / council as soon as the Newcold application went in!

Surely that statement would have set alarm bells ringing with the people involved, but it appears not!! for whatever reason

I cannot believe they showed no interest in looking at the application documents in detail (not that a detailed look was needed) and if they did , I absolutely refuse to believe they missed it!!!

Maybe it's time for someone to say - "Sorry we f.....d up in the case of Newcold but we won't let it happen for future applications" and move on!!

#WheresRodney

Don't bother with any abuse I really could not care less! (and I won't bite either)

But it does not say its excuded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking. Was it missed, why should anyone have been looking for it, we thought the Council was going to enforce the S106 Agreement, as is their duty, and deliver a Community Stadium for the people of Wakefield, not wash their hand of the whole affair. The fact is that the Council said they excluded after taking legal advice that when asked to see a copy they state that they do not hold it. Maybe a good Lawyer will tear that to shreads.

You are right no legal case is a foregone conclusion but we have 2 alternatives after negotiation and compromise failed. We either give in and accept that we are going to get nothing or we fight and I can assure you that the Stadium Trust, Supporters Trust and the Club are not going to give in. You can back us or not, that's up to you.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. Had the Stadium Trust known that the Council were going to exclude it from the Unilateral Undertaking and were going to deny being party to the S106 Agreement when clearly they are the benificiary and claim that the delivery of a Community Stadium is nothing to do with them but between the Club, The Stadium Trust and the Developer when clearly as they are definetely NOT party to the Agreement so cannot enforce it then maybe they would have objected.

Future applications are now irrelevant as they all will be stand alone so as not to be caught by the S106 and the Council can take legal advice again and may be able to produce it.

Just a thought, I wonder if the Council f.....d up in excluding Newcold from the obligations of the UU because my experience of 106 agreements is that they relate to the site that has received the consent. Stand alone applications don't get around that and even if the site is carved up or sold on the S106 goes with the land. Just a thought.

It doesn't say it isn't excluded either! That is the point, to me is shouts it out loud, obviously to others it doesn't. It should have been questioned by those who attended the meetings and was part of the trust at that time. Sorry but its a cock up by rodders & co who were guys on watch.

You are probably right we have two choices. We go to court and lose and we get nothing. Result = club dies. We could to court and win and in all likelihood Yorkcourt walk away before the trigger point as the profit isn't there and we get nothing. Result = club dies. Does anybody really think they are going to build it whatever the result? Yes we have been used by the developer, yes we should have had more support in making this work from the council and yes there were things we should have done better ourselves. And quite obviously yes i'm negative right now because quite honestly i see no positive result possible. For me the only very faint hope is strong political pressure after the election, and that is highly unlikely whoever gets in. Or maybe a reduced deal that might save the club but it been made quite obvious that it isn't an option. So good luck in hoping Colun Mackie and co suddendly develop a consious.

Although I still think that large mob with big sticks outside the yorkcourt offices might be the last hope.

Choose what the outcome of any legal battle and that's looking like the option be it loose and get nothing or win and Yorkcourt walk away for a few years looking at the club folding before continuing with any more building the one option for me is AT LEAST GO DOWN FIGHTING and don't be a white flag man.

I'll be stood right net to you Sandal, definitely up for the fight and whatever it takes.

Nobody should be bullied out of something that they deserve and especially by tin pot politicians who are working to their own agenda, instead of serving the public.

As you have shown little regard or respect for the position we were in, why would I grant you a reply?

As it was, we have taken legal advice informally, but without money we cannot take it any further forward. That will alter shortly I suspect.

We were TOLD by all parties that the NC would count, but at that time we were not part of the Trust, so we're not involved in the negotiations. In the time since then we have tried to negotiate a position which avoided a very public and very expensive legal battle and have been digging around for all the information you now have laid at your door on a plate!

Every individual can decide for themselves, you can either get behind us fighting for the future of the City of Wakefield, or you can not. I do not lose sleep because of the lack of effort in trying, but I do in regards to how we make this work! I also get frustrated when people come out and tell us what we could and should have done, having done nothing. The group of people involved in this I did not know before all this, yet we are now good friends, and this came about because we were the ones who took the time out to get involved - no more, no less! The same opportunity was there for all, including you, so if you want to help, please try and first consider that there may be reasons why we have done what we have that you may not be fully aware of! I don't profess to getting this right all the time, but I have done what I have done for the right reasons!

Apologies. Rant over.

I for one have not taken as much interest as I should have , mainly because I never thought Newmarket was the right location. I have left it to more informed supporters to provide feed back and keep the information flowing. I have no doubt that the people who grasped the nettle did so for all the right reasons and the lack of any funding should and must be taken in to account.
The end result seems to be that a new stadium once again seems unlikely and that money for B V will not be provided.
Unless anyone has or can provide legal advice, professional advice, or some kind of funding nothing can be added.
Just what the next steps are will be decided over the coming weeks by people better informed than me and I wish them all the best.

I think its fantastic that we have people like trb, sandal cat and IA who have put so much into the fight for our new ground and I say long may they continue as, as a club and a community we would be much worse off without their efforts. But one thing in this whole" farce" as it seems to be becoming that worries me is that when TRB says he asked people on the committee if they had any recollection of being told that newcold would not count towards the 106, all they had in reply was they could not recall this being said.
Now this could just be me being pedantic but I would feel much more comfortable with a solid no and if this does end up in the courts then I think a statement of I cant remember this being said could be very easy to pull apart.

So am I correct in thinking that the go ahead for the stand alone NC monstrosity was given prior to members of SWAG becoming members of the trust?

That's what it sounds like isn't it

Yes.

The point that Sandal Cat is trying to get over and what you and others (bigalf inc.) are missing is this. It does not essentially matter what was written down or not, the fundamental point is that as a s106 is land charge then you can't simply avoid it by banging in another application and using some words in the application documentation to get you around planning law. Simple as that!

The discussion around what was and was not written down at the time has only come about from WMDC claiming they took legal advice & that they 'told' certain people and that no objections were received. The counter point we have been making it was not at all clear (certainly to the public and layman) and as much as Bigalf is banging on about it being clear because they wrote it was legal seperate, then that is just bull, because we are still arguing about it and if that is what they wanted to convey then it should have been written large and made ultra-clear from the outset. So why wasn't it?

However, if and when it comes to having this in front if a high court judge, then what matters is did WMDC act unlawfully or ultra-varies in granting permission for Newcold outside of the UU? We believe, as does our lawyer, that they probably did and therefore it is this upon this which we expect any ruling to hinge, the discussion around how they may or may not have tried to justify or alert the general public that this was their intention, is purely just mitigation.

You can write what the hell you like trying to justify (or not) what you may (or may not) be intending to do, but if it is ultimately an unlawfully act, it changes absolutely nothing and certainly does not change the law or absolve you from being lawful in your actions.

Hopefully, this clears that up?

Fair enough. All i will say is surely then it would be better to get on with the court action then so we know where we stand as soon as possible. Forget about protests, facebook pages and piddling about with two-faced politicians and get the process going if you think that is the only option.

Give over!

It doesn't say that Englebert Humperdink won't duet with buster Bloodvessel in a concert to be held on top of the Newcold building either, maybe Sir Rodney should have checked that one out as well.

The fact is it is the Councils duty to uphold the U U as part of its obligations during the planning process. As SC says, at the time, why would anyone be looking for a loophole being used.

If you don't care why post such a long winded load of crap - just go and do us all a favour you utter disgrace to Rugby League.