Any training facilities or is that in the new east stand I’m presuming the 1st team will train on the 4 g pitch ?

Yc could sponsor the stadium for life or other financial backing !!!

Heads of terms are quite detailed in the running of things for anyone interested in these things. The council are party to the 106 and are making a contribution.

F that, they are morally obligated to do this, no need to give them a freebie.

I'm going to get you a link to the plans when I get the chance, but basically, BV is the training facility with the East stand containing a gym, treatment rooms, changing rooms, meeting rooms, etc.

The 4G pitch offers all-year-round availability for all teams, with floodlights that are cost-efficient. No need for any external facilities.

Quote ="Dunkirk Spirit"Just been having a good look at the latest document on the developers planning application https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... ab=summary Open link, tap document top right, click on 10th September, revised planning statement. There is a comprehensive list of subjects but number 8 to 14 I found very interesting and enlightening. The developers legal team really seems to be pushing the boat out to get their application passed, by using The community Stadium, Wakefield Trinity, the need for sporting facilities, the list is endless, also explaining the enabling development history, 106 agreements, Enjoy '" ..excellent work DS...thanks for keeping us all updated Obviously we've been here before and whilst the latest updates all look very promising, we don't want to get hood-winked again, so for those that are up-to-speed with planning developments such as these, does it look water-tight this time around, or are there any potential get-out clauses that an unscrupulous developer could use to worm his way out of his legal obligation ?? I have just had a quick read of some of the latest documents and the only thing that I can see (which is probably not an issue at all) is that the developers are listed as Newmarket Lane Ltd and NOT Yorkcourt Ltd or Henry Boot Ltd. A quick Google search shows that 2 of the directors are Hamer BOOT and Scott MACKIE ... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/newmarket-lane Looking at their accounts (again I am no accountant, so don't really know what I am looking at here)... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/form ... /512465103 Do they seem like a viable company that are likely to give us what we are owed, as to me those accounts (albeit from 2019) show that they owe £6.4 million to their creditors who, unsurprisingly are Yorkcourt and Henry Boot !!

Quote ="Dunkirk Spirit"Just been having a good look at the latest document on the developers planning application https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... ab=summary Open link, tap document top right, click on 10th September, revised planning statement. There is a comprehensive list of subjects but number 8 to 14 I found very interesting and enlightening. The developers legal team really seems to be pushing the boat out to get their application passed, by using The community Stadium, Wakefield Trinity, the need for sporting facilities, the list is endless, also explaining the enabling development history, 106 agreements, Enjoy '" ..excellent work DS...thanks for keeping us all updated Obviously we've been here before and whilst the latest updates all look very promising, we don't want to get hood-winked again, so for those that are up-to-speed with planning developments such as these, does it look water-tight this time around, or are there any potential get-out clauses that an unscrupulous developer could use to worm his way out of his legal obligation ?? I have just had a quick read of some of the latest documents and the only thing that I can see (which is probably not an issue at all) is that the developers are listed as Newmarket Lane Ltd and NOT Yorkcourt Ltd or Henry Boot Ltd. A quick Google search shows that 2 of the directors are Hamer BOOT and Scott MACKIE ... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/newmarket-lane Looking at their accounts (again I am no accountant, so don't really know what I am looking at here)... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/form ... /512465103 Do they seem like a viable company that are likely to give us what we are owed, as to me those accounts (albeit from 2019) show that they owe £6.4 million to their creditors who, unsurprisingly are Yorkcourt and Henry Boot !!

Long way to go but I’m genuinely pleased for the club and all the supporters up the trinity

Quote ="FIL"eusa_clap.gif ..excellent work DS...thanks for keeping us all updated Obviously we've been here before and whilst the latest updates all look very promising, we don't want to get hood-winked again, so for those that are up-to-speed with planning developments such as these, does it look water-tight this time around, or are there any potential get-out clauses that an unscrupulous developer could use to worm his way out of his legal obligation ?? I have just had a quick read of some of the latest documents and the only thing that I can see (which is probably not an issue at all) is that the developers are listed as Newmarket Lane Ltd and NOT Yorkcourt Ltd or Henry Boot Ltd. A quick Google search shows that 2 of the directors are Hamer BOOT and Scott MACKIE ... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/newmarket-lane Looking at their accounts (again I am no accountant, so don't really know what I am looking at here)... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/form ... /512465103 Do they seem like a viable company that are likely to give us what we are owed, as to me those accounts (albeit from 2019) show that they owe £6.4 million to their creditors who, unsurprisingly are Yorkcourt and Henry Boot !!'" That’s the fly in the ointment for me, there are mentions of 11.3 The proposed delivery mechanism is via a Section 106 Obligation which Newmarket Lane Limited, the owner and developer of the site at Plot 8 at Newmarket commits to finance and to carry out the redevelopment works at Belle Vue, namely the new East Stand, resurfaced North Stand, car park works and refurbishment of the Rollin Shack building. The owner And Developer commits to finance And carry out the redevelopment work. I was hoping their involvement ends once they paid their dues to Trinity. I just hope the Building regulations inspectors are on the ball, no shortcuts please.

Quote ="FIL"eusa_clap.gif ..excellent work DS...thanks for keeping us all updated Obviously we've been here before and whilst the latest updates all look very promising, we don't want to get hood-winked again, so for those that are up-to-speed with planning developments such as these, does it look water-tight this time around, or are there any potential get-out clauses that an unscrupulous developer could use to worm his way out of his legal obligation ?? I have just had a quick read of some of the latest documents and the only thing that I can see (which is probably not an issue at all) is that the developers are listed as Newmarket Lane Ltd and NOT Yorkcourt Ltd or Henry Boot Ltd. A quick Google search shows that 2 of the directors are Hamer BOOT and Scott MACKIE ... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/newmarket-lane Looking at their accounts (again I am no accountant, so don't really know what I am looking at here)... https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/form ... /512465103 Do they seem like a viable company that are likely to give us what we are owed, as to me those accounts (albeit from 2019) show that they owe £6.4 million to their creditors who, unsurprisingly are Yorkcourt and Henry Boot !!'" That’s the fly in the ointment for me, there are mentions of 11.3 The proposed delivery mechanism is via a Section 106 Obligation which Newmarket Lane Limited, the owner and developer of the site at Plot 8 at Newmarket commits to finance and to carry out the redevelopment works at Belle Vue, namely the new East Stand, resurfaced North Stand, car park works and refurbishment of the Rollin Shack building. The owner And Developer commits to finance And carry out the redevelopment work. I was hoping their involvement ends once they paid their dues to Trinity. I just hope the Building regulations inspectors are on the ball, no shortcuts please.

Both the club and the council seem to have stepping rights, by the sounds of it the money will be deposited into an account and the redevelopment will be paid for out of that. If they start to play up hopefully there is enough security for the other two parties to employ another contractor.

I’ve been trying to find a possible start date for the building work, and found this under section 11.7.
If all goes well it could start before the end of this year, or early next year. I’ve got a season ticket for the East Stand, Where are we old silvertops going to sit in 2022? Has anyone got a deckchair and umbrella going spare.



Newmarket Lane Limited will let the contract for those works and will be the employer under that contract. It is envisaged that the contract will be let in late 2021 with a 12 month construction period. Newmarket Lane Limited and its contractor will be granted a licence by Spirit of 1873 Limited to enter onto the ground at Belle Vue for the purposes of carrying out those works. The Spirit of 1873 Limited will fund and appoint the contractor for carrying out the works that it has identified as carrying out. Between Newmarket Lane Limited and the Spirit of 1873 Limited, the entire works package will be delivered

Just seems a shame about no training pitch but could come in time then again is there room at bv I don’t know anything about construction so I’m dreaming

Just seems a shame about no training pitch but could come in time then again is there room at bv I don’t know anything about construction so I’m dreaming

But you don’t need a training pitch that’s the point.

For starters it would cost a lot of money to buy, build and maintain with no obvious benefit at all. At an estimate the land alone would cost half a million even if you could find it. This is money far better spent on players or on BV itself.

I’m not sure you grasp what a 4G pitch offers us. It can be used every minute of every day, we could train at 3 in the morning if we so wished. The surface is fit for use in all but the most extreme of weather.

The surface is always the same in both training and in games, something that should be hugely valuable.

All the players facilities are right next to the pitch so no need to duplicate them at great expense at some training ground.

The ultimate irony would be if the training pitch were grass. In winter it would be so unusable on occasions that training would have to move to BV anyway.

For a club like ours a 4G pitch is a god send. It won’t just save us enough money to afford an extra prop it will make us enough to buy us two props.

I accept as a traditionalist it’s not as romantic as grass. That said technologies move on and I suspect one day you’ll barely be able to tell the difference.

Did your say life span for a 4g pitch is approx 10 years?

OK my, silver-haired friend. I'm no expert on planning permission and all that stuff but I am I believe fairly knowledgeable regarding stadium design and construction. I should be I've been studying it since the late 1980s.

There are numerous ways to do this, so let's assume the build starts in January.

First of all, we'd do a deal with the RFL where we push home games back as far as we can, so we don't play at home till maybe mid-April. This gives the builders the chance to erect the mainframe and roof.

If they do that then they can install seats and with the necessary H&S, you will be able to sit in the stand or a part of it on matchdays. There would be no facilities as none of the interior builds would be done but with portaloos etc, we'd get by. Not perfect but for part of one season it's got to be worth the sacrifice. Thus elements of the stand would be bought into service over a 12 month period.

This is the most cost-effective method and has been used many times.

The other alternative would be to put a temporary stand either along the West terrace or perhaps in front of the flats. Which of these you go for would depend on how many seating season tickets we sell. Again not ideal but if the seating was in front of the flats it would give access to the bars and toilets both in the flats and in the Rollin shack.

The final alternative, move in with Fev or Dewsbury for a year but be clear this one will lose us money and for me is a non-starter unless we get it for free or a very small rent. Let's see how the RL family is on that one

The only positive on this one is with the support of the RFL we could take games on the road, ie Sheffield and Barnsley but I can't see them being long-sighted enough for that given the games disdain for heartland clubs.

A great deal will depend on when the build starts and whether we get a mild winter. A relatively dry warm winter could see the stand useable for viewing purposes by April, job done. If not then it will start to be problematic.

Whatever they do there will be disruptions but a contractor like say Henry Boot will know exactly how to minimize it.

From my understanding yes, but if it were used heavily maybe less. However, the cost of replacing a worn pitch would still be less than maintaining a grass pitch that made you no money.

My guess is we'd need to re-lay the pitch more like every 8 years.

Think people need what costs haveing the g4 pitch will save the club.so theres the obivious the first team will train on this but currentley both the academy and scholars train at either sandal or dewsbury thats alone is around 7 sessions a week at around one and half hours a session now i dont know the cost but the club will have to pay for this and cant imagine it been cheap once we haveg4 pitch all will be able to train at belle vue hence saving money

Correct

Are Wakefield AFC still lined up to move in once the pitch is done? Unless I'm making that up and that was never the plan in the first place?

Don't know tbh but they have definitely been mentioned in the past. It would make sense, not least because it makes the case that this is a community stadium.

Plus they get access to grants Trinity never could.

Are you thinking of FA grants for areas without a pro team? Agreed.

However, we need to be canny with that as we don't want to become a Trojan Horse.

Again……

They need to be nowhere near running the stadium, but if we need a funding model there is option right there and a shared facility will bring in more income. Tough one to call as we don't want to invite a cuckoo into the nest.

Quote ="Dunkirk Spirit"Just been having a good look at the latest document on the developers planning application https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... ab=summary Open link, tap document top right, click on 10th September, revised planning statement. There is a comprehensive list of subjects but number 8 to 14 I found very interesting and enlightening. The developers legal team really seems to be pushing the boat out to get their application passed, by using The community Stadium, Wakefield Trinity, the need for sporting facilities, the list is endless, also explaining the enabling development history, 106 agreements, Enjoy '" Just as a point of note this part of the statement hasn't really changed since since the original planning went in last year, YC have always been pushing this aspect. It's been on the portal since December 2020. The fact that this development hasn't yet happened is down to the council planning department effectively demanding a re-design or they'd refuse permission, something that with the original 3 warehouse plan YC said was unviable. So they have re-designed to a 2 larger buildings plan but whether this new design will appease the powers that be remians to be seen. Without wanting to burst anybodies bubble it still is in the balance and i think any hope of the decision being made this side of christmas is more than a little optimistic given the history of all this, although i hope i'm wrong. They'll be more back & forth between the parties involved yet but once it is (hopefully) passed things should move relatively quickly.

Quote ="Dunkirk Spirit"Just been having a good look at the latest document on the developers planning application https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... ab=summary Open link, tap document top right, click on 10th September, revised planning statement. There is a comprehensive list of subjects but number 8 to 14 I found very interesting and enlightening. The developers legal team really seems to be pushing the boat out to get their application passed, by using The community Stadium, Wakefield Trinity, the need for sporting facilities, the list is endless, also explaining the enabling development history, 106 agreements, Enjoy '" Just as a point of note this part of the statement hasn't really changed since since the original planning went in last year, YC have always been pushing this aspect. It's been on the portal since December 2020. The fact that this development hasn't yet happened is down to the council planning department effectively demanding a re-design or they'd refuse permission, something that with the original 3 warehouse plan YC said was unviable. So they have re-designed to a 2 larger buildings plan but whether this new design will appease the powers that be remians to be seen. Without wanting to burst anybodies bubble it still is in the balance and i think any hope of the decision being made this side of christmas is more than a little optimistic given the history of all this, although i hope i'm wrong. They'll be more back & forth between the parties involved yet but once it is (hopefully) passed things should move relatively quickly.