Spot on - and lets not forget that the reason 88M now own Belle Vue, is because WMDC colluded with our very own Sir Rodney Walker (then a member of the Stadium Trust) to advise the club not to bid on the land when the bank put it up for sale, so that 88M could acquire it unopposed.

So far, WMDC have conspired to make 2 property developers very rich, have failed to enforce a s106 agreement, and I have no doubt that at some point, Rodders will emerge as having benefited financially from all of this; and to top it off, they've lied about having obtained legal advice to enable the original developer to build on Greenbelt land without fear of triggering his obligations under the s106.

As stated previously - no new stadium has been developed without the support of the local council; not only does our council not support us - it actively opposes us at every opportunity.

Good to see someone actually gets it and isn't full of faux outrage

Wouldn't surprise me that someone has taken backhanders, I hope that Wakey get the end result and that the criminals at the helm/involved get their fingers burnt, need to get the police involved as it sounds dodgy as fook.

Pretty much, but I'd change Trinity to Local Community, because these dealings have cost the local area a community stadium

Shifty mate, the only S106 he knows about is from the menu of the local chinese.

Sorry but I’m being called a thicko (sic) by someone who always struggles to string a coherent sentence together

Regards

King James

Wasn't that deal brokered by Pearson when he was Hull City head honcho? Tbf Allam does seem to make things hard for both clubs their fans and himself which must be costing him money? But the skim off City is so large he can be as obstinate as he likes? I can do you a deal on a few thousand tennis balls.. Shorpe footy team seem to be in a similar situation as Wakey and it seems every ray of hope turns into a false one.Councils are hard to pin down to major investment as few politicians will want their neck on block if it turns into a huge loss of money and votes

Councils need to learn that when they agree a deal with a developer to build a public amenity under section 106 that the contract stipulates that the public amenity be built before the rest of the development.

There shouldn't be any need to have this level of 'protection' with a S106 as it is a legal obligation and enforceable should a developer renege on it's obligation. In a fair world, it would not seem unreasonable for a developer to pay for that obligation from the profit made on development, in simple terms a win win where the local authority can see an overall benefit in granting planning permission for something that would not have been normally granted a share in profit against a mitigated loss

I have no idea what the details are in this case and why the developer is refusing to comply, or why the local authority seems unwilling to pursue this matter but on the face of it, it is a sad situation for Wakefield Trinity

I believe the Development has yet (even if the controversial cold store is included) to reach the critical size to trigger the stadium build. The developer is of course, according to Wake fans anyway, holding back on further building, and thus depriving themselves of profit and allowing potential customers to go elsewhere to avoid building the stadium!

Well if that's true and I'm not doubting you, then it's a reasonable position by the developer and possibly a poorly constructed S106.

Trigger levels will more than likely involve a 'dodge' where they aren't reached unless absolutely necessary, for example the killer deal that is so good that it can absorb what the developer would think of simplistically as a tax, whilst they rather unfairly and conveniently dismiss earlier development and the 'pure' profit already banked.

The difficult thing here is that the cold store *would* have contributed a significant chunk of the trigger, but WMDC inexplicably agreed to allow them to build it under a separate planning application, thereby dodging it altogether. So you're right that a developer may well look for loopholes, but one would expect the enforcing authority not to collude with them to do so.

To make matters worse, the sainted Sir Rodney worked with them on this scheme as a member of the Trust, and agreed it during an unminuted meeting; this is the subject that WMDC now claim to have taken legal advice on, but have been unable to produce any evidence of having taken that legal advice.

It's a rum do.

It does seem like a rum do indeed was the cold store on a different parcel of land, for example is the development made up of more than one title? I've seen green belt mentioned earlier in the thread and previously is there a green belt issue and is all the land in green belt or part of it hence a separate application and their potential S106 loop hole?

Mind you if it was all this simple you would have thought that their case would have been made as such rather than all this cloak and dagger stuff

Good luck it must be so frustrating and on the face of it unfair

Or wait til WT are in such a position that a new stadium would be not required, ie gone to the wall.