Maybe because we aren't a desperate to move just yet. We own out own ground and there doesn't seem to be much pressure from the RFL to leave Wheldon road. Sky love showing our home games and (poor facilities aside) we generally get good raps from away supporters who appreciate the atmosphere.

Yes - I get that but I cannot see the council putting their names down as the fall guy who will have to foot the bill when the developer doesn't have the cash to pay up. Too much risk for Wakefield Trinity and equally too much risk for WMDC and it's ratepayers.

In the mean time, the club service the low interest loan, costing the tax payer nothing. It gives the council a reason to pursue the developer, not that they should need one. It also needs an arrangement for any stadium that allows the business to prosper. If it can't make money in the new stadium then there will be problems in the future.
The site is too good not to be developed. It's time to stop playing games.

double post

Triple post

who knows what's going on with my internet connection here.

Who services the loan should Wakefield trinity go out of business?

The developer is just playing games and being allowed to do so. The low interest loan will be serviced by the club, at no cost the rate payer, until such time that the developer satisfies its obligations. The council need to get on with their job of making sure these obligations are met.

There is the risk that the stadium will become a white elephant. Which is why it is so important that the terms of the deal make it possible to run a sustainable business. With the right deal, I can't see any way the club would be at risk of going bust. It's all down to the political will of the LA.

There is a rumour that a local soccer club will be involved, but they're Dora the Explorer Glue League level and wouldn't be able to be anchor tenants.

It could always be sold for scrap/recycled and housing built on the site to recoup the losses.

Wakefield is perhaps a true reflection of the current state of RL, with never having a big money backer, without support from the local authority, and owning an 'iconic' stadium which costs more to run than a modern one and produces less income. Since MC has arrived he has worked financial miracles making the club pay for itself and still be competitive on the field. The tiny number of staff employed would probably shock many other clubs.

Except that WMDC would be very lucky to recoup their loses - the land would be worth some £2m at best for housing and the 2nd hand value of the 'stadium' buildings would be a fraction of their new cost, even assuming there is a willing buyer.....

St Helens value their land at £14m that the stadium is built on

Regards

King James

They will be using that value for their accounts giving the 'stadium' it's original cost less depreciation, unless it covers about 14 acres. I very much doubt that if St Helens went belly up an administrator would be able to sell it for anywhere near that price even if another sporting club, who needed such a stadium, came along.

Alternatively, IF they had handled or indeed choose to enforce the S106, there is no risk whatsoever and allowing the Newcold development to be built outside the original plan was just plan wrong, albeit that it needed pp due to it being twice the height of the original cold store.