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.

That's a lot of caravans per acre (only kidding your majesty). Seriously, that does seem like a lot of money too much I'd say as I'd guess at £0.5m per acre tops and you aren't on 28 acres?

You could probably buy the whole of St Helens for £14 million

Where is that from? The stadium as a whole is valued at around £30m but I've not seen a formal split between land/buildings (in fact not sure Saints even technically own the land as the stadium is long leasehold)?

AFAIK, even if the controversial cold store is included, the development hasn't reached the trigger point for the stadium build so how do they enforce the S106? Also, I can't understand why Wake haven't had them in court by now - surely the threat would have been enough if they have a cast iron case...

You are correct that the developer has done nothing illegal. Morally and ethically somewhat questionable, but legally OK.

I would think any court proceedings (judicial review ) would be against the local authority and its role in all this rather than the developer.

I would think that any court would look at facts of law and judge on that rather than morality no matter how morally wrong 1 party has been. Ateotd if no one has broken a legally binding contract or broken any law then morals don't come into it. There would be no case to answer for anyone.

The audited accounts state the land & buildings were valued by a chartered surveyor. It came up at a public meeting that of that, the land was valued at £14million. The issue that I have is that what chartered surveyor in their right mind would value a sports stadium? I have trouble finding a surveyor who will put their name to a stadium valuation on sports clubs bigger than St Helens, because they know its worthless, but St Helens RLFC can find one???? Not saying anything untoward is happening because the audit opinion is clean and unqualified but still!!



Regards



King James

I think the issue is how the developer was enabled to use a legal loophole to renege on their obligations under a s106 Agreement that was adjudicated by HM Inspector - and WMDC's continued intransigence in enforcing said Agreement. This is not a court case in the way you might imagine - a judicial review is somewhat different.



"Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.



In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached."

Because they are valuing the land & not a sports stadium? Presumably the value is how much a developer can recoup from developing the land for its most lucrative legal purpose - probably housing - less the cost of site clearance, build costs, legal fees etc.

For the purposes of insurance would be a pretty obvious reason.......

What?? You don't need a professional valuation to insure a sports stadium at all.



Regards



King James

Insurance against loss is not related to value of land.

The question was asked as to why someone would value a stadium, not the land.







Of course you do.

Why have you added the word "million" to that sentence

Stop trolling. No you dont. A football club client of mine has never had a valuation undertaken, purely because no decent valuer worth their salt would put their name to a stadium valuation, yet still has it insured. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about



King James

And is that insurance for millions? Does he know if he's under or over insured? Maybe the valuer was appointed by the insurance company to ensure they weren't going to be ripped of on the event of a claim? And since you don't know who I am or what job I do maybe I do know what I'm talking about

Sorry but you are wrong on that point. All owners of stadiums will have to account for their value as an asset in their report and accounts and they will usually do so based on advice from a valuer

Aaron Bower has tweeted that the council are planning on going ahead with the re-development of BV irrespective of what Trinity decide to do. Not show what this means and as an outsider looking in, just confuses me even more. Is this good or bad