And what legal principle would that action be founded upon? I am not party to the secret discussions which we are told are going on - I have just looked at the documents on the council planning portal. It appears from the 106 agreement the stadium contract would be triggered by the building and letting of a certain amount of warehousing and other uses (60,000sq mtr if I recall correctly). The units which would have (and still will) contribute to the stadium contract commencement were all prescribed in terms of size, etc. The new cold unit is nowhere near the scale which was envisaged on the original agreement - hence a completely new planning application had to be submitted, which the council had no legal choice but to approve. However, since this new planning application did not fall under the 106 agreement, the cold store does not contribute to the stadium contract commencement. If they had built a unit only 18m tall then it would have contributed and no-one would be having this argument, we would be well on the way. As far as I can see, anything else which is built on the site (which conforms even vaguely to what was originally agreed by the council and the developer) will contribute towards the stadium contract commencement. It does not appear to me, on these facts, that the developer or the council (who's hands were tied regarding the new planning application) has acted deceitfully. I might be way off with all the above - could TRB let me know if I am anywhere close to understanding the current situation. I see no reason to be despondent - if YC want to build out the site as originally envisaged, the stadium build will be a natural consequence of that.

THIS

Fair points, so what did you do? What replies did you get? Who's throat did you go for? Just asking.

I offered my opinion on here, it was done in good faith and with the best of intentions. It wasn't done as any form of criticism of anyone, in fact I went out if my way to illustrate that point, it was just an opinion.

In the end I trusted those who were shouldering the work on behalf of all of us, just like everyone else on here. In fact I toned down my opinions and kept them to myself at the request of those who would be sitting at a table opposite Colin Mackie.

My opinion throughout has been the same but I've said little on the matter.

Why so interested, are you suggesting I should form a breakaway group and do things separately from and without consultation with the ST.

Professionally I have a conflict of interest in fighting this corner publicly, it would possibly cost me my job to speak out and do anything using my real name, it would certainly set me on the outside of my work colleagues were I to be in any way prominent in a protest.

As I said on another thread, we don't have a monopoly on the 'right' way to do things, but we have fought this campaign for 11 years now and are best placed to judge all of the information / people we are dealing with. We haven't always agreed, in fact we have very different opinions within the group, but we are able to reach consensus which is why we've managed to keep going this long.

I don't hold anything against anyone have a different POV, all I ask is that people accept that any decisions / actions we take are made with the best intention of trying to put us in a position to achieve the best result possible for our club!

The 22nd is a pivotal day, and not just the public meeting, until the very day itself we will be unsure of exactly what we are going to say, albeit we have a fair idea!

There are a few of us who felt the same way as you but it was not as simple as doing what you suggested or we would have done it after Newcold.

Come to the Public Meeting and all will be explained.