I have been following this saga for years without becoming involved and I thought I had some grasp on the situation, but clearly not. So, can anyone help me to understand what is going on.

As I see it:

- The Council were able to fulfil their duties by allowing Yorkcourt to develop Newmarket with a Community Planning Gain of a stadium and community facilities. This was ratified by the SoS with a S106 to allow the Council to manage the process and ensure compliance by Yorkcourt.

- Failure by WMDC to properly manage the S106 has led to an impasse with Yorkcourt.

- All involvement by Box seems to be deliberately working against the City and the Club. His statements that the 106 was between the developer and the club, bringing in Walker and the false Trust, asking MC to keep out of the bidding for Belle Vue all strike of there being an ulterior motive but surely there isn't enough personal financial gain available to make this worthwhile and even less if Walker gets his snout in the trough.

- The Belle Vue development had the benefits of kickstarting the process, provided 88M with a focal point for their development, showed the Council in a positive light (even if only a flickering candle) and achieved progress on Newmarket's commercial site which has stalled due to Council mismanagement.

- Financially the development will be funded by the Council raising funds in The City in the same way Leeds Council has done for Headingley and they can place a charge against Yorkcourt to gain repayment from future developments. Additionally, there is the £2m granted by the Council and contribution from 88M for their planning gain. Presumably, Trinity will have to pay for the fixtures and fittings within the Stadium.

- The Stadium will be owned by 88M and a 99 year lease granted to the Community Trust to manage the stadium for the benefit of the City of Wakefield. Trinity will be sub tenants (anchor tenants) and need to be able to make a viable business within the stadium.

- A figure of £100000 annual rent has been mentioned and seems to be a sticking point but surely this is not an unreasonable figure as the Trust would have to fund:-
Insurance
Stadium maintenance and cleaning
Stewarding
Pitch maintenance
Create a fund for future development and extension of the stadium
Pay for staffing to manage this process.

Am I missing something?

Thought the same myself PB, he/she seems to understand it better than I do, Andy Wallhead on a fishing trip?

Yep - tread carefully guys.

So where did you get the figures.... ??? I'd love to see your source!

What does the W stand for in the OP's name.
I claim my five pounds, now bugger off and walk down to the golf club.

Isnt the problem the same one that has always stalled this project? The club have no money or intention to fund this project. The Council have the money but no intention to fund this project. We have now had a couple of developers but neither are willing to fund the project but will get involved if someone/something else does.

The council have a duty to consider all their ratepayers. I would expect that they must ask for a commercial rent to be applied or they would be in breach of their responsibilities.
If you were a resident of Featherstone and the council were to proceed on a peppercorn rent then would feel it was a good use of a council’s limited funds.
I would remind some that it was the club who withdrew from the arrangement, so I suppose unless they tell us why we will never know leaving some posters to make wild accusations which are currently based on nothing more than hear say or the famous man in the pub.

The club has always said that they need to utilise the profits from sales within the ground to make the club viable. The tool from the council in the press release seemed to be aghast that the club should want this. There is no inconsistency from the club on this, as the club has always said that agreeing to something that doesn't allow the club to grow merely postpones the slow death.

I doubt a slightly higher rent would be a sticking point, other than perhaps a point of principle, on the assumption that all associated insurances and maintenance costs came out of that rent.

I know one thing pal, who I trust with the future of this great club and I will give you a clue, it isn’t WMDC!!

But this is not a council owned or funded project... the stadium will be owned and run by a community trust and the developers are still ... under the terms of the 106 agreement ... legally obliged to fund the project.. the Belle Vue bit was to facilitate the developers ability to make more from the development at Newmarket ...

And as sure as night follows day, up he pops!

Let me remind you that the building of a Community Stadium should have been funded by yorkcourt from the proceeds of Newmarket! The council and therefore ratepayers, should not spend 1 penny on the community stadium. And we are not asking them too. The stadium should be funded entirely from the planning gain at Newmarket. All the council are doing are pump priming it. Ultimately they will be repaid. If they have the power to make yorkcourt perform?

So are you now not asking for the £2million from the council again? I’ve lost where we are?

I reckon the extra £15 million Newmarket would generate would cover that...

I knew one post from me would generate a reply, even from Cyprus. I regret that this just confuses things more because I am sure (but I am willing to be corrected) that the most recent plan involved the council and current owners rather than YC.
I expect you will want to put the clubs reasons why they withdrew when you return.
I only posted to make some on the forum think before they carried on making wild accusations and to point out that we are not the most important item on ratepayers mind and many would think it is not the council’s place to help what is a private company.