Hi. I am putting this here for people to draw their own conclusions. First posted in WT Northstanders by myself - Phil Townsend.

For clarity, the Trust that WMDC think aren't fit for purpose are:
Me - WT Supporters Trust board member; Spokesman for SWAG; Founder member and Ex-Chairman of WiSCA
Ian Bramley - WT Supporters Trust Chairman
Jonathan Stone - Chair of the Trust and Founder of Residents for NM. Rhinos fan!
MIchael Carter - WT Chairman and majority shareholder
Chris Brereton - WT Director and shareholder
Eric Timmins - former Director of WT and original member of the Trust
David Hichcliffe - former MP for Wakefield and lifelong WT fan.

The business of CB and MC stands to benefit from this deal as Tenants of an improved facility only, but the rest are doing this with nothing to benefit whatsoever.
The Stadium is due to be 'owned' but the Trust, with the land leased on a Peppercorn rent from the landowner (88m), such that it cannot be used to the financial benefit of the club or any individual or group.
CB and MC have stated that they will resign from the Trust, at the moment the Stadium is completed and it becomes an operational process.
The board have invited representatives from WMDC to join as well as approaching the RFL to appoint someone.
We are open to further suggestions, but they will need to demonstrate a benefit to the process.
The Trust will apply from Charitable status upon achieving a turnover in excess of £5k. We currently operate on minimal cost.

Past members of the Trust include Ted Richardson, who was involved in its establishment, Andrew Glover and James Elton, as well as SRW.

The Trust was put together with agreement between the Club and WMDC and Sir Rodney Walker appointed to oversee the process.

Sir Rodney Walker oversaw the appointment of myself and Jonathan Stone, followed by MC and CB and then latterly Ian Bramley. Therefore, all of the board, that SRW walked away from, were appointed under his reign, meaning that he must have considered that we 'added value' to the process at that point.

We make no apology for the WT bias in this. The Inspectors report from the Public Inquiry for NM is very clear in that there is a 'Very Urgent' need for a new Stadium for Wakefield Trinity, and this represented the 'special circumstances' to allow the removal of 95ha of land from Greenbelt into Industrial land

I present this information so that those - both Wakey Supporters and others, be it RL supporters or not - can make a more informed opinion of who is acting in good faith in this process!

Please feel free to share this information across other platforms.

Thank you.

For clarity you appear to say that in return the club would be charged a peppercorn rent providing it is not used for the financial benefit of the club.
This would suggest we get the ground for free but cannot make any money from its use.
This does not appear to match the suggestion that the club want all the revenue and retain the peppercorn rent.

Why not pop round and see Phil, get the full details, join the trust, and lead us all to salvation?

No clarification then, if my assumption is wrong just say so.

I think that refers to the land rather than the fabric of any stadium.

Edited.............Check the AUP before you type Vastman. Poptart

Assumptions are usually wrong but don't let that stop you.

That's a no, I have no desire to reveal myself then?

You can all read what does it say, I know you could say the land but are we not looking to run a business on that land.
I find a reference to bile from Vastman quite funny considering most of his posts are the apotheosis of bile.

The thread title is 'Clarity'.
Think I am clear regards the content of TRB's post,except for one thing.
Is it the actual land the club cannot gain/profit from ,but as someone alluded to would be able to utilise the actual stadium to generate income.

He has a point, you only post re: ground issues and obviously have a hidden agenda, yet you have zero desire to
reveal yourself (your choice, I accept that) but can't expect to be taken seriously as you aren't here as a 'proper' Trinity
supporter are you?

Okay, I will try and clarify.

The deal at Newmarket which was put to and accepted by HM Planning Inspector was that in return for planning consent that took a great swaith of land out of Green Belt the Developer had to build, with a £2m contribution agreed by the Council a 12,000 capacity stadium and assiociated sporting facilities.

The Developer then had to transfer the land on which the stadium and other facilities sat to the Wakefield and District Community Trust (the Trust) for a peppercorn on a 99 year lease, effectively giving the stadium to the Trust.

The Trust in turn was then to sub-lease the Stadium and associated facilities to Spirit of 1873 Ltd (the Club) for a rent to be agreed between the Trust and Club - not the Developer or the Council.

The Trust agreed that the most economical and sustainable way to ensure that the Stadium was managed efficiently for the benefit of all was that the Club would take a FRI (Fully Repairing & Insuring) Lease whereby they are fully responsible for all costs associated with the running of the stadium such as Insurance, Council Tax/Rates, Heat, Light & Power, Maintenance and Repairs etc. etc. In return the Club would be able to generate revenues from the use of the stadiium on non match days such as conferences, weddings, concerts etc. in order to sustain the Club and ensure that the stadium would be maintained to a high standard and ensure its long term sustainability. There would be a covenant in the lease whereby the Club would have to make the stadium available for Community uses.

So the Club would be faced with a big bill in order to maintain and run the Stadium so I cannot see where the view that the Club is wanting a stadium without spending a sinle penny and then wants to benefit from the using the stadium comes from.

So that is the deal that we are looking for - nothing more than what was promised at and agreed at the Public Inquiry so I dont think the Club and the Trust are being unreasonable and the view by some that the Trust is "not fit for purpose". Unfotunately some appear to have a different purpose in mind to the Club and Trust.

Absolutely. The business of the Stadium - the risk and reward - would be the clubs - on a full Insure and Repair lease. This avoids having to duplicate management systems. This was always the intention.

The Club would NOT have control of the Stadium ownership to sell or borrow against.

Thanks for that TRB.