Quite clearly the council are now attempting to justify their position... which comes across as a weak, churlish and childish position. With little .. or no substance if interrogated with the statement:

' the best interests of the people of Wakefield is at the centre of everything we do'

The actions are that of politics... political bias! ... and using elected position to further personal agendas!

Awful response but one which accurately reflects the true nature of those who have seized control of local politics!!!

Am I missing something or am I underestimating the task of raising £2Million

It clearly states that we need to reach one of two trigger points, the much publicised 60,000sq/m or the much less known raising of £2Million by a trinity of WMDC, Stadium Trust and Wakefield Trinity.

Now in full on Arthur mode, this was back when £2Million was a lot of money, however surely between the 3 it's easier to find the money than it seems it is to get the Developer to meet his responsibilitie.

So, a lot of waffle but still no explanation as to why WMDC allowed the Newcold build to not contribute to the stadium build trigger point.

They could've rejected the application based on it not complying with the original plans, they allowed it not to contribute towards the trigger point. The fact this was potentially missed by volunteers when, like all of us, they were more than likely under the impression that it would count is irrelevant. It was hidden from them and placed in a barrage of text certainly Yorkcourt and maybe others took a punt that it would be missed.

Box needs pushing on this issue alone. It's the one weakness that can not be explained otherwise it would be there. How about employing a student to walk behind him wherever he goes with a massive placard which reads "What has Peter Box got to hide?".

I know the likely result of all this is still no new stadium for Trinity or facilities for the public, but if it ousts Box it will have been worth it.,

They're still insisting, rather absurdly, that The SoS has to enforce the planning application and that it's nothing to do with the WMDC planning department. Do they really expect the SOS to come up and adjudicate on the planning application from York Court.

They also say there's no S106 agreement then in their FAQ they have two explanations of a Unilateral Undertaking both of which state that it's a S106 agreement!

What a joke!

Regarding the task of finding £2M.
This is a direct quote from Box's E mail today.......The Council, during informal conversations with the Trust, has made it clear that it is prepared to make a financial contribution, similar to the offer made in 2009, as part of the development of a new stadium at Newmarket.
Doesn't that suggest that the £2M is being offered by the council?

Even if it's in the form of a land bank which the Trust could borrow money against, let's say £1M then another Million in grants, sponsorship of the stadium, loans, a mortgage or whatever.

I may be wrong but I think I remember Rodders was supposed to be the man that would get access to grants and funding etc for that £2M because he'd done similar for other projects.

According to the S106 agreement dated 26th October 2012, this was executed as a deed by two representatives of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif Ltd, one of which signatures appears to be Curtis Jones and the second, I assume, is Colin Mackie but according to Companies House, both Mr Mackie and Mr Curtis resigned on 25th October 2012, some 24 hours previous. I am certainly no expert in these matters but how can 2 company directors sign an agreement when they are no longer directors? Furthermore, is the reinstatement date of both directors on the 10th March 2017 significant? This is 48 hours before MC released details to the press that he had given notice to quit Belle Vue and also when it was revealed that SRW had quit the Trust. Coincidence?

There is also the issue of the contributory build and the 'trigger' or magic 60,000m2. I have passed the site on many occasions but cannot recollect any advertising boards, nor can I find any relevant marketing agents/material which appears to imply that they are making absolutely no effort to locate any purchasers or tenants so the magic trigger point will never be reached.

I seem to recall the very same having been said about one J. D. Pearman!

I disagree.
Without the power of hindsight, i.e. knowing that the Newcold application wasn't included in the trigger point and then going back and looking for some wording that may justify this, the paragraph above, taken in context, in no way states this clearly. It is just a narrative explanation of the situation from WMDC and there is no need to use specific technical jargon with special meaning in the art (if that's what it is). If they'd wanted to make it clear that the application wouldn't count towards the trigger point or would not be covered by the s106 planning obligation, why didn't they say that?
We were told, as it states above, that the reason for a new application was that the Newcold building exceeded the maximum height allowed by the original application. The letter from the SoS is clear that the planning obligation applies to the land and should not be disaggregated. With this in mind, the most obvious interpretation of the highlighted paragraph would be that the reason for the new application was to get around the height restriction of the original application. In the next sentence, 'This detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above' could mean that it is not bound by the height restrictions of the first application, which seems entirely reasonable due to its juxtaposition with the previous sentence. Likewise, the very next sentence, 'The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it [iand in no way prejudices the implementation of any development controlled by that consent[/i.' could be reasonably be interpreted as confirming that the implementation of the stadium is in no way prejudiced, i.e. the new application is still included in the trigger point.
The question still remains, why did WMDC, as the planning authority charged with ensuring the s106 planning obligation, allow this application to be removed from this requirement?

Yes that's the thing they fail to answer time after time. In all fairness though they did say they took legal advice on the matter. Yet they can't say who gave it or what that advice was, or in fact provide any evidence whatsoever that advice was taken. This was confirmed by a freedom of information request.

However they continue to try and mitigate themselves by saying they told Sir Rodney and he had no objections. In naming Sir Rodney in this controversial decision it would be interesting to hear an official response from him, I wonder if he will make a public statement about the matter.

Was just wondering if there is any interest in people attending next Wednesday's council meeting at 2pm and if there will be an opportunity for members of the public to put questions to Mr Box

Again, another absurdity, WMDC don't think that it is their role.

Have they actually named Rodders? If so where?