I'm not having a pop by the way, hope you don't think that! I'm not going to pretend i know enough about planning or legal issues to make any kind of judgement. I'm just trying to get my head around why the council and Yorkcourt have been able to dodge their responsibilities, how they might of seen it or how it may be seen by others. A bit of devils advocate if you like to try and work it all out. We will obviously be looking at it from one direction whilst others may see it differently and my fear is a defeat in court would open the gates for them to just build everything else outside the original agreement and finish us forever.

Also a wise man once told me when you get an estimate for legal costs add at least a 25% buffer as it never runs to plan. Who would pay?

Sums up my feelings too.

I know, and they are all fair points. The issue is, we don't know the answers and ultimately we only ever get them if we test this in court. However, you need to think bigger about this, if we did go to the High Court and did lose, then the whole of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 could be brought into question and the possibility that all section 106 agreements are invalid? Just think about it for a moment!

Here is an example that is actually Sandal Cats, not mine.

A developer for a big housing get outline planning for 2000 houses and enter into a S106 agreement to build a primary school (just like the one near the Hospice) because they need extra capacity. The developer decides to sell the site off to 10 housing developers, and take his profit from selling land with planning for houses. The new developers of those 10 sites decide that they don't want to contribute to the building of that school, so they all decide to lodge a new legally separate application for each of their 200 house plots. The council decide, despite this, to grant those planning applications. Who now pays for the school? The 10 housing developers claim that they don't have to and the council say we had no choice but to approve the planning application because they were separate applications and not reserved matters under the original outline? The section 106 agreement has therefore been, deliberately or not, circumvented and neither the developers nor the council claim it is their problem? So, have they acted unlawfully? If this is the case, then S106 of the entire planning act is worthless?

Answers on a postcard please?

Like I said last night, if you give up on Newmarket you will definitely get nothing, because no one promised to build you a new Belle Vue and therefore you lose!

If we stick with Newmarket Belle Vue is still an option, if the people who promised to build Newmarket feel fit to make us offer which we find acceptable (so far, they haven't) then we would take it.

Now, we might still get nothing, but there is still a good chance we will get something, if not even possibly everything.

So guys, what do you want to do now? Genuine question BTW?

You are right of course but if a resolution cannot be reached by negotiation and by God the Stadium Trust have tried and tried what other alternative have we.

My own personal preferance has always been to stay at a revamped BV although whether the costs and practicalities stack up i don't know. You would have thought that land at Newmarket would be a good bargaining tool though as putting industrial units on the stadium plot must be worth a pretty penny, hence Yorkcourts stance. Avoiding costly legal battles and risking losing would also surely tempt them. But i'm guessing this has all been put to them already without success so is a non starter also? If so i guess its the threat of legal action and hope it spurs them into action.

I say stick with Newmarket and legal action if needed, but another serious question here, how do we pay the bill, is the 50k available to the club/trust ?.

By the sounds none. Do we know what, if any, upcoming plans Yorkcourt have for the site? Do we think they are planning the same trick again?

Also what is Yorkcourts reasoning for believing they no longer have to comply with the s106? Is it the removal of the £2m council contribution, or the fact that since they sign the agreement they have wound that company up to use another? Or are they just a set of lousy bar-stewards?

Well I for one would be willing to contribute to a fighting fund, but it needs a lot of us to achieve what may be required.

This - unfortunately however, they're lousy bar-stewards who understand the planning rules and how to circumvent them; the only party that could have held them to account was WMDC, but they clearly don't give a stuff. Makes you wonder why - what's in it for Box and his cronies, that they've been prepared to take such risks to exonerate YCP from any responsibility under the s106 agreement?

Interesting comment from IA earlier in the thread, that the Trust was threatened with libel action prior to the meeting; I assume that was by Mackie? In my experience, that kind of threat suggests that they're not entirely comfortable in their position and wanted to supress some or all of what was going to be said, so tried scare tactics.

It seems to me that legal action is the only way forward - I would imagine that even starting proceedings, given the shonky nature of both YCP and WMDC's position on this, might be enough to get some kind of resolution; YCP won't want the whole site tied up in years of legal wrangling, and Box won't want his bullyboy tactics scrutinised in the public eye.

Speaking of which - has anyone from the Trust tried getting a national media outlet to have a look at this? One would imagine that any of the Tory rags would enjoy the opportunity to highlight a bent Labour council leader - and whilst this is relatively small beer, it is depriving the community of a significant development; in contrast with our woeful lack of sports facilities and our increasing obesity, it would make a good story - volunteer Supporters Trust tries to secure sports facilities for the whole community *and* safeguard the future of the City's only pro sports club, but is thwarted by the joint forces of the evil property developer and a bent council. Classic David v Goliath stuff, and it might be enough to get the wheels turning.

Don't know what upcoming plans Yorkcourt have but we'll keep monitoring the planning portal.

The removal of the £2m contribution certainly helps them but my personal opinion is that as they have managed to exclude Newcold from the obligations of the S106 Agreement they feel no longer obligated to honour the agreement and build a stadium, even if the Council put the £2m back on the table.

Anyone know how to get in contact with Private Eye, I think they have a page for this kind of thing

Not sure that Yorkcourt know the planning rules any better than us (or our legal advisers).

The threat of libel action was from the Council not Colin Mackie.

And I agree, my person opinion is that legal action is the only way to resolve this.

Yes that's democracy at work the Wakefield way. They have been in power for 41 years due to the misplaced blind loyalty of the wider
Labour voting public and now they think they are totally untouchable and can do anything they want.