But they won't - because they have none; what's happened with this project is SOP in the developers world, and LA's are powerless to manage them.

This is from an article in the Guardian a couple of years ago:

"Bankers have faced our collective wrath, but what about developers? The economy goes in fickle booms and busts, cycling merrily through bubbles and crises, but cities, built in concrete and steel, generally stay put. What we are making now, we will all have to live with for a very long time. The iniquities of the banking crash have been intricately unpicked, but the wilful destruction of the places where we live and work remains something of a mystery. We may rant and rage against ugly additions to the skyline, but what of the mechanisms that are allowing it to happen? How did it come to this?

The principal reason can be traced to the fact that awarding planning permission in the UK comes down to a Faustian pact. If the devil is in the detail, then the detail is Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a clause which formalised “planning gain”, making it in the local authorities’ interests to allow schemes to balloon beyond all reason, in the hope of creaming off the fat of developers’ profits for the public good.

Introduced as a negotiable levy on new development, Section 106 agreements entail a financial contribution to the local authority, intended to be spent on offsetting the effects of the scheme on the local area. The impact of a hundred new homes might be mitigated by money for extra school places, or traffic calming measures. In practice, since council budgets have been so viciously slashed, Section 106 has become a primary means of funding essential public services, from social housing to public parks, health centres to highways, schools to play areas. The bigger the scheme, the fatter the bounty, leading to a situation not far from legalised bribery – or extortion, depending on which side of the bargain you are on. Vastly inflated density and a few extra storeys on a tower can be politically justified as being in the public interest, if it means a handful of trees will be planted on the street."

This is much smaller scale, but it frames the relationship between developer and LPA, and makes very clear which party holds the whip hand.

I agree with you as a point of principle, but if it doesn't get us the stadium that way, there's no point continuing down that path. If the new set-up achieves nothing, we're no worse off, because we've got nothing so far anyway. The goal should be the endpoint, stadium delivery, not who gets to share the journey.

One thing I have learned to do over the last few years is trust Michael Carter's judgement, and I trust him not to agree something that is to the detriment of the club. I'm happy to stick with that mindset.

If the club is to be a part of the decision making process along side this new trust, could the club not employ the members of the original trust who are not invited to the new trust?

Agree.

Looking at it from another angle, I wonder whether if we have a Labour government in the next couple of years (reasonable chance of it happening) we could try and get a couple of million from Corbyn's £250 billion infrastructure investment fund. Would only be a drop in the ocean from something that big, would solve a long standing problem and gain Labour some very goodwill in what are now a couple of marginal constituencies and investing in community sports facilities to tackle things like child obesity would be an excellent use of those funds IMO.

Reading the latest article from Daily Star, this bit bothers me a little 'York Court will get some planning benefit (on land) elsewhere that will help them fund the new stadium'. Shouldn't they have had all this funding set in place (one way or another) when they passed the original plans years ago? Unless the plan all along was not to build the stadium, of course.

Having now had the chance to read this Star report I am slightly more encouraged. But let's face it, we have had more promises than we care to recall. When I see building I will start to believe it

No.

Why do you think he can deliver something with a new Trust when he has failed to deliver with the existing Trust that was specifically set up by the Council to facilitate the delivery of the Community Stadium for the people of Wakefield that the developer promised in the PI.

Can you say who has been asked to join the new trust.

No idea, he won't tell anyone.

Which members of the supporters trust have been invited to meet Walkers new trust

Gets better Sandal cat doesnt it

+1 from me, Bren and it's getting smellier by the day !!!

If those 3 reprehensible characters are the only ones making decisions on this, then it will only be for their respective benefit, one way or another

Because he's chosen to make it a Rodders glory thing. By going on his own, he can flaunt his success. I'm not sure he would if he thought it would end in failure.

It does seem strange that he has chosen this route when there appears to be new statements of intent from the developer and the council. I don't for a minute suggest there's anything honourable in it. The fact that he's done this, however, makes me think that he's seen a finishing line ahead, and he wants to cross it alone, arms aloft.