Because Sainsburies paid for a 3-year deal for the shirts - and then extended it by 2 more!

A certain postcard you recieved was priceless though!

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2010/07/ ... -wildcats/

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2010/07/ ... -wildcats/

No they didnt go bust according to companies house.

In fact the ultimate holding company of Duncan Developments is very healthy.

Lets hope the club didn't use the same solicitors to draw up the agreement to sell Belle Vue, otherwise the club may eventually be out of pocket - and the club can obviously not afford another CVA

Can somebody explain all this to me, why is a" water tight" contract for £1 million only worth £80.000 .

I would guess this is due to the price of land, which has lowered significantly for commercial land since the downturn!

Lots of "property gurus" have failed due to the downturn - most people thought the price of property will never go down and always up which has been proved to be rubbish

like the banks confidence in the market and then it crashed

Usual rumour then, now i know you are just asking but why do people who have clearly no idea start rumours and pass them around like this.

Don't suppose you want to expose this person do ya.

manages his personal business as he does the management of this club.

Is it the same Duncan Developments?

I thought I could remember Ted explaining at an AGM what would happen to the shares as a result of their demise. It was over 15 years ago so I could have got it wrong

I know J Duncan was our deputy chairman and D Scougall was his representative on the board.

Also seem to remember that some, if not all, the shares were in leu of upgrading the stand

The value of the land is probably much less than £1M but higher than £80k, to Sainsbury's it was worth the £1M when they planned to develop it into a new supermarket.

Once they changed their plans from this land to a new unit inside Trinity Walk the value of the land, in Sainsbury's estimation, would not be anywhere near the £1M mark.

They have, in their opinion, therefore settled the contract for a nominal sum of £80K and the land will remain the property of the existing owner.

As with any contract, the devil is in the detail and I assume that the solicitors acting on behalf of Sainsbury have advised them on the settlement value and will have done so in the beleif that the contract allows them to do so.

Ted and his solicitors and perhaps the solicitors representing the bank, will disagree as they feel they have a "watertight" contract for the sale of the land at an agreed fee of £1M.

In the end I think a further settlement may be forthcoming from Sainsbury but it will be no where near the original agreed price of purchase.

Where that will leave Teds finances is anyones guess.

Oh yeah wild rhumour al, clearly wide of the mark!!