I'm not so sure Trinity could afford the current annual rent for BV in the championship/SL2? Also I read the landlords (not the BOI) are looking into the condition that BV can not be developed until a viable alternative is found.

AFAIK the design is dependent upon grants. If successful then its a stadium with bells and whistles, if not then its a bog standard stadium. Whilst it would be beneficial to construct everything at the beginning, I suppose its not inconceivable that it may be built in stages instead, particularly now the minimum capacity requirement has been thrown out of the window with the Bronco's move to The Hive.

I would be worried if the land covenant was removed. That could theoretically leave us homeless if the landlords want us out of BV and Newmarket isn't ready.

I'd guess then the full grant applications would be more weighty if we are a top flight club and that it would be overall cheaper if it can be done in one go.

Ultimately staying up is pretty damn important!

Love to play in 10.000 stadium with corners filled in packed out most weeks.

If that were to happen then the pressure to get this started is back on but for a different reason to the RFL/Franchise pressure which we've been subject to up to the relaxing of the stadium criteria.

The developers need to speed up the process and start delivering, they always knew that the stadium delivery schedule was time sensitive. They've got their planning permission, it's now time to make the stadium a priority and stop using fine details as an excuse for delay upon delay.

It's not 'fine details' that's the key, it's having 60,000 m2 built and occupied that counts, and seeing as the first unit hasn't even started yet we're hardly in a position to declare war on YC yet!

Im not one for criticising and being negative and I'm fully appreciative of the efforts and commitments by those involved so don't get me wrong, I'm still a believer and fully expect a stadium to get built at some point.

However, throughout the process we were given estimations of when the stadium would be ready, 2013/2014/2015
It hasn't happened, we still don't really know when it will happen, now either the developers were playing ducks n drakes during the application/Inquiry process or they've been naive in their estimations and didn't anticipate the delays.

There's even been confusion over the 60,000 m2, at first I think the term used was 'built out' or something like that. The term was questioned and the answer given was that it meant Units were unbuilt yet had end users signed to legally binding contracts at which point they'd contribute to the 60,000m2 requirement. Now that seems to have changed to 'built and occupied' a wholey different definition in terms of timeline.

We don't need to declare war on YC I ask only that we are not informed and appeased by one explanation then kept in the dark when that version and projection fails to transpire. I for one would rather be told that the stadium is 10 years away than be continually held in a state of expectatation limbo. My other option is to be totally disinterested in stadium matters because as a fan it really is none of my business what YC are doing, I have no right to know and they have no obligation to tell me. For the club that's a dangerous state for fans to enter into but the lack of detailed updates and the elongated timelines are pushing fans that way.

Very much doubt we'll be seeing a Wakefield team running out at Newmarket much before the end of the decade and an awful lot can happen in that amount of time to change things.

Good post and plenty of points to address, which I will endeavour to do.

Firstly, lets clear up exactly what the section 106 says.

[i2 - Construction of the Stadium

2.1 - That as soon as is reasonably practicable following

That is word for word from the legal agreement.

The thing is we knew last year when Newcold came on board as an interested party that it was both a big part of the jigsaw and we really had to now wait until this was resolved in planning terms and on the horizon of starting being built, which we understand could quite literally be as soon as Monday but certainly in the next 2/3 months. They are going to build a big part of the highways infrastructure and starting the stadium without this was going to be hard.

YC were originally very open to the suggestion that the stadium be started very quickly when the SL licence and stadium issues were critical, but since they ended up becoming no longer as urgent as previous you have to understand that rushing into this build, now it didn't need to be rushed, would be counter productive for all parties. This way the money we get from YC will probably go further as it does not need to pay for the build of part of the infrastructure.

As you can also see, the Trust and council have to play their part and work is ongoing to get to a point where indeed a funding agreement can be reached.

The reality, as we see it at the moment, is that now things are indeed starting to move on site (and Newcold should starting building very soon) and SL has now decided (whether you agree or not) on the structure, which has been an issue with moving things forward, we think that next 12 months will see this agreement reached and a time-frame for the stadium build announced and agreed OR NOT... but we think the NOT is very unlikely but if we are been honest it is a possibility, although it is highly unlikely it will be the developer not keeping their side of the agreement which will lead to it not happening!

Actually, TRB, others and I have been chatting about the new structure (again, no matter what you think about it for the good of the overall game) and we think this makes staring on Newmarket sooner rather than later the more likely outcome! We know the situation now and that makes planning for every eventuality actually much easier from a Newmarket point of view.

Finally, the section 106 calls for a Super League standard ground to be built, but this is what we expect to now become the former SL standard (the actual standard is in the s106!) and the new SL standard we expect to be not quite as ambitious as previous! So, this again means that maybe if building not something quite as ambitious and quite as large that fits what we shortly expect to be new SL ground minimum standards means we can start on Newmarket and actually build and finish say an 8k capacity stadium, of course designed to be expanded to 12k then later 15k then why would we not take that option?

That said, we are working on delivering the original plans of 12k to 15k from the start and again, if come October then Wakey are in the 12 then again that should be the minimum ambition from the off!

Actually, this is the final bit - We have never been as busy on this as we have been since the inquiry and lots and lots is currently going on. We do hope to make some announcements soon that will show progress being made but equally please be patient. As I said, the next year or so should see this moving but I must admit to dropping my crystal ball over Christmas... so nothing is certain!

Like I said, we don't think so! We think the next 12 months will see a time-frame and build agreed or not, which I also think will see Newmarket built and Wakey running out in the 3 years maximum or not... there, I said it.

Also, please look at my sig quote below!

I have never given anyone a timescale - for the very reasons you state, but clearly it was in the clubs interest at times to be optimistic about the timescales involved.

The built and occupied bit is written into the 106 agreement, it was always thus, but there were discussions about accelerating that due to SL licence requirements. These not being so now takes away some of the pressure that we can apply!

We are pushing like mad right now and making a right nuisance of ourselves ('exploding' into offices etc) and we are trying to pick up on the movement happening at NM to make sure we make the most of it on behalf of the City and the Club, but nothing much, other than a few meetings, will change for a while yet - sorry!

Thanks IA and TRB,

TRB, I wasn't alluding to the timelines given out as having come from you, they have however been part of the rhetoric released by the club and YC at various points in the campaign.

IA, you refer to the SL standards not now putting pressure on the construction timescales which I agree and also included in my post.
There are now strong and persistent rumours that the landlord who owns Belle Vue is now seeking to have the lease changed so that the provision of another suitable place to play is no longer included and therefore allows them not to renew our lease and give us notice to quit before a new stadium is built.

That to me suggests an even more serious time sensitive deadline than the SL Franchise pressure we were under before.
That being the case, we need to get a move on!
Can you confirm or deny the actions of the landlord and if true will you offer an informed opinion on how that could present a danger to the club and it's status.

We do understand that there are moves by the landlord. There is still some political pressure to help the club in this and we are working to maintain that. There is no need to panic at all, but there is a need to get some momentum going once again and we are driving this hard!

I appreciate you weren't aiming that at me, and I explained the reasoning behind the various 'target' deadlines given along the way.

What if YC build 59,000 m2 and tarmac the rest.

Regarding capacity/cost I remember reading somewhere that each seat has a cost when building so is a seated stand more expensive to build than a terrace stand? I know the plans we have seen are not set in stone but they show both ends terrace both sides seated. Would we gain more capacity with one side terrace stand (better in my opinion) and 1 end seated like Warrington . It would be good to have at least a 10k capacity so need to get as much capacity for our money

Great point well made and that is one of the things we are going to be exploring with the interested parties. You are correct BTW, standing is cheaper than seating from a capacity per area of stand perspective.