I don't blame you at all!
On matchdays it will be WT that generates extra income by their efforts - why the hell should anyone else dip their bread in!
all this secrecy always had to be about money!

Don't know about Walker but I am certain Mackie wants the club to fold it was his plan all along.

In all fairness we can discuss what we think the tenancy arrangements will be for ever and a day. However I am now certain this would be futile because I am convinced he will never build a stadium so its all irrelevant.

Good luck with whatever you decide you certainly have my respect with what you have achieved in your time at the club.

Not sure about wanting the club to fold, maybe expected the club to fold when they agreed to build the stadium all them years ago. But yeah I guess if we did fold it would get them out of this situation they seem desperate to wriggle out of

The W&DCT Statement made clear the terms that were proposed to be offered to the Club. Rather than setting up an expensive Management Company and having to pay lots of people inflated salaries we would propose that the Stadium is leased to the Club on a FRI lease where the Club manage the stadium and are responsible for all expense. In return the Club can keep all income it generates which would make the Club sustainable and be able to compete in SL. A condition of that would be that the Club has to make the stadium available for use by the wider community. I'm fairly sure MC and CB would have accepted those terms.

I wonder why there is now a new, albeit illegitamate Trust being formed. You have to ask yourselves why.

I wonder how the majority of Super League clubs go about regards revenue streams for the club. As far as i am aware only 3 own their ground outright, Leeds, Saints and Cas. Warrington own theirs through a holding company,Hudds. have a 20% stake in the Stadium holding company of their ground. Widnes,Leigh, Catalans and Hull are local council / authority controlled, Wigan use the Wigan FC ground, Salford rent from a third party though the council has a stake in the stadium. Surely it should be easy to get the facts of how revenue streams are shared out in clubs that do not own their own ground or only have a percentage stake in them.

Wouldn't there be any room to manoeuvre at all on the terms ? Or has it been agreed that it's these terms or nothing ?
I haven't a clue about the finances but if it was a middle ground and it didn't cripple the club, wouldn't it be sensible to agree if it meant getting this damn thing built ?

this guy really thinks he's pulled this one off, what a clown

I don't give a flying one what happens at other clubs. This guy got 220 acres of green belt land on the back of promising to fully fund and build a community stadium.

As the only party, who has never sought to, or will seek to gain financially by one single penny, I can maintain the moral ground and walk away, if needs be, with my head held high. Everybody else now involved is motivated by greed!! It's an absolute scandal of the highest order.

Still don't get how a trust can be changed at the whim of a developer, however I'm minded to be on the side of calling their bluff and getting the thing built then worrying about bar takings etc later. By outright refusing let's them off the hook.

Not in my opinion. See daddycool's post above.

We all knew what the original deal was when consent was granted but we are talking of changing the deal because it would appear that someone can smell a bit of money.

Castleford had got a great deal where they get freehold title of a £13m stadium for £1 and can run that stadium for the benefit of the Club provided that they make the stadium available for community use. The perfect deal that Peter Box described in the Council Chamber that he said he would negotiate for the Club.

All we want is a similar deal which is what were were supposed to get with the original Section 106 Agreement but we don't wish to go over old ground. The new S106 Agreement is supposed to put right those wrongs.

It would not be built until a lease is signed which would not happen on the tems that have been suggested.

Which is why I would sign the terms so they have no excuse. I don't see what the club have to lose. We fold if it doesn't get built, we might fold if it does.

With real support from the council, great things can be achieved. www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-linc ... e-40460876

With real support from the council, great things can be achieved. www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-linc ... e-40460876

I'll wait and see with everything crossed what mondays announcement says, if it happens. But i've a feeling that if it really is non-negotiable then we better get used to the idea that it's not going to happen. They obviously won't build it under the current terms for whatever reasons they want to give and we want to believe, so it's a bit of a pointless argument, it ain't going to happen. So any suggestions for plan B?

Sign them and you are contrctually bound to pay the rent for the term of the lease - just won't happen.