And you know that do you, that's an assumption that may not be true.

The Oakwell deal was a throwback to the Ted plan. Personally I think it's workable if NM is an absolute certainty. I never got the impression that Ted ever believed it actually need to would happen.

We leave BV we leave for good and we are nomads just like Oldham and look what happened to them.

Before we leave our ancestral home (remember possession is 9/10th of the law) we need to take care. I'd rather be an NL1 club with a home than a SL club nesting in Barnsley long term.

We may or may not own BV I don't know, but I am led to believe (no I can't prove it so it's up to you if you accept my word) there is a covenant on it that prevents us being ejected from it without us being found a suitable alternative in the Wakefield area. So long as we pay the bills of course.

Teds's legacy?

This may explain AG's reluctance to move. Ted may or may not have lost the family silver but we are sitting tenants and can't be move. With AG having more room to maneuver than Ted stopping at BV looks very good in pure business terms and explains a lot. He, unlike Ted can gamble with a year or two in SL to re-stock, until Crusaders inevitable demise occurs and a place becomes available and perhaps in the meantime NM becomes more solid.

I don't know this is AG's thinking but if it is I'd consider it very wise.

What is the point of discussing fantasy,which is unfortunately all there is inside your head regarding Cas and your new proposed ground and its funding.

Opinions yes, fantasising no.

Go on then learned friend, point us in the right direction and come up with a productive point, and we will take your lead from it, but it cannot be anything to do with the sale of wheldon Road or your funding for the [sizenew stadium[/size

What is the point of discussing fantasy,which is unfortunately all there is inside your head regarding Cas and your new proposed ground and its funding.

Opinions yes, fantasising no.

Go on then learned friend, point us in the right direction and come up with a productive point, and we will take your lead from it, but it cannot be anything to do with the sale of wheldon Road or your funding for the [sizenew stadium[/size

I heard the same thing, but I'm sure I also heard that the restrictive covenant pre-dates Ted by quite some margin; if that's true then no, not Ted's legacy.

I thought it was when planning permission for house's at Belle Vue was granted?

It would do well to pre-date Ted he was there from 1991 I think when BV was Council owned. It was put in place I believe when planning permission was granted or when the club bought the ground back. Either way they can't boot us off BV. So if we are NL1 bound then we may as well stay until NM is factually built the apply for SL again..

Fair play - your information is way more concrete than mine, so I'll defer.

I agree though - if we are headed for a period out of SL, it would be suicide to move to Oakwell.

If wakey were to drop to nl. It would be interesting visiting other teams for a year and realistically I would like us to challenge the league for the time we are in.

As long as the focus remained on securing a licence next time round and everything inc stadia worked towards that goal of Sl I would be content.

But to pull out the stops and keep us where we belong (on performance) I would be a happy man .

It would be for more than a year. In fact if we drop down it could be a long term deal. As far as I know the RFL/SL have not said when franchises will be reviewed again could well be a closed shop for sometime after this season.

I have no idea whether you are right or wrong, but I have heard the rumour.

However, I know very little about land law, but can a restrictive covenant be removed if both seller and buyer agree, or is it the original covenantor? The reason I raise it is because it seems that Ted sold the ground to himself, albeit through a limited company registered in a different legal jurisdiction (or something), and so he could agree to the removal or imposition of anything, because it was a win-win for him, until land values went down.

The restrictive covenant is usually on the face of the deeds, which I presume are held at the Land Registry. Has anyone ever had a dig around? I remember a poster did during the winter, when that article appeared about who really owned Belle Vue.

You would think that the Bank of Ireland would be happy to sit on their charge on the ground, as land now may more be likely to go up, and I presume a rent is being paid, rather than seek to boot us out. I'm with vastman though, that I would rather stay at Belle Vue until at least construction starts on the new ground. We've been about to build a new ground for longer than we have been in Super League, and so does it make sense to leave Belle Vue until something is definite.

Glover did announce that he was going to keep Belle Vue on as the business base, and so I am surprised that Oakwell has been ruled out, unless the agreement stalled for other reasons, because it still left all his options open.

The deed's can be found on the Trust's website and facebook page. Not something i've perused but the answer may lay in that document.

All I could see on the website were stadium graphics and stadium prospectus. What was the address, in case there is another more detailed version?

Quote: Slugger McBatt "All I could see on the website were stadium graphics and stadium prospectus. What was the address, in case there is another more detailed version?'" wakefield.rlfans.com/downloads/deeds/LRDeeds.pdf Hope this helps.

Quote: Slugger McBatt "All I could see on the website were stadium graphics and stadium prospectus. What was the address, in case there is another more detailed version?'" wakefield.rlfans.com/downloads/deeds/LRDeeds.pdf Hope this helps.

Apologies I meant the supporters trust.

I can't see any restrictive covenant on there that demands that we must be rehoused if the ground is sold, or even suggest that, although Wakefield Trinity RLFC Limited does have a charge on the land, and so I presume that it can't be sold without the club's consent (presuming that the Spirit of 1873 Ltd acquired that charge when it bought the old company out of administration).

So my reading of it is that although there is no apparent obligation to rehouse the club, the sale could not be completed without the club agreeing to release the charge.