No, it is a planning clause, not a contractual one. To develop Belle Vue for housing, you would need to get it removed, plain and simple. To do that, as Sandal Cat points out, is by no means certain and will be time consuming and costly. Also, and lets be clear here, the club don't want to move, they just want to pay a fairer rental value and that is what they have already offered to do and still hope will happen.

I would be very, very surprised if a new lease deal is not agreed in the coming fee weeks, which will see all getting something out of it, maybe not what they had before, but still better than the alternatives for all parties!

Interesting stuff Armadillo !

That makes it sound as though we are holding the proverbial "royal flush"

I-A has answered your question but please note that the condition was put in an earlier planning consent and amended to the current condition when the planning consent was renewed to reflect the fact that Newmarket was going to built following the Public Inquiry and the SoS's approval.

The condition was intended to ensure that Wakefield Trinty had a home of its own in which to play before BV could be developed. If we have moved away because of the rent issue we still have not a home of our own and so the condition still applies, even more so now as it specifically refers to Newmarket.

i still believe that the Community Stadium will happen but more like the basic 8k option we suggested to York court and WMDC rather than the 12k plans we got promised at first, but you never know what might happen.

I would like to still believe that the stadium will still be built, but where do you think the funds are going to come from to build it in any form?.
I would love to be proved wrong on this but at the moment I don't see it happening.

The location of the stadiums the main issue for me. Im not convinced it will be as popular as many of you think. Yes it would be a nice clean environment but that's it. If Wakefield council had anything about them they would make the pugneys a sporting village. It screams out to lend its self to the right kind of development. I wonder what the incomes been from parking since the council introduced it.

I've never quite got the location argument? Newmarket, right at the side of the motorway and off a main road out of the city centre is spot on.

I've lived in Netherton and Outwood the majority of my life and getting to Belle Vue is not exactly easy, especially on the odd occasion we get a decent crowd.

Back in the days when everyone came on the bus/train, fair enough, but I bet its a good 80/90% that now drive to games. Donny Rd used to be full of people walking up to the ground. Nowadays you would have all on to know there was a game on.

Agreed. Sadly now it seems its that or nothing and its probably the latter.

A better judge is how many walk away from the after the final hooter and there is plenty. Remember the people who do drive there don't currently pay to park, this wouldn't be the case at Newmarket where its the official car park or nothing due to a parking exclusion zone around the ground on match day as part of the planning permission. Making it more expensive for people to go to the game won't help boost attendances.

I can totally understand all the disappointment regarding our new stadium plans. its see a life time ago we had Durkar and Wakey park on the go. I have seen the Colchester United stadium develop over the years from construction to the present day and a whole new range of developments have been built around it. Its located just off the A12 and the council have granted permission for a park and ride facility, a number of restaurants, service area and a hotel. Any new ground would need to entice people to visit make the day an event. I hope im wrong but I don't see that being achieved on an industrial estate.

Just being devils advocate, if we have served notice of our intentions to leave BV and intend taking residency elsewhere, can it not be deemed unfair on the landlord to be held to rights over what are now unnecessary caviats?
If we had been booted out, it might seem unfair on us as tenants, but as we have exercise our rights to look elsewhere woulnt it now look unfair "holding the landlord to ransom"?
A subtle change of events could lead to a subtle change in perspective of how this case is now viewed??

Surely, all the interested parties cannot be held to ransom by a club who made themselves voluntarily homeless.

Surely any legal professional worth their salt would have confidence in their ability to argue this. They can't use the excuse of artificially high rent to say they were forced out. Rent does not work that way. As current legislation stands, the owner can charge what they deem fit and if you don't agree, you vote with your feet.

Also, Wakefield Council have been bitten by something similar to this before.

They placed a covenant on the old ABC Cinema on Kirkgate, stating it could only be used for showing films. This then led to a very valuable piece of real-estate falling into disrepair and remaining empty for fifteen plus years. This has spread around the surrounding buildings making it a visual and financial eyesore.
An architect I know has told me that by the end, WMDC would have pretty much agreed to anything being built there.

My point is, things can change quickly and very laudable ideas that absolutely seemed correct at the time can soon look like terrible decisions.

Also, purely just my point of view but, I haven't heard of too many people who engaged a bank in a very high stakes game of brinksmanship and came out on top.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong though.

I bet you would, starting to show our true colours now and I doubt they are red, white and blue

Do you lot never get bored, bet the Mods do.

Perhaps it comes with years of practice spotting one.