That was my understanding also.

But I would pay £100,000 myself for planning if in return I received a £13m or so asset for £1 - much better return than putting your money in a Post Office Savings Account.

I was sure it was a radio interview two or three years ago with Steve Gill when he mentioned it but i might be wrong, time fogs the memory. I'm sure an email to him would clarify.

The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of Box! the only way to get rid of Box is to stop voting Labour! i know it will hurt alot of people to do so but it needs to be done. The meetings behind closed doors need to end and the public be told exactly what the council plan.

That'll do for me.....yes, we are all pi$$ed off at the continuing disgusting, underhand dealings of WMDC, but if MC - the man who has every right to be 100 times more pi$$ed off than the rest of us - says " Keep calm and relax", then that's what we should do...he has not let us down yet !!!

IN MC WE TRUST

They won't be getting my vote that is for sure.

The post does confirm the stench of Rodney though, in that if it is accurate, Rodney has "been in the frame"

Another interesting post on there states all the way back at the public enquiry Walker stated that the club would pay a market rent on the stadium.

It ties in with what i was told, that 88M were serious about the plan. But i guess they want an income from it, like any landlord would i suppose. Otherwise what is in it for them? They be better off building housing or retail on it otherwise.

Exactly.

The council/Wallhead statement implies (I think) that the rental would go to the charitable trust, not to 88M. (That's why I asked previously what the charitable trust was going to do with the tenant's income).

We are all witnessing, and suffering from the consequences of, the failures and greed of a capitalist system; the unacceptable face of which belongs to a certain fat cat known as RMW.

I imagine the plan is the lease is eventually handed to the trust who then sub let to the club as anchor tenants. The trust would have to pay 88M the commercial rent and as such charge the club and any other clubs/groups using the stadium a rental fee. What 88M charge would reflect how much the club pays.

Next question i suppose is did/does the trust know how much 88M want to charge for the privilege?

That's not how it works in the real world, the terms of the lease is where the land owner makes his money, the leaseholder makes the rental revenue, if a commercial rent of say £250k is going to a "charitable trust" where's the £250k ending up?
I can tell you, in some fat cats pocket that is neither the landowner/developer or council official, I private individual who draws a wage out of the charities profits, unfortunately that won't be the wakefield community trust that should be getting the rental, it will be some other charitable trust
I don't mind telling you, I'm fuming and my offer in a previous thread of donating £500 to the legal battle is now being doubled to £1000

£100,000 a year rent appears to be the rent we're supposed to be paying, I wonder what other SL clubs pay in rental Wigan, Hull FC, Salford etc?