So whats all this about IA and a casino, is it at Newmarket or Belle vue? Genuine question.

I'm not really welcome on here, but I predicted this to IA years ago. As regards The other TRB needs to tell Wakey fans if they are talking ( if) to YCProperties or Yorkcourt 2008ltd.

I'm off back to the Nutjob forum now before the abuse starts being hurled!!

Think i'll have to wait until some one deciphers all this. How many York courts are they or is it just one with different names. Just too complicated for me and i suspect most ordinary rugby league fans. There must be some process of appeal some where, surely a good lawyer good overturn this.

bet you've got a big box of tissues

I was under the impression that the reason the cold store had to re-apply for planning was that the building was higher than the original plans allowed.

The original YCP no longer exists, but you would think anyone taking on the site with planning permission would also have to take on the existing s106 which allowed the development to go ahead?

Who knows?

Surely the SoS would be interested in this, if true?

And us hoping he was wrong doesn't mean that he was. We've been done over the table good and proper by Yorkcourt and anyone hoping they will come through for us i feel are misguided, they have shown their true colours and are in it for nothing more than themselves and the money, something they have been short of all along. We will get nothing out of them and our only hope is the company that bought Yorkcourt Properties 2008 from them want to use Belle Vue and in particular the old superbowl to develop a gaming complex like the suggested casino. This may lead to some money being available for an upgrade of BV but it won't turn it into a top quality stadium, just make it habitable and fit for purpose for a while longer. All this though is subject to planning which won't be a given. And it probably won't happen quickly, these things rarely do. I feel for the people of SWAG who have put their heart and souls into Newmarket only to be dumped on from a great height. They should always have our thanks and something decent may still come at BV because of their great efforts but it won't be anything like their commitment deserved.

Just slow down a minute, you nor me are in full control of the facts. We may become wiser very soon but I'd keep your powder dry if I were you regarding Yorkcourt.

I say this using what little first hand knowledge I have, and am not defending anyone.

You may find and I'm speculating (have a decent track record on this) that Yorkcourt may not be the only instigators here. NM was a Ted initiative from a while back now and I know Glover wasn't that keen and ditto Carter was luke warm at least at first.

Look at it this way - if you owned a club that could barely break even, had poor revenue stream and was looking at least another 3-4 years into the future before that might change you'd be sceptical about your chances of survival short term. Then an offer (we assume) comes along that may see you regain a land asset and see your existing ground upgraded in half the time (we assume) to something like fit for purpose with an improved revenue stream at no cost (we assume) - which would you go for.

In pure business and realism terms you'd be insane not to snap their hand off for the latter. Second best I agree but seeing as both deals would hopefully cost (have cost) us nothing beggars can't be choses. Is it ethical from YC, are these things ever?

If the above happens after 10 years on the case I'd still consider the result a victory for the club even if not ideal and somewhat dirty as regards the way planning was obtained. We will at least survive.

The key in all that is IF we can regain the ground into club ownership then looking into the longterm it may well work out. But should we just end up continuing to lease tarted up BV then i see no ultimate future joy in it at all. The devil will be in the detail but i'm afriad my faith and trust in Yorkcourt to do the right thing has gone.

It's all if's I agree - however the Council and the Club etc would have a very strong case to stop Yorkcourt in their tracks - again speculation on my part but it all is up until the real facts are released. This is what I mean by it not all being Yorkcourts doing - it may well turn out that Yorkcourt are simply offering an alternative that suits ALL parties bar the objectors and local residents who supported us on a promise of more than just an Industrial Unit for whom you can't but feel some sympathy.

I don't know MC and I don't know his motives but everything he has done so far has been extremely pragmatic and this plan if it is what we seem to think is a pragmatist dream - ditto Rodney Walker - both of whom appear to be men note easily duped or side stepped and their silence speaks a thousand words to me.

I don't know any more than anyone else about this change but I can't see us going for a revamped Belle Vue if we don't own it as that makes no sense whatsoever.
Any plan to redevelop BV must surely be based on us being able to re-acquire it from BOI

Was that the plan B stated by MC last year all along? I cannot remember any detail about it's (plan B) location but it seems to me that this has'nt come out of the blue but something WTW were planning to happen quite a while ago. A release of the detail by the Express as TRB states was'nt something they (the club & SWAG) were ready for - that all. A statement from the club must surely be on its way.

I agree with Fordy when he says "Any plan to redevelop BV must surely be based on us being able to re-acquire it from BOI". However, TRB states in an earlier post that a redeveloped Belle Vue would be owned by the Trust. Is this correct? Out of interest, who are the other partners in the Trust and would this impact the way in which the club are allowed to use Belle Vue and where any revenue streams end up? Surely it would be best for the club to be sole owner of the ground? Apologies if I've misinterpreted TRB's comments.

why, you know all that has been mentioned in the express release, as a businessman wouldn't you want to keep things under your hat until it was ready to be told

I think enough has been said on here that hasn't been thought of already

At the end of the day i think its Sir Rodney that heads the trust and if he says fans will be pleased with a fully developed Belle vue, he should be believed. I can't see how some one as experienced as himself would be hoodwinked by YC as it would be his own reputation that would be on the line more than any one else.