Oh the irony!

Indeed. Hasn't a clue really has he?

In fairness, there is nothing wrong with the Newmakket site as such, other than the desire and drive for someone to make it happen.
Political will goes a hell of a long way in making things happen and even Cas supporters will be able to notice that there is a different input from local government for the 2 developments and there is no doubt that Mr Box and his stooges have zero interest in the Newmarket development progressing, indeed he personally stated on local radio that Newmarket has nothing to do with WMDC, despite them clearly being involved when the original papers were signed.
It's an utter disgrace !

Quote ="M62 J30 TRINITY"So he was on his own or were they other people supporting him?'" Phillip Lunn of Lateral Properties (the developer):- www.lateralproperty.co.uk/our-pe ... ilip-lunn/ was on the pitch with David Price of GMI (the constructor):- www.gmiconstructiongroup.co.uk/about-us HTH

Quote ="M62 J30 TRINITY"So he was on his own or were they other people supporting him?'" Phillip Lunn of Lateral Properties (the developer):- www.lateralproperty.co.uk/our-pe ... ilip-lunn/ was on the pitch with David Price of GMI (the constructor):- www.gmiconstructiongroup.co.uk/about-us HTH

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-33503419[/url
Football club signs deal with sainsburys to buy ground four years ago so they can build a new stadium. Sainsburys win court case to pull out of contract, I wonder if they used the lawyers Wakefield council took advice from?....

A couple of interesting articles about Rotherham Titans RUFC and their planned move if they gained promotion.. Rotherham Titans RUFC currently play at 2,500 capacity Clifton Lane Ground. They were denied entry into the Premiership in 2002 due to inadequate stadium requirements despite winning the second tier competition. They are still in the second tier but last year, on the verge of promotion again, looked at Rotherham’s New York Stadium and even the old unused football ground at Millmoor. The football club didn’t want RU played on their pitch and the owners of Millmoor wanted too much rent. They eventually agreed terms with Barnsley FC to use Oakwell should they gain promotion the agreed rental cost is £250,000 for 14 games per season. Barnsley FC also wanted their tenants to drop Rotherham from their name. www.barnsley-chronicle.co.uk/spo ... f-promoted www.thestar.co.uk/sport/other-sp ... -1-6437514

A couple of interesting articles about Rotherham Titans RUFC and their planned move if they gained promotion.. Rotherham Titans RUFC currently play at 2,500 capacity Clifton Lane Ground. They were denied entry into the Premiership in 2002 due to inadequate stadium requirements despite winning the second tier competition. They are still in the second tier but last year, on the verge of promotion again, looked at Rotherham’s New York Stadium and even the old unused football ground at Millmoor. The football club didn’t want RU played on their pitch and the owners of Millmoor wanted too much rent. They eventually agreed terms with Barnsley FC to use Oakwell should they gain promotion the agreed rental cost is £250,000 for 14 games per season. Barnsley FC also wanted their tenants to drop Rotherham from their name. www.barnsley-chronicle.co.uk/spo ... f-promoted www.thestar.co.uk/sport/other-sp ... -1-6437514

With the inability of our council to apply a 106 agreement for the community stadium how long do we hang on and wait for Newmarket? When's the cut of point, when do we look at different options and partners or is this all ongoing?

Are we any nearer having an up-date meeting?

When was the last update on this thread? seems an awful long time ago.

On the whole I think the majority of posters are mildly pleased with the positive signings made by the club.

Then you had to go & mention the elephant in the room

.

Those in the know must be enjoying a brief respite from the burning questions.

Also the process has returned to the normal with the staying/leaving BV scenario now very much sorted. It's obviously still a hot potato but it's no longer radio active. I'm sure we\ll hear more in the new year but it's still a long road IMHO.

Troll.

Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400

Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400

Quote ="FIL"Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400'" Perfect example of why SWAG, the Trust and the Club play their cards close to their chest and want every thing in writing before making any statements. All this is big money stuff filled with danger and attracting every kind of shark and low life. People need to wise up when they moan about not getting info - we are not talking monopoly money here it's big bucks and big risks.

Quote ="FIL"Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400'" Perfect example of why SWAG, the Trust and the Club play their cards close to their chest and want every thing in writing before making any statements. All this is big money stuff filled with danger and attracting every kind of shark and low life. People need to wise up when they moan about not getting info - we are not talking monopoly money here it's big bucks and big risks.

There is no 106 agreement in place according to today's council meeting & council awaiting update from club and developer? Thought it would be the stadium trust and developer

Sorry if I'm being thick (usually the case ) but I don't understand how it can be said that there isn't one in place. As far as I'm aware it's been there from the beginning or else how could it be held that Newcold was outside it? If it didn't exist then there was nothing to be outside of, and certainly no reason to seek a legal opinion.

Without claiming to be in the know or to understand how these things work, because quite frankly I don't, I seem to remember reading that what is in place is a Unilateral Undertaking and not a Section 106 agreement.
Now that might be me getting it wrong and they may be the same thing, but I thought I heard that this was the issue. That the SOS wanted a 106 but that was not what was drawn up, which also explains the "wriggle" room.

I'm sure someone who understands this better than me will be along shortly to explain....



Please feel free to delete all of this if I'm talking garbage - my memory is shocking at the best of times and this saga has completely removed any semblance of sense regards what has happened.

Once again proven as a right set of anchors....

There is a Unilateral Undertaking in place. It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. So you can call it what you will but its the same thing.

I understand that the Council have today said that the UU is between the Developor and the Government. WRONG the UU is GIVEN by Yorkcourt TO Wakefield MDC so I don't get how it can be nothing to do with the Council and everthing to do with the Government.

The Council can say what they will but they are as the Local Planning Authority responsible for enforcing the UU - something they are not prepared to accept.

Hi ho hi ho
It's off to work I go!

It's still there on their website...under s106 agreements...

I don't what's happening now but after tweeting @mywakefield with this information, I go to where it says s106 agreements on the planning website, scroll down to Newmarket Lane development page 21 and click on LINK and it comes up with a s106 agreement for a development at CUTSYKE . Funny that eh?

Sorry for the question, but if somebody ITK could answer I would be grateful.

Box said today that he and his chief executive have "spoken with a firm trying to get them to relocate onto that site knowing it will help the club". Given the Newcold development of which his team passed "helped the club" to the tune of zilch, where is it written that any other development will have a positive outcome?

And more importantly, he also said that with the council help and more parties building on more of the site this will unlock funding to build a stadium. If this is the case and he's so keen to stress this as fact, as well as state outright the UU was created by the Developer and the Government and that it's for the Developer and Club to sort a stadium out, then whose responsibility does he believe it is to keep to that belief? that what is built down there does in fact unlock stadium funding? Because from where I'm sitting if it's not the responsibility of his setup and by proxy the planning department (as evidenced by Newcold), and it's not the responsibility of the Club or Trust, and it's not the responsibility of the Developer as they've already demonstrated it's not as they built Newcold and it counted null towards unlocking that money, then who does he believe will be the one ensuring that site build is equal to stadium funding?

Forgetting all the intricacies, ill feeling and 106/UI controversy. If he genuinely believes this is what is going to happen who does he believe is going to make it happen? Given all involved parties have demonstrated there's nobody responsible for making this so. Where is his take on this outcome coming from?

That's the thing with double dealing, lying and manipulating, it eventually becomes too complex to conceal.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practise to deceive!

Exposed as a liar and not fit for office!

At last someone who speaks the truth.