It was signed months ago - it was dating that it that was a problem. That has now been done, so just a little more waiting to do.....

I'd like to reign in the expectations before they start - when we get the nod from Mr Pickles, please don't expect the diggers to turn up the next day! There will be more hurdles to jump through - including the whole detailed planning stage, although tbf, they could start digging during the detailed planning phase!

Still reckon 2015 will be the year we start life in our new home!

That is my understanding - yes!

Great news that the 106 has been sorted now, the SOS has had the signed but not dated version for a while now so if he’s happy hopefully it shouldn’t be too long before all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed and Yorkcourt can get on with the detailed application. With this and the Tim Smith news it’s certainly a better news day than last Friday!

It could and should have been sorted earlier. I would say the speed of all this has been held back deliberately, probably to allow the interested parties to get all their ducks lined up before the nod is given and the clock starts ticking. Everything should have been put in place now and be pretty much ready to roll bar a little bit of detailing. The grant bids shoud be in and contracts for the B8 signed subject to full permission being granted prepared. As soon as the sign off comes I would expect detailed plans to be submitted within 6-8 weeks, then a couple of months to get them passed. Any longer and questions should be being asked as everything should really be in place by now.

You would hope.

It doesn't appear (from what we understand) that this current hold-up was expected and it is not Yorkcourt who have deliberately held anything back or slowed things down. The land transaction has taken longer than anticipated and the SoS ofice was made aware of the impending issue, well before the deadline as well, so they have known that the delay was mostly out of the control of Yorkcourt and hence the reason the SoS office have allowed them the time needed to sort this out. If the SoS office felt they were stalling and the delay was nothing but legitimate then they would not have stood for it, indeed agreement was reached on the content of the 106 prior to the deadline, so it has all been about sorting this issue so it could be dated and therefore finalised.

As for the rest of it, then much of these elements are outside of Yorkcourt control too. They have been working on outline detailed plans for the stadium and meetings have been on-going, but equally this will move as fast it will move and everyone just has to take this one step at a time. The draft section 106 does say that reserved matters should be submitted for the stadium within three months (IIRC) of the final decision and once we see the final section 106, we can see what is now legally expected under the agreement.

I know it can get frustrating, but things are moving forward and everyone seems very positive that a 2015 opening for the stadium is still more than achievable.

I think 'should' is far too strong a word. We are the huge beneficiaries from this vast and complex scheme and we need to allow those involved the time and patience to ensure that everything is done in the right order.

Now is not the time to be banging on to them about delays - albeit we do try and 'prompt' them from time to time.

I do believe your timescales may be a little over ambitious - and would worry that you may be left frustrated / disappointed over this.

Relax a little, give them the time to do their job - they got us this far, which is a damned site further than anyone has previously!

Can you give a rough breakdown on the capacities for each side of NM TRB?

The way things are going with ST's there will be a rush on to get a standing ticket in the home end. Especially with the growth of the "go north" merry band.

Would something like: the 2 seated touchline sides roughly 4k each & the 2 standing goal post ends roughly 2k each- be about right?

I know what you mean about grounds with/without the corners filled in.

I've always thought the same about the JJB & KC.
IMO the atmosphere "escapes" from the corners at the JJB, whilst it echos in the KC.

As far as the 12/15k goes: If we're targeting 10,000 members by NM then surely we should be looking at 15k.

I also prefer the most recent set of designs with the corners filled in.

Over to you SRW.

but surely putting in the foundations for the corners would save some money

It's cheaper to build the whole thing in one that it would be to leave the corners out and come back later to do them, but you can only spend what you can raise, and unless something comes through - which could happen - I doubt that much will happen in the corners - initially at least.

I've always thought 12k or 15k to actually lack ambition. I know I said this a few years ago when we were averaging 5k. Yet if you look at now, we are over 8k average and growing, no doubt plenty more next season.

With a team on the rise and fresh interest in a new stadium then I fear 12k could be a sellout on not too infrequent an occasion. A stadium full to capacity is great for atmosphere. Yet it is not good for maximising revenue which is what we need to do.