Did this offer include the rest of the community facilties planned for the site or just a stadium?

No idea.

We believe that we can get the Community facilities over the line using other means, but only if we can get to a deal over the Stadium first. The Stadium itself is part of those facilities as we want to see it use for more than 15 days a year!

Well some one saw it. The fact that it was "stand alone" and wouldn't count towards the s106 was posted on the Cas Tigers forum on July the 9th last year.

I think some people on here need a dose of reality, I note that we are asking who took legal advise therefore being part of the proposal did we or the Trust. I am sorry but I am beginning to believe that the developers took advantage of our need to move and the council's need to stimulate development within Wakefield. I would guess if they had not it would have gone to Leeds and a different group of people would be complaining about the council.

I was not privy to any of the meetings but some of you were, did anyone stop and think this is a little too good or even studied the developer's proposal. Did anyone raise any questions regarding the current scenario if not then we have only ourselves to blame.

I accepted long ago that we were no longer the force we were many years ago, but we survived more by luck but together with the team.

This season it is no longer the case and if you believe like our chairman that Wakefield is begging for an a community stadium then why can this not now be the Castleford project. The council could agree and say that in order to fulfill this request we are backing the Castleford stadium.

I also would remind some on here that to get elected a politician will say anything. I read the leaflet from the Conservative party it stated he was a Leeds United fan but only a follower of WT which would suggest this was added in an hope to boost his numbers. We do not even have enough supporters left to make a great deal of different to the outcome in Wakefield because how many still live in this constituency. With regards Box I believe he is the councillor for Castleford but I will stand corrected but if so how are you going to unseat him if he is so pro Castleford.

That was around the time when it became apparent to the wider populace, they've been building the thing for a while now.

I know that Khlav but it says on the post that it is stand alone, I thought the trust said they had not been able to find that condition any where in any portal.

If my understanding is correct they couldn't until after it was too late to lodge an objection.

Thats why I asked earlier in the thread what date the dead line was for objections.

Again - very helpful! Who do you think we are? I work in Landscaping, but it hasn't stopped me trying to apply myself to try and get a resolution. Others clearly have more foresight than me, or is that hindsight?



Put it this way, we need a dose of reality as much as we need supporters who know how it should have been done better than we did!



NB - you don't have to be a die hard supporter to understand that a massive injustice has occurred, in fact I would suggest that is exactly what we are looking for, rather than just being disgruntled RL supporters!



As for Box, no, we cant touch him, but we can make life difficult for him if he remains stubbornly unreasonable.

Everyone knew it was a stand alone application, it had to be because of the height of the building. What we did not know was the development had explicitly been excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking - why would we, we thought the development would contribute to the 60,000 m2 trigger, and we thought that the Council were going to enforce the UU but apparently it's nothing to do with them



Dates for objections were irrelevant if it was not made clear that the development had been excluded from the UU, why would anyone object to a development that it was believed was contributing to the UU.



What is relevant and crucial is that the Council have stated that they had no choice but to exclude the development because they took legal advice which confirmed that but claim that they do not hold the advice. They either took advice or they did not and I believe that will be crucial if or when Lawyers are instructed.

I've just been back to the casforum to read it again. The post is on a thread entitled "Newmarket" and is towards the bottom of the 5th page. It says in the words of the planning application "The application is a stand alone and is in no way tied to the extant outline consent to the site". The big mistake I made when reading it the first time was getting the year wrong,. This was posted July 9th 2013 not 2014 2 days after the application went live. I don't know if "tied to the extant outline consent" means the same as a s106 but the info would seem to have been in the public domain for some time. Sorry but I don't know how to do a link to this. "The nutjob forum" I mean.

Tha's a watered down Vinniedog thee !!

Firstly I don't read the Cas Forum but all that is saying is that it is a stand alone application rather than a reserve matters application.



The S106, in my opinion relates to the site and not the outline consent granted by the SoS and applications, even stand alone applications should be caught by the S106. The Council think differently and even took legal advice - oh how we would love to see that advice, but as they have said they don't hold it.

Ha Ha love it. Apparently Vinnie hasn't been on the nutjob for ages. Rumour has it that he's too busy running Wakefield council Mashy mate.

It just goes to show how complicated it all is, as some one else has said its usually the lawyers that get rich from these type of cases.

More like the far right winger got himself banned and re-invented his-sen in watered down version.

*devils advocate mode*

It says in no way is it legally tied to the existing development. Which bit of that made anybody think, oh ok that doesn't effect us then?



Because straight away it says to me that is nothing to do at all with the original permission. And at all would include the 106.

And because someone posted it on a forum for another RL club we are all supposed to be aware?



We were told that the application would take us to two thirds of the way towards the trigger point of the 106 agreement. I only wish I'd been party to the Trust at that time, but as it is the Trust would have been Sir Rodney, David Hinchliffe, Andrew Glover and James Elston. I have asked 3 of them about this and not one of them has said that they were aware that it did not contribute.



This is all fundamental to the councils position, but they will not provide any of the details they suggest support their position! Strange!

Not sure what point you are making. Just because someone writes that it is not tied to the existing development makes it right or even lawful to disaggregate it from the site.



I believe, and have dealt with many S106 Agreements, that once the consent was granted by the SoS on condition that a Unilateral Undertaking be entered into then no development on the site can be excluded from that undertaking.



We'll have to see what the Lawyers think.

So no then, the trust did not request legal advice. I am not singling anyone out but you can't be surprised that questions are now being asked with the number of months all we heard was things are going on but we cannot tell you.

I did not notice any requests for advice from other supporters from anyone involved so you can't blame me for asking questions because all I am receiving is the clubs side.

With regards an injustice once again the majority of supporters were kept in the dark so did not have the benefit of the information you had to judge the position.

It was written on the planning portal on the 8th july 2013, so not just on a forum. Whether you were aware or not you can't say that wasn't there to question as has been alluded to because quite obviously it was. Whether the others understood the ramifications or not i don't know but that won't really matter come court time, it will be based on technicalities. At that point it probably will be who has the best lawyer.

The point is despite the rhetoric that i keep reading that the trust haven't seen anywhere where it says it doesn't count. It is there in black and white from the beginning. Whether actually legal or not is not the point it was surely worth questioning and if in doubt get clarification at the time. But it was missed, end of. What is coming out is that there are an awful lot of holes in our attack moving forward that a good lawyer will tear to shreads and by no means is it a foregone conclusion that we would win a court case. It seems you haveade up your mind so as you say we will have to see what the lawyers say. I hope you have deep pockets.

Right ! Here goes!



The question that needs answering is - Why the trust board/advisors/ helpers/ swag etc who had been so "forensic" in their knowledge of the scheme and planning process up to date, did not pick up on the "stand alone" and "no way legally tied " statements in the Newcold application?? ( ignoring the councils claim that pre-application meetings had pointed this out)



They should have done and should have asked "serious questions" of the planners / council as soon as the Newcold application went in!



Surely that statement would have set alarm bells ringing with the people involved, but it appears not!! for whatever reason



I cannot believe they showed no interest in looking at the application documents in detail (not that a detailed look was needed) and if they did , I absolutely refuse to believe they missed it!!!



Maybe it's time for someone to say - "Sorry we f.....d up in the case of Newcold but we won't let it happen for future applications" and move on!!



#WheresRodney



Don't bother with any abuse I really could not care less! (and I won't bite either)

But it does not say its excuded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking. Was it missed, why should anyone have been looking for it, we thought the Council was going to enforce the S106 Agreement, as is their duty, and deliver a Community Stadium for the people of Wakefield, not wash their hand of the whole affair. The fact is that the Council said they excluded after taking legal advice that when asked to see a copy they state that they do not hold it. Maybe a good Lawyer will tear that to shreads.



You are right no legal case is a foregone conclusion but we have 2 alternatives after negotiation and compromise failed. We either give in and accept that we are going to get nothing or we fight and I can assure you that the Stadium Trust, Supporters Trust and the Club are not going to give in. You can back us or not, that's up to you.