So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.

So we have have a meeting tomorrow, can we expect anything definitive? www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7260687 This seems a strange thing to say from the Councils mouth-peace “It was not a 106 agreement but a unilateral undertaking between the developer and Secretary of State. The council is not the beneficiary". I'm even more confused now.

So going by the document in theory the stadium is to be handed over, in the first instance at least, to the council and NOT the trust? So could the council, again in theory, say they didn't actually want the stadium anymore and would prefer the land to be used for something else, say business use, so to benefit from the jobs and rates it would bring?

Yet obviously the caveat to all this is that the council keep saying they are not the beneficary but it states nowhere that anyone else is either. If they don't want to enforce the build what happens then? This makes absolutley no sense to me!

Makes no sense to me either.

So I know Eric Pickles is no longer S.O.S. but surely this is a question for that department and it's new postholder (Greg Clarke is it?)

They made the ruling, surely it is up to them to clear this up.

He isn't a fan of big government so he probably leave it for the LA to clarify

Despite that, his office made a ruling that is well documented. His office therefore have a responsibility to clarify that ruling for the hard of thinking at WMDC in my opinion.

I put this on another thread earlier this week and going by George Osbournes speech yesterday then it seems to still ring very true...

'His replacement is Greg Clark, someone who is big on devolution. Expect a big push for more decisions to be made at a local level with at some point point an elected mayor being introduced. Short term it possibly benefits Cas' stadium development as regards the call in, or not as the case may be. As for Newmarket, it remains to be seen how it affects things but if he leaves it up to local government to sort out it could be a problem. Seeing as it wasn't his decision he may call for a full review but this will take quite a while to implement and would risk de-railing the whole development so it would be a big call for someone just in office'.

Normally devolution would be a good thing but for us, right now, it might not be the best thing. I have a feeling he will leave it to the local authority to ultimately decide as to go against what has just been announced would leave him and the government looking a little daft, which in turn will probably lead to going to court to sort out the legalities. Even then it relies on the the willingness of the developer to do the right thing which is something they have shown little propensity to do. Whichever course it takes (if at all) I can't see anything happening with the stadium building wise for a long time yet.

I think that now the road infrastructure is in place, it would be hard for a government desperate for stories of green chutes and regeneration to call a halt to any further development. As previously said, we are at the mercy of the developer doing the right thing. Which I don't see happening personally.

If we cannot secure the two million pound funding that we need, the developer could argue that we are no longer in a position to go ahead. That we are essentially holding back the creation of jobs and wealth in the areas they cannot develop further without triggering a clause for a stadium which cannot be built.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this point of view but, I am extremely biased.

At the end of the day, money talks and businesses pay business rates. As things stand, nobody gets anything and New Market stands largely idle. Fill it with buildings that didn't cost local government anything and the picture changes significantly.

Can anybody tell me if there is still an open dialogue stream between the club and it's interested parties and the developers? Often when legal action is threatened or even hinted at, all communication stops. People don't want something they said in an unguarded moment to suddenly become [isub judice[/i.

I need to start replacing some of the opinions in my head with facts.

While all the discussion around the new SoS is relevant, in some ways it does not change the overarching situation.

We currently feel that WMDC may have acted unlawfully or ultra vires in the granting of planning permission for the Newcold development, in that it was not captured by the S106 agreement. We believe that the S106 is a land charge (and that is what the law appears to clearly say) and that therefore it can not be avoided, even via a new application that needed to ultimately be made, because of the size of the building.

The council's opinion is that this is not the case, but equally they have been unable, to date, to give a clear answer as to why they think it doesn't count and back-up that judgement with sound, factual and legal reasoning... despite us asking, over and over again! You will remember that they initially said they took legal advice, we asked to see this legal advice under and FOI request and they told us they had no record of this legal advice! Neil Rodgers, the new head of planning at WMDC, who was not in position during any of the planning stages for Newmarket OR in post when the FOI request was made (this is important) has gone on the record and said that legal advice was taken from WMDC own planning lawyer (we are still not clear on exactly what that means BTW?). Now, given that Neil was not in post, then in order to categorically state that legal advice was taken (from any lawyer) then he must have seen written evidence of such, or how else would he actually know? So, we have asked again to see the legal advice that they claim to have no record of but Neil Rodgers is now categorically referring to as existing in the media/public domain and to be able to do so, he must have seen it? We are now waiting for an answer to our follow-up FOI request!

So, back to the original point. We are of course going to try and ask the new SoS to look at the case and intervene. The question, which we don't know the answer to yet is to what extent can he, or not, intervene? What legal powers does he have, again, if any at all, other than maybe frowning on WMDC and writing some letters? Ultimately we are going to, if required, try and explore and use every avenue that is open to us to get both what we are morally owed (which we all know, even WMDC, although they won't admit this either) and we feel legally owed too! So, the moral side is without question in my opinion, and this is the biggest shame on WMDC for me, irrespective of any ultimate outcome, but in order to prove that then we have to explore all these legal avenues.

As we have said, because we have been morally wronged, we will fight all the way to the high court, the ultimate destination, if we have to and if we lose there then at least we tried everything possible and everyone (include the fans and public of Wakefield) can hold there hands up and say, we lost (the law in an ass as well probably) but we tried!

A couple of final points, we are still willing to talk and are indeed talking to all parties and that will continue as long as they (not us) let that continue. We do not want to go to court and spend loads of money fighting this if we don't have to, but we will if they do not provide what we were promised and what the public of Wakefield are owed. WMDC keeping telling everyone that there is door is open, but to be honest it is not really any more. they have shut it. As you can see, they are washing their hands of the whole affair and telling you the tax and voting public, that it has absolute nothing to with them, it is not their problem, they are not party to the S106, did not even see it or have any part in negotiating it (we disagree and feel we can prove different) and that despite neither the Trust or the SoS being named parties to the S106, unlike WMDC, it is all down to us to sort with the developer!!! BTW, we are trying to sort this with YC, and they are still speaking to us, and us to them and that is the way we would like it to continue as well.

So, tax and voting public of Wakfield MDC... what do you think about how your council is behaving? I think they are shameful and I will continue to hold them to account until we have exhausted every opportunity and avenue available to us! It is that simple!

Yes, there is dialogue between the Trust and the Developer. We are also still inviting the council to attend Trust meetings, although they have not attended the last two and have given late apologies for not doing so. However, they have told you and us that they are not an interested party and that this is a matter purely for the Developer, the Trust and the SoS!

As it falls under their jurisdiction and is subject to their planning rules I cannot possibly see how they could say it is nothing to do with them. That should be relatively easy to prove in a court of law. What can then be done though about them sand bagging is a different matter. Local pressure would seem the only thing that May light a fire under them. It would take a massive and sustained effort to do this. Well I for one am ready.

"So, tax and voting public of Wakfield MDC... what do you think about how your council is behaving? I think they are shameful and I will continue to hold them to account until we have exhausted every opportunity and avenue available to us! It is that simple!"

Excellent update I.A - my reply to Box's puppet - Neil Rodgers - has been printed on the letters page of this weeks League Express !