Ok its getting a bit painful and as Wildthing says a little bit sad.
Let's leave this alone now please and go back to facts and opinions. The personal comments will only end in tears.

Meanwhile with a LA who takes its constitutional duties seriously... https://yorkcityknights.com/club/stadiu ... ork-start/

Meanwhile with a LA who takes its constitutional duties seriously... https://yorkcityknights.com/club/stadiu ... ork-start/

Got to laugh in W E it says women faces jail for creaming off 4 million pounds. Yet W C allowing Yorkcourt to walk a way with land worth 80 million pounds.You can't make it up

You can and they do

I like this bit! The reality is that the council itself is run by a minority of 1. Sure there are elections, but in this authority Labour will always win and, to be a Labour councillor you need to be a Labour member. Then you are vetted by Mrs Box. Then when you are elected you are appointed to a position in cabinet by, erm, Mr Box! There is no room for dissention, only room for those who tow the line.

But if you want to talk statistics, what about the promise to 15,000+ people who's support allowed a developer to make a Kings ransom from a piece of GB land that remain unfulfilled because the council were either too weak, or incompetent, or worse, to make him deliver!

This is about justice and fairness - are you with us or agin us? Make your mind up!

It’s the hysteria on the forum I struggle with. You may be right about the secrecy of the council but how many times were we promised updates only for nothing to be forthcoming. Those in the know were quite happy to continue to withhold information from those they were suppose to be representing.
I ask if the chairman of the trust at the time RW was made aware of certain elements of the deal by the council could it not be argued that his failure to pass this on does not detract from the fact that the council did keep the trust up to date.
I really do hope you win but I am also aware of what could happen if it fails.

Surely you mean WE Scarlet?

I think that's what WE call a Freudian slip

You in the terms of the club and trust, they made the decisions to follow the current course. I don’t use we because it isn’t a decision I think will be successful.
I suppose if the supporters had been consulted then you could say we.

How tedious you are being SP - really tedious.

One sad, sad individual.

I would strongly refute that suggestion - in fact it would appear that in fact RW was more representing the council and the developers than he was the Trust, the Club or the People who supported this! He took the job having been requested by the council and he has remained, right up to now, acting on their behalf. He betrayed us - he betrayed me, and I cannot ever forgive him that after I, incorrectly, gave him more credit and was responsible, in part, for giving him the leash he used to strangle us! I made him aware of this upon his announcement of resignation and I am wholly in line with the club when I say that he can play no part in this process or anything that relates to the Community Stadium or the club.

He'd that information been passed beyond RW we would have acted, but we were not told. RW even at one stage, after dodging the question 3 times previously, suggested that 'as I told you earlier'. The guy has lost all of my respect! In summary, the Trust under his term was very much "him and us".

It is not me you have to convince but the court that the notification to the Trust chairman is not considered notifications to the trust. The fact he declined to pass the details to the other Trust members is I agree unforgivable but he knew and by virtue of his position could it be argued the Trust knew.
I hope that an agreement can be reached without going to court.

This is far from being the only wrong here. But I have probably already said more than I should at this time!