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!

Sorry Scarlet. I usually defend your right to speak and question the vague and factually incorrect comments on here but you just got a straight from the horses mouth comment there and so with no facts to say otherwise I would take it and not question someone's integrity that put their own personal experience out there.
I'm speaking as a supporter not a mod. It isn't a question of AUP. Just a question of personal character.

your far better not even replying to any comments on here Phil while the fans are frustrated like me would love to know more let it come out in the courts

It is a delicate balance.

I am not questioning anyone’s integrity but if it goes to court it will be something I am sure the councils solicitor will raise. I am actually just trying to highlight the pitfalls that litigation can produce because I don’t want everyone to think the win is guaranteed or that the council will cave in by threatening such action.
What I fear the most is we go to court lose have the costs awarded against us and have no ground because we have alienated the very people we need and have left for Dewsbury.
I guess time will tell but like Brexit the clock is ticking and time is short.

I do not say this lightly, because I am concerned about SP's agenda, but I can imagine a court agreeing with SP's assessment.

I don't doubt TRB's assessment as a correctly-expressed view, and if anyone should know, he should, but if the issue is whether the Trust were informed of various things, I would imagine a court would find that communication to the Trust head, the person given the role of direct communication with the council, would be sufficient.

Of course, the council could be put to proof as to what they actually communicated and when, because if the Trust say they weren't told various things, the Council would be required to show the communication.

If, however, they can show that they discussed and communicated and negotiated at all times with the Trust head, speaking on behalf of the Trust, it becomes a problem. The council have absolved themselves of responsibility.

The analogy I can think of, and this has no direct correlation to anything happening here, but imagine if someone appoints a solicitor to act on their behalf in a civil claim, and that solicitor negotiates a settlement. If it transpires later that the solicitor had some connection with the other side, or perhaps didn't do a very good job, it becomes a disciplinary issue for the solicitor, not the other side.