I must fall into the grovellers category then as the Carter /Minards years I’ve liked , knowing we aren’t going to get a winding up order ,or people rocking up, promising the earth then disappearing and leaving the fans to pick up the pieces ,yes I’ve enjoyed these years far better than the previous 20 years or so . And look forwards to the next chapter with our club

Correct ! But it dosnt sink in with some people.

And also from my understanding Matt Ellis has already invested a significant amount imto the club .

What I dont understand is this massive 'love in ' surrounding John Minards. The bloke has done OK and he has given the club a few years service. If Matt Ellis finds a role for him we should respect that. If not then so be it , these things happen in business everyday of the week.

However what i would not like to see , is JM trying to cling on and hang around when he is not really wanted. I am not saying that is the case presently, so lets hope it never comes to that.

I think you’ll find the directors (spirit of 1893) put £1.3 million into the redevelopment, some money was spent on the large screen @ north west corner, new roof on Rollin shack and the new pitch. You may argue that’s only 10% that’s been spent elsewhere on the ground but that other 90% was delivered by mainly JM and MC, why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you have so much hate for our directors and the club, it really isn’t healthy for you.

If “negotiations” are delaying the take over then whoever’s “negotiating” could well be frustrating the potential buyer and that’s playing Russian roulette with the future of the club.

I’m sure Matthew Ellis has a time frame in mind, he’s a businessman and will want to see a resolution within or close to that time frame. As time moves on and man hours mount up without reaching that resolution he will become agitated. The guy obviously wants full control unencumbered by hangovers from the previous regime. John Minards needs to recognise that his time is over and he needs to move on from the club, if he requires a “raison D’Etre” then he will have to find it elsewhere.

Matthew Ellis obviously wants a Superleague Club, his ‘sponsorship/investment demonstrates that. The sooner he knows that he has complete ownership and control he can begin his ambitious rebuild of the club, turning Wakefield Trinity into challengers rather than mere survivors.

Let’s say we lose to Castleford on Friday, he may decide that the delay, the frustrations, the piled up man hours and cost of Due Diligence has reached a point where he’s no longer willing to continue especially if it looks like he’s buying a Championship Club.

I guess my main point is, “negotiating” even in good faith could jeopardise the sale!

Well, in that case it will show the Mettle of the man, and if he’s the right man for the job

Or, as JM said last week, due diligence is on-going and these things take time

It’s not dissimilar to the Steve Parkin takeover bid, all he wanted was an off the record assurance that if he paid Wakefield Trinity’s £3million debt in full that the RFL wouldn’t be relegating them to the Championship making them the most expensive semi pro 2nd tier club in history and a waste of his money. The RFL wouldn’t give him any assurances at all so he walked away, he’s now worth somewhere between £1 Billion to £2 Billion, none of which will benefit Wakefield Trinity!

The fact that he walked doesn’t mean he’d have been a bad owner!

Disagree, all business negotiations can come to a point where someone decides enough is enough.
Matt elliss money was good enough for John Minards when he chipped in a significant amount to bring in players and settle wages of others. JM was quite happy to accept that money without wanting to meet his parents.

I am with Avenger on the fair point he makes.

I'm saying nothing I just get called a liar

Not quite correct because I expect that the Glover loan that he left with the club is included in this figure because I cannot see it referenced anywhere else.

so I'm assuming if they did there would be proof of this somewhere. So would I be right in saying these are directors loans which if you add on to the council loan and the covid loan amount somewhere in the region of over 5.4 million pound of debt and that's without a balance sheet which is forecast to show a massive loss. Is that correct or did the floodlights, roof and screen come from the 2 million gift money from the council

Quote: MOPSEY LIVES ON "so I'm assuming if they did there would be proof of this somewhere. So would I be right in saying these are directors loans which if you add on to the council loan and the covid loan amount somewhere in the region of over 5.4 million pound of debt and that's without a balance sheet which is forecast to show a massive loss. Is that correct or did the floodlights, roof and screen come from the 2 million gift money from the council'" t The figures I quoted were documented in the council documents planning permission also relating to the funding for redevelopment. Unfortunately, those documents are no longer showing on the planning portal. Perhaps Pop Tart can confirm what JM quoted on Monday night, the £8.2 million from York Court, £2 million from Council (Cas & Fev also got 2 million each) and £1.2 million from the directors. I will search on planning websites again for the said documents, or we can trawl through the Stadium planning threads from the past 3 years, I know I posted links for all to see. I don’t know where you get the figures of £5.4 million from. From memory I recall council loan £3.2 million, Covid loan around £900,000 = £4.1 million. I believe JM said on Monday night, Directors loans would not be reclaimed. If anyone on here was at the meeting on Monday, can they confirm or correct me. Thanks Edit, I’ve located some documents dated 15th June 2022. It would appear I underestimated the directors contribution. BELLE VUE DELIVERY PLAN REPORT Second row down, click on documents tab at end of row https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... 7D2QQJOS00

Quote: MOPSEY LIVES ON "so I'm assuming if they did there would be proof of this somewhere. So would I be right in saying these are directors loans which if you add on to the council loan and the covid loan amount somewhere in the region of over 5.4 million pound of debt and that's without a balance sheet which is forecast to show a massive loss. Is that correct or did the floodlights, roof and screen come from the 2 million gift money from the council'" t The figures I quoted were documented in the council documents planning permission also relating to the funding for redevelopment. Unfortunately, those documents are no longer showing on the planning portal. Perhaps Pop Tart can confirm what JM quoted on Monday night, the £8.2 million from York Court, £2 million from Council (Cas & Fev also got 2 million each) and £1.2 million from the directors. I will search on planning websites again for the said documents, or we can trawl through the Stadium planning threads from the past 3 years, I know I posted links for all to see. I don’t know where you get the figures of £5.4 million from. From memory I recall council loan £3.2 million, Covid loan around £900,000 = £4.1 million. I believe JM said on Monday night, Directors loans would not be reclaimed. If anyone on here was at the meeting on Monday, can they confirm or correct me. Thanks Edit, I’ve located some documents dated 15th June 2022. It would appear I underestimated the directors contribution. BELLE VUE DELIVERY PLAN REPORT Second row down, click on documents tab at end of row https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... 7D2QQJOS00

It's all in the accounts as either loans or assets.
But you didn't answer his question.

I've tried to stay out of all this but they didn't put that in, they did though source it! A £1.8 million contribution came from the club, the vast majority of which was through grant funding with the rest coming from the clubs cash reserves. It's a big reason why we wanted a football club at BV asap as they have plenty of grants available to them and they used a bid writer to give them the best chance of success. It didn't come from the directors pockets though, hence why it doesn't show as a debt on the accounts.