Given that the land is owned by other parties that have a deal in place for purchase with the developer then no it isn't quite that simple. And the planning permission runs out in december if i remember correctly? The chanceof anything getting started by then is pretty much zero.

Reading MC's interview in league weekly this isn't just this years attempt to get a rate reduction, we are going. It's not a case of if but more where to, Dewsbury or 'another ground on West Yorkshire'.

It's all part of the process which could end up at high court which we are willing to and have been advised to go for unless we get what we were promised either at Newmarket, Belle Vue or wherever in the City.

[code][/code]
We should have gone to Dewsbury last season and got straight on with legal proceedings

I didn't say it was an attempt to get a rate reduction; but it is almost certainly a move in a bigger game.

MC may not be Richard Branson - but he hasn't suddenly become an idiot.

I would very much like to know what the basis of these legal proceedings are. The Newcold development being built outside the UU i can see the point but it still wouldn't reach the trigger point for the stadium so there has been no breach there either way. The council may not have been supportive in persuading Yorkcourt to push for further business on the site but neither is that a crime in the eyes of the law, they can't force them to build on it. Is there evidence that the council have actively turned or disuaded potential applications for the site away? Neither is it against the law for Yorkcourt to sit on the land for as long as they want, or necessary for the land owner to push the situation. The developer and council being in the wrong morally may be abhorrent but that would get laughed out of court. So what is the crime? There must be something else otherwise taking legal action would be just a waste of time and a lot of money? It's time for those involved to spill the beans because they'll need eveyones full support to have a glimmer of hope.

Oh i'm sure its a thinly veiled public threat to certain people in a final hope it stirs them into action, the problem is i doubt for one minute it will bother them. They will defend themselves in court with a raft of public money, go on a major public charm offensive whilst attacking the trust and it will only be costly to them if they lose which Box, Mackie & co. won't even consider a possibility, thats just what they are like. Like it or not they are also pretty shrewd operators, hence we are where we are. Even if we won would they ever build a stadium? I doubt it and Box is like a cockroach, he would survive a nuclear holocaust. My worry is this is all going to get very messy indeed and i fear the future for my club whatever happens.

Clearly you're cynical and you don't see a positive outcome either way; and believe me, I can see many of the same points you've raised. The whole thing has clearly been an example of men against boys up to now, with Rodney Walker appearing to be at best disinterested, and at worst, a cuckoo in the nest.

All that said - I really don't see MC as a pushover, or naïve; so this latest development is almost certainly a move, and he won't have made it unilaterally - there will be advice behind it, as part of a bigger strategy.

As for your second post - why would anyone divulge the nature of any legal case on a public forum, just to give you a glimmer of hope? That would only serve to prepare the opposition in advance and weaken our position - yes?

Hope you guys get it sorted. MC seems like an honest guy and us Bulls fans would have killed for someone as honest and intergal as him instead of our corrupt owners.

If you moved to Dewsbury it is a tidy ground with potential for development. The pitch would need work as there wasn't a blade of grass a couple weeks back. Having 2 teams on it would make it unplayable most weeks. Especially in Winter. But as a viewing experience for rugby, it is very good IMO.

I can't see Trinity moving to Newcastle, Bristol, Coventry etc. Surely you would ground share with Cas before then? I know it was massively unpopular to share with Cas, but surely it would be better than seeing your club go to Newcastle. Steve Gill and MC are 2 honest guys and seem to get on, so i don't think you would be screwed over like Wigan do with the football team. Has opinion softened on this or is it still a red line?

Hope you get it sorted anyways.

After many years of a non-competitive Trinity side, it wouldn't be right to do nothing re the stadium whilst the team flourishes (or at very least, stops making up the numbers. Its only clear the status quo cant continue. Fingers crossed!

Does anyone know what the financial penalties will be now stadium standards have been brought back?
Its a bit like being kicked in the balls twice when you think of the cost of just keeping the place open

I wish it wasn't so but yes i am cynical as to a positive outcome and i can promise you i'm not alone there. I've spoken to many who think whoever happened to win in court the result would ultimately be the same- i.e. no new stadium. Whilst giving Mackie and Box a bloody nose, (both metaphorically and physically!) would be nice what i want is a club playing in the city and i don't see how that will happen without somebody new rocking up with £20 million along with probably a new site and saying here you go. Then we would need the council again, the one we have just right royally pee'd off.

As for the second point we don't need the finer details of a legal case but it us hardly putting all our cards in the table to say what offences we are actually accusing them of. They'll know that as soon as the papers are served anyway so once that happens, assuming we are going to go down that route, then its time to get it out into the open and try and build the support needed. And i guess that time is close hence yesterdays announcement, the clock is now ticking. MC says we will know which of the options we will be playing next year in 4-6 weeks. I'd guess when that deal is signed and the departure from the city confirmed then the action ramps up.

Apparentlyit's potentially between 30k and 100k, although not all that is ground related.

Though clearly something has to be done, I'm not sure what people think the end game to legal action would be?

A possible and indeed probable outcome may be a ruling that WMDC miss-handled a portion of the planning process. In that the Newcold site should have counted towards the trigger point for the stadium. So with that ruling in hand, what then?
A massively cash strapped council would be landed with a legal bill. This bill would be payed by the public who, unfortunately for us, for the most part couldn't care less about Trinity. We find it hard to drum up any sympathy or support as it is.

Even if the Newcold development was retrospectively added, which I don't think it would be, then what? We are still not at the trigger point. YC would either build up to just below the trigger point and then stop or sell the land option and dump the liability to another party for a discount on the land.

I read somewhere that we have been told we should take legal action. Presumably that advice came from a lawyer. Asking a lawyer if you should take legal action is a bit like asking a greengrocer if you should eat more fruit and veg.

As Castleford have found out, when you don't hold any cards and you are relying on the generosity of strangers, you are completely at their mercy. It's not a nice place to be but we have to face facts. Without a benefactor, our only option seems to be a ground share. For the short term I don't really care where that is within reason. Going forward though it depends massively where it is. We don't have great support as it is. If people no longer feel it's their team because it's too far away, presumably that will dwindle even further.

I was reading in League Express this morning and in a few other places, people disgusted that the RFL deem our ground to be below the required standard. We can't really complain when our own CEO says publicly that he is no longer willing to stand the HSE liability as the ground is too dangerous. At some point you have to accept that a few tins of paint and some weed killer won't cut the mustard anymore.

We need a plan B. Or more realistically, plan S or T. If that sole plan is legal action then we will be in this exact same position in twelve months time. Moaning how everyone around us did nothing but also, doing nothing productive ourselves.

In my experience, when it comes to planning disputes, it's not necessarily about 'offences' in the traditional, legal sense; we're talking here about the fine details of planning law, and potentially, misconduct in public office type stuff. Hardly the stuff of exciting legal dramas, but serious enough to get the attention of respondents - because defending such action costs time, money and reputation.

I'm only speculating here - I have no inside knowledge of this case - but I have been involved in planning disputes on a number of occasions; I watched a specialist planning lawyer tear the representatives of a provincial Council to pieces recently, such that they withdrew part way through and accepted that they had an urgent need to redraft all of their planning guidance and documentation as an urgent matter.

Who knows - I could be totally wrong and this could be MC having a tantrum; but I doubt it very much.