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.

Exactly what ground? we don't own one and the owner seems to me to have layed it's cards on the table with what he wants to do and Newmarket is still a million miles away from being built. It's not like the Council can or should build one, so when will the next Newmarket S106 scheme come around, 5 years, 10 years., whatever it might be it's too long to wait.

You never give any alternatives to how the Club should progress in all this, even when basically telling everyone they're doing it wrong and tbh you generally keep to a similar theme. So I'll ask, what would you do if you were running the Club atm, knowing what has gone on at Newmaket that past 6/7 years and as I say we don't own the ground. How would you move forward in all this?

To add, I don't think no one thinks a Court case will guarantee anything, but hopefully one thing it will do is air this sorry saga in the full view of the public & once and for all find out whether any wrong doing has happened during the last few years. Plus also give us a clearler picture on what actually WMDC should have been doing in all this to make the S106 agreement work for the us & the Community at large. Ateotd when you've got no ground and the dvelopment is no nearer than the day it was passed, what do we do as a Club. We've been backed into a corner and have been left with no alternative imo.

Here we go again, speculating with authority that both you and Slugger don't have.

Yes I know you both know your legal stuff but as I've said before I know my stuff in my job but without all the information I still can't do it.

TRB, IA and Sandal Cat are smart people. I've never met MC or CB but I suspect they are the same.

I don't think any of them would embark on anything like this without feeling reasonably confident of a result. One thing I do know, these are not vain people so ego plays no part - a huge advantage they hold over Box.

To put it bluntly there are things that have gone on that none on here are privy to - fact. That includes me.

I suppose I could find out for certain what they are if I wanted to but I don't - the legal stuff is not my cup of tea. However I do know they exist and I have a good idea what they are.

Thus IMHO we have a strong case, trust the Trust so to speak. Do you honestly think they can or will divulge their case on here - come on folks we are not that important.

It's serious now and all this speculation, even the 'expert' stuff is just ill informed nonesense for me. You have every right to express it but let's not make out you have any special isight please.

Finally the indulging of SP is frankly embarassing - he's laughing at us.

True. We are stuffed when WMDC release the minutes of those meetings and undermine any suggestions of abuse of office that may be floated.

Oh...wait...

I'm not sure what you don't get from their points either.
Neither have given an opinion. They are pointing out what could happen in court. That doesn't necessarily correspond to what is right.

Trusting the club and the Trust is fine. But it's faith not fact.
If I were in MCs shoes I'd do the same but that doesn't mean he'll win. We won't know that until the facts are presented.

Saying they are intelligent so must have a good case is all well and good but unfortunately Box and SRW are pretty clever too and probably think they'll win too.

Mr Box just wants a stadium for cas and if it mean's getting rid of W T he will do. This Guy looked me in the face and told me W C was going to buy the lease of the ground off the owner of belle view ,and when they had got money back to cover the lease they would give it to the trust

Can you prove this?

Well I've just watched it and I think he comes across as a bully that's been used to saying and doing whatever he likes the rest of them look frightened to death of him ,now we know what mc and the trust are having to deal with ,how will they ever get any sense out of that man he's lmposible .

No i can not prove it. It was at a W C meeting about 8 week ago and it was before the meeting had started .He new I watched W T as I had a coat on that had their name on.