I'm not shrugging my shoulders TRB - far from it - I've advocated getting tough with YCP and that's what I'd do; I just don't think it's realistic to expect to receive outpourings of support from Outraged of Outwood on this issue. The whole thing received so little media attention, that it never entered the consciousness of a massive majority of the Wakefield public - people, as a rule, don't give a toss about things that don't directly effect them, and this doesn't.

I hope that whatever the Trust is working on is enough to get YCP to do the right thing - really I do - but there's a massive disincentive to doing the right thing when it's going to cost you millions of £'s.

Can't believe what I'm reading on here.

It's not a moral or political obligation its a LEGAL obligation, that's what a Section 106 Agreement is, its a UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING from one or more parties to another in return for something.

In this case it is a planning consent that results in £m's of profit being made in return for a Community Stadium provided for the Stadium Trust.

The profits will be made so do we just forget the Unilateral Obligation to provide the Stadium. If legal documents have been badly drafted they can be put right as long as the original intent is met.

I for one aint going to give up the fight even if others already appear to have capitulated.

we have voted people into positions to look after our needs(community sports stadium}ect.make them do their job.ring or write to them,show your anger.

So if it the 106 is watertight and is a legal requirement and they renege on it there should surely be no problem taking them to court then? Threaten them with that and the job is a good 'un. Unless the agreement isn't watertight and the legal requirement isn't there of course. Then there is a problem. So which is it?

Isn't the point though that the original agreement was drafted in such a way that it *didn't* created a legal obligation?

Which takes me back to my original point; it's been going on for months now and it sounds like YCP are doing everything they can to duck out of what should have been a legal obligation, but is now only a moral one; given that stance, dob them in to the SoS and let Eric Pickles deal with them - while you're at it, talk to the WE, YEP and anyone else who'll listen. Property developer colludes with council to create millions in profit and skanks local community out of sports facilities? Would go nicely in the 'Rotten Boroughs' section of Private Eye for starters.

If your capitulation dig was aimed at me - you're misunderstanding; I'd fight back in the strongest possible terms, and balls to the feelings or sensitivities of whomever else is involved.

Bren, don't want to go into too much detail because this may well end in a Court of Law but needless to say we have a 106 Agreement that shall I say is not fit for purpose and does not reflect the intent of the Inspector at the Public Inquiry.

We need to put that right by whatever means we have at our disposal and I don't know if you have been involved in any Court actions of this nature but you try to resolve matters by dialogue and litigation is always the last and final resort.

We are on with this and all I'm asking for is supporters patience, trust and more than anything support because we may well need it.

We are fighting for what we all love.

Totally correct and do not forget the numerous council officers on 6 figure salaries who have also been involved in all of this. Yet again , as usual they have let the people down that they are paid to serve.

I have the utmost respect for TRB, Sandal Cat, IA and everyone else who's volunteered their time and resources for ten long years. This certainly isn't a dig or any form of criticism of them because they're honourable people who have acted in good faith. Unfortunately the other parties involved have been criminally incompetent or constructively deceitful in their actions and I wonder if there's a route there in which to follow a legal challenge to the loophole in the S106, similar to constructive dismissal.

I'm certainly not advocating giving up but I'm certain from what I know that YCP have zero intention to pay 1penny towards sports facilities for the community.

Trying to appeal to their better nature or hoping they'll cave in because lots of people are upset at them is the same nativity that allowed them to dupe everyone in the first place.

It's as clear as the nose on your face that the only way to deal with them is a heavy handed approach. Therefore going Legal with the weight of the SoSs Office, WMDC Officers, Media and any other means behind you is the way to go IMO.

And it's just that, an opinion, formed from the outside looking in so please don't condemn me or anyone else for having and discussing a view on a forum.

Just a couple of questions:
1. Can anyone tell me what "community" features would be incorporated into a new and improved belle vue?
2. If the matter does end up in litigation, who will pay for it?

Yes I have - on a regular basis - and I don't agree with you that litigation is always the last and final resort; if your opponent has shown that they're not interested in dialogue, then it's sometimes the only thing you can do.

All that said, I've no doubt that the club, or the Trust, or whomever is handling the matter, can't afford litigation, and YCP will be very aware of that; so the next best thing is to hand it to the Government dept who have also been duped, and let them deal with it.

Plus throw as much muck publicly as is humanly possible!!
I'm 100% with been on this one.
YCP don't appear to have any good intentions and we don't have any dough to take it to court.
It's stalemate unless we can garner some very public or very high profile support.

Sir Rodney Walker