You've got 2 guys running the club who could earn 75k each at any other club. 150k
We are probably understaffed to run a proper club by about 5 people @ 20k each. 100k
We will be at least 300k behind other clubs spending next year. 300k

Revenue needed 550k per annum.

This is why we require revenues to fill this gap.

If we are only able to achieve 100k extra revenues through the new stadium deal, are you saying that we should take that regardless?

Not in the slightest. As I've said, if the figures from any "new deal" don't allow the club to grow, there's no point. It merely postpones the inevitable. What I'm driving at generally is, using your figures, that if the original proposals would have generated 750K per annum but a new deal only brings in 650K, I hope that the frustration at 100K being diverted away from where it should be going doesn't scupper a deal that would still be broadly beneficial.

Like I said earlier, there is only question: does it benefit the club? If it doesn't fill the gap because the way the deal changes, there is no point.

From a personal point of view, I'd love to stay at Belle Vue, but the only thing I want is to see Wakefield Trinity be successful. It's a club I've followed since I was five and I'm in my fifties now. I could sense the frustration in the club's statement and I believe every word.

What sort of stuff do you include in the extra revenues? Would it be just things like extra hospitality, catering etc. or does it include an assumption of some kind of crowd increase? If it came down to a situation where you could either increase revenues by about 400k, take it or leave it, would you be willing to take that even though it's far from ideal?

That's crux of it for me.
If the Directors of the club are excluded there is something wrong and it needs looking at.
If they are simply changing their role but equally involved and included then ok that might work.
It's not like anyone wants to be friends with SRW or York court. They just have to work professionally and get the stadium sorted.

What's the council leader doing to help the deal get sorted. Is he just letting Rodders and Mackie just waffle along and finally delay and delay so it never gets built. Which is just what Mackie wants.

Not really sure he can do anything. It said in the statement released that the Council preferred the existing trust to be the one involved but if the developer doesn't want to work with them then what can they do?

wash their dirty linen in public, but they're not going to want everyone to see what an utter shambolic collection of dingbats they actually are

they're going to have to be forced

If the council had have framed itself years back we wouldn't be in this sorry mess . No wonder he's taking legal advice to see if his backside is covered. Dependant on his advice he may get further involved to save his sorry Rse.

The comments from SRW leave a bad taste.
It seems bizarre that, regardless of any "personality issues" that there may be between members of the previous trust, WMDC, SRW and Yorkcourt, if the desire was there to make the stadium happen, they ought to be able to make it happen.
Of course, it's great when all parties within a negotiation get along and collectively make things happen but, the recent developments just seem like yet another excuse.
The deal has to be right for those involved and with all respect to the "new" trust, how can they possibly agree something, when it is critical that it suits MC and CB, after all, it's their club.
If their is a stadium deal "on the table" then, it just seems like hollow excuses that this cant be sorted with the original Trust members and after such a long time since PP was granted, they ought to be getting on with it, unless of course, there is no intention from Yorkcourt to deliver what they promised.
Meanwhile, Newcold is expanding and there doesn't seem to be any delays with that part of the project.

I've posted elsewhere, the deal that Salford originally agreed for their new stadium nearly broke them!

Keep up the good work Daddycool.

Seconded by me. You have my full support. To quote some other person "No deal is better than a bad deal " but I reckon Daddycool is a safer pair of hands!

Yes me too, I would third that.

I believe in MC and CB, any day of the week over someone who I think is just in it for themselves.

Integrity and trust, two of the most important words in the English language which MC and CB have in abundance and clearly lacking on the other side of the fence. Still not sure how 2 directors of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif can sign a UU a day after they have resigned?

Well said there Daddycool, I agree 100% with that