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

YCP are too clever to just walk away - hence all the time taken to get to this point. There does come a point where the talking has to stop and hard facts put down in writing - which is what we are seeking.

YCP may also not be worried about a bunch of 'tree hugging Wakefield supporters', or our equivalent, but other parties maybe. It all depends on who you are talking about when it comes to deciding what they have to lose. The council will not want this on their doorstep - we know they hate bad publicity and the press will be our weapon in this respect. YCP is a different matter.

He's been involved since day one hadn't he?
Look where we are.
That's not a criticism, just that we need some new "clout".

With the Tour de France done with hopefully he can fully concentrate on delivering a stadium for his City, Sir Rodney Walker isn't the kind of person to give in easily. He saved the Theatre now he can deliver a sporting theatre for Wakefield.

I agree but dialogue has to be tried first before commencing expensive litigation, we are not at that stage yet. I doubt the Government will be interested if our own Council is not showing a great deal of interest - yet.

As I have said before please trust us, be patient and be prepared to get behind us because "we are in this together".

Council can also keep the " can't build on Belle Vue unless alternative stadium within City is built" safeguarding B V for us

How much seeking has to be done to write a letter?

I'm not having a pop at you TRB, or the other volunteers who are doing their bit, but how many meetings will YCP duck and dive their way through before someone involved says, "enough - we'll refer it to the SoS and let them decide how to progress?"

It is more complicated than it sounds on here, but you are right in essence.

Again, from the outside looking in.

Maybe that's part of the issue, maybe it's not that complicated, take a step back from it and look from a distance, it's clear that YCP need 'shotgun wedding' tactics before they'll do the right thing.

At the risk of looking dafter than usual.

How can York Court be in a position to move away from what was promised and what we understood to be an absolute certainty that a new stadium would be built at Newmarket.
Again, at the risk of looking stupid, what was the point of the P.I. if there was even the smallest possibility of them being able to walk away from this and leaving another developer to "do very well" out of a deal, which was less than popular with local residents.
Although there are no certainties in life, apart form birth and death, the perception at the time of the PI was that the new ground was a cast iron certainty, with only the timing and size of the stadium that were open to some change.

All Wakefield supporters know and appreciate the time and effort that you have personally devoted to the cause but, is it even possible that it could end with nothing (apart from a small community facility) ?

The S106 has a loophole which allows Yorkcourt to build the enabling development under different planning applications meaning so that none of the built sheds count towards the target specified in the agreement. The cold store that's under construction right now for example won't count towards this target. I suppose the leverage is currently the plans allow for a stadium and only a stadium. This plot would make another rather large industrial unit so perhaps there's some scope with that.