Agreed let's hope we have been cracking on with it as you suggested earlier for some time nowBloodMoonRising22UK wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022, 10:00 Whatever league we end up in, it doesn’t change the fact that the ground isn’t fit for purpose in the modern game. There are non-league football teams with far better stadiums that either of the super league clubs in our district.
New stadium
Re: New stadium
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
The agreement only takes place once the money is paid and it's either 8.3m or 8.8m, depending on what you read. Even with the 2m council handout, they look to be a couple of million short and the s106 doesn't cover that. If it is agreed.
It somewhat strengthens our hand. Our s106 is for a 10k capacity new ground not an amount of money.
Re: New stadium
I didn't think they were short of money for what they wanted to do but I don't know all the ins and outs of there situation likemart0042 wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022, 11:04The agreement only takes place once the money is paid and it's either 8.3m or 8.8m, depending on what you read. Even with the 2m council handout, they look to be a couple of million short and the s106 doesn't cover that. If it is agreed.
It somewhat strengthens our hand. Our s106 is for a 10k capacity new ground not an amount of money.
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 111
- Joined: 29 Dec 2021, 17:21
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
But we’re the ones who’ve essentially asked for the agreement to be changed by the best legal definition & unethical solicitor may argue we’ve all but walked away from the table.mart0042 wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022, 11:04The agreement only takes place once the money is paid and it's either 8.3m or 8.8m, depending on what you read. Even with the 2m council handout, they look to be a couple of million short and the s106 doesn't cover that. If it is agreed.
It somewhat strengthens our hand. Our s106 is for a 10k capacity new ground not an amount of money.
We will never get the deal that was on the table as that development wasn’t ever truly viable, especially in the climate we are currently living through. Now, they will still need to demonstrate a community investment if they’re to get their new plans over the line with the current land classification. Still as things stand they need us as much as we need them. What we don’t need is the pace they will inevitably move at, which is much slower than we require.
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
I don't see anywhere where we have asked for the agreement to be changed. Can you put where that's been said or written please.
Newmarket or the prospective owners/users of plot 8 wanted permission to build on land that was earmarked for wakeys stadium. In order to get planning the council have brokered a deal in which they pay an amount to wakey for them to forego the land and give money for them to rebuild at belle Vue. The council didn't need to do this but did as there was no s106.
If Axiom/Lateral want to build and use a shopping centre and park then they can only do so after they have completed and handed over the keys to our new ground. Our s106 legal binding covers that.
If Axiom/Lateral want to change the use of the land then it reverts back to green belt and they have to apply again for planning/change of use. They only got planning on the first place because of the backing of Cas Tigers and it's fan base.
If the council are l helping wakey when there is no legal reason to do so, why would they then allow planning against a legal agreement? This is completely the opposite and not justifiable.
Why would Cas bend over and allow it to happen? We wouldn't, in fact we would be using the s106 to counter argue. If, as wakey fans say, the council is run by Cas fans, why would they back wakey and not Cas?
We might not get it shiny new stadium but if the renovation at Wheldon road comes in at a pound under the Axiom/Lateral expected cost of the new stadium then they have saved money.
We have been talking on here for years about a new stadium and have watched closely the goings on at wakey. They got shafted by Sir Rodney, their Messiah, but the council have come good for them in the long run, which they didn't have to do.
A last point is that the announcement by Cas was with Axiom/lateral over the potential of a new agreement. It wasn't us begging.
Newmarket or the prospective owners/users of plot 8 wanted permission to build on land that was earmarked for wakeys stadium. In order to get planning the council have brokered a deal in which they pay an amount to wakey for them to forego the land and give money for them to rebuild at belle Vue. The council didn't need to do this but did as there was no s106.
If Axiom/Lateral want to build and use a shopping centre and park then they can only do so after they have completed and handed over the keys to our new ground. Our s106 legal binding covers that.
If Axiom/Lateral want to change the use of the land then it reverts back to green belt and they have to apply again for planning/change of use. They only got planning on the first place because of the backing of Cas Tigers and it's fan base.
If the council are l helping wakey when there is no legal reason to do so, why would they then allow planning against a legal agreement? This is completely the opposite and not justifiable.
Why would Cas bend over and allow it to happen? We wouldn't, in fact we would be using the s106 to counter argue. If, as wakey fans say, the council is run by Cas fans, why would they back wakey and not Cas?
We might not get it shiny new stadium but if the renovation at Wheldon road comes in at a pound under the Axiom/Lateral expected cost of the new stadium then they have saved money.
We have been talking on here for years about a new stadium and have watched closely the goings on at wakey. They got shafted by Sir Rodney, their Messiah, but the council have come good for them in the long run, which they didn't have to do.
A last point is that the announcement by Cas was with Axiom/lateral over the potential of a new agreement. It wasn't us begging.
-
lurcher Verified
- Super League Player
- Posts: 10676
- Joined: 19 Aug 2010, 23:25
- Location: bridlington
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.mart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758
This was the Cas post for information
jo brand is eddie warings love child
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
I thought so aswell. It doesn't sound like they are not wanting to help our are not wanting to negotiate. To realise any profit in the land requires us to give up our rights. That won't be cheap and I fancy we have people at the club doing the talking.lurcher wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 12:23thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.mart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758
This was the Cas post for information
Re: New stadium
i see we have yet another major construction company in M&D Foundations on board as a sponsor, which makes me wonder if there is a plan to get all our current sponsors involved in some sort of ground refurb as there is certainly plenty of them already involved in some way or another?
https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7826
https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7826
Re: New stadium
All sounds interesting to me. I don't understand half of what's happening but still a good read. S106? I haven't got a clue. Lol.
Re: New stadium
M&D did the piled foundations for my house extension… #justsayingyorky wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 14:25 i see we have yet another major construction company in M&D Foundations on board as a sponsor, which makes me wonder if there is a plan to get all our current sponsors involved in some sort of ground refurb as there is certainly plenty of them already involved in some way or another?
https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7826
Re: New stadium
Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:lurcher wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 12:23thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.mart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758
This was the Cas post for information
An employment development at the Junction 32 site would take advantage of the existing planning approval and we are looking forward to working closely with Wakefield Council to achieve this.
Doesn't this mean that another planning application will not be needed?
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: 04 Aug 2014, 19:32
- Location: Bury St Edmunds
- Contact:
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 7390
- Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 16:29
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
Great postmart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:17 I don't see anywhere where we have asked for the agreement to be changed. Can you put where that's been said or written please.
Newmarket or the prospective owners/users of plot 8 wanted permission to build on land that was earmarked for wakeys stadium. In order to get planning the council have brokered a deal in which they pay an amount to wakey for them to forego the land and give money for them to rebuild at belle Vue. The council didn't need to do this but did as there was no s106.
If Axiom/Lateral want to build and use a shopping centre and park then they can only do so after they have completed and handed over the keys to our new ground. Our s106 legal binding covers that.
If Axiom/Lateral want to change the use of the land then it reverts back to green belt and they have to apply again for planning/change of use. They only got planning on the first place because of the backing of Cas Tigers and it's fan base.
If the council are l helping wakey when there is no legal reason to do so, why would they then allow planning against a legal agreement? This is completely the opposite and not justifiable.
Why would Cas bend over and allow it to happen? We wouldn't, in fact we would be using the s106 to counter argue. If, as wakey fans say, the council is run by Cas fans, why would they back wakey and not Cas?
We might not get it shiny new stadium but if the renovation at Wheldon road comes in at a pound under the Axiom/Lateral expected cost of the new stadium then they have saved money.
We have been talking on here for years about a new stadium and have watched closely the goings on at wakey. They got shafted by Sir Rodney, their Messiah, but the council have come good for them in the long run, which they didn't have to do.
A last point is that the announcement by Cas was with Axiom/lateral over the potential of a new agreement. It wasn't us begging.
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
Yes, new planning/change of use. It could go in front of the council at the same time as Cas planning for the redevelopment of WR. Just like wakey did and they only get it by Cas discharging their s106.orrsome wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 22:48Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:lurcher wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 12:23thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.mart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758
This was the Cas post for information
An employment development at the Junction 32 site would take advantage of the existing planning approval and we are looking forward to working closely with Wakefield Council to achieve this.
Doesn't this mean that another planning application will not be needed?
So, they want to build warehousing or similar. It would be approved once they give Cas the monetary equivalent of a new ground. No money, no planning and Cas still have their s106 stopping development on the site.
There are options:
1) the land owners decide not to build, a big waste of the millions already spent for nothing. (Wouldn't make sense due to wakey getting 8.3m for a smaller plot at a site with less money gaining potential.)
2) the land owners could try and opt for a "we'll do all the Cas redevelopment" so no money changes hands. (A new s106 would be agreed, meaning we are sorted)
3) we gain the money needed and use our sponsors to do the work. We should have all the bases covered by now. We have piling company sponsors now, along with GMI the builders, glass manufacturers, demolition experts, planners, architects, solicitors. That should cut costs.
Of colurse things can go wrong but the council have really backed wakey when they weren't legally obliged. Legally they have to back the s1l06 we have.
I'm the eternal optimist and and I hope things move quickly and positively. I'm quite happy that the site at Glassoughton is either built on and we gain a new stadium or nothing gets built there. When they have worked so hard to get it to brown field status, why let it go back to green belt?
Re: New stadium
I’m not the font of all knowledge regarding our ground but to suggest the council “have really backed Wakefield” is way off mark. They have certainly got stuck in in the last couple of years (since Box left?) and MC has been on the case. As for not being legally obliged I’d guess that the club have been pressing hard for support after they clumsily/stupidly let Yorkcourt by pass the original 106 agreement, with the help of Rodney Walker. I wonder why Rodders was so easy to manipulate?mart0042 wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 11:18Yes, new planning/change of use. It could go in front of the council at the same time as Cas planning for the redevelopment of WR. Just like wakey did and they only get it by Cas discharging their s106.orrsome wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 22:48Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:lurcher wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 12:23thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.mart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758
This was the Cas post for information
An employment development at the Junction 32 site would take advantage of the existing planning approval and we are looking forward to working closely with Wakefield Council to achieve this.
Doesn't this mean that another planning application will not be needed?
So, they want to build warehousing or similar. It would be approved once they give Cas the monetary equivalent of a new ground. No money, no planning and Cas still have their s106 stopping development on the site.
There are options:
1) the land owners decide not to build, a big waste of the millions already spent for nothing. (Wouldn't make sense due to wakey getting 8.3m for a smaller plot at a site with less money gaining potential.)
2) the land owners could try and opt for a "we'll do all the Cas redevelopment" so no money changes hands. (A new s106 would be agreed, meaning we are sorted)
3) we gain the money needed and use our sponsors to do the work. We should have all the bases covered by now. We have piling company sponsors now, along with GMI the builders, glass manufacturers, demolition experts, planners, architects, solicitors. That should cut costs.
Of colurse things can go wrong but the council have really backed wakey when they weren't legally obliged. Legally they have to back the s1l06 we have.
I'm the eternal optimist and and I hope things move quickly and positively. I'm quite happy that the site at Glassoughton is either built on and we gain a new stadium or nothing gets built there. When they have worked so hard to get it to brown field status, why let it go back to green belt?
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: 05 Jan 2021, 17:59
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
I'm not sure the 'facts' about Newmarket are being accurately reported.
It was my understanding a S106 agreement was/is in place that included a trigger point for a requirement to build a 'community' stadium. The trigger point being 'X' square foot of warehousing space being constructed. The difficulty with this was the developer could simply avoid building the stadium by not building the required square foot of warehousing.
However, to remove this condition surely required agreement with or approval by WMDC and could not simply be a question of asking the developer to play nicely.
The difference with Cas was that the conditions were that a stadium had to built before the retail space could be built/operational. This is harder to avoid but again, requires new agreement and approval for any changes to be implemented.
It was my understanding a S106 agreement was/is in place that included a trigger point for a requirement to build a 'community' stadium. The trigger point being 'X' square foot of warehousing space being constructed. The difficulty with this was the developer could simply avoid building the stadium by not building the required square foot of warehousing.
However, to remove this condition surely required agreement with or approval by WMDC and could not simply be a question of asking the developer to play nicely.
The difference with Cas was that the conditions were that a stadium had to built before the retail space could be built/operational. This is harder to avoid but again, requires new agreement and approval for any changes to be implemented.
Re: New stadium
As far as I remember WMDC allowed Yorkcourt to circumvent the original 106 and allowed (With Rodders knowledge) them to renegotiate another 106.
And to quote Flat capper…….
However, to remove this condition surely required agreement with or approval by WMDC
And that’s where SWAG and Wakefield supporters cried foul play. Why would WMDC allow such a critical condition to be eliminated?
And to quote Flat capper…….
However, to remove this condition surely required agreement with or approval by WMDC
And that’s where SWAG and Wakefield supporters cried foul play. Why would WMDC allow such a critical condition to be eliminated?
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
My reference to backing refers to this last deal. Prior to that they've been shocking but have come good.JIN JER wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 12:44I’m not the font of all knowledge regarding our ground but to suggest the council “have really backed Wakefield” is way off mark. They have certainly got stuck in in the last couple of years (since Box left?) and MC has been on the case. As for not being legally obliged I’d guess that the club have been pressing hard for support after they clumsily/stupidly let Yorkcourt by pass the original 106 agreement, with the help of Rodney Walker. I wonder why Rodders was so easy to manipulate?mart0042 wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 11:18Yes, new planning/change of use. It could go in front of the council at the same time as Cas planning for the redevelopment of WR. Just like wakey did and they only get it by Cas discharging their s106.orrsome wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 22:48Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:lurcher wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 12:23thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.mart0042 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758
This was the Cas post for information
An employment development at the Junction 32 site would take advantage of the existing planning approval and we are looking forward to working closely with Wakefield Council to achieve this.
Doesn't this mean that another planning application will not be needed?
So, they want to build warehousing or similar. It would be approved once they give Cas the monetary equivalent of a new ground. No money, no planning and Cas still have their s106 stopping development on the site.
There are options:
1) the land owners decide not to build, a big waste of the millions already spent for nothing. (Wouldn't make sense due to wakey getting 8.3m for a smaller plot at a site with less money gaining potential.)
2) the land owners could try and opt for a "we'll do all the Cas redevelopment" so no money changes hands. (A new s106 would be agreed, meaning we are sorted)
3) we gain the money needed and use our sponsors to do the work. We should have all the bases covered by now. We have piling company sponsors now, along with GMI the builders, glass manufacturers, demolition experts, planners, architects, solicitors. That should cut costs.
Of colurse things can go wrong but the council have really backed wakey when they weren't legally obliged. Legally they have to back the s1l06 we have.
I'm the eternal optimist and and I hope things move quickly and positively. I'm quite happy that the site at Glassoughton is either built on and we gain a new stadium or nothing gets built there. When they have worked so hard to get it to brown field status, why let it go back to green belt?
Ultimately they didn't need to force the new s106 legally but have. That's all I'm saying.
I'm sure Rodney made some coin out of it
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: New stadium
Yes, they needed to build on a certain amount to trigger the build of the ground. Now they want to build specifically on the area where the ground would have been and over the 60% requirement. I seem to think 60% was the one. So to build they have come to a deal with wakey to back the changes and they get the money to rebuild at belle Vue the council didn't have to accept it but haveFIat Capper wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 13:06 I'm not sure the 'facts' about Newmarket are being accurately reported.
It was my understanding a S106 agreement was/is in place that included a trigger point for a requirement to build a 'community' stadium. The trigger point being 'X' square foot of warehousing space being constructed. The difficulty with this was the developer could simply avoid building the stadium by not building the required square foot of warehousing.
However, to remove this condition surely required agreement with or approval by WMDC and could not simply be a question of asking the developer to play nicely.
The difference with Cas was that the conditions were that a stadium had to built before the retail space could be built/operational. This is harder to avoid but again, requires new agreement and approval for any changes to be implemented.
Cas would be in the same situation as to finding a result for the land owners at Glassoughton. We hold the cards.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], yorky and 103 guests