New stadium

All things related to the Castleford Tigers.
tigerfeat
Super League Player
Super League Player
Posts: 12047
Joined: 23 Jun 2014, 12:07

Re: New stadium

Post by tigerfeat » 11 Jan 2022, 10:52

BloodMoonRising22UK 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.
Agreed let's hope we have been cracking on with it as you suggested earlier for some time now
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 11 Jan 2022, 11:04

tigerfeat wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 09:00 Wakefield have over 10 million to play with the 106 funding agreed or at least it's about to be agreed we are no where near there position at this moment in time
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.

tigerfeat
Super League Player
Super League Player
Posts: 12047
Joined: 23 Jun 2014, 12:07

Re: New stadium

Post by tigerfeat » 11 Jan 2022, 11:08

mart0042 wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:04
tigerfeat wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 09:00 Wakefield have over 10 million to play with the 106 funding agreed or at least it's about to be agreed we are no where near there position at this moment in time
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.
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 like
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi

BloodMoonRising22UK
New member
Posts: 27
Joined: 29 Dec 2021, 17:21

Re: New stadium

Post by BloodMoonRising22UK » 11 Jan 2022, 11:14

mart0042 wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:04
tigerfeat wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 09:00 Wakefield have over 10 million to play with the 106 funding agreed or at least it's about to be agreed we are no where near there position at this moment in time
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.
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.
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.

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 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.

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 12 Jan 2022, 11:23

https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information

User avatar
lurcher
Verified
Super League Player
Super League Player
Posts: 10609
Joined: 19 Aug 2010, 23:25
Location: bridlington

Re: New stadium

Post by lurcher » 12 Jan 2022, 12:23

mart0042 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.
jo brand is eddie warings love child

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 12 Jan 2022, 12:41

lurcher wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 12:23
mart0042 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.
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.

User avatar
yorky
Verified
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 3764
Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 18:50
Location: York, UK

Re: New stadium

Post by yorky » 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

Piquad1
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 1894
Joined: 18 May 2019, 11:07

Re: New stadium

Post by Piquad1 » 12 Jan 2022, 17:49

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.

sirocco7
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 268
Joined: 06 Aug 2014, 10:06

Re: New stadium

Post by sirocco7 » 12 Jan 2022, 18:10

yorky 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
M&D did the piled foundations for my house extension… #justsaying

orrsome
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 670
Joined: 31 Mar 2011, 12:13

Re: New stadium

Post by orrsome » 12 Jan 2022, 22:48

lurcher wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 12:23
mart0042 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.
Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:
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?

SuffolkTiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2047
Joined: 04 Aug 2014, 19:32
Location: Bury St Edmunds

Re: New stadium

Post by SuffolkTiger » 12 Jan 2022, 23:28

Piquad1 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 17:49 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.
Is that you Boris….?? 😃

I’m in a similar place with it but, overall, it sounds positive.

Tamworth Tiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5466
Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 16:29

Re: New stadium

Post by Tamworth Tiger » 13 Jan 2022, 05:11

mart0042 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.
Great post

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 13 Jan 2022, 11:18

orrsome wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 22:48
lurcher wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 12:23
mart0042 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.
Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:
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?
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.

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?

JIN JER
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 974
Joined: 27 Apr 2017, 10:53

Re: New stadium

Post by JIN JER » 13 Jan 2022, 12:44

mart0042 wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 11:18
orrsome wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 22:48
lurcher wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 12:23
mart0042 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.
Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:
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?
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.

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?
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?😟

FIat Capper
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 1192
Joined: 05 Jan 2021, 17:59

Re: New stadium

Post by FIat Capper » 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.

JIN JER
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 974
Joined: 27 Apr 2017, 10:53

Re: New stadium

Post by JIN JER » 13 Jan 2022, 13:33

:x 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?

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 14 Jan 2022, 11:06

JIN JER wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 12:44
mart0042 wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 11:18
orrsome wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 22:48
lurcher wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 12:23
mart0042 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 https://www.castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=7758

This was the Cas post for information
thanks for that mart, i must have missed it first time around. sounds very positive from all parties.
Steve McBurney on behalf of the owners of the Junction 32 site:
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?
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.

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?
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?😟
My reference to backing refers to this last deal. Prior to that they've been shocking but have come good.

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

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6175
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....

Re: New stadium

Post by mart0042 » 14 Jan 2022, 11:19

FIat 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.
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 have

Cas would be in the same situation as to finding a result for the land owners at Glassoughton. We hold the cards.

Post Reply