Is this shown in the minutes?

For clarity: I understand that it would be the Community Trust that has the lease on a peppercorn rent.

The Club's involvement is as anchor tenant to the Community Trust and, as such, the amount of rent would be determined between these two parties.

I cannot see how any other party would or should have a financial interest in the stadium.

Where are all these extra Community sports facilities that are going to be potentially built down at Belle Vue? That's where the wider Community at large was going to get access and use of at the Newmarket development. Yes the stadium was going to be anchored by Trinity, but what's in it for the rest of Wakefield. Except for Trinity fans, I can't see who else who'd use Belle Vue as a Community Stadium. As I've pointed out before, from what the Council put out a couple of weeks ago, it mentions that Trinity would have to put money into the redevelopment if we stay. So how would that all work, considering we wouldn't own it and they want us to pay a crazy rent on top. Quite a difference from what was meant to happen at Newmaket, to what we'd get and have to pay for at Belle Vue, especially when it's meant to be getting paid by Yorkcourts pockets eventually anyway.

As I said before it is still not enough to reach the trigger point

The trigger point is a maximum not a minimum ... according to the SOS findings!

Where does it say this? If true it blows Box's argument out of the water about not being able to enforce anything

It states it in the 106 as usual the devil is in the detail.

But where would we be with Newcold and the 'brewery' facility?

So that begs another question, why was Box saying at the meeting that there is no 106 just a UU...more lies?

It says 'FOLLOWING' 60,000 square metres having being built out and occupied e.g, 60,000 sq.m has to be built and occupied first. So it is a minimum.



As for the question regarding Section 106 and UU, TRB and IA will correct me but there are varying forms of S106 agreements. Yours is a Unilateral Undertaking which is entered into by those with a stake in the site (Trust, landowner, Yorkcourt and the bank). It isn't a Multi-lateral agreement like is at Five Towns Park for Cas.

Sorry for being pedantic but you have just described a multi-lateral agreement as all those have entered into it. A unilateral undertaking is a promise by one party alone to the other, which can be enforced if not carried through. Or seemingly ignored ....

I'm talking about the SOS findings... which guides the UU (which is still a 106!).. that clearly states the maximum... and suggests 'as soon as possible) ... given the seeming acceptance by the developer (smoothed beautifully by the acting chair of the trust) to move forward and act honourably.. the UU used the figure as a trigger point to assist funding streams...



We all know what happened to their honourable position after that!!!



They threw a dummy to their team mate the council ... used big Rodders as a foil and left the Trinity defence for dead ... rounding the community full back for a sweet victory!



Thank god for the video ref as the defence have claimed an obstruction... we are all staring at the screen ... waiting for the ruling!!! While Box and Hussain are screaming in the referees face... the try scorer (Yorkcourt) slink off to the substitutes bench winking at their support staff!