Wakey to stay at Belle Vue, redevelopment plans

[Wakey Til I Die]

2 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Wow! that's some about-face by the LA.

From "it's nothing to do with us, it's a matter between the trust and the developer" and "we're not in the business of building rugby stadiums" to "we'll build a stadium even if there's no-one to play in it". I wonder what made them change their mood?

They now want commercial rent and income from the stadium outside match days. Where is that extra income going? It has a pungent aroma of a certain former chairman of the trust. He came up with a similar deal earlier involving his own "trust" which was rejected by the LA.  It seemed he wanted a share of the pie.  At that time the LA said they would only work with the original trust.

The issue of commercial rent is a red herring. The club has been paying commercial rent for some time now. In fact, while it was owned by the BOI they were paying nearly twice as much as Bradford were paying to the RFL for Odsal. 

No club can survive on income from 14 days a year, at any level.

What they need is a business model which is sustainable in the long term without a big money backer.

Again, the stadium will be owned by a charitable trust with Trinity as anchor tenants. The council previously said it was untenable without an anchor tenant. As the only professional sports team in Wakefield, who else is going to make the stadium work? Wakefield FC played at Belle Vue for a season but left because they wanted to play there for free.

So we know the club wants the stadium built without contribution and then pay no rent once it is. It also wants to market this as a community stadium for use by whoever wants to use it but wants to keep all the proceeds it makes 365 days a year? Is that money surely not the communities and not Wakeys then?  Wakey keep saying it wouldn’t be a stadium for them but for the community  then they can’t keep all the money then, it’s not theirs to keep.

 

Also bare in mind a community stadium doesn’t have to be superleague standard if it isn’t required to be. If a couple of amateur sports clubs come forward then a bog stadard pitch with a small spectator area around the outside would class as acceptable with maybe a few 5 a-side pitches etc for good measure would surfice. Thats very much feasible to run. 

[Wholly Trinity]

15 minutes ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

So we know the club wants the stadium built without contribution and then pay no rent once it is. It also wants to market this as a community stadium for use by whoever wants to use it but wants to keep all the proceeds it makes 365 days a year? Is that money surely not the communities and not Wakeys then?  Wakey keep saying it wouldn’t be a stadium for them but for the community  then they can’t keep all the money then, it’s not theirs to keep.

 

Also bare in mind a community stadium doesn’t have to be superleague standard if it isn’t required to be. If a couple of amateur sports clubs come forward then a bog stadard pitch with a small spectator area around the outside would class as acceptable with maybe a few 5 a-side pitches etc for good measure would surfice. Thats very much feasible to run. 

Not really. 

The trust want a community stadium and other sports facilities built as payback for the planning gain on greenbelt land in a prime location on a junction of the M62, one junction from the M1 as per the legally binding s106 obligation which was as a result of the public enquiry called by the Secretary of state. 

The club will pay rent to the trust as anchor tenants. They will have priority of use, but any community group can use it and also pay rent to the trust. 

The club will also want to make money from profits from renting out the hospitality facilities on non match days in order to be financially sustainable. 

The s106 stipulates a 12000 seater stadium capable of hosting superleague matches. 

The cost of building the facilities should be paid for by the developer. WMDC offered to contribute  £2M towards the non-stadium facilities as the district has a shortage. 

Are you suggesting that the developer should get the planning gain for free and walk away from its obligations to the community of Wakefield? 

[Wakey Til I Die]

3 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Not really. 

The trust want a community stadium and other sports facilities built as payback for the planning gain on greenbelt land in a prime location on a junction of the M62, one junction from the M1 as per the legally binding s106 obligation which was as a result of the public enquiry called by the Secretary of state. 

The club will pay rent to the trust as anchor tenants. They will have priority of use, but any community group can use it and also pay rent to the trust. 

The club will also want to make money from profits from renting out the hospitality facilities on non match days in order to be financially sustainable. 

The s106 stipulates a 12000 seater stadium capable of hosting superleague matches. 

The cost of building the facilities should be paid for by the developer. WMDC offered to contribute  £2M towards the non-stadium facilities as the district has a shortage. 

Are you suggesting that the developer should get the planning gain for free and walk away from its obligations to the community of Wakefield? 

The S106 can and likely will be amended very soon (as the law allows after 5 years) so that required community facilities have to be built but don’t have to be on the originally intended site. Still paid for by the same people so not removing their obligation, just elsewhere. If Wakefield Trinity don’t want to be part of that anymore then a superleague standard stadium is no longer required.  

The club want to pay a peppercorn rent, not a market rent does it not? It then wants to keep non- matchday income as well as when it is using it. Why should it? It isn’t the clubs stadium and as such not the clubs money to keep. 

[Wholly Trinity]

23 minutes ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

The S106 can and likely will be amended very soon (as the law allows after 5 years) so that required community facilities have to be built but don’t have to be on the originally intended site. Still paid for by the same people so not removing their obligation, just elsewhere. If Wakefield Trinity don’t want to be part of that anymore then a superleague standard stadium is no longer required.  

The club want to pay a peppercorn rent, not a market rent does it not? It then wants to keep non- matchday income as well as when it is using it. Why should it? It isn’t the clubs stadium and as such not the clubs money to keep. 

AFAIK the developer can apply to amend the s106 after 5 years, but it has to be agreed by the SoS. What has changed in the last 5 years to warrant a reduction? 

The rent will be set by the stadium operators, i.e. the trust. The original agreement was to set a peppercorn rent for the anchor tenants. It's really nothing to do with the club. 

Are you suggesting the club only rents the stadium for match days or would they have use of the stadium all year round? Why should they not make use of their rented accommodation?

[Blind side johnny]

14 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

AFAIK the developer can apply to amend the s106 after 5 years, but it has to be agreed by the SoS. What has changed in the last 5 years to warrant a reduction? 

The rent will be set by the stadium operators, i.e. the trust. The original agreement was to set a peppercorn rent for the anchor tenants. It's really nothing to do with the club. 

Are you suggesting the club only rents the stadium for match days or would they have use of the stadium all year round? Why should they not make use of their rented accommodation?

Paying a peppercorn rent but also having the commercial income from non-playing facilities outside of matchdays does seem a bit like wishful thinking from my viewpoint. Or am I being naive?

[silcoates]

4 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Paying a peppercorn rent but also having the commercial income from non-playing facilities outside of matchdays does seem a bit like wishful thinking from my viewpoint. Or am I being naive?

You tell them BSJ It might dawn on some of them one day.

[Wakey Til I Die]

38 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

AFAIK the developer can apply to amend the s106 after 5 years, but it has to be agreed by the SoS. What has changed in the last 5 years to warrant a reduction? 

The rent will be set by the stadium operators, i.e. the trust. The original agreement was to set a peppercorn rent for the anchor tenants. It's really nothing to do with the club. 

Are you suggesting the club only rents the stadium for match days or would they have use of the stadium all year round? Why should they not make use of their rented accommodation?

Nothing has changed and that is the problem! It hasn’t progressed and un those circumstances the SoS will nearly always side with the view of the LA on how to proceed as long as the ultimate goal i.e. gaining of community facilities us achieved. 

As for the rent not having anything to do with the club, come off it we both know that is rubbish. They don’t want to pay and are hiding behind the trust of which two members are the only two club directors. The club are getting a new facility for nothing, they should pay the going rate. 

And no they shouldn’t trouser all the extra income, any extra money the stadium makes should go back into community projects which the club can get in off the back of if it wishes. It is a stadium for the community after all of which the club would be a tenant, the rest of the time it should be working for that community not just the club. 

[Wholly Trinity]

1 hour ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

Nothing has changed and that is the problem! It hasn’t progressed and un those circumstances the SoS will nearly always side with the view of the LA on how to proceed as long as the ultimate goal i.e. gaining of community facilities us achieved. 

As for the rent not having anything to do with the club, come off it we both know that is rubbish. They don’t want to pay and are hiding behind the trust of which two members are the only two club directors. The club are getting a new facility for nothing, they should pay the going rate. 

And no they shouldn’t trouser all the extra income, any extra money the stadium makes should go back into community projects which the club can get in off the back of if it wishes. It is a stadium for the community after all of which the club would be a tenant, the rest of the time it should be working for that community not just the club. 

The club are not getting a new facility, they are being offered tenancy of a community stadium. The agreement, including the peppercorn rent clause was made before the current owners took charge of club.

The club have been paying commercial rent since 2 chairmen ago lost ownership of the ground. The club have never asked for peppercorn rent, that was the trust in accordance with the agreement.  The first tweet from the chairman after the first council blurb to the press was to state that the club pays its rent. From the club's pov I don't think there's an issue with paying rent. What it can't do is agree to such a bad deal for that rent that it can't pay it. Ask Salford how that goes. 

I don't think the club would expect all non-matchday income, just the opportunity to make money from using the facilities it has rented itself. Other income from other users would go to the trust or as arranged by them. Clearly other organisations would pay the trust to rent the facilities. If someone staged a concert at the ground the club wouldn't get any money, but if the club staged a concert why shouldn't they be able to make a profit? 

If the club, as anchor tenant, is given an unsustainable deal it will end up going bust and then you will have a white elephant. 

The s106 was a unilateral agreement and was not imposed by the LA. What is the LA's position?

It hasn't progressed?  Maybe the reasons for that will come out if and when it goes to judicial review. 

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

3 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Paying a peppercorn rent but also having the commercial income from non-playing facilities outside of matchdays does seem a bit like wishful thinking from my viewpoint.

Not if that income is generated by the club.  The club don't expect or want income generated from extraneous events. 

[Blind side johnny]

Just now, Wollo Wollo Wayoo said:

Not if that income is generated by the club.  The club don't expect or want income generated from extraneous events. 

To generate the income they need an asset (ground, conference rooms etc.). If they aren't actually paying for these then that doesn't make sense; if they are then, of course, it does.

Some genuine facts would help here and clearly they aren't coming from any of the parties concerned.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

39 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Some genuine facts would help here and clearly they aren't coming from any of the parties concerned.

Fact No1. is that the developer, aided and abetted by others, is attempting to move further and further away from the commitment given at the original enquiry. 

Anything else is a smoke screen.

[Blind side johnny]

32 minutes ago, Wollo Wollo Wayoo said:

Fact No1. is that the developer, aided and abetted by others, is attempting to move further and further away from the commitment given at the original enquiry. 

Anything else is a smoke screen.

I'm sorry but allegations made on a forum don't count as facts, unless you have concrete documented proof, that is.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

40 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I'm sorry but allegations made on a forum don't count as facts, unless you have concrete documented proof, that is.

You know what was laid down at the end of the original Newmarket enquiry. 

You have followed the events as close as any Wakefield fan since then. 

You know where we are today.

What makes the difference so hard to understand ????????

[Rioman]

A bit of clarification from a Trust Member, posted a short while ago on the other Forum:

The deal at Newmarket which was put to and accepted by HM Planning Inspector was that in return for planning consent that took a great swaith of land out of Green Belt the Developer had to build, with a £2m contribution agreed by the Council a 12,000 capacity stadium and assiociated sporting facilities.

The Developer then had to transfer the land on which the stadium and other facilities sat to the Wakefield and District Community Trust (the Trust) for a peppercorn on a 99 year lease, effectively giving the stadium to the Trust.

The Trust in turn was then to sub-lease the Stadium and associated facilities to Spirit of 1873 Ltd (the Club) for a rent to be agreed between the Trust and Club - not the Developer or the Council.

The Trust agreed that the most economical and sustainable way to ensure that the Stadium was managed efficiently for the benefit of all was that the Club would take a FRI (Fully Repairing & Insuring) Lease whereby they are fully responsible for all costs associated with the running of the stadium such as Insurance, Council Tax/Rates, Heat, Light & Power, Maintenance and Repairs etc. etc. In return the Club would be able to generate revenues from the use of the stadiium on non match days such as conferences, weddings, concerts etc. in order to sustain the Club and ensure that the stadium would be maintained to a high standard and ensure its long term sustainability. There would be a covenant in the lease whereby the Club would have to make the stadium available for Community uses.

So the Club would be faced with a big bill in order to maintain and run the Stadium so I cannot see where the view that the Club is wanting a stadium without spending a sinle penny and then wants to benefit from the using the stadium comes from.

So that is the deal that we are looking for - nothing more than what was promised at and agreed at the Public Inquiry so I dont think the Club and the Trust are being unreasonable and the view by some that the Trust is "not fit for purpose". Unfotunately some appear to have a different purpose in mind to the Club and Trust.

[Damien]

I don't think I've ever seen anything as messy as the whole Wakefield saga.

[Blind side johnny]

57 minutes ago, Rioman said:

A bit of clarification from a Trust Member, posted a short while ago on the other Forum:

The deal at Newmarket which was put to and accepted by HM Planning Inspector was that in return for planning consent that took a great swaith of land out of Green Belt the Developer had to build, with a £2m contribution agreed by the Council a 12,000 capacity stadium and assiociated sporting facilities.

The Developer then had to transfer the land on which the stadium and other facilities sat to the Wakefield and District Community Trust (the Trust) for a peppercorn on a 99 year lease, effectively giving the stadium to the Trust.

The Trust in turn was then to sub-lease the Stadium and associated facilities to Spirit of 1873 Ltd (the Club) for a rent to be agreed between the Trust and Club - not the Developer or the Council.

The Trust agreed that the most economical and sustainable way to ensure that the Stadium was managed efficiently for the benefit of all was that the Club would take a FRI (Fully Repairing & Insuring) Lease whereby they are fully responsible for all costs associated with the running of the stadium such as Insurance, Council Tax/Rates, Heat, Light & Power, Maintenance and Repairs etc. etc. In return the Club would be able to generate revenues from the use of the stadiium on non match days such as conferences, weddings, concerts etc. in order to sustain the Club and ensure that the stadium would be maintained to a high standard and ensure its long term sustainability. There would be a covenant in the lease whereby the Club would have to make the stadium available for Community uses.

So the Club would be faced with a big bill in order to maintain and run the Stadium so I cannot see where the view that the Club is wanting a stadium without spending a sinle penny and then wants to benefit from the using the stadium comes from.

So that is the deal that we are looking for - nothing more than what was promised at and agreed at the Public Inquiry so I dont think the Club and the Trust are being unreasonable and the view by some that the Trust is "not fit for purpose". Unfotunately some appear to have a different purpose in mind to the Club and Trust.

Thanks, these are facts.

So the peppercorn rent was payable by the trust to the developer on a 99 year lease and any talk of the club getting the stadium for a peppercorn rent is inaccurate. What the rent to be agreed between the trust and the club would be was still subject to agreement, and the costs of maintaining the ground would be met by the club. This is quite different in my understanding to a community stadium with a anchor tenant.

[southstand loiner]

if all else fails I hear Leeds united are looking for a stadium for the reserves to play in. around a 5,000 capacity would do .

[Wholly Trinity]

11 minutes ago, southstand loiner said:

if all else fails I hear Leeds united are looking for a stadium for the reserves to play in. around a 5,000 capacity would do .

They played there before. 2002-2005? When Emley FC were also there. 

[southstand loiner]

25 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

They played there before. 2002-2005? When Emley FC were also there. 

yes and with them losing the facility at Thorpe arch and I would guess it taking time to develop a new facility near to elland road it could be a good match .especially as there is quite a large Leeds united following in Wakefield

[DoubleD]

So it's all getting tasty now, Wakefield Trinity are taking it to the courts. Good on them.

http://www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinity-take-stadium-battle-council-high-court/

Wakefield Trinity are heading to the High Court in a bid to settle their dispute with Wakefield Council and the proposed new community stadium in the city.

A five-year battle for a new stadium in the city looked to have reached a breakthrough in September, when all parties including the Council and the owners of Belle Vue agreed to redevelop the stadium as opposed to building a new site in nearby Newmarket.

However, Trinity officials walked away from that deal recently when they refused to agree to the Council’s terms in regards to rent – which it is understood was in the region of £500,000 a year.

And, in a statement issued to League Express, owners Michael Carter and Chris Brereton said they have no choice but to head to the courts to settle the matter.

They said: “The reason we are in the present predicament with no security of tenure for the future of Wakefield Trinity and its new Super League Stadium is entirely the fault of Wakefield Council.

“Six years ago, after three weeks of evidence, a Public Enquiry paid for by the ratepayers of Wakefield, concluded that a Community Stadium compliant to Super League standards should be built and funded by the planning gains which accrued to the property developer of the Newmarket site adjacent to the M62.

“It was the duty of Wakefield Council, as the Local Planning Authority, to ensure that in return for the land coming out of the green belt, the Community Stadium was constructed.

“The developer has its planning consent, but not a brick has been laid on the Stadium site. We simply require the Council to fulfil its statutory duties.

“The Council now seeks to lay the blame for the mess which it has created, at the door of Wakefield Trinity.

“It should be borne in mind that a Labour controlled council has managed, as a result of the planning consents obtained by the developer, to line the pockets of a property speculator and has neglected to enforce the planning obligations due to its ratepayers, the Community at large, and of course, Wakefield Trinity Rugby League Club.

“The current proposal that we pay a commercial/reasonable rent (of which we have yet to see any detail or figures) for the new Community Stadium at Belle Vue is unacceptable.

“There is a legally binding obligation for the Council to provide a 99-year lease at a peppercorn yearly rental to the Wakefield & District Community Trust.

“The Trust in turn would create a lease to Wakefield Trinity, as anchor tenants, at a nominal rent to cover the Trust’s operating expenses.

“Wakefield Trinity would then enjoy the rewards from the Stadium, but would also be liable for all associated risks in operating a Stadium. This was and remains entirely acceptable.

“Unfortunately it is obvious from the attitude adopted by Wakefield Council that they are not prepared to help us secure the long term sustainable future for the Club. It was and remains entirely within the Council’s power to compel the developer at Newmarket to deliver the Stadium.

“We are now preparing our case for presentation to the High Court. For reasons we know you (the fans) will understand.

“We have waited since June 2012 for the Council to deliver Newmarket Stadium. We are no nearer today then we were then! We have a duty to our fans and the City of Wakefield to ensure the long term survival and success of the Club.

“We will not be deterred by the unhelpful bullying by the Council and the developers at Newmarket or Belle Vue. We have no mandate or authority to accept anything less than the Community facilities promised at Newmarket on the legally binding terms set out in the Public Inquiry Planning decision.

“The findings of the Public Inquiry are a matter of public record. Do not rely on our interpretation of them. We have nothing to hide.

“Look for yourselves at the results on the government website. You will see where the blame lies for this farcical situation.

“The club has been used as a Trojan Horse to secure planning gains for property developers which are worth millions of pounds and take land out of the green belt.

“Meanwhile the bargaining chip used to obtain the consents is nowhere near delivery.

“Finally, there are times when there is no alternative other than to stand and fight to enforce what we know to be our rights for the future of our great Club – Wakefield Trinity rather than to see it sacrificed on the altar of the Council and Developers greed.”

[Scubby]

19 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

So it's all getting tasty now, Wakefield Trinity are taking it to the courts. Good on them.

http://www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinity-take-stadium-battle-council-high-court/

Wakefield Trinity are heading to the High Court in a bid to settle their dispute with Wakefield Council and the proposed new community stadium in the city.

A five-year battle for a new stadium in the city looked to have reached a breakthrough in September, when all parties including the Council and the owners of Belle Vue agreed to redevelop the stadium as opposed to building a new site in nearby Newmarket.

However, Trinity officials walked away from that deal recently when they refused to agree to the Council’s terms in regards to rent – which it is understood was in the region of £500,000 a year.

And, in a statement issued to League Express, owners Michael Carter and Chris Brereton said they have no choice but to head to the courts to settle the matter...............

[Jacko45]

On 04/11/2017 at 8:14 AM, southstand loiner said:

if all else fails I hear Leeds united are looking for a stadium for the reserves to play in. around a 5,000 capacity would do .

They need some 1st team players first.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

48 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

http://www.totalrl.com/wakefield-trinity-take-stadium-battle-council-high-court/

We have no mandate or authority to accept anything less than the Community facilities promised at Newmarket on the legally binding terms set out in the Public Inquiry Planning decision.

“The findings of the Public Inquiry are a matter of public record. Do not rely on our interpretation of them. We have nothing to hide.

Thank goodness we're getting back to this point.  Box, Walker and Mackie had slowly but surely engineered major drift.

[sentoffagain2]

   I think a new stadium on the Newmarket site would be the best option for Trinity.Belle Vue is in a highly populated area with limited parking .It would make more sense to clear the  site,rugby ground and build social housing for the benefit of rate payers.To build on the site must be worth between 7 to 10 million pounds.Near me a field smaller than Belle Vue site has been developed and 86 houses are going up priced between 160 and 285 grand.I have an interest in the best outcome for Trinity as i was born within 1 mile of the ground and my mum is buried close to the ground.

[Blind side johnny]

If it goes to the High Court Trinity will lose, the council will lose, the fans will lose while the lawyers and developers will be laughing their socks off.

Both parties, council and club, have been easily outmanoeuvered by the developers but chose to blame each other instead. Shame!