Kop development

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by Silvo

Saying that I've seen many plans for the Wrexham area including the Gresford ski slope and concert arena in a new Kop stand that haven't taken place, so not holding out much hope.

That was Ian Roberts’ idea to put fans off the scent whilst he and Moss were in the process of formally separating the football club from the surrounding land.

[blackbrookred]

WCBC could have handled things alot better along the way. However I don't want to see them invest any money in the ground at present, simply as the money isn't there to invest. Front line services being cut, schools running deficit budgets, these require funding at the moment not the club. Of course in better economic climates i think they could do more to help.
Posted via mobile theme

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

The flats were approved in accordance with the development plan.

The holistic development was in 3 phases with phase 3 being the new Kop stand. Of course the planning application said that revenue from the flats would be invested back into the club but frankly, that flannel and entirely unenforceable.

A couple of minor issues were conditions not being discharged properly and the general state of the land which was unsightly. Again, minor issues.

In my view, there isn’t blood on WCBC hands. The flats application was approved on its own merit. There’s only so much control a Council has. They can’t dictate how businesses operate. When the application was approved, it was in good faith that it was for the greater good of Wrexham FC. Back in those days, legally WFC wasn’t the fans, it belonged to WV.

If they tried to attach such a condition, any decent planning consultant would delete it as it’s clearly unenforceable.

Just to give a bit of understanding on the issue, I know a developer who had to pay a large amount to the council on completion of the final house on a development. He simply did not build that house!

The council accepted a watered down version of a Unilateral undertaking.
The correct and legally watertight way to have constructed a section 106 was to ensure that the developer entered into a bond for the amount required to facilitate the kop development which could be called in on completion of the work or on non completion after a period of say 5 years.

[pagl]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

The council accepted a watered down version of a Unilateral undertaking.
The correct and legally watertight way to have constructed a section 106 was to ensure that the developer entered into a bond for the amount required to facilitate the kop development which could be called in on completion of the work or on non completion after a period of say 5 years.

A voice of reason in all of this

[onelegged harry]

Originally Posted by pagl

A voice of reason in all of this

At last someone does not wear tinted glasses,AlanAttack the sun is'nt shinning.

[Wrexham's Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

You’re saying there aren’t shitholes in Cardiff and Swansea?

Nope, you'll find shitholes in most British Cities and Towns if you go looking .I'm alluding to WAG investment.,
You're saying your happy with the investment Wrexhamgets from Cardiff..

[GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

That was Ian Roberts’ idea to put fans off the scent whilst he and Moss were in the process of formally separating the football club from the surrounding land.

The WST backed the separation, so not true despite clear warnings within the WST from day one about Dickins & Moss.

With the excuse now being used, we had little option, chasing off potential buyers whether crooked too or not, akin to a scene from The League of Gentlemen has caused the WST to make a rod for its own back.

Who would want to invest with that sort of behaviour by WST extremists? Should it go wrong despite you're best intentions you'd have them camped outside your house wanting their pound of flesh.

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

The council accepted a watered down version of a Unilateral undertaking.
The correct and legally watertight way to have constructed a section 106 was to ensure that the developer entered into a bond for the amount required to facilitate the kop development which could be called in on completion of the work or on non completion after a period of say 5 years.

If it was on council land then yes but the flats and the Kop is/was on land owned by WV.

Was phase 2 built?

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo

The WST backed the separation, so not true despite clear warnings within the WST from day one about Dickins & Moss.

With the excuse now being used, we had little option, chasing off potential buyers whether crooked too or not, akin to a scene from The League of Gentlemen has caused the WST to make a rod for its own back.

Who would want to invest with that sort of behaviour by WST extremists? Should it go wrong despite you're best intentions you'd have them camped outside your house wanting their pound of flesh.

Did the WST back WV transferring land out of football club ownership? No, because at that time they created the WV umbrella company to diminish WFC and the land which came with it. If you can recall, Wrexham FC became part of Wrexham Village.