I'm not sure how you can consider the Hepworth an unqualified success, it cost the council over £18m to build and currently costs the council £1.25m/annum to operate. The gallery attracted 210,000 visitors in 2016 and all of them got in for free. That means that each visitor cost the Wakefield tax payer around £6 for them to visit. The most successful thing it has managed to achieve is winning a £100,000 prize, this hardly touches the sides of the running costs.



I'm sure if the council were to build a stadium for £18m and then give the club £1.25m per year in place of entry fees, we'd see figures surpass the attendance figures for the gallery

That's simplistic BS, as I suspect you know; the gallery has received international recognition, and this time last year, was estimated to have brought around £20 million into the local economy. Whether we like it or not, it has an appeal that a RL club can only dream of, and brings a cultural and economic benefit to the district that eclipses anything in living memory - I fail to see how anyone in Wakefield wouldn't be proud of that, given the wasteland we've become since Leeds' meteoric rise in recent decades.



Wish for a stadium all you like - but don't wish for it *instead* of something like The Hepworth; it's a stupid argument and makes you look parochial and small-minded, which I doubt you actually are.

A very good point. I don't want to get into slagging the Hepworth; I think promoting the arts is important but surely so is sport; health of the nation and our young people in particular and all that! I know times are financially hard but I am betting this could be done if the political will was there.

Also good points and I don't want to be having a go at the Hepworth either but it has to be said that there is a stark contrast between the will to get that project done and the will to get the stadium done. I wonder what the peripheral cost to the Wakefield economy of losing Trinity would be. We are all on the same side here. I think we share a lot of frustration at this situation.

It was estimated to have brought in £20m, yet nowhere actually says how or where that £20m figure is or how it was formulated. The gallery doesn't keep figures of how many visitors come from the local area and how many come from further afield so it's almost impossible to say if visitor numbers make a difference to the local economy and it's impossible to say how much of a contributing factor the development has had on further developments in surrounding area as the area still remains under developed. We're living through austere times and the gallery doesn't, and has never, offered sound financial investment for a cashstapped council. Im quite happy that we have it, but to say that it's an unqualified success is incredibly wrong when financially it is far from successful.



If the gallery was financially solvent and required no input from local taxpayer, and could be show to have definitively improved the local economy as well as providing a cultural focal point for the city then i would agree that it could be considered an unqualified success, as it stands though, it's failing on one of those, and another cannot be proven.



I'm alao not saying that a community stadium would be an unqualified success. However, if Carter is to be believed that he would be able to at least pay the interest on the development, it would make the stadium more financially stable than the gallery. As for attendance figures, if the club were to draw an average attendance of around 8,000 per game, and then the community sports areas were in uses at around 50% of the time then the visitor figures to the stadium complex would surpass that of the gallery

A fairly immediate impact would be the loss of a local business which pays out nearly £2m in wages to people who live in the local area and spend their money in local businesses

ESTIMATED to bring in £20 million, where do they get these figures from, never ceases to amaze me how they pull these figures out of a hat, it was the same after the tour of Yorkshire but when they asked small business owners after they had not seen any increase and some said it made it worse people stayed away.

So the estimated economic and cultural benefits of The Hepworth are all stuff and nonsense; whereas Mr Carter's assumptions that WMDC obtaining a loan of c£10 million makes sound financial sense and is cast iron and guaranteed - even with your wildly optimistic assumption about an average attendance of 8k, which I don't think has ever been achieved in the SL era?



I want a stadium as much as you - but the case must be made on its own merit - not at the expense of something that is already built and, outside of a small group of curmudgeonly charlatans, is widely perceived as adding value to the district.

I'm also a bit sceptical regarding the figures but they will say anything to make it sound worthwhile, me personally, I've never been as the sculptor park was enough

I've got a 2year old grandson that could create a better looking lump of art. The kings clothes syndrome for me.

My daily moan over

That's ok - I'll add you to the list of curmudgeonly charlatans!

Thank you

much appreciated

The case was made in a Public Inquiry where a Developer in return for a Planning Consent and a £2m contribution that was promised from the Council promised to build a 12,000 capacity Stadium.



We are asking that the Council borrows the money and builds the stadium. Michael has agreed to cover the interest on the loan until its repaid by the Developers of Newmarket & Belle Vue through Section 106 Agrements and CIL payments without costing the Council a penny.



So all the social and economic benefits that a new stadium will bring which was acknowledged by Andy Wallhead of the Council on Radio Leeds on Monday can be achieved at no cost to the Council.



Looks a good deal to me.