[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:34 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Wakefield said no for that very reason, they knew Glasshoughton would have been the councils recommendation.

And you know this as fact how?

Looks like Newmarket is a far better site for a groundshare (to the untrained eye admittedly).

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:34 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Wakefield rejected that chance.

The council suggested that they pay for a feasibility study to see whether Glasshoughton or Newmarket would be the better choice and then both teams play in the stadium, Wakefield said NO.

The only team at fault for both teams not being in a new stadium is WAKEFIELD.

So, you would have been happy Cas being a tenant at Newmarket if that is what the study concluded then Gronk? You do surprise me!

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:37 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

So, you would have been happy Cas being a tenant at Newmarket if that is what the study concluded then Gronk? You do surprise me!

We all know they were edging their bets.

[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:37 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

So, you would have been happy Cas being a tenant at Newmarket if that is what the study concluded then Gronk? You do surprise me!

What would stop each team having a 33% steak in the stadium with WMDC having 34%...?

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:39 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Cas were never going to play out of Newmarket

Very prudent of Wakefield not to spend rate payers money on a feasibilty study then wasn't it
Here's a gentle hint, remember what you post.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:40 pm  

What amuses me is the fact that RW doesn't mention the word "object" in his letter. The fact that he's responded to someone, who just so happens to be responding to an objector means that Wakey fans have completely took this OTT.

Had this come directly from the inspector, would they still be kicking up a fuss? Probably on a lesser scale. As it is, this was ALWAYS going to be considered/asked as the objectors would have brought this up anyway, with or without a response.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:43 pm  

As a point of order WMDC are not building the stadium, the developers wanting to build the warehousing and industrial units at the same site are putting in the majority. This funding is not transferrable and not only does it give the district a fantastic stadium and associated sporting facilities, but offers the prospect of 2,000 jobs for people in times when jobs are hard to come by.

You need to ignore anything Gronk claims to be fact, considering he told everyone who would listen that Peter Gentle was the new Cas coach!

He mentions the Ben Bailey deal in his previous posts, yet fails to mention they had only bought the option to purchase the site. The fact the housing market was on it's arris when the councils offer of 2m of land to each club to use towards securing funding was made, meant Ben Bailey were never in reality going to exercise the option and certainly not at the price originally agreed and far more knowledgeable cas fans than Gronk said as much at the time

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:44 pm  

Wheels wrote:

The council shouldn't have given the teams a choice. They should have done their own feasability study, told both teams where the new stadium was going, and told them to either move in or shut up.

That's it though the council aren't paying for Newmarket, the whole sporting complex is being paid for by the developers and is going to be a community stadium,where Trinity don't own it but are paying tennants. Whereas GH has to be paid for by the clubs, or wherever they can get it, that's the big difference.
Cas wouldn't give a monkeys about Trinity and their stadium if they had all the money and were pressing forward.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:50 pm  

Fully wrote:

What amuses me is the fact that RW doesn't mention the word "object" in his letter. The fact that he's responded to someone, who just so happens to be responding to an objector means that Wakey fans have completely took this OTT.

Had this come directly from the inspector, would they still be kicking up a fuss? Probably on a lesser scale. As it is, this was ALWAYS going to be considered/asked as the objectors would have brought this up anyway, with or without a response.

You don't think RW knew exactly what he was doing when he answered the objectors call, he was sticking his finger in the hole and giving it a little poke. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot and Glover popped up and was only too willing to help the objectors, Cas fans would have plenty to say as well.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:50 pm  

Fully wrote:

What amuses me is the fact that RW doesn't mention the word "object" in his letter. The fact that he's responded to someone, who just so happens to be responding to an objector means that Wakey fans have completely took this OTT.

Had this come directly from the inspector, would they still be kicking up a fuss? Probably on a lesser scale. As it is, this was ALWAYS going to be considered/asked as the objectors would have brought this up anyway, with or without a response.

How many times does it have to be said for the usual cas suspects to get the message. His letter assists the objectors on a key point within the PI and is purely intended to de-rail the newmarket project. What could then happen is that rather than 2 new stadiums in the area (note I didnt use the word community cos yours aint one), there will be none.

If he had a brain cell, he would have been backing the NM site as his fall back so that you could play there as well if GH failed or until it was sorted.