Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:56 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

You need to ignore anything Gronk claims to be fact

This.

For anyone who is actually interested in the subject, I'd suggest doing your own research; either way up, disregard the blustering nonsense that Gronk posts - he's a known blowhard with zero credibility.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:00 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

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.

And again, I refer you back to the fact that this would have been brought up anyway. What difference does it make? Zero. All it does is reaffirm that GH, when built, will be open to WTWRLFC to use. Simple as.

All it does is reaffirm the facts. He has not objected, nor asked to present his own opinion in any way, shape or form. And I also repeat, if the Inspector had asked RW the very same questions and the very same response would have been produced, would you still be kicking up a fuss? After all, that still gives the objectors 'evidence' to use, if you can call it that, notwithstanding the fact they'd have said it anyway.

Furthermore, this is an Inspector who has to be impartial and investigate all aspects of the application and the background and also look at the Special Circumstances Wakefield have claimed.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:05 pm  

Cas have made a big gamble on getting funding for their stadium, which if it comes off will give them a strong revenue stream going forward. If it doesn't come off they will either have to play elsewhere, and pay rent, or drop out of SL - that has been made clear by the RFL.

Wakey have no chance of buying their own new stadium, but have a business plan which means they can afford to be anchor tenants in a community stadium and still play in SL - their revenue stream wouldn't be as strong, but after maintenance/staffing costs of a stadium might not be too far away from Cas' potential.

The big difference is that if Wakey play at GH then Cas get yet more revenue, whereas if Cas play at NM the COMMUNITY benefits from the extra revenue to the stadium.

RW has now made it difficult for Cas to swallow their pride in the event of GH failure and play at NM (IF it is built!) - it's a very high risk strategy, and if I were a Cas fan I wouldn't be too happy with my clubs future being gambled with like this.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:10 pm  

Fully wrote:

And again, I refer you back to the fact that this would have been brought up anyway. What difference does it make? Zero. All it does is reaffirm that GH, when built, will be open to WTWRLFC to use. Simple as.

All it does is reaffirm the facts. He has not objected, nor asked to present his own opinion in any way, shape or form. And I also repeat, if the Inspector had asked RW the very same questions and the very same response would have been produced, would you still be kicking up a fuss? After all, that still gives the objectors 'evidence' to use, if you can call it that, notwithstanding the fact they'd have said it anyway.

Furthermore, this is an Inspector who has to be impartial and investigate all aspects of the application and the background and also look at the Special Circumstances Wakefield have claimed.

Why would the inspector be talking to rw if he had not joined the objectors .The question would never have come up

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:17 pm  

Wheels wrote:

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

a distinct lack of common sense.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:22 pm  

kellys eye wrote:

Why would the inspector be talking to rw if he had not joined the objectors .The question would never have come up

Because Yorkcourt have to prove special circumstances for a stadium to be in the Greenbelt. The one point they raised was no other suitable sites in Wakefield District. Obviously, the availability of such a potential stadium at Castleford which can be used goes against that and so the objectors are using that as part of their evidence (and has been used all along). Take a look at the WAR website, for example.

This issue would have been brought up anyway at some point and this would have been explored, as any inspector would, as evidence in full before making a final and comprehensive decision.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:27 pm  

Winter is Coming wrote:

a distinct lack of common sense.

No - a distinct lack of facts; WMDC have never offered to fund any part of the stadium build - it's being fully funded by the developer (YorkCourt) as part of a wider commercial development on the site. If it passes the PI, they will sign a 106 agreement to that effect.

HTH.

[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:32 pm  

bren2k wrote:

No - a distinct lack of facts; WMDC have never offered to fund any part of the stadium build - it's being fully funded by the developer (YorkCourt) as part of a wider commercial development on the site. If it passes the PI, they will sign a 106 agreement to that effect.

HTH.

I see, thanks.

So what have WMDC put to the project then, just the land?

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:34 pm  

What a tedious thread. Just move into one fskin' stadium you dumbasses.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:43 pm  

Wheels wrote:

I see, thanks.

So what have WMDC put to the project then, just the land?

Yorkcourt own the land I believe.

The council have offered both clubs land to loan against as equity I believe.