Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:44 pm  

littlerich wrote:

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

Rich for PM .

Most of the time, if not all of the time, the simplest option is the best.

[PopTart]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:51 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.

And when it came up no one would have been bothered, so why does Wright need to get involved.
If the request had come to you Fully, Would you A) have done it B) understood that it might be harmful to Wakefield?

That's what everybody is upset about. He knew what the effect would be and did it anyway.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:56 pm  

littlerich wrote:

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

Why don't you play from the Galpharm?

Your answer to that is the reason why each club won't play from the other.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:58 pm  

PopTart wrote:

And when it came up no one would have been bothered, so why does Wright need to get involved.
If the request had come to you Fully, Would you A) have done it B) understood that it might be harmful to Wakefield?

That's what everybody is upset about. He knew what the effect would be and did it anyway.

If they asked for my personal opinion I wouldn't.

If they asked questions, which can be found out via public places then there's nothing harmful in any way. The only thing that may have changed is the respective position of CTRLFC in offering their facilities to WTW, which obviously isn't the case.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:16 pm  

Barton Willmore will have been briefed by their client and were always going to mention the feasibilty study fiasco and the fact that groundshare at GH is a possibilty.

All the letter does is confirm to the inspector that their 1 paragraph refrence to this in their statement in is still the case.

AFAIK this was brought up by the Leeds Council barrister and not Barton Willmore who have yet to speak.

I think WTWC should be much more concerned about the other 31 pages of the Barton Willmore statement rather than a 200 word confirmation letter from Richard Wright.

[PopTart]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:26 pm  

Fully wrote:

If they asked for my personal opinion I wouldn't.

If they asked questions, which can be found out via public places then there's nothing harmful in any way. The only thing that may have changed is the respective position of CTRLFC in offering their facilities to WTW, which obviously isn't the case.

But that's the point, if they are public, they could have got the facts themselves. By asking Richard Wright they want his opinion or at least his name behind it, and by using language like "disappointed" and "don't hesitate to contact me", he is making it an opinion rather than facts.

I honestly don't think it will change the judgement, which makes it worse, because he leaves all the fans argueing about this and when none of them had anything to do with it. We are now going to get everybody trying to stick the nife in to each other rather than getting on with their own stadum.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:26 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Barton Willmore will have been briefed by their client and were always going to mention the feasibilty study fiasco and the fact that groundshare at GH is a possibilty.

All the letter does is confirm to the inspector that their 1 paragraph refrence to this in their statement in is still the case.

AFAIK this was brought up by the Leeds Council barrister and not Barton Willmore who have yet to speak.

I think WTWC should be much more concerned about the other 31 pages of the Barton Willmore statement rather than a 200 word confirmation letter from Richard Wright.

It was brought up by Yorkcourt's barrister during Sir Rodney Walker's evidence.

No one is overlay concerned with Barton Willmore evidence. LCC is the rule 6 statutory objector and it is them that the focus will be on.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:34 pm  

PopTart wrote:

But that's the point, if they are public, they could have got the facts themselves. By asking Richard Wright they want his opinion or at least his name behind it, and by using language like "disappointed" and "don't hesitate to contact me", he is making it an opinion rather than facts.

I honestly don't think it will change the judgement, which makes it worse, because he leaves all the fans argueing about this and when none of them had anything to do with it. We are now going to get everybody trying to stick the nife in to each other rather than getting on with their own stadum.

How absurd.

"Don't hesitate to contact me" = courteous point made when responding to people if they have any further concerns or questions, nothing about opinions whasoever.

"disappointed" - Cas were, end of. Fact, not opinion.

Wakefield fans are reading too much into it or at least trying to make more out of it too. As I repeat, whoever has asked him for his comment has possibly asked if the offer remains open for Wakefield to share at GH. This is the only thing that can change.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:48 pm  

Richard Wright knew that the request was coming from an objector, he knew why they were asking, he knew what they would use his letter for and he knew his opinion would lend weight to their argument. Instead of doing what any other Chief Executive of a fellow club would do and declining their request and not getting himself or Cas involved he went the other way. He has consciously and purposely aided LCC and sought to help strengthen their case to prevent another SL club from making progress towards a new stadium.

What were his motives for doing this?

It's a dispicable act and he ought to be ashamed of his actions!

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:06 pm  

The Clan wrote:

Richard Wright knew that the request was coming from an objector, he knew why they were asking, he knew what they would use his letter for and he knew his opinion would lend weight to their argument. Instead of doing what any other Chief Executive of a fellow club would do and declining their request and not getting himself or Cas involved he went the other way. He has consciously and purposely aided LCC and sought to help strengthen their case to prevent another SL club from making progress towards a new stadium.

What were his motives for doing this?

It's a dispicable act and he ought to be ashamed of his actions!

The letters highly emotive language bordering on hyperbole says a lot about Dickie Wrights motivations.