Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:06 pm  

chissitt wrote:

Course you've got the funding thats why your grounds getting built oh wait a minute

Only thing what is simples is your clueless like the rest of us, the first line of your post implies that you have the funding and in the next line admit you havent which is it?

You have certainly got that right, just out of interest if there is only one ground built and it happens to be at GH bearing in mind you have no money to build it yourselves and neither have we, will it be a shared ground like 50-50 or will you be our landlords

Well, no, I was making the point that nobody knows - except those involved in the process - how much money we have or indeed how much we are short by.

It may be a case we actually have the full amount of money but we don't have the access to it in the immediacy.

I have no idea what the make-up of the stadium will be and I'm assuming that bridge will be crossed when it comes to it.

In an ideal world it would be a 50:50 split but I've got a feeling we'll be your landlords. You'll retain all gameday profits and then pay us rent agreed by both parties.

However, TRB's comments in the WE this morning suggest that even if GH was recommended, Wakefield would reject to move there. I wonder if that position has changed since?

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:08 pm  

vastman

I think you will find the slippy sir Rodney has been chasing this all along, on the pretense that it will be short term.
keep trusting him, it makes cas stadium more likely with that snake on your team

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:10 pm  

seems to me that the only logical step is to share ground.
then after franchise ground will have one team in SL and one in the championship.

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:11 pm  

newwildcat wrote:

Just worked my way through 26 pages of argument and counterarguement. My prediction: neither stadium will be built and neither of us will end up with a franchise. Only a few seem to see the bigger picture that having separate stadiums is never ever going to happen. I may be in a minority but as long as it's with 30 mins drive I don't care where the stadium is as long as I get to watch my team there. The fundamental truth here is unless both clubs can get their respective heads around groundshare, neither are going to happen IMO.

Frankly, if the intransigent views on here are anything to go by we can both forget about SL indefinately. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a plan which both clubs can support i.e. neutral name, equal partnership, good transport links for both sets of fans.

ATEOTD the survival of both clubs is of paramount importance and to throw that away bickering and refusing to compromise would be a travesty.

Well said!, couldn't agree more! Top post. What is more important, the club or where that club plays? To many (both Cas & Wakey) it seems to be the latter. Let's get a groundshare sorted that saves both clubs and is the most economical option. It always seemed silly to have two stadiums a few miles apart, one of which will be empty every other week!!

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:12 pm  

ambernotyeller wrote:

vastman

I think you will find the slippy sir Rodney has been chasing this all along, on the pretense that it will be short term.
keep trusting him, it makes cas stadium more likely with that snake on your team

Mods is this post acceptable?

What justification is there for this personal attack on someone who to date has done nothing remotely dodgy.

I've never met Walker or know much about him or whether he is a good or bad man before the poodle stuff starts.

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:13 pm  

vastman wrote:

As for the roads into Glasshoughton your having a laugh surely. There may be two of them but they are feeding Xscape and the retail park and general traffic as well. How congested will they become on a friday match day. Stanley junction is the least used junction on the M62 FACT, so traffic is no issue.

This silly Cas mentallity of trying to big up their own scheme by rubbishing (most of it false) ours is getting tiresome in the extreme. If you want a stadium at Glasshoughton fine, b*gger off an build it WHAT'S STOPPING YOU.

We will do the same at Newmarket so long as the Council offer us the same support - REMEMBER IT'S NOT US WANTING A GROUND SHARE IS IT - so put you money where your mouth is and back both. Thank you.

Well, it's not us wanting a groundshare either. Or we would have already done it, eh?

As for your traffic comment. One road is nowhere near Xscape. Road A is the one that links from J32 and onto the main road towards Xscape. The stadium is the 2nd exit off that first roundabout away from Xscape.

The 2nd road comes in the opposite direction from the new link road at Cutsyke and will go up and join the stadium road - it comes out nowhere near Xscape. Traffic will be limited, if any, from the stadium and as already mentioned a lot will walk from Glasshoughton, hop on the train from Cas station to G'houghton or catch that common invention called a bus. It will only be away fans that travel by car and those Cas fans from further afield and even then those living in Leeds can catch the train. Traffic won't be as bad as you're making it out to be.

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:14 pm  

It feels to me as if the council monkeys have the perfect excuse in the government cuts inplace to shaft us on Newmarket, and force a move to glasshoughton.
There recent track record for wasting cash in cas and the popularity of the excape/Freeport site suggests to me this is clearly the favoured site the wmdc.
I just hope that we don't really need them, and we can continue without there direct/indirect £2m.
Perhaps a statement from York court/Rodders regarding how we move forward in light of the councils statement, would give us a clearer view of where we are and more importantly how we move forward.
If the development is only going to be slowed down, and this is supported by the developer, then the club should state clearly our intention to groundshare short term.


At oakwell, if this is made clear, I cannot see our franchise being turned down as we will have ticked the boxs re stadia standards, and we also have the ground continuing in the, hopefully very short term background.
We then do not have to support the glasshoughton project, or the proposed castleford groundshare there, as they seem keen to at the moment.
Where that them leaves them??????

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:16 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

It feels to me as if the council monkeys have the perfect excuse in the government cuts inplace to shaft us on Newmarket, and force a move to glasshoughton.
There recent track record for wasting cash in cas and the popularity of the excape/Freeport site suggests to me this is clearly the favoured site the wmdc.
I just hope that we don't really need them, and we can continue without there direct/indirect £2m.
Perhaps a statement from York court/Rodders regarding how we move forward in light of the councils statement, would give us a clearer view of where we are and more importantly how we move forward.
If the development is only going to be slowed down, and this is supported by the developer, then the club should state clearly our intention to groundshare short term.


At oakwell, if this is made clear, I cannot see our franchise being turned down as we will have ticked the boxs re stadia standards, and we also have the ground continuing in the, hopefully very short term background.
We then do not have to support the glasshoughton project, or the proposed castleford groundshare there, as they seem keen to at the moment.
Where that them leaves them??????

G'houghton will go ahead and be built. But just phased - I think that's the sticking point financially. We have enough to go it alone and build some structure but not enough to complete the entire stadium. With Wakefield on board the likelihood is that the whole complex will be sorted.

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:17 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

At oakwell, if this is made clear, I cannot see our franchise being turned down as we will have ticked the boxs re stadia standards, and we also have the ground continuing in the, hopefully very short term background.
We then do not have to support the glasshoughton project

Completely agree.

Re: Stadium Statement : Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:20 pm  

ok here my guess at the result of the feasilbility study.

Glasshoughton - infastructure good, buildable in timnescale long term sustainability and payback to investors very weak recommendation not long term feasible.
Land -
Newmarket - not deliverable in timescale so no guarentee of SL franchise(s), infastructure issues and environmental issues, long term feasibility to investors dependant on take up of retail units etc etc, recomendation not deliverable in timescale do not proceed.