Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:52 am  

benny the ball wrote:

simple solution:

as our tigger bretheren are so keen to play at glasshoughton with wakefield council backing, why not merge, play at glasshoughton and call ourselves wakefield trinity - after all, it's the wakefield council that's the deal breaker and main supporter of the proposal - seems fair to me

Losing the name "Castleford" would kill me - but "Wakefield" geographically speaking would carry more weight.

Before any of this cropped-up, I set myself a potential stance which was "Wakefield Tigers" in black & amber at Glasshoughton.

For what it's worth, I've been bracing myself for months for what will happen at the next franchise announcement:

Widnes named 13th - 14th place a Cas/Wakey merger if a deal can be struck otherwise both out and a replacement will be found.

I think if they force a merger on us they know they'll meet mass resistance, however by dangling such a bait and leaving it for the clubs/fans to decide and take ownership of would be perhaps less contentious.

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:32 am  

bigalf wrote:

Well don't bother coming then - you won't be missed . Oh and by the way, take your ball home with you too!!!

Its you what needs to grow up squire

[Wildthing]

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:40 am  

bigalf wrote:

Top Rant

You are desperate for us to share GH with you aren't you alf?
Its been amusing looking at you rant at anyone who doesnt want to.



I won't watch Wakefield play home games in Castleford either. Start your rant/sulk at me now!

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:57 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

This constant debate as to which is the best development is utterly pointless because everyone has their own clubs interest at heart.

Each side has an advantage. Newmarket is the most viable. Glasshoughton has supporters in powerful places. And right now I'm sick of the whole thing, because I see self-interest in local politics wrecking everything.

Well summed up M'lord

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:24 am  

J.T wrote:

Not read the 35 pages but how has it come to this?Thornes Park was a non starter any idiot could see that. Then 2 stadiums within spitting distance of each other was also a non starter. On both these we were told there was no problem and that it was the best option which clearly turned out to be absolute rubbish. Why wasn't Newmarket identified 3 years ago rather than the red herring that was Thornes Park? Seems that what we will end up with is what the powers that be have wanted from the start a merged club. Total farce.

Rodney Walker has wanted a merger for more years than I care to remember we were doomed as soon as he came on board.

Come on JT you are smarter than that.


Newmarket was not identified till after Thornes Park. Its private land owned by the developer if he had not come forward no one would know now.

Newmarket is not dead although Box wants to divert any funding he can away from it to help his beloved Cas. People still believe Newmarket is deliverable without WMDC money which up to now is only technically a £2M loan. The main problem is council support in the wider areas. Box wants Newmarket to fail there is no doubt about it. The project was submitted for planning in Feb and WMDC were to give their decision in June, they now say it will be September ! They are just sitting with it on their desks and refusing to budge at the moment, now I wonder who has instructed them to delay. Can you also remember there was a cut off date regarding objections. However they have decided not to apply this and are still accepting objections even now.

These powers that be are they the RFL ? if so you may be correct. But I still think Wakey can survive if we all stand up to Box and stick this out and fight him all the way.

Rodney walker is only the chairman of the community trust he has no wish to be involved in RL matters and when he has done with all this he will be gone, don't worry about him.

Hope this helps, lets all stick together and PM me if you want to help with the fight. By the way that goes for any one else on here.

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:51 am  

WAR are now comparing the two sites: http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com/ I think you can guess which one they were cynical about and which one came out smelling of roses...

WAR are now comparing the two sites: http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com/ I think you can guess which one they were cynical about and which one came out smelling of roses...

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:10 am  

senoj wrote:

Anyone for the good old days when the league you played in was based solely on your performance on the field and not off it anyone!!

plenty stuck in the championship would love that.

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:11 am  

Fully wrote: WAR are now comparing the two sites: http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com/ I think you can guess which one they were cynical about and which one came out smelling of roses... The daft thing is, the industrial units would still get built without the stadium if Trinity were forced to share at Glasshoughton. With or without the stadium the development still brings job's to the area and with the government expecting the private sector to soak the job losses from the public sector then this scheme is ideal.

Fully wrote: WAR are now comparing the two sites: http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com/ I think you can guess which one they were cynical about and which one came out smelling of roses... The daft thing is, the industrial units would still get built without the stadium if Trinity were forced to share at Glasshoughton. With or without the stadium the development still brings job's to the area and with the government expecting the private sector to soak the job losses from the public sector then this scheme is ideal.

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:16 am  

bigalf wrote:

Good question - if all these grants are in place and guaranteed for NM, but the choice of the feasability study is GH then surley they will just transfer over to GH as long as the "Community Facilities " go also.

Really

These grants have been applied for by Wakefield Community Trust that has rock all to do with GH, thats private always has been through Waystone and the sale of your ground with other partners, everything was hunkydory for you until you could not sell your ground due to the blast zone issues (3 million quid I believe to buy out the license). During the boom it was two fingers up to community facilities, then BUST, no money to fund the project outline planning permission yes. No council input yes. About turn council support needed GH would be a community facility (sort of)

TP chucked out due to cost, newmarket zero cost to LA other than feasibility underwritin of 150K this has been done. Planning applied for and delayed. Grants applied for and dependent upon planning (not public money)

LA as a sweetener decide to covenent land to both clubs but my suspicions are that the value will not meet the cost of GH shortfall. Solution coventent to be invested into one stadium.

Politics. Two clubs will need agreement. If LA withdraw support for NM and it goes alone and then funds up to 4m for GH then serious guestions will be asked. If the value of each covenent is 2 million who is to say that Wakefield need 2 million other than to borrow money, BV has been sold I believe so the sale must be less that the investment needed to support the new stadium.

Could be time for the CT to open up a fighting fund or debentures.

It would take 2000 debentures of £1,000 to secure the 2 million. No need then for any support but then a call to arms to force the planning issues.

Plan B sell BV and invest in Dewsbury a RL town crying out for better success. Not to merge but support may increase for SL from the Town.

Just my thoughts on the matter

Re: Stadium Statement : Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:18 am  

chissitt wrote:

:THINK: Its you what needs to grow up squire

Fair enough ! - Just couldn't help myself with him/her