Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:21 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

As a side issue fully can I ask whether you think WMDC have acted properly regarding Newmarket when compared to five towns park?

They are two different developments with two different developers so it's hard to compare and contrast other than taking them at face value. The only similarity is that both developments required sporting clubs with good support to get them through.

There were definite learnings from the Newmarket situation, which of course will provide no solace to you guys on here. It could quite easily be us. However, the one benefit to us is that we own WR - therein lies your problem. The plan B is reliant on another developer, who also happens to be the owner of Belle Vue, and who has had zero to do with the Newmarket situation. By that nature, he has no obligation to give you the same deal (and from reading the comments, I do feel that it's slightly unfair he's being lumped in to this mess when he's tried to provide a resolution, no matter how much of a problem it may be for you guys).

The one question that needs answering is why Newcold didn't contribute to the 60,000 sq.m. There could be a fair reason for that but it's been poorly communicated (or rather not communicated) to fans and to the club/trust, and to the wider public. But the reality is that nothing else has happened on that site since Newcold. Again, that's not a question that I feel is fair levelled at the council but the developer.

For all the other ills, Yorkcourt are the ones that applied outside of it, the ones that sorted Newcold and ultimately responsible for Newmarket development. Ultimately, I think there have been things that have contributed along the way from all the parties to where we are now, but as an outsider I don't see it all on WMDC's fault, and I'm sure you guys don't either. But it does feel like you're solely hitting out at one party on here at the moment.

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:22 pm  

I genuienly wasn't trying to be patronising & I get that the tone of a comment can be lost in the written word quite easily.

I've held off posting since the news broke as I know it's a very emotive subject & people's nerves are shred, but I was attempting to calm a few "Nutjobs" down before damage is done.

Certain fans are going to have to change their mindset though. This is not a trinity v WMDC fight, it's a district v developer/WMDC fight & the best chance of success is a united district, or at least as much of it as possible.

I chose this particular thread to post as I still believe that a ground share is possible & is actually the best & most likely to succeed for both clubs, but the jewel in the crown has to be the wider sporting facilities. I'm not talking about Glasshoughton or Newmarket either, I'm talking about Normanton & more specifically the newer part of the development (up around the new police building).
That area is a fairly central point for the district, has excellent links & has the land to deliver a truly amazing site; a centre of excellence if you will, for sport in the district. It could & would put the district in the map for sporting facilities.
All it needs is the egos to be left at the door & for the people involved to see it.

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:32 pm  

With you there Steady. Join forces, push for stadium delivered, betwixt, as near as possible,the two sets of fans.

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:33 pm  

Fully wrote:

They are two different developments with two different developers so it's hard to compare and contrast other than taking them at face value. The only similarity is that both developments required sporting clubs with good support to get them through.

There were definite learnings from the Newmarket situation, which of course will provide no solace to you guys on here. It could quite easily be us. However, the one benefit to us is that we own WR - therein lies your problem. The plan B is reliant on another developer, who also happens to be the owner of Belle Vue, and who has had zero to do with the Newmarket situation. By that nature, he has no obligation to give you the same deal (and from reading the comments, I do feel that it's slightly unfair he's being lumped in to this mess when he's tried to provide a resolution, no matter how much of a problem it may be for you guys).

The one question that needs answering is why Newcold didn't contribute to the 60,000 sq.m. There could be a fair reason for that but it's been poorly communicated (or rather not communicated) to fans and to the club/trust, and to the wider public. But the reality is that nothing else has happened on that site since Newcold. Again, that's not a question that I feel is fair levelled at the council but the developer.

For all the other ills, Yorkcourt are the ones that applied outside of it, the ones that sorted Newcold and ultimately responsible for Newmarket development. Ultimately, I think there have been things that have contributed along the way from all the parties to where we are now, but as an outsider I don't see it all on WMDC's fault, and I'm sure you guys don't either. But it does feel like you're solely hitting out at one party on here at the moment.

Thanks for the reply.

I would however point out that one of the justifications in the inspectors report for passing five parks was your ground would realise cGBP 3m and you had debts of cGBP 2.3m so wouldn’t be much left over to fund a new ground. In any event there is no mention anywhere that I can see that says you are gifting wheldon road to lateral for them to develop.

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:45 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

Thanks for the reply.

I would however point out that one of the justifications in the inspectors report for passing five parks was your ground would realise cGBP 3m and you had debts of cGBP 2.3m so wouldn’t be much left over to fund a new ground. In any event there is no mention anywhere that I can see that says you are gifting wheldon road to lateral for them to develop.

There were numerous reasons for passing it. We badly need a new ground, that's well documented. Overwhelming public support and of course, the economic benefits and facilities it would bring.

On WR, we aren't giving Lateral anything. We're keeping Wheldon Road too. Lateral needed the support of CTRLFC and a purpose to get FTP through planning. Without us, I don't know if it would.
Sorry, also if you may have misinterpreted something. I just thought I'd clarify if something triggered that comment from my post and then I can explain what I meant

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:52 pm  

Fully wrote:

There were numerous reasons for passing it. We badly need a new ground, that's well documented. Overwhelming public support and of course, the economic benefits and facilities it would bring.

On WR, we aren't giving Lateral anything. We're keeping Wheldon Road too. Lateral needed the support of CTRLFC and a purpose to get FTP through planning. Without us, I don't know if it would.
Sorry, also if you may have misinterpreted something. I just thought I'd clarify if something triggered that comment from my post and then I can explain what I meant

My comment was to say if you are not gifting wheldon road to lateral or selling it and putting money into the new project then the fact you own your own ground is irrelevant is it not?

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:07 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

My comment was to say if you are not gifting wheldon road to lateral or selling it and putting money into the new project then the fact you own your own ground is irrelevant is it not?

Well, not entirely, as it means we still have an asset to fall back on, which we don't have the threat of being kicked out of unlike yourselves. It also means we're not at the behest of a landlord.

The application ruled out us doing up Wheldon Road because the costs would be extortionate and time consuming but in all probability, it may come to that as a plan C/D/E if we ever have to go down that route.

Re: Ground Share : Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:02 pm  

Apparently we were talked out of buying belle Vue, if we hadn't be we might have had a ground

Re: Ground Share : Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:57 am  

steadygetyerboots-on wrote:

I still believe that a ground share is possible & is actually the best & most likely to succeed for both clubs, but the jewel in the crown has to be the wider sporting facilities. I'm not talking about Glasshoughton or Newmarket either, I'm talking about Normanton & more specifically the newer part of the development (up around the new police building)

You're not wrong, but it seems like an impossible dream.

Re: Ground Share : Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:30 pm  

bren2k wrote:

You're not wrong, but it seems like an impossible dream.

I agree a community facility for the Wakefield district is much needed. One or more of the districts sports clubs as anchor tenant would be great ensuring it is used regularly but the exact location does not matter as long as it is in the Wakefield district surely.
The main criteria for WMDC is how to fund it so it would be the cheapest option for them.
Regarding Castleford / Wakefield, each club has to get the best deal for them to ensure a future but as it stands at the minute Glasshoughton seems to be the only one on the table.
I personally support Wakefields campaign but think there is not a lot of mileage in chasing the council as time is not on the clubs side maybe.