O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:53 pm  

Thats all they are - 2 roofs!

This (a) and (b)

(Sorry, the original crayon drawing from the wakey news site is meant to be here) - can anybody help!


is not far off the actual plans, apart from the extent of the coverage at the north terrace is less ( back part only) and there will be 14 uprights to block the view. A roof only - no sides or back.

I can now see why it will cost less than £500,000 . The application states that their superleague future is dependant on this being passed. (in order to have a total of 5000 undercover)

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:32 pm  

What a sad and desperate little man.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:34 pm  

Stadium's a stadium. Least they're aiming to make improvements, no matter how small or temporary they may be.

Still don't understand why it's important to spend £500k when they're meant to be moving soon but I suppose it would look worse if they did a u-turn now.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:39 pm  

Fully wrote:

Still don't understand why it's important to spend £500k when they're meant to be moving soon but I suppose it would look worse if they did a u-turn now.

It's important because it's what we said we would do in our franchise application; to some people, delivering on your promises is still a quality worth aspiring to.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:36 am  

bren2k wrote:

It's important because it's what we said we would do in our franchise application; to some people, delivering on your promises is still a quality worth aspiring to.

That would appear to have been an alien concept at Wakey for a very long time so please spare us the holier than thou spiel. Anyway do you genuinely believe using a few of AGs spare conservatory parts to cover the part of a terrace which still wont offer a full-pitch view would equate to improvements of the scale previously implied?

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:57 am  

bren2k wrote:

What a sad and desperate little man.

Just keeping everyone up to speed on events!

Oi!!! and less of the little

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:59 am  

bren2k wrote:

It's important because it's what we said we would do in our franchise application; to some people, delivering on your promises is still a quality worth aspiring to.

You mean, you were told to do by the RFL.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:06 am  

bigalf wrote: (Sorry, the original crayon drawing from the wakey news site is meant to be here) - can anybody help!) Is this what you're lookin for? http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... e/2011/06/

bigalf wrote: (Sorry, the original crayon drawing from the wakey news site is meant to be here) - can anybody help!) Is this what you're lookin for? http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... e/2011/06/

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:09 am  

Fully wrote:

Still don't understand why it's important to spend £500k when they're meant to be moving soon but I suppose it would look worse if they did a u-turn now.

By the looks of things they have been forced into it by the RFL.

“Erection of the stand covers is essential to the club’s continued membership of the Rugby Super League”

“The proposal is highly significant in terms of the continuation of the club within Super League.”

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:26 am  

bigalf wrote:

By the looks of things they have been forced into it by the RFL.

“Erection of the stand covers is essential to the club’s continued membership of the Rugby Super League”

“The proposal is highly significant in terms of the continuation of the club within Super League.”

So what if the RFL have requested us to do this? I don't really see what an Issue it is. We are showing that we are delivering on our promises which can only be a good thing. After broken promises of the previous regime, Glover can been seen to deliver. This can only be seen to be a good thing for Wakey and the game in general. Surly you must agree with that Alfie?