Sounds like he's ting himself. Quite pathetic if you ask me. If he wants to groundshare it should be NM where it is equal distance between city and town.

i'd hardly call Wakefield a one city club. Wakefield Dewsbury Batley Fev & Cas all have WF post-codes.
to Call Wakefield a city is a joke anyway. Doncaster and Huddersfield which are towns are much bigger. Wakefield is a city in name only and is only a few years away from being swallowed up into a greater Leeds.
a ground share at a fully develepned post office road smack in the middle for all 3 clubs is another option. but realistically Newmarket is the best site bar a 2-3 miles its smack in the middle for Cas & Wakey fans. funds are available and only planning is required.

Wakefield was only classified as a city because it has a Cathedral. The population of Wakefield is approximately 77,000. The population of Castleford is now estimated to be approx 50,000 and is constantly growing.

The following are just a few towns that don't have a Cathedral, so can't be classified as Cities even though their populations are much bigger than Wakefield: Reading (232,000), Northampton (189,000), Luton (250,000), Swindon (184,000) and Milton Keynes (241,000).

...and how do you know that.

Cos Wakefields fans think they know everything

Look around VT and their board it covered in absolute rubbish

Right. Firstly, can anyone on this thread confirm they were present in the PI when this was read out and know exactly what was said? Did RW actually write/say the words "I object". Or, as stated in the 160- character tweet, which in all fairness will not show a fair indication/portrayal of this, state that GH was open to Wakefield still?

So, I ask: what are people annoyed about? The fact he wrote it? The fact that Cas responded to an objector? The content? What exactly?

If, as it seems, he wrote that GH was still open to Wakefield and that they rejected the feasibility study then that is factual. With all due respect, whether he responded to an objector or the Inspector directly matters not one jot: the fact remains this is still valid comment and I would argue WOULD have been taken into consideration by the Inspector anyway.

This is because it plays a vital role in one aspect of the granting of PP: the special circumstances around the stadium. The argument put forward is that the necessity of a stadium for Wakefield is to retain a SL licence. Whilst I accept this notion in principle, the argument could be put forward that there is no necessity for the stadium to go ahead under this notion at NM due to the fact there will be a stadium at GH that Wakefield could/can play out of, whether it be in a year, five years or fifty years. The Planning Inspector has a right to obtain all information and make an impartial judgement. I do not know whether it has been sent to the Inspector but I still, with this formulating part of the objector's reasoning, believe this would have been pursued anyway.

In this instance, the only justifiable cause for complaint is that it was sent to an objector. Nevertheless, the fact remains is that the information (if it is stating Wakey can share and they rejected feasibility study) remains factual and is not 'personal' in any way.

Move on nothing to see -

"I have been asked to comment on the position of Castleford tigers with regard to the possibility of another club playing at our new stadium at Glasshoughton.

In the first instance I can confirm that we are looking for new organisations to use our new facilities in a number of ways and we would be happy for this to be in the form of another sports club using the stadium subject to a suitable agreement being put in place. It is a community stadium and it is our objective that it is used regularly by the community.

More specifically we did agree to participate in a Wakefield Council funded feasibility study in July 2010 to determine the best location for a new community stadium in the Wakefield district; this would accommodate a ground share between ourselves and Wakefield wildcats. The Council, to our disappointment, were forced to abandon this study when Wakefield wildcats refused to participate.

However, whist we have made significant progress with our site at junction32, including a detailed planning consent in April 2011, our position with regard to sharing our new facility at Junction 32 with another club has not changed. We plan to increase revenues into the stadium from a number of sources and provide significant benefits to the community.

If you need any further information do not hesitate to contact me"

Would Mr Glover comment on any Tesco plans for Wheldon Road? No, of course he wouldn't.

RW was asked to comment. He could have chosen to say that it had no relevance to Castleford Tigers as they will be planning to play out of Glasshoughton and so Newmarket has no bearing on them. What is says, as a paraphrase, is that "no need to build it as they can play out of our place". Not impressive.

Why would he? Did Castleford refuse to take part in a feasibility study to see which of the 2 sites should be used?



Again, you're twisting words to suit your own agenda, just like all the other poor souls over on your forum, massive chip on your shoulder type posts.

RW was asked to confirm that Wakefield refused to take part in the council funded feasibility study and if there was in fact going to be another stadium 2 junctions away available for Wakefield to use, he confirmed both points. Nothing wrong and nothing to see, stop twisting his words to suit your hate campaign.

I don't know why Yorkcourt/Langtree etc have spent £?00.000's on planning/environmental/ consultants, barristers and the rest when it would appear that a simple 200 word letter from RW, in reply to a question asked, would appear (In the minds of some) to have shot NM dead and buried!

The inspector has obviously made his mind up and may as well pack it in now!!

It's unlikely to have any impact, because there is no stadium at Glasshoughton to play rugby in. I'm not interested in the merit of his letter. The inquiry will look at all of those.

By stressing the merits of Glasshoughton and saying that Wakefield pulled out of the feasibility study is implicity saying that Newmarket would be wrong and unnecessary, as he is pointing to the availability of an alternative and referring to his view of Wakefield's unreasonableness. It is a letter of objection in all but the word "object" appearing in it.

So the Castleford CEO is objecting to the provision of a stadium for a rival club. That is what is getting peoples' back up. What would be your view if Mr Glover wrote a letter to a planning committee dealing with Tesco's development of Wheldon Road on headed paper objecting to it? Pretty dim, I would imagine.