Re: Richard wright : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:38 pm  

I've just been reading Twitter.

Seems like they've spent more time speaking about Cas, GH and even WR at today's public inquiry. Apparently, one of their 'witnesses' was 'forced' to talk about WR and GH, openly stating high degree of uncertainty over WR for retail use and how they cannot consider that as planning hasn't been lodged and we have no funding.

Two faced? Why didn't they decline to comment as RW should have done? They have no place to be discussing our stadium plans like this. Surely they could have said "we are not in a position to comment about Cas's stadium plans but it is not built as of yet" but left it at that.

I expect a retraction from all Wakey fans...

Re: Richard wright : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:48 pm  

Fully wrote:

I've just been reading Twitter.

Seems like they've spent more time speaking about Cas, GH and even WR at today's public inquiry. Apparently, one of their 'witnesses' was 'forced' to talk about WR and GH, openly stating about the land as retail use and how they cannot consider that as planning hasn't been lodged and we have no funding.

Two faced? Why didn't they decline to comment as RW should have done? They have no place to be discussing our stadium plans like this. Surely they could have said "we are not in a position to comment about Cas's stadium plans but it is not built as of yet" but left it at that.

I expect a retraction from all Wakey fans...

Two points:
1. Maybe it was said because of RW's intervention; ie, RW created an issue that they were then forced to respond to.
2. It does nothing to prevent GH going ahead or speaks out against it. It does not in anyway try to object to GH. The PI is dealing with Newmarket. If there were pro-NM people saying those things at the GH planning committee meeting, I would agree, but they are not.

Re: Richard wright : Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:55 pm  

Great news that for the first week of the Wakey PI we have been the main topic of conversation.

Re: Richard wright : Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:58 pm  

Tigerade wrote:

Great news that for the first week of the Wakey PI we have been the main topic of conversation.

Why is it great news (avoiding the obvious point that you haven't been the "main" topic at the PI)? Wishing it will fail for what reason?

Re: Richard wright : Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:56 am  

Fully wrote:

I've just been reading Twitter.

Seems like they've spent more time speaking about Cas, GH and even WR at today's public inquiry. Apparently, one of their 'witnesses' was 'forced' to talk about WR and GH, openly stating high degree of uncertainty over WR for retail use and how they cannot consider that as planning hasn't been lodged and we have no funding.

Two faced? Why didn't they decline to comment as RW should have done? They have no place to be discussing our stadium plans like this. Surely they could have said "we are not in a position to comment about Cas's stadium plans but it is not built as of yet" but left it at that.

I expect a retraction from all Wakey fans...

I think you'll find that your own Chairman created that situation, with his ill-considered and clumsy intervention into the process; he handed LCC's barrister an excuse to focus on the 'why don't you share at GH' argument, that our man was forced to rebut and by all accounts, he did so quite robustly.

Not sure how else he was meant to handle it to be honest Fully.

Re: Richard wright : Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:15 am  

As I said he should handle it?

Re: Richard wright : Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:28 am  

Fully wrote:

As I said he should handle it?

It was so silly I thought you were being facetious; he'd be professionally negligent not to rebut the points made by the LCC barrister.

I realise you're trying to liken it RW's intervention - even for you, that's clutching at straws.

Re: Richard wright : Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:37 am  

Or the entire thing was me being sarcastic.................?

Re: Richard wright : Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:39 am  

Always great news Slugger - Theres not such a thing as bad publicity.

I'm interested in the overall attention that RL (and in particular the amount of time CT have been discussed) in the PI. After all the stadium is only 5% of the overall build isn't it ? If so, its going to be a very long inquiry.

Re: Richard wright : Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:57 am  

Tigerade wrote:

Theres not such a thing as bad publicity.

A popular misconception - there certainly is.