Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:38 pm  

Cheap shot from a double glazing salesman.

but don't worry,

"It's that Good it will pay for itself "

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:26 pm  

wakey clutching at straws. would not help anyway as going out.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:40 am  

From comments previously attributed to Mr Glover I perceive he knows little about RL and only marginally more about WTWC. If that is the reality he is probably trying to get up to speed with an over-reliance on others who in this instance may be using him like a ventriloquist's dummy to regurgitate old views because he hasn't had time to formulate any of his own.

However am I alone in worrying that on the basis of recent (non)developments we will still come second in the stadia race even if Wakey are 3 years away from building theirs. In the current climate I rate our funding gap to be a bigger obstacle than the NM public enquiry and RW's strategy looks to have been one of gambling on Wakey's plan to come unstuck rather than materially moving ours forward.

I see a situation evolving whereby Wakey get NM built while in the Championship and we continue pretty much as we are. Come the next round of license applications that would be manna from heaven for the merger lobby.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:59 am  

smoking monkey wrote:

However am I alone in worrying that on the basis of recent (non)developments we will still come second in the stadia race even if Wakey are 3 years away from building theirs. In the current climate I rate our funding gap to be a bigger obstacle than the NM public enquiry and RW's strategy looks to have been one of gambling on Wakey's plan to come unstuck rather than materially moving ours forward.

I see a situation evolving whereby Wakey get NM built while in the Championship and we continue pretty much as we are. Come the next round of license applications that would be manna from heaven for the merger lobby.

lot of others see it that way too. therefore the RFL should also see it and not give franchise to the pair of you. you have had 3 years and nothing done whilst others have built new grounds yet not allowed franchise.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:18 am  

smoking monkey wrote:

From comments previously attributed to Mr Glover I perceive he knows little about RL and only marginally more about WTWC. If that is the reality he is probably trying to get up to speed with an over-reliance on others who in this instance may be using him like a ventriloquist's dummy to regurgitate old views because he hasn't had time to formulate any of his own.

However am I alone in worrying that on the basis of recent (non)developments we will still come second in the stadia race even if Wakey are 3 years away from building theirs. In the current climate I rate our funding gap to be a bigger obstacle than the NM public enquiry and RW's strategy looks to have been one of gambling on Wakey's plan to come unstuck rather than materially moving ours forward.

I see a situation evolving whereby Wakey get NM built while in the Championship and we continue pretty much as we are. Come the next round of license applications that would be manna from heaven for the merger lobby.

But you see the current climate has a massive impact on whether NM will actually see the light of day. More empty commercial units anyone??

Ask yourself what is most likely to happen, housing company decides to cough up for WR (and in the next few weeks thats all we'll be waiting for), or wait for the SoS to give to go ahead, apply for Outline PP, then apply for Full PP, then hope for an economic upturn to make building of commercial units viable, which in turn would pay for a shiney new stadium.......................

I know who my money is on!!!

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:39 am  

swifty62 wrote:

lot of others see it that way too. therefore the RFL should also see it and not give franchise to the pair of you. you have had 3 years and nothing done whilst others have built new grounds yet not allowed franchise.

A fair enough point, but how can you kick out Cas & keep Crusaders who are second best to Cas on every front and who went into administration or Quins who have a nice stadium but nothing much else. If they did adopt your view the RFL would in effect be saying that the only factor in the franchise application system that matters is the stadium.
One thing is for certain, the RFL have dug themselves into a hole & whoever misses out on a franchise will have legitimate cause to complain.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:07 am  

swifty62 wrote:

lot of others see it that way too. therefore the RFL should also see it and not give franchise to the pair of you. you have had 3 years and nothing done whilst others have built new grounds yet not allowed franchise.

Perhaps you should do a bit of homework before making such a stupid and ill-informed comment again.

Run along.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:20 am  

binks wrote:

Oh ffs here we go again, I'm off to hide till this tripe blows over again

If you care to look the thread was started by a Cas fan and then discussed by Cas fans, which being their board they have every right to, but seeing as you are discussing Wakey and the merits of a groundshare would you deny Wakey fans the right of reply?

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:44 am  

Tigerpie wrote:

But you see the current climate has a massive impact on whether NM will actually see the light of day. More empty commercial units anyone??

Ask yourself what is most likely to happen, housing company decides to cough up for WR (and in the next few weeks thats all we'll be waiting for), or wait for the SoS to give to go ahead, apply for Outline PP, then apply for Full PP, then hope for an economic upturn to make building of commercial units viable, which in turn would pay for a shiney new stadium.......................

I know who my money is on!!!

Not sure WR will be worth what you think in the current climate for housing, this is perhaps one of the main reasons around funding and the rumours that the build will be staged when it begins.

I hope both teams succeed then as a district we can be proud of our RL heritage and prove to the RFL we deserve our places in the top flight.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:50 am  

I think RW has been a bit clever here. The housing company obviously know we are desperate for the money, and why. So they have tried to nick WR. I would imagine RW has said, balls to em we'll sell it to someone else then. We are prepared to wait. Rightly so IMO. I know this is merely conjecture, but reading between the lines that's what I think. If they want the land they will pay up.