Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:53 pm  

TDT wrote:

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).

A nice romantic thought,but totally incorrect.
There is no requirement for a city to have a cathedral.
eg:Sunderland,Hull,Nottingham and the list goes on.

There are also many towns that have cathedrals but dont have city status.

eg Blackburn and Chelmsford

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:10 pm  

I am no fan of Richard Wright but all he has done is repeat what he said when the Council wanted to do the study into the two sites before Wakefield turned it down.

I'm sure Leeds City Council and the Nimby groups are delighted R.W is taking flak on their behalf.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:15 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

No it isn't...at all.

RW was ASKED if Wakefield REFUSED a feasibility study - they did he was also asked if Wakefield would be able to play at Glasshoughton - they are.

So all he has done is answer 2 questions that will have no effect on the PI outcome. Glover has no business at all in the Tesco business whereas RW was involved and was fully supportive of the feasibility study which Wakefield had rejected.

Was he really???

"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.


I can only see one question there and and it refers to "another club" being able to play out of Glasshoughton.
Is there a bit missing???
Wheres the bit RW was asked if Wakefield refused to be involved in a feasibility study?

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:17 pm  

He says I have been asked to comment...

That seems very vague to me. Who has he been asked to comment by? Bit of an odd statement to open with if replying directly to Barton Willmore. Perhaps this was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and Barton Willmore asked for a response separately and he just sent a copy of that?

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:28 pm  

Fully wrote:

He says I have been asked to comment...

That seems very vague to me. Who has he been asked to comment by? Bit of an odd statement to open with if replying directly to Barton Willmore. Perhaps this was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and Barton Willmore asked for a response separately and he just sent a copy of that?

It does seem odd,which is why i raised it.

Going to keep my powder dry on this one,ive got a feeling it could twist and turn a few ways yet.

[PopTart]

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:20 pm  

Whatever he was asked, he didn't have to answer.
He did, and he surely knew the potential consequences to Wakefield of song so.

It's a shame he has tainted the Cas club and fans with his opinions. Thought we were all starting to concentrate on our own stadium for a while.

It'll add some spice to the next game anyway.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:41 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Whatever he was asked, he didn't have to answer.
He did, and he surely knew the potential consequences to Wakefield of song so.

It's a shame he has tainted the Cas club and fans with his opinions. Thought we were all starting to concentrate on our own stadium for a while.

It'll add some spice to the next game anyway.

But it wouldn't have mattered one jot if he didn't or did answer; this is the point we're getting across. The information is nothing new; GH is, has and always will be open to third-party organisations/clubs to use. In addition to this, we did agree to a feasibility study and the rest is factual information. The only people that can be perhaps at fault for that are the people that declined the feasibility study and gave that as ammunition for the objectors.

The objectors, not RW, were going to bring this up any way and this issue would have been pursued and I have no doubt that the Inspector being impartial (although I'm not sure) would have been able to contact CTRLFC himself and ask for these comments. Vis-a-vis, the impact would still be the same.

The thing WTW fans need to get into their heads is that Castleford Tigers, nor Richard Wright, have no grounds to object. Therefore, this is NOT an objection nor a way of preventing WTW plans from going through. This has got to be taken into account when looking at WMDC's evidence and more pertinently Yorkcourt's reasons for justifying the stadium to be in Greenbelt.

In fact, the issue that is being negated is the fact that the material objection is not against a stadium at all; it's against the Warehousing and subsequent other facilities lumbered on the same site. The stadium is being used to justify the whole development going through as without the warehousing there is no stadium.

Re: Richard vile wright : Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:49 am  

Fully wrote:

But it wouldn't have mattered one jot if he didn't or did answer

Fully, you're dissembling because your Chairman has put you in a position of having to either admit that he's behaved apallingly, or defend the indefensible.

You know as well as we do that the decent thing to do would have been to ignore the request, or reply by saying something to the effect of "This has nothing to do with CT - we remain focussed on our own stadium plans."

It doesn't matter that his clumsy attempt to play politics won't make any difference to the process; we all know that to be the case because the Inspector will see his pathetic stunt for exactly what it is. Regardless, he absolutely, positively and without any shadow of a doubt SHOULD NOT have attempted to lend his weight to the objectors by saying more in his letter than he was asked to say.

The man has made himself and by association your club appear to be desperate and vindictive; your defence of his pathetic actions doesn't do you any favours at all.

Re: Richard vile wright : Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:22 am  

If it doesn't matter one iota, why are you making it out to be a public scandal? In fact, why are you having a right old tizz over it?

Re: Richard vile wright : Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:44 am  

RW has gone up in my estimation. Not only has he reminded people on the feasibility study rejection he has also defended his clubs stance on not playing at Newmarket which quite frankly will never happen now, much to the delight of the Tigers faithful.

Could we also change the title of this thread please ?