Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:29 am  

pyeman wrote:

Planning for gh has been passed so if 10 50k stadiums were built in a ten mile radius we would still have planning permission.

If you got PP to extend your house and someone built another extension next door the council wont be altering your planning permission.

If GH got full funding a month before the PI decision do you think it would change the minds of the people deciding the PI.?

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:30 am  

Won't make any difference right now. The only time it might become an issue is if nothing had happened at GH by the time the current FPP runs out in April 2014 and a renewal had to be submitted. Then it could be reviewed as part of the process.

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:38 am  

pyeman wrote:

Planning for gh has been passed so if 10 50k stadiums were built in a ten mile radius we would still have planning permission.

If you got PP to extend your house and someone built another extension next door the council wont be altering your planning permission.

Don't think i'm clutching at straws, because i'm not.
A few people have posted over time, Fully being one (and the one who my question was aimed at in particular) , that the there IHO is a strong possibility that only one stadium would get built.
IF NM gets the nod, and we will probably find out the answer to that before Cas announce they have a buyer for WR IMO, would the fact that NM wouldn't have been taken into account as an objection to the FPP being granted because of the PI, would that be taken into account retrospectively?
The financial difficulties, and better use for the land from a planning point of view etc, are these all issues that could retrospectively manifest themselves, or is that not possible legaly etc?
I don't know thats why i ask, i do kind of buy into the one ground for the district argument, purely from an economic point of view, but not from a continuation of two teams from the district continuing in SL thing.

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:40 am  

pyeman wrote:

If GH got full funding a month before the PI decision do you think it would change the minds of the people deciding the PI.?

Honest answer, I'd like to think not, but i think it could, on the grounds i have previously mentioned.

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:46 am  

kinleycat wrote:

would the fact that NM wouldn' have been taken into account as an objection to the FPP being granted because of the PI, would that be taken into account retrospectively?
The financial difficulties, and better use for the land from a planning point of view etc, are these all issues that could retrospectively manifest themselves, or is that not possible legaly etc?
I don't know thats why i ask, i do kind of buy into the one ground for the district argument, purely from an economic point of view, but not from a continuation of two teams from the district continuing in SL thing.

Who would be objecting to GH on these grounds?

Economically it makes far more sense for two grounds to be built, it brings a lot of money into the local economy from external sources (yorkcourt and opus) whats more it guarantees 2 sl clubs in the district which brings a lot of money into the district, not to mention concerts etc which can bring a huge amount of money into the local economy. Economically the district gains a lot from two stadiums being built, the district loses money if two aren't built.

I have never heard of a legal precedent of PP being altered because of another PP being granted.

Don't wtw still have to apply for PP if the PI is favorable too?

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:17 pm  

pyeman wrote:

Who would be objecting to GH on these grounds?

Economically it makes far more sense for two grounds to be built, it brings a lot of money into the local economy from external sources (yorkcourt and opus) whats more it guarantees 2 sl clubs in the district which brings a lot of money into the district, not to mention concerts etc which can bring a huge amount of money into the local economy. Economically the district gains a lot from two stadiums being built, the district loses money if two aren't built.

I have never heard of a legal precedent of PP being altered because of another PP being granted.

Don't wtw still have to apply for PP if the PI is favorable too?

AFAIK we still have to secure FPP, which i think following a positive outcome to the PI would be a formality.
Others will know far more about it than me though.

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:38 pm  

pyeman wrote:

Who would be objecting to GH on these grounds?

Economically it makes far more sense for two grounds to be built, it brings a lot of money into the local economy from external sources (yorkcourt and opus) whats more it guarantees 2 sl clubs in the district which brings a lot of money into the district, not to mention concerts etc which can bring a huge amount of money into the local economy. Economically the district gains a lot from two stadiums being built, the district loses money if two aren't built.

I have never heard of a legal precedent of PP being altered because of another PP being granted.

Don't wtw still have to apply for PP if the PI is favorable too?

sorry bad choice of word (re objecting), i meant would it make the FPP decision an answer to a now different question, if NM was actually happening, and would that mean the question would have to be re-asked taking into account any new or previous situations, i.e planning and economical?
The planning requirements now may not be the planning requirements then, was there a economical argument then that may now have diminished (or changed completely with if NM gets the go ahead).

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:47 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

sorry bad choice of word (re objecting), i meant would it make the FPP decision an answer to a now different question, if NM was actually happening, and would that mean the question would have to be re-asked taking into account any new or previous situations, i.e planning and economical?
The planning requirements now may not be the planning requirements then, was there a economical argument then that may now have diminished (or changed completely with if NM gets the go ahead).

The answer is is still no there are no factors created by NM being approved that will affect GH at all, whether wakefield got a ground built or not was not a factor in the planning for GH, hope that puts your mind at rest.

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:19 pm  

I should think the future of both clubs will be sorted at the end of March when NM either gets passed or rejected. If it's passed you will have a problem, if it fails we both will. I have kept clear of this debate for nearly a year but I can't see where Cas have moved on one inch in the pat two years. I have no idea whether NM will get the nod but at least the future will be definite one way or the other.

Personally I see no reason for the ludicrous over confidence of the likes of Fully and Cronk any more than I see why Trinity fans feel confident enough to come on here shouting the odds. As it stands we are both in the crapper.

Re: The Future Of The Club : Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:51 pm  

Hell fire It must be the new year or something but i actually agree with Vastman .......

Delboy66(aye of the Tigers fanzine)