Richard wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:56 pm  

So what are your thoughts on this cretins latest stunt?

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm  

He has publicly stated at the enquiry that Wakefield can share at Glasshoughton. He has tried to scupper Wakefield's plans very publicly.

Rugby league family, my @#se!

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:04 pm  

I really don't know how he can do this. Why would Wakefield want to share Wheldon Road cos we aint going nowhere fast!

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:17 pm  

He's done nothing wrong, the only feasible community stadium is at j32, why should there be a second one built 2 junctions away on greenbelt land? There shouldn't.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:41 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

He's done nothing wrong, the only feasible community stadium is at j32, why should there be a second one built 2 junctions away on greenbelt land? There shouldn't.

Explain why it's feasible?

No money.
Not a community stadium- privately owned.

WTW moving to J32 will make YOUR situation no better. If anything you'd just be moving closer to the ideology of 1 city club, you may want to remind yourself which is the city club at this point. It could be seen in many respects as you signing your own death warrant. Exactly the same situation would arise if you came to J30.

Greenbelt?? While in principle that may be true (for the next few weeks anyway) I was wondering if you by chance use the site? If you do like to enjoy NM I hope your staying on the footpaths as any deviation is TRESSPASSING. Yorkcourt own the land, in truth nobody else has very much business (if any at all) being on there.

This IMO is a very low blow, this is not an individual writing, this is an individual writing as the voice piece for another private business. Lower than a snakes belly.

Karma: Tricky Dicky fails to deliver a stadium, NM is passed, CT move to NM & he joins the dole line.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:43 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

He's done nothing wrong, the only feasible community stadium is at j32, why should there be a second one built 2 junctions away on greenbelt land? There shouldn't.

Show me your money.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:57 pm  

One City Club?

What would you call a team who play in CASTLEFORD and is full of players from CASTLEFORD.

Call the team Glasshoughton, Calder or Wakefield (Spit!), but lets be honest the team is CASTLEFORD.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:00 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

why should there be a second one built

Maybe because there isn't ONE built yet!

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:08 pm  

Am I misssing something.

How can Glasshoughton be a Community Stadium when it will be owned by Castleford Tigers. A Community Stadium must be owned by and for the benefit of the Local Community and by that it will be owned by a Community Trust, like Newmarket which will be owned by the the Community Trust and we will be tenants and pay rent to the Trust to play there.

You cannot own a Stadium and call it a Community Stadium just because you allow the community to come into that stadium. I similarly dont see how allowing parts of your Stadium to be used by others such as NHS Direct makes it a Community Stadium - that part may be "community" but the stadium will still be privately owned.

If someone can explain it to me i'd be grateful.

By the way I've nothing against Glasshoughton and I really hope that both Clubs achieve their aim of new stadiums and we both remain in Super League.

Re: Richard vile wright : Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:12 pm  

G.Price Fan Club wrote:

Explain why it's feasible?

Greenbelt?? While in principle that may be true (for the next few weeks anyway) I was wondering if you by chance use the site? If you do like to enjoy NM I hope your staying on the footpaths as any deviation is TRESSPASSING. Yorkcourt own the land, in truth nobody else has very much business (if any at all) being on there.

Actually under the right to roam act 2000 I'm allowed to deviate from the footpath with out it being classed as trespassing!

Apologies to the mods for deviating from the topic, but I'm fed up of this banal tit for tat!

Right Back on Topic.

In my opinion I don't see that he's done anything wrong or different if the boot was on the other foot. All this coming from a club who rejected a feasibility study on stadiums and possible ground shares, and then wants all and sundry to come along and use the facilities that they want not what might be best for the surrounding area as a whole!