Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:34 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

Are Cas not currently against a development gaining a renewal on its planning permission in Cas town cente and are currently having fans object against it as it could well scupper their chances of a supermarket ever been built on WR. Maybe we should all write in support of the development. Eye for an eye and all that. Thats how petty and pathetic this has become.

No, HTH.

People of the town and Tescos have objected to the plans by Edinburgh house because they are both unfeasible (Tesco outline why) and would get rid of much needed town centre parking to accommodate for a Supermarket that no operator wants to use due to its size and location.

The club have nothing to do with those objections.

It's only become silly and pathetic too because you're blindly following the words of SWAG etc when in fact if you look at it clearly, RW only replied with facts that have been in the public domain for over a year, you're using this because you have nothing else to use.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:37 pm  

As anyone got the actual wording of this letter.

I havent seen anything yet in reguards the wording.

So until i do i'll hold fire on condeming anyone.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:39 pm  

poppys mum wrote:

As anyone got the actual wording of this letter.

I havent seen anything yet in reguards the wording.

So until i do i'll hold fire on condeming anyone.

A very sensible reply! I do hope Gronk reads this, as he seems to know everything and everyone

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:40 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

No, HTH.

People of the town and Tescos have objected to the plans by Edinburgh house because they are both unfeasible (Tesco outline why) and would get rid of much needed town centre parking to accommodate for a Supermarket that no operator wants to use due to its size and location.

The club have nothing to do with those objections.

It's only become silly and pathetic too because you're blindly following the words of SWAG etc when in fact if you look at it clearly, RW only replied with facts that have been in the public domain for over a year, you're using this because you have nothing else to use.

RW didn't makes comments in the press a couple of weeks ago against the EH development then? Sounding very much like a thinly veiled rallying call to me.

RW should have declined to comment about the development plans of a fellow RL club, end of.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:40 pm  

poppys mum wrote:

As anyone got the actual wording of this letter.

I havent seen anything yet in reguards the wording.

So until i do i'll hold fire on condeming anyone.

Does the wording really matter, although if you read this thread back it is available.

What matters is why he even bothered to reply. He wasn't required to, considering the situation wouldn't anyone other than a mischief maker just politely decline?

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:41 pm  

Trinity Till Death wrote:

A very sensible reply! I do hope Gronk reads this, as he seems to know everything and everyone

Including Peter Gentle.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:43 pm  

Trinitythefuture wrote:

Including Peter Gentle.

What the Castleford coach!

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:45 pm  

Trinity Till Death wrote:

What the Castleford coach!

That's the man.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:45 pm  

vastman wrote:

Does the wording really matter, although if you read this thread back it is available.

What matters is why he even bothered to reply. He wasn't required to, considering the situation wouldn't anyone other than a mischief maker just politely decline?

Exactly, unless the letter is positve about NM, which if he was approached by the NO campaigners you can safely say it isn't, then he is actively getting involved in putting a spanner in the works of wakefield.

Even if he has said something that is already public domain, he could have just not said nothing instead.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:49 pm  

vastman wrote:

Does the wording really matter, although if you read this thread back it is available.

What matters is why he even bothered to reply. He wasn't required to, considering the situation wouldn't anyone other than a mischief maker just politely decline?

Mr vastman, as far as i know RW was asked a question and replied via this so called letter.
Who the question came from i dont know, what was in the letter i dont know.

No one as put the actual wording on this forum, we can all surmise, but no one know as of yet.

I think until we do know i think we should hang fire in name calling.