Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:29 pm  

frenchdreadnought wrote:

Am I thick or something.
What relevance does the ground sharing have to the LCC objections.
If Castleford were not planning a new ground or if they already had one the sharing issue would not be there.
LCC should be made to ask questions pertinent to their objections.
They seem to be using the ground share issue as extra ammunition which they would not have if said issue did not exist.

Exactly why I thought it was the inspector asking these questions, whats it got to do with LCC?? then again whats any of it got to do with them!!

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:42 pm  

Ask yourself this if you were in Eric Pickles shoes what would you sooner see in the news -WTW new ground rejected Yorkcourt now cant build and create xxx number of jobs - or New ground for WTW and development creates xxx jobs for the Wakefield district.The country is in the mire and unemployment up plus some good news is needed to calm the population down a little.Did Mr glover not say at one point he had other options if NM didnt get the go ahead now would it not be funny if NM was rejected and we found another option than to share GH.

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:45 pm  

Wakefield No 1 wrote:

Exactly why I thought it was the inspector asking these questions, whats it got to do with LCC?? then again whats any of it got to do with them!!

And in further irony LCC leader Keith Wakefield was on Look North earlier moaning how they have to find a further £50 million of cuts next year and how its going to cause more job losses. He then goes on to say that despite government promises the private sector are not picking up the job losses that are being created in the public sector. And yet he is objecting to 2000 being created on his doorstep. Bit hypocritical don't you think?

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:21 pm  

jack in the box wrote:

James was asked in some depth why he would not move to Cas and he answered it well. LCC used this as a major part of their cross examination although they seemed to have a go at anything they could pick up on however orrelevent. The main reason James gave was that first it is purely a mythical stadium and without having a full business plan to examine on how it would work he would be unable to create a financial model to justify the move.

I feel that this topic will coninue to crop up as things move on and idealyy it should have been killed off this morning.
My overall impression was that James did very well but at times the chair showed signs of weakness and allowed LCC to overstep the mark a little.

They haven't got much to go on and therefore scraps is all the LCC barister has to work with... but he does seem to be building a house of cards, as I said. I am unsure of how comfortable the Methley Residents Association and the Newmarket Lane residents are now feeling with this persistent line of questioning about Cas & GH by LCC. Not sure who is pushing the argument and why they are not changing tack! I think Barton Willmore will continue the theme right to the end. They might see this as the only real viable counter argument to the stadium element of the proposals... this is all they have, so might as well stick with it approach!

Still sounds like a good day again today... but equally, when you are in driving the seat, they always are!

[PopTart]

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:46 pm  

Are they continuing all week? I might go down on Friday if so.

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:05 pm  

Does the the Yorkcourt representive or whoever get to question LCC and Barton Willmore or not?

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:53 pm  

Wakefield No 1 wrote:

Does the the Yorkcourt representive or whoever get to question LCC and Barton Willmore or not?

Yes , infact it seems that anyone can stand up and question anyone as happened this afternoon

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:58 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

They haven't got much to go on and therefore scraps is all the LCC barister has to work with... but he does seem to be building a house of cards, as I said. I am unsure of how comfortable the Methley Residents Association and the Newmarket Lane residents are now feeling with this persistent line of questioning about Cas & GH by LCC. Not sure who is pushing the argument and why they are not changing tack! I think Barton Willmore will continue the theme right to the end. They might see this as the only real viable counter argument to the stadium element of the proposals... this is all they have, so might as well stick with it approach!

Still sounds like a good day again today... but equally, when you are in driving the seat, they always are!

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:18 pm  

I went along today sat in the gallery and listened to the grilling that James Elston got from the Leeds Barrister, I have to say he was very good, at one point I wanted to applaud the fact that he feels passionate about keeping Rugby League in Wakefield along with the commercial and community benefits that this brings. Very Well Done James, its a shame the Barrister knew diddly squat about RL said it all.

Re: Public Inquiry : Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:06 pm  

Theboyem wrote: He has issued his statement. Says nothing of any worth as usual. http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1931 Repeats again "no need to build Newmarket, Trinity can play at our place" We are going to hear things we don't like. It's the nature of the beast. I wonder what assistance RW has given to LCC, as it sounds like they are following the same route: no need to build NM as we have GH. The inspector is entitled to be critical and allow a grilling of the pro-development lobby, as the starting point for him will be: "justify why you should be allowed to build on land that has been designated for staying undeveloped". The frustrating thing will be if the decision comes down to that there is no need because you can share elsewhere, and then RW's little input will have allowed us both to be dragged down together.

Theboyem wrote: He has issued his statement. Says nothing of any worth as usual. http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1931 Repeats again "no need to build Newmarket, Trinity can play at our place" We are going to hear things we don't like. It's the nature of the beast. I wonder what assistance RW has given to LCC, as it sounds like they are following the same route: no need to build NM as we have GH. The inspector is entitled to be critical and allow a grilling of the pro-development lobby, as the starting point for him will be: "justify why you should be allowed to build on land that has been designated for staying undeveloped". The frustrating thing will be if the decision comes down to that there is no need because you can share elsewhere, and then RW's little input will have allowed us both to be dragged down together.