Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:40 pm  

Sesquipedalian wrote:

100% agree!

It smacks of his last chance to manipulate things in order to get his hands on the funding that York Court would provide should Wakefield be forced to share at GH. He knows he's got no money, no prospect of getting any money and his web of deceit and spin is soon to be revealed.

His days as Cas Chairman and the salary he's enjoyed by prolonging the inevitable with regular yet hollow updates and messages of false hope to the Cas faithful are almost up. He knows it, the gravy train is about to hit the buffers and when it does he has zero future in Cas as his unpopularity will eclipse that of Pearman. That's why he's paving the way for his exit by closing his business interests in Cas and getting the flock outa there.

Regretably I have to say that I'm unable to describe the situation much differently.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:55 pm  

disgraceful behavior. I hope the RFL force him to leave and throw a hefty fine his way. an absolutely horrible human being. I dont particularly like castelford, im sure no wakefield fan does, but this does nothing for feelings towards them.

I hope the situation becomes that we get the stadium and then he comes begging to ground share so they arent kicked out..... and i hope we use acts such as this, as evidence to reject their request.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:59 pm  

seal wrote:

disgraceful behavior. I hope the RFL force him to leave and throw a hefty fine his way. an absolutely horrible human being. I dont particularly like castelford, im sure no wakefield fan does, but this does nothing for feelings towards them.

I hope the situation becomes that we get the stadium and then he comes begging to ground share so they arent kicked out..... and i hope we use acts such as this, as evidence to reject their request.

This is not the Cas fans doing, they are probably as horrified as us

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:12 pm  

I've already written to the RFL asking them to investigate. Wonder if they'll take any notice?

After all we are one big happy family.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:16 pm  

wildshot wrote:

I've already written to the RFL asking them to investigate. Wonder if they'll take any notice?

After all we are one big happy family.

And yet again one of the nice bloke offspring try to skank the family.

the swear filter has edited, what was the correct use of the word, in both senses.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:19 pm  

If RW hac thrown his weight and influence behind Wakeys stadium then it would stand to reason Wakey would have reciprocated and both clubs would have been in a stronger position and may have even had their stadiums in further stage. Petty small minded anti rugby tactics will make him no friends in the rugby community, we all compete against each other but we all need each other or the whole thing crumbles.

Richard Wright's letter : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:25 pm  

Is it available to view online?

Tried looking in the NM planning portal, although new docs were added today none were his.

If it's not available to view would someone please type it up???

Despicable man! Almost tempted to form a similar movement petitioning that any new supermarket should be located in Wakefield not Castleford. Use the LCC line of "we're bigger we need it", with a hint of RW's tactocs of scuppering the clubs which gives you the best gate of the year.


He once to my (in date) student ID off me as he thought the pic was dissimilar to me, made me pay the additional tenner or wait outside. Scum bag!

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:37 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

If RW hac thrown his weight and influence behind Wakeys stadium then it would stand to reason Wakey would have reciprocated and both clubs would have been in a stronger position and may have even had their stadiums in further stage. Petty small minded anti rugby tactics will make him no friends in the rugby community, we all compete against each other but we all need each other or the whole thing crumbles.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:38 pm  

TRB wrote:

The letter is written in reply to a request and confirms that Castleford were willing to partake in a feasibility study into the 2 stadium projects in the summer of 2010.

This was at the point when Cas had realised that they weren't going to be able to raise sufficient funds for GH and it was an attempt to re-direct funds from the council and from NM to the GH project. SWAG and the club (Ted at the time) agreed that it was not right to go into this without the formation of strict guidelines beforehand. The idea was scrapped.

RW makes no mention of the suggestion to undertake exactly the same type of process previously, dating back to the early formation of NM.

Whatever his point may be, it beggars belief that a fellow club would involve themselves in a process such as this and it is, as others have said, a very low blow indeed which harms the reputation of himself and (to a lesser degree) his club.

We have known about this letter for weeks but have waited until it was in the public domain before commenting.

Are we not offering too much attention to this letter?

Its very appearance is obviously going to cause a stir from a Wakefield/Cas rugby rivalry perspective, but from a political stand point, does it really change anything? It's not like the planning inspector isn't going to be aware of the Glasshoughton development.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:47 pm  

gowerthegroap wrote:

Are we not offering too much attention to this letter?

Its very appearance is obviously going to cause a stir from a Wakefield/Cas rugby rivalry perspective, but from a political stand point, does it really change anything? It's not like the planning inspector isn't going to be aware of the Glasshoughton development.

Maybe, but as it was intended for use by the objectors in their submission, but now initially raised by Yorkscourts Barrister - Andrew Piatt - in order to allow Sir Rodney to nullify it, then it's intention was clearly to de-rail our proposal in favour of GH.

So in summary, IMO, no is the answer. It's dirty tricks by a fellow member of the RFL and is unprecedented in being a direct attack on the very establishment of competing club. Not on - and, again IMO, an apology should be forthcoming!