Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:34 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Or, you accept a member of the public has written a letter objecting to a development that is unfeasible?

Why should there be 2 community stadiums 2 junctions apart when one of them is seen as more feasible by the council and is in a better location commercially?

The RFL probably can't do anything about it, as a member of the public Richard Wright has the same rights to object to any planning application as anyone else.
Why? As a member of the public is is entitled to object just as much as the members of WAR or whatever they want to be called now...

If it was a statement issued on behalf of Castleford Tigers RL on the other hand, then he will have problems.

Why would the protest group ask RW to write the letter if it wasn't in his capacity as CEO of CTRLFC?

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:35 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Or, you accept a member of the public has written a letter objecting to a development that is unfeasible?

Why should there be 2 community stadiums 2 junctions apart when one of them is seen as more feasible by the council and is in a better location commercially?

The RFL probably can't do anything about it, as a member of the public Richard Wright has the same rights to object to any planning application as anyone else.

Why? As a member of the public is is entitled to object just as much as the members of WAR or whatever they want to be called now...

If it was a statement issued on behalf of Castleford Tigers RL on the other hand, then he will have problems.

Written on Cas tigers headed paper, does that make it from member of the public or from Cas RL club, you decide.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:35 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Or, you accept a member of the public has written a letter objecting to a development that is unfeasible?

Why should there be 2 community stadiums 2 junctions apart when one of them is seen as more feasible by the council and is in a better location commercially?

The RFL probably can't do anything about it, as a member of the public Richard Wright has the same rights to object to any planning application as anyone else.

Why? As a member of the public is is entitled to object just as much as the members of WAR or whatever they want to be called now...

If it was a statement issued on behalf of Castleford Tigers RL on the other hand, then he will have problems.

EDIT:

Ok, just read a different view on the letter, apparently it isn't an objection at all and it just highlights that Wakefield rejected a feasibility study (true) and are welcome to play at Glasshoughton (again, true) so what's the problem?

You are Richard Wright's mate and you are a embarrassment too...

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:36 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

It wasn't an attempt to excuse him, at all.

You're launching a hate campaign against a MEMBER OF PUBLIC who is entitled to offer an opinion on ANY planning application.

The classrooms, NHS direct offices, public swimming baths for years it has been a community stadium.

But GH is not even built yet!!!!

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:36 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

It wasn't an attempt to excuse him, at all.

You're launching a hate campaign against a MEMBER OF PUBLIC who is entitled to offer an opinion on ANY planning application.

No he isn't a member of the public fool he's the CEO of Castleford RLFC on who's behalf he was speaking. What part of VESTED INTEREST don't you get.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:37 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

The classrooms, NHS direct offices, public swimming baths for years it has been a community stadium.

they wasn't the original plans until we announced ours

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:38 pm  

BIGAL1 wrote:

Written on Cas tigers headed paper, does that make it from member of the public or from Cas RL club, you decide.

He's a bloody moron then.

However was it really a letter of objection OR a letter outlining the position of the club which was only done on request? I've seen 2 different views on this letter now - the objection angle on here and someone else saying he was pointing out Wakefield rejected the feasibility study and are welcome to play at Glasshoughton.

If the latter is the case then you've all seriously gone way overboard, if it's the former then I hope he is fired for using his position as the Chairman of the club rather than a member of the public.

vastman wrote:

No he isn't a member of the public fool he's the CEO of Castleford RLFC on who's behalf he was speaking. What part of VESTED INTEREST don't you get.

Well, he is a member of the public - otherwise he wouldn't be a person, would he?

You're the fool with the vested interest and launching a hate campaign, also see above.

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:42 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

He's a bloody moron then.

I've seen 2 different views on this letter now

They why didn't you know it was on CTRL headed paper and is clearly NOT from a member of the public?

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:44 pm  

Trinity Till Death wrote:

They why didn't you know it was on CTRL headed paper and is clearly NOT from a member of the public?

be GENTLE with him, bless....

Re: Public Inquiry : Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:44 pm  

Where can I find said letter