: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:08 am  

http://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/public ... ype=WEEKLY

http://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/public ... ype=WEEKLY

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:26 am  

Sandal Wild Cat wrote:

http://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=K7SRP0QQ03T00&searchtype=WEEKLY

I don't normaly put much stock in all this "off on, off on" speculation about developers but that link has some alarming information about withdrawn planning applications, particularly in the related documents section.

When you consider Richard Wrights recent comment on Sky TV when he seemingly refused to rule out a stadium share with Wakefield Trinity, reports about Castleford players being offered reduced contracts for next year and beyond, further reports about Castleford having financial worries and the lack of progress on the proposed site, it looks ominous, from the outside anyway!

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:57 am  

The one plus of Cas looking to groundshare is that it will give the project more impetus (not that I am suggesting that it doesn't have any), as it will benefit a wider sporting community. The fact that they end up shelving their project and end up coming in with ours will not look good from the outside though.

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:29 am  

IF cas end up without a ground, are we soft enough to allow them to groundshare? (providing we get our stadium)

personally, id be somewhat ruthless...they didnt/dont want to know about a ground share...and there could come a time when they come cap in hand.....id telling them to go tittle !!!!

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:36 am  

That times quickly approaching!
The fan i was speaking to has (or claims) to be very close to a board member who walked out due to "personal reasons", this in truth he claims to have more to do with money he is owed by the club (Fulton & Wright) & the contempt he claims they show to Cas fans for leading them down the garden path for so long regarding J32. If all what he told me is true i would be outraged if i were a Cas fan.

Having said that, can they pay rent? If so why would the Community Trust be foolish enough to turn down the money they would make, as long as everyone was clear, our community trust, their stadium, we play on sundays at 3.30 & rent was paid on time!

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:58 am  

BelleVueLifer wrote:

IF cas end up without a ground, are we soft enough to allow them to groundshare? (providing we get our stadium)

personally, id be somewhat ruthless...they didnt/dont want to know about a ground share...and there could come a time when they come cap in hand.....id telling them to go tittle !!!!

Not our ground to be able to say that.

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:00 pm  

bloomers wrote:

Not our ground to be able to say that.

Quite right.

And no, the CT would not turn them away. In fact their potential involvement makes it far more likely to happen and with much less hassle - politically if nothing else!

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:03 pm  

would the RFL allow this? a shared ground? or would they insist that this should be a tempory measure and insist that the clubs eventually play in seperate stadiums?

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:05 pm  

BelleVueLifer wrote:

would the RFL allow this? a shared ground? or would they insist that this should be a tempory measure and insist that the clubs eventually play in seperate stadiums?

My guess is that they would allow it.

: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:06 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The one plus of Cas looking to groundshare is that it will give the project more impetus (not that I am suggesting that it doesn't have any), as it will benefit a wider sporting community. The fact that they end up shelving their project and end up coming in with ours will not look good from the outside though.

It wouldn't look good, but how could the SL react when the next franchises come round? I can't forsee how we'd look the lesser of the parties involved as we've been part of J30 from the start and it is in Wakefield. Similarly I don't remember the RFL stating ground shares are a problem in an application.

It would be intriguing to know what weight would be given to the less tangible issues that don't strictly meet the points criteria, e.g. the perceived consequences of Cas effectively being the junior partners in the deal.

All ifs and buts i suppose.