Looking at the other forum, I have just seen this ([urlhttp://www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20043&start=135[/url)



Why the need to have the issue of a potential planning application, which has not even been made yet or anyone actually seen any outline proposals for (as far as I am aware, although I do know in some reasonable detail what they are going to show) debated before the whole of WMDC, prior to even the actual decision making body of members, the planning committee, even have the chance to look and comment upon it???

Tell you what IA, I'm going to dispense with all news sources regarding Cas and listen to your opinions and thoughts which are always unerringly accurate </[isarcasm[/i>

Yaaaawwwwnnn - You realy are very tiresome IA.

Go and play the mini messiah somewhere else, you're nothing but a pain in the back side.

You will notice that this was a question, hence the ???.

So, three people have taken the route of having a go at me but not tried to answer the question. So what is the answer?

In summary. The new ground is dependant on the old ground getting planning permission to build a supermarket. This may take time and be a bit complicated. Castleford are trying to be proactive and get signatures in case any objection is raised.

Think I have covered everything there IA and as a lifetime Wakey fan you are now starting to feel like a wasp at a birthday party at best or a fart in a lift at worst. Your views and insider knowledge are not wanted or required, in time all will be sorted.

Easy!

42

Spot on, that is what I think the answer is as well... which is fine and all I have done is try to explain and post exactly that. Apparently, wanting the same thing as you (I think?), to make both sets of fans realise that they should be working together and trying to convince the RFL that SL needs both Wakey and Castleford and as such 15 clubs must be the way to go for the next franchise period has incurred your wrath. Well tough, I don't care!

You are right, in time this will all be sorted, but at the moment both clubs have run out of time... unless the RFL grants them the needed opportunity of another 3 years.

You can join the Ostrich club if you like?

Shall I lock this or what ?

For what reasons?

PS. I know that I should, according to the AUP, ask you this via a PM, but you asked the question on the open forum, so hope you don't mind.

IA read my post about 7 back how do you think I am taking the Ostich approach?

A man who knows where his towel is.......

I don't, but then you, like many others, have gone down the road of personal attacks?

Please read my original post and then look at the reactions I got... are these not the reactions that you are angered by and the reason you posted this on both here and the Wakey board? Posting information I believe to be valid and important, however un-popular it makes me with some, is what I post... you don't like it, please feel free to join another forum.

No problem at all. Just wondered if it was going to turn in to some sort of bitchfest or not. You asked a question at the beginning and things can go at tangents.

Absolutely... the answer is 42... but what was the question again?

I hope not and I try hard not to let things get too personal, although occasionally, I have lost by rag with one or two posters in the past... many of them aren't allowed to post any more though... which justifies it I suppose!

That requires some deep thought!

Weird, but I've just been listening to the BBC Radio series again - and I've just got to this bit!

Oh, and mods - please don't lock, there aren't too many threads where Wakey and Cas fans agree - they should be nurtured and treasured!

Yes there are...

You're just contradicting everything I say! That's not an argument!

Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning.

I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site.

The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'.

I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!!

I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?

I used to think you were quite unbiased in the whole stadium saga but week after week every bit of news about newmarket you put a positive spin on even when its negative like the decision to go to PI and everyweek you seem to think of another potential pitfall or negative thing to say about the cas stadium plans.

I dont know what your angle is but its becoming clearer and clearer you have your own agenda (my persoanl guess is that newmarket getting built will make you some money and that will be less likely to happen when gh gets built, but it doesnt matter what your reasons are you clearly have an agenda) here and your losing more and more credibility.

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning. I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site. The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'. I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!! I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?'" You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning. I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site. The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'. I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!! I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?'" You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.

IA's only motivation is ensure we're awake to the actual situation.

It may seem like he's being constantly negative and trying to pick fault in every aspect of Cas's plans but that's just us being cynical.

Yes it is