I would be VERY suprised if Andrew Glover voted against!

Never said it was Adey, this was a reply to Bull Boy's comment about our own lack of progress with a new stadia, where he inferred that we wern't doing anything, which is the total opposite of the current position.
I know your current state must be hurting, but this is no reason to lash out at others.
There do now sound to be some positive noises coming out from the RFL for your own situation and wish you well for a good outcome.
The players, supporters and staff have done the club proud over the last few weeks and this can only be a good thing moving forward.

You failed to mention that though.
You just said they were taking the whizz with regard to their stadium.
That is an unbelievable amount of irony when you consider the 'Deal' you struck with the RFL over the lease of Odsal.
You know the deal that means you don't have a lease on your own ground anymore which now means Odsal cannot be leased elsewhere from under your feet now you are in admin.

I too would be surprised as I think Wakefield would want Bradford in, on the other hand however ; knowing that the top Super League clubs are after a smaller league and that might happen at the next licsening ,Hand on heart would you prefer to eliminate one place now? Or keep them. in let them rebuild and find you are the one that loses your place next time. All the clubs in the lower half of the league will have to weigh this up , the Leeds , Wire , Saints will not have this on their mind when they come to vote.A £100,000 extra share of sky money and possibly more to follow if it drops to 10 I would expect nothing less than that Andrew Glover does what is best for Wakefield whatever that may be.

1. What financial problems at Cas? Stop making stuff up.
2. Cas are further than Wakefield in regards to a stadium (Cas have full planning permission, Wakefield don't)

As for the RFL being able to veto the clubs vote, not really surprising - make it look like a democracy but really it's a dictatorship, if it was Cas or Wakey the RFL would love to give them the boot if they formed a newco.

Do you seriously believe that? or has your account been hacked by fully?

clubs cant afford to vote against the RFL Bulls, if they do the RFL will veto it and when the next round of licences are up 2015-2017 the RFL will remember who voted against and if a reduction to 12 or 10 is planned they will be the ones that are marked down and ejected. The stadium will need to be re-vamped for next licences wonder who will be paying for that...????

Well considering the fact that the truth is Cas have full PP Wakefield don't, then yes I do believe it and you don't then you're simply ignoring facts.

Anyway, keep it on topic.

Hopefully it doesn't get to the stage of a newco being needed.



That not only sounds very fishy (even for the RFL) it would end up with serious ramifications.

and funding is fully in place as well eh Gronk?

So if thats the case why hasn't the building taken place yet?

Your posts re: the stadiums really smack of desperation of late.

There are a lot of reasons for the smaller clubs to be annoyed if a newco would get to stay in SL but I'd imagine Widnes would vote for Bradford to stay in as the owner gave you guys £10k.

Any purchase of the club would be via a newco, rather than the current co as otherwise the debts would remain to be paid.

Isn't Coco the Fullback a Wakey fan?

Unless a realistic CVA was agreed...

Oh yes I agree I`m sure Widnes would vote for Bradford to stay in.
Now let me see , if I vote against Bradford it will be like chucking £10,000 of my hard earned cash away.
If I vote against eeping them in, I get an extra share of the Sky money £100,000 , possibly more after next liscensing as they will likely drop teams down to 12 or 10 and I will have eliminated a possible rivel for a Super League spot.
Well as I am a businessman ....Well it`s a tough call isn`t it.

Who is to say that Sky would keep the same funding with 12 teams!!!

Cas have had full planning permission for many years now, so to state that they are further advanced towards their new stadium is plain daft !

Well no,to be fair we don`t know that but the way most of the top Super League clubs have been banging on for some time about reducing the teams in the league they must be quietly confident that is so.Otherwise why would they want it would they?

as long as sky get their 2 games a week, the GF series and pick of CC games they don't care and with less teams the "theory" is by some, that teams will be closer matched due to better talent being spread across fewer teams. Hence leading to closer more exciting games........

You may be correct but if Sky have contracted x amount for 14 teams for x years and the RFL change to 12 teams that may be a change in contract and why should Sky pay for a reduced league, remember loss of teams would probably mean los of Sky Sports subscription from the fans that have just had their teams removed from SL!! May be

And therein lies the rub - for neutrals or general sports fans watching OK - but how many fans of a club now watch at home on Sky? The numbers involved wont be a fraction of Sky's total subscribers but for a club to loose a 1000 fans to the armchair or the pub that's a big deal and maybe more than the money they get from Sky?

Apparently 'League Express' editor Matyn Sadler has said that a condition of the new Sky contract is a 14 club SL. If that's right, given that Sky's paid well over the odds for the new soccer contract and are probably looking to save a few bob, it might not be a good idea to annoy them.

Well actually Wrencat I think you'll find that Cas got full planning last year. Please get you're facts right before spouting rubbish.

Indeed. So with full planning permission and full funding why hasn't it been built yet??

Sorry old lad, the story on your ground is like one of the new video games where you pick your own last chapter.
If you look on Wiki, then work started in 2008 ?, so please forgive my lack of "knowledge", it is difficult to keep pace with this one !

Sadler is wrong. Minimum of 12. Funding the same whether 12, 13 or 14. fewer clubs then bigger sky distributions.