Dont feel too bad about it though, i mean its not as if people took you seriously to start with.

BTW do you still think that Ben Jeffries is going to show up 'fatty McGuire'?

Dear me that's an angry post

Someone's a sensitive soul arent they.

My days of being impolite to the likes of Smokey have long gone, I just treat him like an old cantankerous uncle.

Strangely, poor grammar annoys me more than someone who says black is white.

i'll think on next time,or perhaps not.

No, flower.

We had an administerial error where something on the documentation wasn't filled in correctly.

It would be a disaster for Cas. For Wakey, it would make little difference. There is no evidence that the rental agreement will be the same as Salford or Leigh, and even at Belle Vue Wakey are pulling in a lot more than Salford do at the new ground.

The reason it would be a disaster for Cas is that the new Wakefield ground is perceived to be that, Wakefield's ground. Pushed by the club and in Wakefield. Fundamentally, not in Castleford, and Cas are very much a local club.

So it is highly likely that Wakefield would get much higher crowds than Cas playing out of a stadium in Wakefield. So you would have two clubs that are directly comparable. Who would have the most money? Wakefield. Who would be most attractive to the better players? Wakefield. Cas would end up looking like the poorer relations, and so if we stick with franchising, which club would win out if the RFL wanted fewer teams from particular districts? Wakefield.

What would be in it for a merger? Nothing. Wakey averaged over 8,000 this season at Belle Vue. 10,000 as an average is therefore achievable at Newmarket. The stadium will seat 12,000. Why do Wakefield have to do anything other than the things they are doing now? Marketing the club around the city and bringing in the punters.

Explain ?

One of the common complaints of Leigh fans seems to be that the rent expected from the club makes it hard to be competitive, as they are being charged what you might call a "market rent". The same at Salford, where they have to achieve a certain crowd growth to have a chance of being profitable. From all I have read about Wakefield's ground agreement, I understand that the rent will be nearer the "peppercorn" style, due to the nature of the organisation behind the ground.

That's exactly how I understand it and seems to the major factor that most NM refuseniks fail to understand; we will NOT be in a Salford situation, because NM will be leased to the Trust by the developer at a peppercorn rent and operated by the Trust on a not for profit basis.

I'm not pulling this out of the air by the way - it's all right there in the documents on the planning portal.

Happy days. Almost.

It isnt the rent that is the problem, it is the loss of revenue, so will Wakey continue to make income from sales of consessions ? , will they have to pay for office and shop space? , will they be in complete control of their corporate income?

It is all these things that are the issue at Leigh, Salfords, I dont know but summise they are similar

I'm not sure of the specific details, but it seems reasonable to surmise, given the make-up of the board running the Community Trust, that the terms will be favourable to WTW; also, given the reduced rent, the imperative to compensate for outgoings in the form of rental payments by squeezing every last penny out of other sources of revenue will be less intense.

Sounds very much like how it was sold to us

I was vocal on the Salford board in the 15 months build time explaining if they didnt spend heavily on marketing to pull in the extra 3/4,000 they needed to hit break even it would fall apart at the seams, they didnt and it has, I suggest the same applies to youself

I'm not worried - the terms of the lease to the Community Trust are included in the s106 agreement that the developer has signed, so there won't be any surprises there; equally, both the Chairman and CEO of WTW will sit on the Trust board, as will Sir Rodney Walker, so they're hardly likely to stiff the club somewhere down the line with a crippling rent or by starving the club of income streams.

I realise that your own experience was negative, but the situation for us is somewhat different.

Seems strange how the "Community" Trust includes Elston, Glover, Rodney Walker and ex-MP Hinchcliffe - all men associated with WTW.

It was never promoted as a ground for Cas as Cas always had their own plans. The Trust have always said that anyone who wants to play there can, but it was always pitched as a ground to house Wakefield, and which is why it would be bad for Cas, because how can you sell that to your fans? I don't think there was ever any suggestion that the Trust was pretending to be uninvolved with Wakefield, given that the main person behind it was the ex-Wakefield chairman and arose after the collapse of the Thornes Park plans, and the public enquiry was held at Wakefield Town Hall.

It's not exactly smoke and mirrors.

Glasshoughton, however, was only ever pitched as a potential shared stadium when that had the chance of scuppering the Newmarket project.

As I read it, Wakefield don't need Cas to make a go of Newmarket. The issue is whether Cas need Newmarket. I would say no.

It's worth pointing out that Wakefield have already pulled in the extra 3-4,000 fans. Also, we don't own Belle Vue now and are paying rent, and it is a crumbly ground that requires maintenance. You may find that the figures balance out anyway.

It is not the same as Salford or Leigh, because we are not giving up grounds we own to move into a ground we don't. We are moving from one rented premises to another.

Totally agree with that - and don't forget Fev. With their new ground developments I think it is clear that they will be staying at PO Road.

Given that the 'community' it refers to is Wakefield, that doesn't seem strange to me at all; everyone involved plays (or played) an important role in the civic or cultural life of the District and they're all legitimate stakeholders in the Community Trust.

I believe that Castleford were offered the opportunity to get on board in the early days and that offer has been open ever since; if Richard Wright had opted to do that, rather than making a clumsy attempt to sabotage the project during the public inquiry, I wouldn't have been surprised to see him or another member of the Castlefored BoD on that list.

It's all academic now - we're a step closer to solving our stadium crisis after 20 years of trying and Castleford's involvement, or lack of, is neither here nor there.

I thought they were giving it to the Trust but you're probably right I'm a bit out of touch on the Stadium these days. Either way it's a good deal.

The report produced by the inspector after the public inquiry says that it will be leased to the Trust at a peppercorn rent; rather tragically, I read it last night.

Like most SL clubs we have an in town shop - that won't change and neither will the revenue stream.

Offices come in the rent deal.

We will certainly not get anything from the sale of beer and food in the ground - except in the Boxes and other package deals. Small loss compared to the loan repayments to bring BV up to spec.

It has taken 8 years to get here and SWAG are well aware of the limitations of the deal. NM was not our first choice as a venue nor our first choice as a funding method. However there comes a point where you have to take what you can get.

One thing is in our favour and that's momentum. With a new owner and a team on the up the enthusiasm is there and NM has been a fairly easy sell and should remain so. There is no great resistance to leaving BV, her time is done.

No one with an ounce of realism expects instant results from a move to NM, but handled well IMHO it's our best option by some was. Fingers crossed the club and Trust handle it well because, but in truth it's out of the supporters hands now.

I don't know as a fact but I would have thought that once the tennacy has been agreed with WTW it will be harder for Castleford to share. It isn't a case of anyone can play there if it then upsets the agreements already made. If the anchor tennancy had been agreed as two team playing at different times then ok but once Wakefield are in situ I would expect (but don't know) that to agree a community cup final or football team would be fine because it fits the calendar but they couldn't or shoudn't just agree to house someone else that impacts the existing tennants.

Read into how Sale Sharks became secondary tennants at Barton - all will be revealed.

How would the new stadium be run, if as you say waky will only pay a peppercorn rent how will the stadium make money for its up keep, or will that be down to the tenants, i would have thought it would have to be kept in profit