Most of wakey council are cas fans

thts what ive been told and heard many tyms in the club b4 the games

Quote ="Judd Judd"Most of wakey council are cas fans thts what ive been told and heard many tyms in the club b4 the games'" yeah i know but most of the council are viewtopic.php?t=421878 =redEDITED BY ME AS I CANNOT FINISH THE SENTANCE WITHOUT A BAN

Quote ="Judd Judd"Most of wakey council are cas fans thts what ive been told and heard many tyms in the club b4 the games'" yeah i know but most of the council are viewtopic.php?t=421878 =redEDITED BY ME AS I CANNOT FINISH THE SENTANCE WITHOUT A BAN

members, i take it your on about?
not staff?

I agree with this its not that i would have anything at all against sharing a stadium its just the simple fact that it would have to be in cas which obviousleyis no good at all to wakey fans. for me and thousands of other watching a game doesnt just end at that , if there was a groundshare and one set of fans had to travel 10 miles to watch a home game they cant have a drink as they would probably be driving which would for me spoil the day, this may seem a minor point but this could knock off up to 1000 from a home game plus it would make a home game feel like an away one and if that was to be the case i would rather stay in cas in nl1. also i think if there was a ground share it would be one step nearer to a merger which no one wants, but thats just my opinion.

Tigerman10 - Ive not for one minute got a problem with your opinion or your right to want to protect what you presently enjoy. It is perfectly understandable.

My opinion however is that it is not sensible to base a multi million pound decision on protecting the lifestyles of a small (but significant) minority of existing customers / fans. Developing stadia is about attracting the next 4 or 5 generations of supporters. For all those who stop going because of how far away from the pub it is there will be others who do go because it is near their home or because the facilities a superior etc etc....

The price of your desire to stay in Cas and near the pub will be tens of millions of pounds to our clubs and our sport.

I promise you I'm not being partisan here I have had the same debate with Trinity fans. I'm for a ground share (be that in Cas, fev or Wfld). A RL ground is used for rugby less than 30 days a year - 3 teams could easly share!

Totally agree.

My fear is that both clubs (or maybe one clubs) desire to "go it alone" could end up costing both.

I note that both clubs believe they have the funding and I know I'm a pessimist or rather I believe I'm a realist but I really struggle to see how 2 £multi million stadiums are both going to secure funding when they both will be "knocking" on the same doors.

I fear our parochialism could cost us both dearly in the end but if people would rather be in the NL and stay close to home rather than play in SL that their choice but I certainly would not.

thats fair enough mate its your point of view but what would be the point of wakey sharing a ground with cas in glasshoughton with a 15,000 capacity and only getting a 4,ooo home crowd against the top sides never mind the bottom ones and i think the same would apply to cas were the ground built in stanleyl, all i could see coming from this would be either a merger a team going bust or a side ending up in nl one, and if you dont think this would be the case i think you have a blinkered view of this matter, cas need to stay in cas wakey need to stay in wakey and fev need to stay on whatever planet they are on at this moment in time.

i think your missing the point , its not about us its about our great/grandchildren who dont have any allegiance and if you think NO NEVER!!!!!!! who would of thought that people from fev would now be supporting leeds/cas/bulls at the start of super league???not me.



pressure power from kids is huge we may not like it but i ain't stopping my lads watching the greatest sport in the world just because my team play a few miles away.

i dont dispute that point, what i am sying is clubs need bums on seats thats the only way they survive and getting a new ground the clubs would expect more people through the turnstiles to pay out for the costs i just think the exact opposit would happen and it would all end in disaster for one club, or am i missing your point and you think a merger is the way forward ?

Tigerman - I just don't accept your point that a ground share would lead to poorer gates. There are no examples of this being the case from other sports where groundsharing has taken place.

Equally I don't accept that ground share = merger. Again show me an example where this has happend in other sports.

we are not talking about other sports we are talking about rugby league, if you put a poll on this forum asking people from wakey if they would go to cas for there home games or vice versa people from cas i am sure the results would speak for themselves, and yes i do think a gound share would equal a merger, mybee not straight away but in say 5 years time i think it would be a cert.

sorry I don't buy this RL is different line. The examples from other sports suggest that ground shares = bigger crouds and better fnancial health for both clubs. I'm more comfortable working from evidence rather than conjecture.

I agree with you about the likely result of a poll. I do however feel that the opinions of the fans of 2009 is a very small consideration in the decisions about the ongoing sustainability of our 2 clubs. As I said before this decision is about attracting the next 4 or 5 generations of fans not just about us.

The cost of having 2 (or 3) grounds with a WF post code will be the best part of a hundred million (for 3 bog standard developments). Is our desire for our club to play within a walk of the pub worth that much?

I have to show my hand I already drive 80 miles for a home game so I recognise that our views will be different

I know - sorry!



Get frustrated with the poop - especially on the VT - although I am trying to deal with that in my own way!

But would there be a Club left for future generations to follow? The problem is that Castleford does not associate its self with Wakefield and vice versa. With all other ground shares, as far as I am aware, both teams are based in/have an affinity to the City/Town/area of the stadium this would not be true in this case and 1 set of fans would be alienated.

FWIW I believe what Tigerman says - 100%

Mutts made the point, its not just about now its about the future.

A ground share would alienate some fans from both teams, of course it would, just like the switch from winter to summer rugby did. I know of at least half a dozen people who refused to watch summer rugby and no longer watch Wakefield but our gates are up so we must have replaced those fans and more.

A ground share would be the same, you would lose some and you would gain some. I sincerley hope both us and Castleford get shiney new stadiums but equally I hope it doesn't all end in tears.

Just opinions but at the end of the day only time will tell.

agree..........
one ground one team and then let another club in.
wakeford sounds good to me.

I know I'm in the minority. It just doesnt sit comfortably with me throwing many tens, possibly hundreds of millions of pounds at three seperate stadia in order to pamper to the fans of 2009 at the expence of a) all the other things that those millions could be spent on and b) the ongoing sustainability of all 3 clubs c) the next 2 /3 / 4 generations of fans.

Every course of action in this situation has risks and I accept that many believe that merger is a significant risk arising from ground share. Assessing that risk has to start in the eveidence from precident - and there aint any!

irrespective of the above do you not think it's now too late to be changing direction?

I honestly can't see either of the teams having a brick layed towards their stadium come 2012, and I feel with the RFL's idea of expeanding Rugby League one of the WF teams will lose their franchise in order to "extend" rugby league- even though this is away from its routes.
They RFL don't really care where the hotbed of rugby league talent is produced, they just want to spread the game (although London, Wales, and France to an extent will never really take our game to their hearts)......to cut a long story short Castleford will lose their franchise which I can cope with because I would sooner watch my hometown club play in the lower leagues in my hometown, than have to either: -
A) travel 10 miles to watch an HOME game
or,
B) play under a merged name of "Calderford" or whatever the RFL choose.
(and deep down I'm guessing at least 60% of you feel the same).

We've tried to talk to Cas about it. The council have tried to talk to Cas about it. The local MP's have tried to talk to Cas about it. All attempts have been rebuked by Cas.

I know I'm quite 'emotional' about this subject, but I am also acutely aware that to Cas, the Wakefield identity is a threat - just as the idea of a 'Greater Leeds'

is to me. Whilst we can talk about 'corridors of acceptability' and joining forces in one venture, I do not believe that we can easily overcome the emotional ties that we have and the potential 'blocks' that would prevent us from calling Cas home or Cas calling Wakey home.

It would seem that the Stanley site is as geographically central as it could be, yet it is already tainted as being a 'Wakey' site. So, whilst it would make much sense financially and practically to centre on one proposal, I cannot fault the Cas folk for wanting to fight to keep their future on home soil. After all, I still think it possible that they can come to the Stanley table at a later date - if they are unable to fulfil their dream of their own accord. Good luck to 'em!

Couldn't agree more with your post.

Look I have to be clear with you that I know none of the internal workings of any of the organisations involved. I am not a poster 'in the know'. So my comments are based upon a laymans observations.

I think it is extremely unlikely that a proactive planned stadium share will take place (and I'm of the opinion that this is a missed opportunity).

I fear however that one or both or all (if we include Fev) clubs will not find the funding they need and have to come to a pragmatic compromise of a stadium share. What I fear is that this delay will lead to missed franchise opportnities and or rushed / compromised stadium developments.

Those awarding the licences should take a grip on this situation and recognise the 'special' case relating to these 3 clubs all being in the same local authority. Failure to do this will result in money being drained from the sport because of the arbitrary re licencing date.

I think we are agreeing TRB.

slightly o/t topic wasn't Wrenthorpe at one stage going to be classed as outer leeds (spit) as far as electoral wise, even though we are WF1


so I can understand castleford not wanting to share to keep their identity and good luck to them