You mean a Trinity forum on RLFans is managing that. Wow, we are more powerful than we thought!

It's amazing what the 20/30 regular posters on here can achieve, alienating over 300k people.



I also haven't read anywhere that the City should be developed first above everywhere else anywhere.

I came in peace, as always, but thanks for underlining the point I was trying to make gents.

Your a decent guy, I will admit that but this is a very sensitive issue and a Cas fan coming on here being
patronising (albeit non intentionally) is not going to go down great is it?

I echo Wild things point.

No one was talking about Ground Share but a number of Cas fans raise the subject as if we are being stupid for not considering it, even though there is no Cas stadium, and equally no one with the authority to offer such a deal has offered anything to Wakefield......... don't then be upset when Wakefield fans find it an emotive subject and tell you their strong view on their own forum.
I have no sympathy on this one.

Guess who looks likely to be out of a job soon too through making the decisions she has! And I wouldn't be surprised if Maidenhead changed in the next election too.

We're getting stuffed by a Council lead by a Cas fan. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve posting such a patronising comment.

They are two different developments with two different developers so it's hard to compare and contrast other than taking them at face value. The only similarity is that both developments required sporting clubs with good support to get them through.

There were definite learnings from the Newmarket situation, which of course will provide no solace to you guys on here. It could quite easily be us. However, the one benefit to us is that we own WR - therein lies your problem. The plan B is reliant on another developer, who also happens to be the owner of Belle Vue, and who has had zero to do with the Newmarket situation. By that nature, he has no obligation to give you the same deal (and from reading the comments, I do feel that it's slightly unfair he's being lumped in to this mess when he's tried to provide a resolution, no matter how much of a problem it may be for you guys).

The one question that needs answering is why Newcold didn't contribute to the 60,000 sq.m. There could be a fair reason for that but it's been poorly communicated (or rather not communicated) to fans and to the club/trust, and to the wider public. But the reality is that nothing else has happened on that site since Newcold. Again, that's not a question that I feel is fair levelled at the council but the developer.

For all the other ills, Yorkcourt are the ones that applied outside of it, the ones that sorted Newcold and ultimately responsible for Newmarket development. Ultimately, I think there have been things that have contributed along the way from all the parties to where we are now, but as an outsider I don't see it all on WMDC's fault, and I'm sure you guys don't either. But it does feel like you're solely hitting out at one party on here at the moment.

I genuienly wasn't trying to be patronising & I get that the tone of a comment can be lost in the written word quite easily.

I've held off posting since the news broke as I know it's a very emotive subject & people's nerves are shred, but I was attempting to calm a few "Nutjobs"

down before damage is done.

Certain fans are going to have to change their mindset though. This is not a trinity v WMDC fight, it's a district v developer/WMDC fight & the best chance of success is a united district, or at least as much of it as possible.

I chose this particular thread to post as I still believe that a ground share is possible & is actually the best & most likely to succeed for both clubs, but the jewel in the crown has to be the wider sporting facilities. I'm not talking about Glasshoughton or Newmarket either, I'm talking about Normanton & more specifically the newer part of the development (up around the new police building).
That area is a fairly central point for the district, has excellent links & has the land to deliver a truly amazing site; a centre of excellence if you will, for sport in the district. It could & would put the district in the map for sporting facilities.
All it needs is the egos to be left at the door & for the people involved to see it.

With you there Steady. Join forces, push for stadium delivered, betwixt, as near as possible,the two sets of fans.

Thanks for the reply.

I would however point out that one of the justifications in the inspectors report for passing five parks was your ground would realise cGBP 3m and you had debts of cGBP 2.3m so wouldn’t be much left over to fund a new ground. In any event there is no mention anywhere that I can see that says you are gifting wheldon road to lateral for them to develop.

There were numerous reasons for passing it. We badly need a new ground, that's well documented. Overwhelming public support and of course, the economic benefits and facilities it would bring.

On WR, we aren't giving Lateral anything. We're keeping Wheldon Road too. Lateral needed the support of CTRLFC and a purpose to get FTP through planning. Without us, I don't know if it would.
Sorry, also if you may have misinterpreted something. I just thought I'd clarify if something triggered that comment from my post and then I can explain what I meant

My comment was to say if you are not gifting wheldon road to lateral or selling it and putting money into the new project then the fact you own your own ground is irrelevant is it not?

Well, not entirely, as it means we still have an asset to fall back on, which we don't have the threat of being kicked out of unlike yourselves. It also means we're not at the behest of a landlord.

The application ruled out us doing up Wheldon Road because the costs would be extortionate and time consuming but in all probability, it may come to that as a plan C/D/E if we ever have to go down that route.

Apparently we were talked out of buying belle Vue, if we hadn't be we might have had a ground

You're not wrong, but it seems like an impossible dream.

I agree a community facility for the Wakefield district is much needed. One or more of the districts sports clubs as anchor tenant would be great ensuring it is used regularly but the exact location does not matter as long as it is in the Wakefield district surely.
The main criteria for WMDC is how to fund it so it would be the cheapest option for them.
Regarding Castleford / Wakefield, each club has to get the best deal for them to ensure a future but as it stands at the minute Glasshoughton seems to be the only one on the table.
I personally support Wakefields campaign but think there is not a lot of mileage in chasing the council as time is not on the clubs side maybe.

What a stupid remark !!!!

WMDC could 'do up' Frickley Athletic ground that's in the district,are you suggesting if that were an option both clubs would be happy.

Better still let WMDC spend money on a ground in Ossett, I am sure that would be acceptable to most Trinity fans. So over to you and go and put that as a credible suggestion to rest of your Cas chums.

You seem incredibly naive. A ground share would only work on some sort of neutral territory like Normy. A ground share at Glasshoughton would mean Wakefield die a slow death, likewise if, for example, you shared a ground with us at somewhere like Belle Vue or Thornes Park it would be suicide for you.

Correct.

I also find it hugely frustrating that the best and most realistic option is unavailable to us long term due to it being about 400 meters outside of Wakefield.

Anybody know if we could force a boundary change?

Even then Box would probably conspire to stop us playing there.

Vasty

The more you think about it, the more credible it becomes. I would argue it is more central to our core support base than Newmarket and much closer than a mythical site in Normanton.
Excellent transport links, Jct 40 MI up the mad mile and bingo you are there !
Further to that I would say the fact that it is 400 yards outside the WMDC boundary is a bonus not a negative.
Plus its in a much 'nicer' area than Bellevueistan

I admire your Peter Box like media spin - "If you say it often enough people will believe it".

As it stands at the minute neither ground seems to be an option - unless I've missed the diggers moving in at Glasshoughton???
Rumours are that FTP is no closer to getting off the ground now than it was 2 years ago, and in fact maybe further away, from what I heard. I am very much in the "believe it when I see it" camp as regards development of a stadium for either of us.

Fordy
Just like Jakey and Prince Buster you have missed my point about a community stadium. I was only pointing out that a community stadium could be anywhere in the borough and knowing the council it will be at the least cost to them be it Yorkcourt

88M or Lateral or some other option (funding it).
I only say this because I was wandering how the council would worm their way out of the argument about Newmarket.

It does seem however that most debates on this eventually get turned into a Castleford v Wakefield stadium competion. I was not saying Glasshoughton was the only option, that to has yet to come to fruition, and I to will believe it (as will many Cas fans). As it stands progress it is a little further forward at Glasshoughton, a digger has gone into the ground unlike just a spade for a photo shoot over the road.

Not sure I have missed your point.
You say a community stadium could be anywhere in the district and then say that Glasshoughton is the only option??
I say - why? Glasshoughton is no closer to having a stadium built on it than Newmarket is at this point in time.

I would not have an issue with moving to Owl Lane, if they the Rams, and Kirklees council are willing to accommodate us, but it just isn't really big enough for super league, the stadium would need work, to get the capacity up to something like where it needs to be.

Wasn't there a rumour a white ago about Ossett Albion moving in with us.

Could it be feasable for all three to play in the same stadium, though this would cause a lot of pitch wear over the year.