Apologies to Rugbyball for not being around for a while - I do have to try and find a little time to spend with the family - only I didn't expect it take me 9.5 hours on the M1 to get to London on saturday!

Boy, I must have been proper evil in my previous life!



So, as always, things kick-off while I'm away - although I haven't even seen what Ted has said as yet. Personally, although I can understand Ted's frustration with everyone believing all things Cas, I don't actually agree that he should have come out and said so - I tend to agree with the majority on here that we should sell what we have firstly. It's a bit like the battle of Trafalgar Square (for fans of the Apprentice).

Re RB's quote about the 'Truth coming out', it has, and all we were doing is trying to second guess what was coming. There was a meeting planned, which we though would happen before any decisions were taken, and in the end it did not - hence us getting caught out by the timing.

Where do we go from here - onwards and upwards, but no-ones pretending any of this will be easy, and if I'm honest, I think Ted's comments may make things harder, not easier, but it's what we have to deal with and it still true that we would be light-years away from a solution without Ted.

Re. Thornes Park, the issues RB put's forward about timing are correct, and this was always an obstacle, but as we know - obstacles can be removed with political will. It matters little now anyway, but there is no doubt that we turned down a perfectly valid alternative as a result of the councils assurances on TP!

As for expecting WMDC to find us a home, it is true that we cannot do any of this without them - I think you'll find that's why SWAG exists in the first place - but we NEVER asked them to build it or to fund it. We have asked for support, which they have agreed to; we even asked them for land to build on, but it was always the intention to put a package together with a developer - and that is still what we have, despite the delays and the implications of it. We will continue to try and work to ensure that what has been put on the table, stays on the table, for today, tomorrow and for the future of RL in Wakefield!

RE Thornes Park, timing was not the issue concerning Thornes Park the issue was that no one wanted it in the Park and the public outcry would have been far greater than that over the Newmarket site.

I think the issue was the costs spiralling to circa. £60m.

The real shame in all this is that now we have a situation where the land in the middle of the park could be turned into a housing development rather than a sports village for everyone to use. One option would’ve given that section of the park back to the community, the other will give it to a few private property owners.

Thank you for replying TRB and I can not knock your post, on the whole I can see what your saying about TP.

There was only ever going to be so much development allowed in the park (housing we have now). So once you had the sports village in there, I do not believe much else would have been permitted. So the at the time what seemed the best option to the council was to look at themselves as development partners and add public facilities to the project thus creating funds for the stadium. I do not believe their was the scope to bring in partners like YC as is happening at NM. Leaving just the council, who of course have obligations to the tax payer, pressure from the other two Wakefield District Clubs and objections from local residents. They did what any tax payer would expect and carried out a feasibility study and ultimatley Walked away.

You say WTWC put their own plans to the side for TP, so ultimatly as I have said the gave away control of their own destiny. I would also suggest as Wakefield College still occupy TP as has always been their intention you would be still without a stadium now. Also yourselves and the council new that the time scales would not allow for the stadium to be built within the franchise period, yet I suspect you did not highlight this to the RFL, which is what frustrates me about some of the folk on here having a go at the council. They could have pulled the rug out from under you before the franchise application.

Timing was an issue, see TRBs post. Although you are right their was a public outcry.

You failed to mention why it was sold back for a nominal amount.

Your right one of the main issues was the spiralling costs, as the council had to make it more than just a stadium for the Wildcats to justify the using of public funds. Like I said in another post, the fact that the overall development was limited or even lacked vision other partners would have found it hard to make it work for themselves financially. IE a developer would have to build a lot of houses to offset the 12-13mil for the stadium. Warehouses were a non starter as its in the city centre and still not enough overall space to build enough to offset the cost of the stadium. Things are just really as straight forward as they seem.

Swings and roundabouts my friend, I assume your alluding to the running cost of the ground and the council not wanting to pay. Well if the council were getting such a good deal, then why did WTWC agree to buy it back? I would suggest it added a rather large asset to their accounts, for which they could borrow against and ultimately cash in on. And its not like WTWC have pumped loads into the ground. Infact if WMDC had still been owners of the ground then they would have probably been obliged to do much more with the upkeep than has been done.

Sort of,but in the main why bother dragging up something from circa 1996(think this was around the date it was sold back to club),without giving the full info.Other clubs in the district have received financial support from WMDC in bygone years.
Where do you draw the line?Its just gets tedious.

I agree, all clubs have received help from the council and I was only adding some fat to the bones of of what you and gizmo were alluding to.

Out of curiousity what help have cas and fev recieved from the council, as it appears it was before my time (pre super league is a little hazy to me as i was only a kid).

I believe the flat cappers also had a deal with the council regarding their stadium a few years back.

WMDC having previously purchased Belle Vue, one would suggest that that money was spent by the club, it is certain that the money recieved at that time was not spent on any refurbishment at Belle Vue. Allowing the Club to re purchase Belle Vue for a nominal amount has since allowed the Wildcats to sell the Belle Vue site for a rather substantial amount well above the amount paid to WMDC. Part of that money has already been spent. In total taking into account the level of investment promised by WMDC for the Newmarket development no supporter could ever be critical of WMDC in terms of supporting the Wildcats financially.

Your statement makes it clear you have little idea of why WMDC "purchased" Belle Vue.

Did Fev receive any help around 02 when they went into admin?

Why WMDC purchased the site is irrelevant, the fact is they did, and having allowed the re purchase for a minimal amount and then the subsequent sale to a developer, the fact remains the club has gained rather substantially. I would suggest that no money has ever been spent on Belle Vue although the club has recieved substantial sums for it. Meanwhile we the fans have been promised stadium after stadium which have never materialised, but like most people I have witnessed those sites been developed into industrial units. Why should I expect anything different from the Newmarket proposal, history proves that it is most likely industrial units we will see at Newmarket not a stadium. Call me a sceptic if you like but we have seen and heard all this before.

Irrelevant?No,not really.
If you cared to find out why,you would then realise how ridiculous your previous comments are.
No money ever spent on Belle Vue?
I can only presume that you must have a different understanding of the word "no" compared to the rest of the world.
How much do you think it costs each year just to get a decrepid old ground like Belle Vue up to the minimum standard for a safety certiifcate??
I presume in your world -- nothing!!!

Wakefield paid full-whack for the ground - more than what they sold it for anyway - that was the deal! As it was, WMDC were a creditor in the CVA, therefore they did not recieve the full amount as due under the terms of the contract.

Re. TP - I did say that WTW did NOT ask WMDC to fund the stadium - WMDC took that decision on themselves and assured us that the funding was 'ring-fenced' (I think much of the £20m or so they thought it was going to cost was to come from the sale of Leeds-Bradford Airport - as it is, that money has gone into the Hepworth - with few complaints, unlike if Trinity had been the beneficiaries!

). TP was never meant to involve an external developer, and yes, we did pass the responsibility to WMDC, but only based on the assurances on intent and funding.

Hey ho!

I like the way you just skim over the passing of responsibility, when that is one of the Key issues here, from what you say you had your destiny in your own hands and gave it away. How can you complain?

With regard the Hepworth why not invest in something that has been under invested in Something that not only serves the people of the City but also visitors from outside the city. If we want to be seen on a par with other cities then these are the sorts of things we need and perhaps people out side of rugby league cans see this.

Add to that the fact that their are Two other teams in the district it was always going to be a long shot that the council would invest £20 mil for the good of one and not the others.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but what exactly was our alternative plan to the Thornes Park option? And why was it not possible to explore both options simultaneously?

Back to Ted, I think it was petty and unneccesary to mention Cas - perhaps he should concentrate on coming up with a Plan B for our own club. All the accusations he levels at Cas ("big talk", no action, missed deadlines, etc.) could just as easily be thrown back at us. Perhaps he's hoping to deflect from the catastrophic decision to sell Belle Vue, the clubs place of business and major asset, without securing an alternative venue first. I would have thought that was a decision the clubs owners should have been a party to.

I do not believe there is anyone at the club with the talents to deliver a project of this magnitude. Maybe it is Super League or nothing for the Richardsons - the gravy train for family and friends probably won't be economically viable in the Championship.

unpaid tax bills, unpaid players, iva, cva. block of flats fiasco, denby dale, thornes, ossett, newmarket. starving the club of investment. players being sold, westwood, pitts,ellis, atkins, brough. thats just a few things teds done successfully off the top of my head but ilthink of some more. are you a family member,

I don't think Trinity went along with Thornes Park in the hope that it would be funded by the council, but on the promise that it would be. The two positions are entirely different, and it would have been madness for the club to have said, "no, you can keep your twenty million, we're spend our own, thank you".

And the council wasn't being entirely altruistic, as it suited them to be seen to be providing sports facilities in a city that was near the bottom of the league nationwide in such things. It had little to do with rugby.

IA

Crimson 1969.

www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1185 something else for ted richardson to put in his pipe and smoke.

www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1185 something else for ted richardson to put in his pipe and smoke.

That stadium looks pants compared to ours. I would rather wait a few month and get our great new stadium passed. Jungle looks better than that !