Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:41 pm  

dboy wrote:

"Whilst the Glasshoughton site may have planning permission there is no money to build it, nor any proposed enabling development. It is not viable or deliverable and no one suggests that it is, not even Castleford Tigers themselves"

That is an absolutely stunning statement and seems to blow holes in the possibility of there ever being a stadium development at GH.

Yes that's how I read it as well. Basically how can you share something that does not exist!

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:53 pm  

We still have hurdles and time scales to overcome, lets not worry and get bogged down with Cas.

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:02 pm  

Longer quote on Cas, which sheds light on more factors in their way.

Whilst the Glasshoughton site may have planning permission there is no money to build it, nor any proposed enabling development. It is not viable or deliverable and no one suggests that it is, not even Castleford Tigers themselves who like Wakefield have a revocable grade C licence. It is well known that Castleford Tigers wish to pursue a retail scheme at the Wheldon Road site, but that is out of centre and at best problematic. Even so as Mr Francis noted that site alone could not generate significant revenue to fund a stadium let alone the lengthy new road link. Where would the rest come from even if a retail scheme came forward? The evidence is that it is unlikely, as the Tigers’ own announcement makes clear. The site would also increase travel distances for Wakefield fans.

A ground share at GH was NEVER on the cards then.
Ted's "psycho" moment at HT was bang to rights then! Good old Ted, never doubted you for a second!

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:09 pm  

actully wakie does not own the new stadium so are the new owners of your ground going to pay for the new stadium

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:11 pm  

mcmickeycas wrote:

actully wakie does not own the new stadium so are the new owners of your ground going to pay for the new stadium

What are you on about?

Who cares who owns it or not, a stadium is a stadium.

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:12 pm  

Thoughts on Fender:

Before embarking on a discussion of the substantive issues there are two preliminary points that need to be made. Firstly, various Third Parties, especially the Methley and Mickletown Residents Association, have made allegations about a lack of proper consultation by WMDC prior to Members resolving to support the application. These allegations are utterly without foundation. The Council complied with all of the relevant statutory publicity requirements,44 as well as publicising the application and Committee Report on its website. The Applicant held public exhibitions in December 2009 before the submission of the application and in March 2010. Various objectors, including Ms. Fender, were afforded the opportunity of addressing the Planning Committee in October 2010. In any event, these allegations are irrelevant, given the fact that the SoS will be determining this application, not WMDC, and given Ms. Fender’s concession that the various groups for which she speaks (and there are many) have been given every opportunity to make their views known throughout this Inquiry.

The final line on Fender made me laugh!

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:14 pm  

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:16 pm  

More:

The same Third Parties have insinuated that there are, or have been, inappropriate links between the developer and the Council. It is disappointing that any decent substantive points that could have been made by these objectors have been devalued by such baseless accusations.

And more:

The point can be illustrated by the oral evidence of Ms. Fender. The Methley and Mickletown Residents Association alleged45 that they asked Councillor Box, the Leader of WMDC, for details of work that he undertook for a company that maintained the application site after it ceased operations as a colliery, but that he “refused” to provide any details. When asked for evidence of the alleged request and refusal, Ms. Fender was unable to produce any. Quite apart from the fact that Councillor Box did not sit on the Planning Committee and that he disclosed his private work on the Register of Members’ Interests, this exchange shows how easy it is to make such allegations, but how difficult it is to back them up.

Finally the LCC:

The position is that either LCC considered the matter properly, or not. If it did then it must have decided that VSC applied and therefore “very significant weight” must have been given to the proposed stadium. This runs contrary to closing submissions46 which says “some weight”. The second alternative is that LCC did not consider the position properly. If that is true then the position of LCC should be given “very little weight”47.

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:24 pm  

TrinitarianWF2 wrote:

More:

And more:

Finally the LCC:

You should have been there, it was hilarious or embarrasing depending on your point of view. I was cringeing when Wakefield MDC's barrister was cross examining.

Re: YES!!!! GET IN!!! : Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:33 pm  

I was there. I was the one who asked her to if she was a conservationist. She laughed down her nose before reminding me of her many groups. I then asked her to detail some of her other campaigns. To which she had squat.

The womens like a cross between Mrs Bucket & Dave "eco warrior" Angel.