Explain why it's feasible?

No money.
Not a community stadium- privately owned.

WTW moving to J32 will make YOUR situation no better. If anything you'd just be moving closer to the ideology of 1 city club, you may want to remind yourself which is the city club at this point. It could be seen in many respects as you signing your own death warrant. Exactly the same situation would arise if you came to J30.

Greenbelt?? While in principle that may be true (for the next few weeks anyway) I was wondering if you by chance use the site? If you do like to enjoy NM I hope your staying on the footpaths as any deviation is TRESSPASSING. Yorkcourt own the land, in truth nobody else has very much business (if any at all) being on there.

This IMO is a very low blow, this is not an individual writing, this is an individual writing as the voice piece for another private business. Lower than a snakes belly.

Karma: Tricky Dicky fails to deliver a stadium, NM is passed, CT move to NM & he joins the dole line.

Show me your money.

One City Club?

What would you call a team who play in CASTLEFORD and is full of players from CASTLEFORD.

Call the team Glasshoughton, Calder or Wakefield (Spit!), but lets be honest the team is CASTLEFORD.

Maybe because there isn't ONE built yet!

Am I misssing something.

How can Glasshoughton be a Community Stadium when it will be owned by Castleford Tigers. A Community Stadium must be owned by and for the benefit of the Local Community and by that it will be owned by a Community Trust, like Newmarket which will be owned by the the Community Trust and we will be tenants and pay rent to the Trust to play there.

You cannot own a Stadium and call it a Community Stadium just because you allow the community to come into that stadium. I similarly dont see how allowing parts of your Stadium to be used by others such as NHS Direct makes it a Community Stadium - that part may be "community" but the stadium will still be privately owned.

If someone can explain it to me i'd be grateful.

By the way I've nothing against Glasshoughton and I really hope that both Clubs achieve their aim of new stadiums and we both remain in Super League.

Actually under the right to roam act 2000 I'm allowed to deviate from the footpath with out it being classed as trespassing!

Apologies to the mods for deviating from the topic, but I'm fed up of this banal tit for tat!

Right Back on Topic.

In my opinion I don't see that he's done anything wrong or different if the boot was on the other foot. All this coming from a club who rejected a feasibility study on stadiums and possible ground shares, and then wants all and sundry to come along and use the facilities that they want not what might be best for the surrounding area as a whole!

Sounds like he's ting himself. Quite pathetic if you ask me. If he wants to groundshare it should be NM where it is equal distance between city and town.

Wakefield was only classified as a city because it has a Cathedral. The population of Wakefield is approximately 77,000. The population of Castleford is now estimated to be approx 50,000 and is constantly growing.

The following are just a few towns that don't have a Cathedral, so can't be classified as Cities even though their populations are much bigger than Wakefield: Reading (232,000), Northampton (189,000), Luton (250,000), Swindon (184,000) and Milton Keynes (241,000).

...and how do you know that.

Right. Firstly, can anyone on this thread confirm they were present in the PI when this was read out and know exactly what was said? Did RW actually write/say the words "I object". Or, as stated in the 160- character tweet, which in all fairness will not show a fair indication/portrayal of this, state that GH was open to Wakefield still?

So, I ask: what are people annoyed about? The fact he wrote it? The fact that Cas responded to an objector? The content? What exactly?

If, as it seems, he wrote that GH was still open to Wakefield and that they rejected the feasibility study then that is factual. With all due respect, whether he responded to an objector or the Inspector directly matters not one jot: the fact remains this is still valid comment and I would argue WOULD have been taken into consideration by the Inspector anyway.

This is because it plays a vital role in one aspect of the granting of PP: the special circumstances around the stadium. The argument put forward is that the necessity of a stadium for Wakefield is to retain a SL licence. Whilst I accept this notion in principle, the argument could be put forward that there is no necessity for the stadium to go ahead under this notion at NM due to the fact there will be a stadium at GH that Wakefield could/can play out of, whether it be in a year, five years or fifty years. The Planning Inspector has a right to obtain all information and make an impartial judgement. I do not know whether it has been sent to the Inspector but I still, with this formulating part of the objector's reasoning, believe this would have been pursued anyway.

In this instance, the only justifiable cause for complaint is that it was sent to an objector. Nevertheless, the fact remains is that the information (if it is stating Wakey can share and they rejected feasibility study) remains factual and is not 'personal' in any way.

Move on nothing to see -

"I have been asked to comment on the position of Castleford tigers with regard to the possibility of another club playing at our new stadium at Glasshoughton.

In the first instance I can confirm that we are looking for new organisations to use our new facilities in a number of ways and we would be happy for this to be in the form of another sports club using the stadium subject to a suitable agreement being put in place. It is a community stadium and it is our objective that it is used regularly by the community.

More specifically we did agree to participate in a Wakefield Council funded feasibility study in July 2010 to determine the best location for a new community stadium in the Wakefield district; this would accommodate a ground share between ourselves and Wakefield wildcats. The Council, to our disappointment, were forced to abandon this study when Wakefield wildcats refused to participate.

However, whist we have made significant progress with our site at junction32, including a detailed planning consent in April 2011, our position with regard to sharing our new facility at Junction 32 with another club has not changed. We plan to increase revenues into the stadium from a number of sources and provide significant benefits to the community.

If you need any further information do not hesitate to contact me"

Would Mr Glover comment on any Tesco plans for Wheldon Road? No, of course he wouldn't.

RW was asked to comment. He could have chosen to say that it had no relevance to Castleford Tigers as they will be planning to play out of Glasshoughton and so Newmarket has no bearing on them. What is says, as a paraphrase, is that "no need to build it as they can play out of our place". Not impressive.

Why would he? Did Castleford refuse to take part in a feasibility study to see which of the 2 sites should be used?



Again, you're twisting words to suit your own agenda, just like all the other poor souls over on your forum, massive chip on your shoulder type posts.

RW was asked to confirm that Wakefield refused to take part in the council funded feasibility study and if there was in fact going to be another stadium 2 junctions away available for Wakefield to use, he confirmed both points. Nothing wrong and nothing to see, stop twisting his words to suit your hate campaign.