Fully sorry but its common knowledge that Tesco have had to ring-fence money because of a possible Eurozone collapse. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ak-up.html

Fully sorry but its common knowledge that Tesco have had to ring-fence money because of a possible Eurozone collapse. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ak-up.html

From my understanding Fully Opus are working on a number of sites, site prospecting if you will. They will have to undertake the same studies (if none have been previously done) at all sites. The reason studies into Wheldon Road were done was due to the fact that there were no contemporary studies to cite in any future planning application.

As I said, my understanding is that a number of sites were presented to Tesco by Opus and an additional developer. In the selection process Wheldon Road has been shelved due to flooding, the same information would impact on the Nestle site in exactly the same way. Further investment in flooding & preventative measures within any build would also be required. Hence putting the client off, in this case. These issues are far from being insurmountable but again don't fit with the required timescale from your point of view.

As far as Junction 32 goes, that again isn't set in stone. Castleford will only have until 2014 to make a move or renew the permission. Waystones may choose to go in a different direction, despite having invested in the stadium project how long can they keep a plot waiting? Even if there are signed deals they won't be indefinite.

While I've never believed the projects at Junction 30 and 32 were intrinsically linked I do believe that the first one to get built will be the only one to get built. It's been said to death but contemplate the possibility of sharing.

If it helps, that ties in with information I posted a couple of weeks ago; the flooding data at WR means that only a store on stilts is viable and a store on stilts costs a significant amount more than a conventional one; that level of cost is not in Tesco's plans.

All rumour and hearsay I suppose, but it's been alluded to a sufficient number of times that it takes on some semblance of verisimilitude.

Not really. Hearsay takes on a semblance of being hearsay.

I have no axes to grind with Castleford, I enjoy the rivalry and never miss a derby game. I'm not adding to the pathetic swipes that take place online between our "fans", just posting information I have been told is reliable. That's why after a lot of thought I joined, following years of reading.

I completely understand Castleford fans being defensive, cast your mind back to how some people were so convinced Thornes Park was viable, how defensive some of the SWAG lot got when evidence (or lack of it) came to light. Fully is passionately fighting his corner, just as TRB does for Wakefield. No amount of "hear-say" will change his mind, his view point is fixed on Junction 32 and fair play.

I hope another supermarket can be brought in, but at best this only delays something which has a very short window of existence. If either of us miss this deadline it's curtains. Who is to say either of us could maintain full time rugby at our present homes, let alone new ones.

My only concern for Fully is that it will hit him harder than most, as he passionately believes in it.

Thank you very much RFL for this continued state of affairs.

Actually I used the term 'over-budget' on their new store development programme for the last two years (in the section of the original post deleted) and not 'overspent' as you are posting I said. There is a very subtle difference in those two statements, so I needed to clarify that for the record.

In answer to your question, Tesco have made clear to all their store development partners that they have indeed exceeded their budgets for the last two years and the reason they told them this, is that they are looking to these partners to value engineer developments as much as possible. I am not sure why you would think you would find this information on their website? While the information of the overspend is not confidential, the actual budget amounts would indeed be reasonably confidential and I bet you can't find any information on any other Tesco departments which have come within or over their budgets for the year either.... why would you?

The point is, every department in Tesco has budgets and budgets are set for many reasons and one of the biggest reasons in Tesco is to continue to deliver a high level of profitability & therefore return for it's shareholders. Tesco is not a bottomless pit and while going maybe tens of millions over budget on store development the last couple of years will not see Tesco unable to 'afford' this, they equally want to keep their costs as low as possible in a difficult global downturn. The point was originally made to demonstrate the fact that now having to a develop a store on stilts, which would cost maybe 25% more, on the WR site, explains why they would look at other options where in previous years speed (which site can be delivered first) would often justify a higher development cost, the focus as changed in recent years to keep development costs as low as possible. Equally, the last Tesco new store development programme I saw didn't include either a Wakefield or Castleford store being delivered in 2012. This programme is fluid and projects get added and projects fall off in the last quarter of the year previous, but generally that programme is the one that matches the budget set!

As for the other sites Tesco are looking at, the information I have is that Tesco have other site options in Castleford they are looking at instead of WR, but I have no idea where exactly those other options are, but a site up near the bus station has been mooted.

The 'industry' is saying WR is no longer in Tesco's plan for a new store, and that is now coming from many different sources, that is as much as I can tell you.

No, I don't believe the hear say because I hear completely differently. It's quite common for Wakefield fans to come on here spouting off about our position without any semblance of fact rather than what they hear on the streets. The majority of it actually turns out to be poppy-cock.

At the end of the day, most of the sites along the River Aire are at risk of Flooding. There is only the town centre that isn't really affected and there are no sites big enough, certainly for the ones like Tesco will be eyeing up, for such a site. They're going to have the same problem everywhere, Hicksons more-so, the Bus Depot (and significantly worse highways problems too), Nestle (which is probably closer to the River Aire). Even Edinburgh House's scheme is probably on the cusp of it but I think it has flood defences down there behind Davison and Robinson.

Anymore, for anymore? In, short, the flood risk will have been sorted a long, long time ago and I'm sure Tescos reassured. Hell, even Opus might foot the costs to sort out the stilts.

Quite possibly Fully, but I'm a great believer in the duck test

Just be open to the possibility that Wheldon Road may not happen after all these years and investment from several places.

If time wasn't a factor there would be no issue. But we all know that's not the case.

All I'm saying is be fluid in your contemplation and expectations, it's far less likely to hurt if things do fall apart.
Yes I would consider Junction 32, whilst we continued on with our own designs, if the RFL would allow it. Would you do similar if the shoe was on the other foot?

The trouble is Bren, if it looks like a duck it most probably is going to be a duck. However, in your test you don't account for outside influences. In this instance, it could look like a duck but someone could have genetically modified that duck to make it go 'moo', in which case is it really a duck? Alternatively, I prefer to allude to the Zebra test in the popular American TV sitcom Scrubs (and in real-life medical circles) whereby when people hear hoofbeats, they automatically think horses, not zebras. (i.e. when you hear something you automatically think the easiest assumption rather than something more unlikely). Re: Opus, they only have Castleford Tigers on their website of listed properties - no other sites. www.opusnorth.co.uk/properties.php

The trouble is Bren, if it looks like a duck it most probably is going to be a duck. However, in your test you don't account for outside influences. In this instance, it could look like a duck but someone could have genetically modified that duck to make it go 'moo', in which case is it really a duck? Alternatively, I prefer to allude to the Zebra test in the popular American TV sitcom Scrubs (and in real-life medical circles) whereby when people hear hoofbeats, they automatically think horses, not zebras. (i.e. when you hear something you automatically think the easiest assumption rather than something more unlikely). Re: Opus, they only have Castleford Tigers on their website of listed properties - no other sites. www.opusnorth.co.uk/properties.php

Ok Fully please enlighten me, You say you know this not to be true. Go on prove it or are you just blinded by the amber wool you have over your eyes.

I am a Cas fan, I want this as much as anyone. But I have been told by a high up Wakefield counciler who is a Cas fan that the project as it is today is almost dead.

Reality my friend not nice but RW is out of his depth and dare not/ Will not tell us the facts. Come April he wont be able to hide but he will pedal a statement blaming everyone but himself.

Happy Xmas forget about the stadium its not going away fast!!

I would hope that no Wakefield fan would poke fun after what we've been through.

As I said previously, the time has come to think (again) seriously think about a move to Stanley. This doesn't have to be permanent, but if it keeps your club alive can it really be that bad.

After the past week we all know which site the council needs to happen, the other would be nice, but doesn't carry the same benefits to the wider community, therefore doesn't carry the same weight.

As we stand now, Junction 32 would be great for Castleford and great for our council. But doesn't service the whole region in the same way as Junction 30, as it's a privately owned facility and doesn't possess the same range of facilities.
Junction 30 is seen by the council as possessing a lot wider reaching benefits and will essentially "be on their books" so will satisfy central government in terms of sporting and leisure provisions. It will also have education facilities and the much needed jobs.

Junction 32 in many ways can be seen as "an added bonus", Junction 30 is seen as a necessity in a great number of ways. All this makes you wonder how the feasibility study would have ruled if done objectively, which was all Wakefield ever sought.

Staying at Junction 32 may be a bitter pill to swallow but could save you in the long term.

Happy Christmas Castleford fans.

And this post takes the small piece of fact and adds a whole lot of "what I think is"

And so the merry go-round continues. I'm as bad because I got dragged in against my better judgement to which I appologise

What are the timeframes for Newmarket then?



With all due respect, both will bring in jobs so that's a mute point. Also, J32 already has much of the infrastructure in place which the Council and or other companies won't have to foot the bill for. Who else is using the stadium as a community facility aside from WTW?



It won't be on their books as they're not funding and they won't be paying for the upkeep of it. That will come down to the Trust? J32 will also have education facilities and provide jobs. Also, all the jobs will not be provided immediately.



Are the Council not objective then?

As Binks has said, you've made a point and added in a load of 'I think' similar to my comments above. The argument is moot. We both need new stadiums, they both bring benefits to the local community and so forth and so forth.