I could think of a few names he could call himself next.

In my experiences (i have a close family relative with a disabitity)people are very quick to form opinions, and generally very quick to understand and apologise when explained to them the reasons why.

Says alot about Sandal Wildcat/Gary Price fan club/Trinitarian WF2 doesn't it?

Expect a new identity next week.....

Whatever happened to that well known Poundland van driver, Squire "Chissitt"?

Has he done a "Dr Who" also?

Not in time for the next license round. If by then one of us (I concede it looks more likely to be Wakey at present) at least has building underway the other will be praying for a miracle reprieve courtesy of other clubs self-destructing (a la Crusaders). In that situation Wakey, who have arguably passed through the last chance saloon already, would IMO be more vulnerable than Cas and less likely, if demoted, to fare well enough in the Championship to make a rapid return, regardless of whether NM later came to fruition.

Bottom line...only in something resembling the above scenario can I envisage 2 new stadia in WMDC and even then only one of them would be hosting SL fixtures.

Since you've offered your "thoughts" on NM, i just have one for you on GH.
If NM is passed and we've crossed all of your other obstacles, by the time Cas are in the position to start building GH, IS IT a POSSIBILITY that, what with the economic climate being what it is, the view on the need for two new stadia being built in the district may have changed?
What i am suggesting is that GHs FPP has been passed, but as yet that is based on no other stadia being built in the district at that time of being passed.
Due to NM going to PI, it cannot have been taken into consideration by the planners and should NM then pass the PI it would/could alter the horizon for GH.
So if NM goes through is it a possibility that in fact NM could have a lot more than zero impact on GH than you think.
FWIW i hope we are both in new stadia in plenty of time for the next round of franchises comes around, and someone else cops it or the league remains the same size or grows accordingly.
But we all know/assume, it doesn't work like that.

Are you trying to say that NM getting passed would somehow alter the planning permission for GH?

No he is asking if it would change things.

I cant see that it would change things for cas at all, NM has no benefit for cas, NM it has much less earning and crowd potential for cas, so to answer his question no it wouldn't.

to clarify:
my question is, IF NM goes through, would it make a difference to the planning needs of the district and therefore Cas, taking into account, GHs FPP was given when no other stadia in the district was taken into account, now that one (NM) is being built?
Does the horizon alter for GH IF NM gets the go ahead, from a planning and economic POV, from within the district and particularly from the planning dept?

If GH got full funding a month before the PI decision do you think it would change the minds of the people deciding the PI.?

Won't make any difference right now. The only time it might become an issue is if nothing had happened at GH by the time the current FPP runs out in April 2014 and a renewal had to be submitted. Then it could be reviewed as part of the process.

Don't think i'm clutching at straws, because i'm not.
A few people have posted over time, Fully being one (and the one who my question was aimed at in particular) , that the there IHO is a strong possibility that only one stadium would get built.
IF NM gets the nod, and we will probably find out the answer to that before Cas announce they have a buyer for WR IMO, would the fact that NM wouldn't have been taken into account as an objection to the FPP being granted because of the PI, would that be taken into account retrospectively?
The financial difficulties, and better use for the land from a planning point of view etc, are these all issues that could retrospectively manifest themselves, or is that not possible legaly etc?
I don't know thats why i ask, i do kind of buy into the one ground for the district argument, purely from an economic point of view, but not from a continuation of two teams from the district continuing in SL thing.

Honest answer, I'd like to think not, but i think it could, on the grounds i have previously mentioned.

Who would be objecting to GH on these grounds?

Economically it makes far more sense for two grounds to be built, it brings a lot of money into the local economy from external sources (yorkcourt and opus) whats more it guarantees 2 sl clubs in the district which brings a lot of money into the district, not to mention concerts etc which can bring a huge amount of money into the local economy. Economically the district gains a lot from two stadiums being built, the district loses money if two aren't built.

I have never heard of a legal precedent of PP being altered because of another PP being granted.

Don't wtw still have to apply for PP if the PI is favorable too?