How long is this situation going to continue about these new ground developments going to continue? I wonder if they are exploring the option of selling up and moving out ?

If someone has got a sit down ticket in one of the other stands (as the SS wasn't available), would they swap and refund the difference to make it back to a South Stand ticket.

That would test to see if they are a shower-of-e.

It seems to me that whoever the club uses as it's planning consultant badly underestimated the level of opposition to the building of houses on the two plots of land that were to provide the balance of the funding. https://yorkshireccc.com/news/view/5249 ... ment-delay The delays could be disastrous on both sides of the ground.

It seems to me that whoever the club uses as it's planning consultant badly underestimated the level of opposition to the building of houses on the two plots of land that were to provide the balance of the funding. https://yorkshireccc.com/news/view/5249 ... ment-delay The delays could be disastrous on both sides of the ground.

Jelousy seems to get to you. No need for it mate, I was not looking for jelousy.

Called them this morning and switched back to the South Stand. WHOS WITH ME!!!

it might help if you could spell jealousy

Jealousy?? More like entertainment value

Impossible to do as the two are inter-linked structurally. You couldn't demolish the cricket side without destroying a load of Leeds property and you certainly couldn't attach the cricket roof to the existing RL stand even if it was somehow still able to stand up on its own.

If it came down to Yorkshire being ready to go but Leeds not having got the associated permission that effectively funds half their total development, Leeds would just have to do the north stand first and leave the south stand as a future project. The rebuilding period would be painful without the extra seating in the South Stand but they would have to find a way to make it work.

Yes, I'd imagine YCC would far rather release a statement to the effect that their part of the redevelopment would go ahead, were that the case. As it stands, the statement they've put out hardly reinforces the impression of a strong bidding position for future tests. Which is something they'd otherwise be looking to nurture.

Now, who was the great-crested newt-loving member of this board who was so opposed to development of land owned by the rugby operation?

Is the SS still about the fall down, can't remember what happened when they did the minimum remedial work needed a couple of years ago?

Just wondering out loud how long they can put off the redevelopment of the SS?