Around 10 years ago Wakefield & Castleford stated they were going to have new stadium built . I was a guest of Rapid Solicitors in February 2013 when wakefield beat Hull Kr 36-20. , Andrew Glover and his American wife were sat at the table next to us , On our table was a chap who told me he owned a post office in wakefield and was a club sponsor , he was telling me that the new stadium was imminent . The hospitality at Wakefield was excellent , Mr Glover even got The Loveable Rogues to play at our table for the kids .

Around the same time Castleford were announcing plans for a new stadium , I think it was when Superleague Stadiums were given a rating by the RFL or SL ? .

Neither Stadiums have come to fruition , I think Castlefords was planned to be built near XScape .

Why is it taking so long ? . genuine question . Why havent the two clubs got together and offered to groundshare this may help the development of a new stadium .

Cas abandoned one stadium plan and are now praying some retail development company are building them a new stadium on a different site, but that's not going anywhere fast either.

Wakefield just forget it, that's needs not a whole thread but a whole forum to itself.

Around ten years ago, stadium facilities were part of the licencing criteria for Super League at the time so almost every club was, at some point, posting artist impressions on their website and in the local papers. Some clubs did manage to get new stadium developments through, others didn't - namely Wakefield and Castleford.

Neither club has the funding to go it alone, so they are reliant on either the support of the private sector, or local government.

Wakefield Council are in a difficult position because both clubs want their own stadium and, particuarly in an era of austerity, there money isn't there to provide that for two of the three clubs in their district. The reasons why both clubs want their own facilities are obvious. Aside from the geography and rivalry between the clubs, non-matchday revenue is vitally important to professional sporting clubs and it becomes very hard to generate that in shared or rented facilities.

Both have then turned to the private sector.

Castleford's original plan was to jump into bed with a retail developer (as happened at Warrington and St Helens), but that coincided with an economic recession and the rise of e-retail, leading to many retailers (particuarly big-box retail) deciding not to open new 'out of town' stores. Without the retailer to anchor the development, it was never going to happen.

Wakefield did have a plan to jump into bed with a warehouse developer, and a Section 21 planning notice was included as a condition for allowing that developer to build on green belt land. Without going into the finer details, the enforcement of that Section 21 has been botched by the council and the developer has used a loophole to get out of building the stadium.

Castleford's plan to date is to pursue a different site near Glasshoughton (I believe the development is called Axiom?). As far as I recall, the current plan for Wakefield is to redevelop Belle Vue along with some community facilities, but I may be wrong on that.

how can they both get SL licences without stadiums that meet the SL requirements?

cant keep getting away with failed promises to the rfl but seems they can

There's no such thing as an 'SL Licence', that's how. The stadium criteria has been largely (and quietly) dropped, although apparently Wakefield do have some of their central funding docked?

50k a year I think.

I can see this ones going to keep everyone amused for few weeks

where would you like to start, there's no common ground for both to share, but while the Wakefield council is run by castleford supporters we haven't a pray of getting a stadium in which green land was turn to brown to allow developers to expand Wakefields economy for the promise of a community stadium, the city was conned

out of interest and not wanting to light the blue touch paper too much, but let's say there was a major h & s review of facilities across sport (similar to the taylor report) and both stadiums failed to meet the criteria. how would supporters feel if the option was to share 1 new ground or drop out of superleague and play at a lower standard

Some years ago us at hull kr was having the same problem merge or share a ground with hull we said no and so did hull hull share with hull city football we have a ground but it is lease hold of some company we have just a couple of years ago built a new stand so if we can I am sure the pair of them can

Some years ago us at hull kr was having the same problem merge or share a ground with hull we said no and so did hull hull share with hull city football we have a ground but it is lease hold of some company we have just a couple of years ago built a new stand so if we can I am sure the pair of them can

I very much doubt a ground share will ever happen due to the location, either clubs fans would find it hard to call it home, had we not been told not to make a bid on the stadium at the time of sale I think we'd of owned ours, now its owned by another property developer.
when you talk about H/S it seemed at the time that one club could be overlooked while the other had its pants pulled down

Get off your high horse, you own 20% of the stadium you play in; never come close to filling it despite all the free tickets and have finished lower in the league than us 2 seasons in a row. I'd say providing we show willing (which we do) there's nothing currently wrong with where we play.

Maybe if we were allowed to absorb and rod Hudds like they did with Sheffield we'd be fine - I mean you got away with daylight robbery on that one didn't you.

Genuine troll question, jeez you're an obsessed bore.