Let's be honest though, the KC Stadium is really for Hull City and the rugby team have managed to get a new ground on the back of that. So Wakefield at Oakwell would only be the same.

I'm sorry but it wouldn't be the same at all.
The KC stadium is slap bang in the middle of Hull FC's core support infact it is less that 1 mile away from their previous home, It was built with both Hull FC and Hull City in mind.
Neither of those points are in anway relevent to Wakey playing out of Barnsley.

The KC could operate without Hull FC. It couldn't without Hull City.

I wasn't aware that applications had been handed in. I wasn't aware that you'd read the said applications either. Unless of course you are saying that the whole process is a complete waste of time and that the RFL have picked their teams already?

Is oakwell 20 miles from all other RL grounds? Could be a cunning ploy to get two extra franchise points

Think the Keepmoat would be closer than 20 miles? Maybe others too.

From reading the licensing criteria, I don't think location has been included again for this season.

Why don't wakey play somewhere completely different, like, I don't know - Ireland for a few years? It's as realistic as the getting good crowds in Barnsley. They'll have to play in the Wakefield Council area to get good enough crowds to even sniff at licence material, so they should approach Cas to get a groundshare, at least until they can move to a stadium of their own. It's the best they can do.


Or they can play in South Yorkshire for 3 Years.

Merge Cas and Wakefield, playing out of the stadium Castleford claim they are going to build, rename them Wakefield playing in blue and white with an orange away kit as a nod and a wink to the old era.

Ah I see so now you are changing the arguement.
You said the KC stadium was built for Hull City.
Now as much as it pains me to say this it wasn't.
If either Hull City or Hull FC had not been onboard it would not have gotten built.
That is completly true BTW.
So like I said nothing like Wakey at Barnsley.

You embarrassing yourself again, I see.

Considering Hull City were in Division Three (that's League Two now for the kids, or the fourth tier of English football for the Grandads!), I very much doubt the council would have invested the money they did in a stadium for a lowly football team on its own! In fact, it's a guarantee. So no, the KC wouldn't have been able to operate without Hull FC. It wouldn't have been built, and thus Hull City would still have been that cr*p (instead of only a little bit cr*p like they are now).

And how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that Hull City and Hull FC sharing a stadium that's actually IN Hull built for both teams and used by both teams for the same amount of time is anything like Wakefield moving OUT of Wakefield to a stadium built for Barnsley, owned by Barnsley and IN Barnsley (which is about 10 miles away from where they used to play), let alone "the same"? You keep telling yourself that, fella!

Even a Rovers fan is disagreeing with you, and they usually take any chance they get to have a dig at the FC stadium sharing, that's how wrong you are!

Not sure if that's a sarcastic comment or a genuine suggestion from yourself, but just in case, Barnsley is in South Yorkshire...

It's only 10 miles down the road, so it's not that bad a situation. It's the same situation that Saints are in. Like I've said, it's something they should have done a few years ago (especially at the start of this license) in order to meet stadium criteria because Belle Vue is by far the worst ground in the league.

Castleford seem to be getting very little from this deal for the stadium that they've built for THEIR club other than an away kit!