|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1743 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2019 | Aug 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote rupert bear="rupert bear"Our ground will be built before yours, we've got planning permission, we've got funding thread number 9,857,231 and counting!
God help us and give it a rest.....'"
From what i have heard, 2 to come down and Widnes and fax to stay up, this is why Noble and Cas is not a done deal yet, He is waiting for the announcement at the end of the month before taking up a position which i am hopefull will be with the Mighty Fax.
Cas and Wakey to go down, 3 years to develop their stadiums, they have loyal fans who would stay watching them and supportiung them giving them bigger income streams to get their houses in order without suffering the financial consequences of recent times.
To be honest this would show Franchising to be a success, Cas and wakey have had far too long to do something about stadia etc and still nothing. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 10634 | Wakefield Trinity |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Faxhali="Faxhali"
Cas and Wakey to go down, 3 years to develop their stadiums, they have loyal fans who would stay watching them and supportiung them giving them bigger income streams to get their houses in order without suffering the financial consequences of recent times.
'"
Sounds about right to me.  |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 588 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2024 | Dec 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Any response to IA alfie, or has he trumped you again  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1347 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2022 | May 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote dickie mint="dickie mint"Any response to IA alfie, or has he trumped you again
'"
No need friend, Dove Haigh Phillips and I are right, he is wrong, end of! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 501 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2013 | Feb 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote TRB="TRB"In reply to the above I would concede that there are challenges ahead facing the club both in relation to BV and NM.
However, the opening poster would do well to reflect on the challenges facing his own club rather than highlight those of a neighbouring club (this is all the fault of franchising!). Having generally kept to the side in relation to the cross-club fights over stadia I now feel that in considering the relative positions of both clubs I need to highlight the very real issues faced by our neighbours - namely that despite having both the land and the planning permission for the new stadium, they do not have the funding without obtaining planning permission for a supermarket on their existing ground which is =#FF0000AGAINST local planning policy. This does not mean it will not happen, however it does represent a very real barrier that must be crossed and one that could be both costly and time consuming. Until this happens - no GH.
'"
Correct TRB. Directly contrary to be fair.- The council want Wheldon Road for additional housing. NOT A SUPERMARKET. This will be a LONG and DRAWN-OUT AFFAIR- Savilles must see this plain as day!
=#FF0000The development of this site for housing use is supported in principle, subject to potential flooding issues being resolved. The Sequential and Exception tests must be fully satisfied in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk (2010). This will be determined prior to the submission of the Site Specific Proposals document to the Secretary of State. The proposal will be conditional upon the removal of Health and Safety Executive consultation zones, which affects its phasing, but otherwise development will only be permitted if it is in accordance with Development Policy D32. A transport assessment incorporating a travel plan will be required. In relation to the Air Quality Action Plan, a planning obligation will be required to offset the increased road vehicle trips. Possible ground contamination requires investigation, as does the possibility of landfill gas migration into the site. This is a large site that will have a significant impact on public transport and will need to be looked at in more detail, for example regarding re-routing services or providing contributions to new and more frequent services. Improved pedestrian access to the riverside and the route to Allerton Bywater is required, in association with the Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan. The shortfall in off-site quality greenspace will be addressed by a financial contribution. A contribution for primary education places is likely to be sought.
The proposal is in accordance with the spatial development strategy, performs well in terms of the sequential approach, and mitigation measures are considered to be capable of resolving, or minimising to an acceptable degree, constraints and sustainability issues.
The proposal will make a financial contribution to off-site local highway network improvements, necessitated by the scale of development proposals impacting on central Castleford and the local highway network in general.
Could be a HUGE struggle, one which before it reaches it's ultimate conculsion could well be subject to a PI.
If a PI were to happen to my club, I'd at least want it this year/early next  Not any further down the line!
We know first hand how hard it can be to swim against CURRENT planning regulations, although in fairness with the LDF site specific doc (the very same doc that could cripple Cas) we appear to have the tide running with us for once.
Nobody likes mudslinging, but if that's that order of the day lets at least get it correct! |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1347 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2022 | May 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote G.Price Fan Club="G.Price Fan Club"Nobody likes mudslinging, but if that's that order of the day lets at least get it correct!'"
Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong!
Right - let's get things straight - FACTS
At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document.
The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing.
After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site.
Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.
The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.
Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.
I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you? |
|
Quote G.Price Fan Club="G.Price Fan Club"Nobody likes mudslinging, but if that's that order of the day lets at least get it correct!'"
Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong!
Right - let's get things straight - FACTS
At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document.
The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing.
After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site.
Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.
The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.
Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.
I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you? | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5035 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2021 | Oct 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote bigalf="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong!
Right - let's get things straight - FACTS
At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document.
The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing.
After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site.
Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.
The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.
Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.
I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you?'"
Schooled
But this wasn't going to end any other way really was it, Wakey go into defensive mode and spray random crap around and hope it sticks. |
|
Quote bigalf="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong!
Right - let's get things straight - FACTS
At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document.
The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing.
After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site.
Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.
The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.
Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.
I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you?'"
Schooled
But this wasn't going to end any other way really was it, Wakey go into defensive mode and spray random crap around and hope it sticks. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 997 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Apr 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Gronk!="Gronk!"Schooled
But this wasn't going to end any other way really was it, Wakey go into defensive mode and spray random crap around and hope it sticks.'"
Crap has been thrown BOTH ways during all of this. Anyway this will all come out in the wash during the next year or so. Groups of both supporters have become defensive at times. What i think is funny is when a poster puts up a genuine question about the others development, only to be labelled a trouble causer/troll/whatever by the other side. Some people have been very defensive when asked genuine quesions that need answering constructively. After all these questions may be being asked at a higher level than here. |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 129 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2018 | Mar 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Have to agree, why has this turned once again into a Wakey and Cas slanging match. The OP has produced a document which aims to dispose of Wakefields current ground to the highest bidder. Wakefields lease ends at he end of the year. These are real valid questions which if i was a Wakefield follower i would find quite alarming to say the least.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2016 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2013 | Jun 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Maybe Cas and wakefield should merge  then the extra spot might mean the RFL bring up another team and keep Casfield tigity wildgers in sooperdooper league. it makes sense, you lot obviously love each other deeply, you just cant stop talking about each other, or slagging each other off, which as everyone knowns, is often a sign of deep seated and mutual sexual attraction |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | Rochdale Hornets |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote bigalf="bigalf"No need friend, Dove Haigh Phillips and I are right, he is wrong, end of!'"
I am wrong am I? So Sport England and Wakefield don't hold the key to discharging this condition then in having to agree to the new location? Lets not forget, this is a Grampian Condition, so it has serious legal precedent behind it and it is not a straight forward situation!
The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England and given this is a Grampian condition, the developer of the Belle Vue site would surely lose in court.
I am sure our 'estate agent' will be advising any potential buyers to seek legal advice in respect of this condition prior to purchase to be sure of their position. I am fairly certain what the advice is likley to say... and that is you can't start work until a suitable site has been identified and work completed to provide a new 'field'. The good news is that the field usually goes down once the stands have been built! |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5035 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2021 | Oct 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Inflatable_Armadillo="Inflatable_Armadillo"The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England and given this is a Grampian condition, the developer of the Belle Vue site would surely lose in court'"
But when making a contract is it up to the writers to make sure every little detail is in and anything missed out can be used by the other party to gain an advantage, such as wording it as "playing field" as opposed to "facilities fit for development into a stadium".
Which, in this case would mean that there would be no case in court because a poorly worded contract is not the fault of the person(s) taking advantage of it.
Ideal wording would have been something like [i ...facilities fit for development into a stadium for use by a professional sporting organisation.[/i |
|
|
|
|
|
