Fwiw all the above mentioned posters are all the same poster currently banned on the Wakey board as well as on here I think. Hth.

[i"At present Castleford are a well run sustainable club that lives within it's means. Whilst hamstrung by an inadequate facility and the restrictions on commercial revenues and supporter base this causes, the club makes a good contribution to the Superleague.

Significant growth of the business is reliant upon the club moving to the proposed new stadium to enable further investment"[/i

WUMS spoil this site, the facts are what we need.............This is what was said by the RFL. There were no "promises"

Quote Donnyman="Donnyman"[i"At present Castleford are a well run sustainable club that lives within it's means. Whilst hamstrung by an inadequate facility and the restrictions on commercial revenues and supporter base this causes, the club makes a good contribution to the Superleague. Significant growth of the business is reliant upon the club moving to the proposed new stadium to enable further investment"[/i WUMS spoil this site, the facts are what we need.............This is what was said by the RFL. There were no "promises"'" You obviously didn't follow the utterances of Richard Wright. They did go back a long way. How about - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 163521.stm.

Quote Donnyman="Donnyman"[i"At present Castleford are a well run sustainable club that lives within it's means. Whilst hamstrung by an inadequate facility and the restrictions on commercial revenues and supporter base this causes, the club makes a good contribution to the Superleague. Significant growth of the business is reliant upon the club moving to the proposed new stadium to enable further investment"[/i WUMS spoil this site, the facts are what we need.............This is what was said by the RFL. There were no "promises"'" You obviously didn't follow the utterances of Richard Wright. They did go back a long way. How about - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 163521.stm.

There's a faux frenchman and some clown supposed to be from Knightsbridge who seem familiar "on the other side" but lets stay silent on that.....Here we go.......

[i[u"The club (Wakefield) continues to face a number of challenges. The stadium position is uncertain, and the significant challenge for the club will be to deliver the commercial and supporter growth required for the club to trade in a sustainable manner whilst improving competitiveness on the pitch"[/u[/i

[i[uTargets (for Castleford) for Castleford are to a degree based on the move to a new facility. They are a well run club that lives within it's means whilst hamstrung by an inadequate facility and the restrictions on commercial revenues and supporter base this brings[/u[/i

Neither club got any help from their local council on the basis that they would have to shell out to all three clubs (inc Fev) or none at all. Obviously other clubs have managed new stadia through being "advantaged" in certain ways including help from willing councils.

There were never any promises at all, just statements from the RFL stating the blooming obvious. However 10 years on both these fine clubs remain a valuable part of Superleague despite the pure bad luck on the stadium front. Having said that .Mr. Carter's hard work at Wakefield is admirable, despite some pathetic jibes.....

Quote Ornery Optimist="Ornery Optimist"You obviously didn't follow the utterances of Richard Wright. They did go back a long way. How about - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 163521.stm.'" Where in that piece are you seeing the words "We promise to build a stadium by X date"?

Quote Ornery Optimist="Ornery Optimist"You obviously didn't follow the utterances of Richard Wright. They did go back a long way. How about - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 163521.stm.'" Where in that piece are you seeing the words "We promise to build a stadium by X date"?

I tip-toe into this debate with apprehension because I'm not a Wakey hater. But (and I could be wrong) wasn't it the case that Wakefield's application for promotion (I forget the year) was based on the pledge to improve the ground. And then both Hunslet and Dewsbury were denied that same right as champions, because they couldn't make the same pledge?

Yes. You are wrong.

Of course there was a commitment to improve the ground - and in truth there have been improvements. But no, gaining promotion was not conditional on the promise of "we will build this, by X date".

On which part?



I didn't say that. More of a pledge / commitment. I'm just wondering could Hunslet have made a similar fairly ambiguous commitment and thus been promoted? I know people use this as an issue to beat Wakey with which I'm not at all interested in, but that whole promotion lark for a few successive years was so sketchy. But then when hasn't it been?!

On the part where you said "I could be wrong...".

The irritation for us, on top of the fact that we are still battling to get the stadium/upgrade we want, we have to listen to this urban myth of "you only got in SL cos you promised X".

If you say it enough it becomes the truth, it seems.

Improvements have included; a new (proper), toilet block, 2 terraces roofed, changing rooms refitted (even added a heating system last year), and upgraded crush barriers on all terraces.

This year already; re-roofing of the building you will know as Cats Bar and new floodlights gone in in the last month.

The new stand should start in Sept.

Emphasize "should".

It may well be frustrating, but its not difficult to see why that will have taken hold. You get promoted after winning the 1998 Division 1. The next year Hunslet win it and get told they are ineligible for promotion due to their ground. The following year Dewsbury win it and get told the same thing. So either your ground was good enough, or you promised to make it so. You are saying it's the former. I don't know which is true, that's why I was asking.

https://www.webcitation.org/5roV185aT?u ... 722356.ece https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2009/ ... dium-plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... e-11606958 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bra ... 533503.amp https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ne ... wakefield/ Granted not a beacon of truth, but Wikipedia states that your 2007 application for the 2009 season mentioned being in a new stadium by 2010. You were told you wouldn't get a licence in 2011 without improvements of which you made none. You got in because Crusaders folded. Similarly, Cas according to those articles would be in a new ground by now and currently have what appear to be bushes growing out of the terraces.

https://www.webcitation.org/5roV185aT?u ... 722356.ece https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2009/ ... dium-plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... e-11606958 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bra ... 533503.amp https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ne ... wakefield/ Granted not a beacon of truth, but Wikipedia states that your 2007 application for the 2009 season mentioned being in a new stadium by 2010. You were told you wouldn't get a licence in 2011 without improvements of which you made none. You got in because Crusaders folded. Similarly, Cas according to those articles would be in a new ground by now and currently have what appear to be bushes growing out of the terraces.

Quote dboy="dboy"Where in that piece are you seeing the words "We promise to build a stadium by X date"?'" Will a headline which includes the word ' promises ' be sufficient? https://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpr ... ium-698678

Quote dboy="dboy"Where in that piece are you seeing the words "We promise to build a stadium by X date"?'" Will a headline which includes the word ' promises ' be sufficient? https://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpr ... ium-698678