An asset of community value doesn't seem to be as good as I first thought.

[iThe ground is listed as an Asset of Community Value, meaning that any sale by Cheshire Sports would have to be up on hold for six months to give the club supporters ’co-operative group the chance of raising the cash for a bid of its own.[/i

rlSourcerl


The council still have to pay out in the situation at Stockport - would they be prepared to do the same at Wakefield;given their conduct thus far?

rl2 Million Poundsrl

You would know all about that sort of thing wouldn't you?

Cas Tigers - doubtful but Steve Gill's (Tigers CEO) burgeoning relationship with Mick Carter (Wakey CEO) does worry me. Wouldn't be popular with WTW or Tigers supporters.

Fev - a possibility and a chance to stay in the district. Capacity up to 8000 so adequate for either SL or Championship. That would be my choice if I supported Wakey.

Barnsley FC - that would be me guess who they have been in talks with. A massively wrong decision moving out of the district to a stadium with a 23000 capacity.

Another possibility would be Dewsbury but only if relegation to the championship was definate.

The obvious answer is for the Tigers and the Wildcats to share a new stadium.
The problem would be will they ever share a new stadium.

Why not go the whole hog, combine the two and called themselves Calder...

Assets of Community Value - Right to Bid - isn't the be all and end all some have suggested. The Community Group that nominate it need to be a legal entity at point that someone decides to sell. It only stays in place for five years, but if need be the community can reapply for another five year period. If the owner decides to sell they can not without informing the council, though a sale to someone who would continue in that use might not trigger the ACV. It does prevent the sale taking place without the Community Group knowing and gives the opportunity for fund raising as you identify. If the owner decides to sell they inform the Community Group who have six weeks to decide if they want to make a bid to purchase it. If in that six weeks the answer is yes then the six weeks extends to six months. During this time the only group that could negotiate with the owner is the community group. However at the end of the period it is an open market sale and the owner can sell to whoever they please, but the site remains as an asset on the register. It is a material consideration for planning purposes and would be identified in any land searches. It therefore might not be that attractive to another purchaser.

I don't know the companies background but an ACV is a restriction and could affect liquidity as the owners can not cash it in immediately. There is support out there for groups looking at ACV and while Pubs may not seem an obvious example CAMERA have been very active in advising. Also Govt created a support programme with expert advice and pre-feasibility grants up to £10k to help groups develop the capacity and larger grants up to £100k to help in feasibility to take ownership and manage. This programme was due to be replaced by the Govt this year. Try contacting The Social Investment Business Group or Locality. Though suspect the supporters group will already know this.

You are stealing my arguments. I have been saying this for years.

I thin that ship sailed in 1998, try and keep up !

Next you will be suggesting that Man City & Man Utd merge

What !!!

Thats's about as likely as those two Hull clubs ever working together .... oh, hang on....

Rugby League and Rugby Union, right? They’re fairly similar games with a shared history, it would be far better to just merge the sports and pool resources. No point competing against each other. Just imagine how big the game could grow. All those who would be against this idea are just narrowed minded idiots.

Is the Cas stadium on the site of the proposed Cas/Wakey stadium from a few years ago?

I remember some quite hostile opposition to it from my hazy memory but it looks the most logical option to me.

But surely a Rugby League club and a Rugby Union (ie 2 clubs with a shared history) could share a stadium, facilities, staff and costs? And therefore help both clubs to thrive?

Cas have changed location (again!) on the new stadium because a new company has come in and said they'll build one with a shopping centre and a nature park. It's pretty much over the road from the previous attempt to build a new stadium.

As for any merger talk...give over, Wakefield would offer less than zero to Cas...in fact, it would be detrimental to the work being done at Cas over the last few years.

A stadium share? If Wakefield were willing to pay Cas for the privilege and one missed payment sees them booted out, sure why not?