Some people just can't say "sorry I was wrong". You must be a lonely chap.

didn't cas breech the salary cap the year they beat whitehaven in the final? somthing to do with the signing of adrian vowles?

Dear me that's an angry post

My days of being impolite to the likes of Smokey have long gone, I just treat him like an old cantankerous uncle.

Strangely, poor grammar annoys me more than someone who says black is white.

i'll think on next time,or perhaps not.

No, flower.

We had an administerial error where something on the documentation wasn't filled in correctly.

It would be a disaster for Cas. For Wakey, it would make little difference. There is no evidence that the rental agreement will be the same as Salford or Leigh, and even at Belle Vue Wakey are pulling in a lot more than Salford do at the new ground.

The reason it would be a disaster for Cas is that the new Wakefield ground is perceived to be that, Wakefield's ground. Pushed by the club and in Wakefield. Fundamentally, not in Castleford, and Cas are very much a local club.

So it is highly likely that Wakefield would get much higher crowds than Cas playing out of a stadium in Wakefield. So you would have two clubs that are directly comparable. Who would have the most money? Wakefield. Who would be most attractive to the better players? Wakefield. Cas would end up looking like the poorer relations, and so if we stick with franchising, which club would win out if the RFL wanted fewer teams from particular districts? Wakefield.

What would be in it for a merger? Nothing. Wakey averaged over 8,000 this season at Belle Vue. 10,000 as an average is therefore achievable at Newmarket. The stadium will seat 12,000. Why do Wakefield have to do anything other than the things they are doing now? Marketing the club around the city and bringing in the punters.

Explain ?

One of the common complaints of Leigh fans seems to be that the rent expected from the club makes it hard to be competitive, as they are being charged what you might call a "market rent". The same at Salford, where they have to achieve a certain crowd growth to have a chance of being profitable. From all I have read about Wakefield's ground agreement, I understand that the rent will be nearer the "peppercorn" style, due to the nature of the organisation behind the ground.

That's exactly how I understand it and seems to the major factor that most NM refuseniks fail to understand; we will NOT be in a Salford situation, because NM will be leased to the Trust by the developer at a peppercorn rent and operated by the Trust on a not for profit basis.

I'm not pulling this out of the air by the way - it's all right there in the documents on the planning portal.

Happy days. Almost.

It isnt the rent that is the problem, it is the loss of revenue, so will Wakey continue to make income from sales of consessions ? , will they have to pay for office and shop space? , will they be in complete control of their corporate income?

It is all these things that are the issue at Leigh, Salfords, I dont know but summise they are similar

I'm not sure of the specific details, but it seems reasonable to surmise, given the make-up of the board running the Community Trust, that the terms will be favourable to WTW; also, given the reduced rent, the imperative to compensate for outgoings in the form of rental payments by squeezing every last penny out of other sources of revenue will be less intense.

Sounds very much like how it was sold to us

I was vocal on the Salford board in the 15 months build time explaining if they didnt spend heavily on marketing to pull in the extra 3/4,000 they needed to hit break even it would fall apart at the seams, they didnt and it has, I suggest the same applies to youself