Why WMDC purchased the site is irrelevant, the fact is they did, and having allowed the re purchase for a minimal amount and then the subsequent sale to a developer, the fact remains the club has gained rather substantially. I would suggest that no money has ever been spent on Belle Vue although the club has recieved substantial sums for it. Meanwhile we the fans have been promised stadium after stadium which have never materialised, but like most people I have witnessed those sites been developed into industrial units. Why should I expect anything different from the Newmarket proposal, history proves that it is most likely industrial units we will see at Newmarket not a stadium. Call me a sceptic if you like but we have seen and heard all this before.

Irrelevant?No,not really.
If you cared to find out why,you would then realise how ridiculous your previous comments are.
No money ever spent on Belle Vue?
I can only presume that you must have a different understanding of the word "no" compared to the rest of the world.
How much do you think it costs each year just to get a decrepid old ground like Belle Vue up to the minimum standard for a safety certiifcate??
I presume in your world -- nothing!!!

Wakefield paid full-whack for the ground - more than what they sold it for anyway - that was the deal! As it was, WMDC were a creditor in the CVA, therefore they did not recieve the full amount as due under the terms of the contract.

Re. TP - I did say that WTW did NOT ask WMDC to fund the stadium - WMDC took that decision on themselves and assured us that the funding was 'ring-fenced' (I think much of the £20m or so they thought it was going to cost was to come from the sale of Leeds-Bradford Airport - as it is, that money has gone into the Hepworth - with few complaints, unlike if Trinity had been the beneficiaries!

). TP was never meant to involve an external developer, and yes, we did pass the responsibility to WMDC, but only based on the assurances on intent and funding.

Hey ho!

I like the way you just skim over the passing of responsibility, when that is one of the Key issues here, from what you say you had your destiny in your own hands and gave it away. How can you complain?

With regard the Hepworth why not invest in something that has been under invested in Something that not only serves the people of the City but also visitors from outside the city. If we want to be seen on a par with other cities then these are the sorts of things we need and perhaps people out side of rugby league cans see this.

Add to that the fact that their are Two other teams in the district it was always going to be a long shot that the council would invest £20 mil for the good of one and not the others.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but what exactly was our alternative plan to the Thornes Park option? And why was it not possible to explore both options simultaneously?

Back to Ted, I think it was petty and unneccesary to mention Cas - perhaps he should concentrate on coming up with a Plan B for our own club. All the accusations he levels at Cas ("big talk", no action, missed deadlines, etc.) could just as easily be thrown back at us. Perhaps he's hoping to deflect from the catastrophic decision to sell Belle Vue, the clubs place of business and major asset, without securing an alternative venue first. I would have thought that was a decision the clubs owners should have been a party to.

I do not believe there is anyone at the club with the talents to deliver a project of this magnitude. Maybe it is Super League or nothing for the Richardsons - the gravy train for family and friends probably won't be economically viable in the Championship.

unpaid tax bills, unpaid players, iva, cva. block of flats fiasco, denby dale, thornes, ossett, newmarket. starving the club of investment. players being sold, westwood, pitts,ellis, atkins, brough. thats just a few things teds done successfully off the top of my head but ilthink of some more. are you a family member,

I don't think Trinity went along with Thornes Park in the hope that it would be funded by the council, but on the promise that it would be. The two positions are entirely different, and it would have been madness for the club to have said, "no, you can keep your twenty million, we're spend our own, thank you".

And the council wasn't being entirely altruistic, as it suited them to be seen to be providing sports facilities in a city that was near the bottom of the league nationwide in such things. It had little to do with rugby.

IA

Crimson 1969.

www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1185 something else for ted richardson to put in his pipe and smoke.

www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1185 something else for ted richardson to put in his pipe and smoke.

That stadium looks pants compared to ours. I would rather wait a few month and get our great new stadium passed. Jungle looks better than that !

He doesn't smoke a pipe.