thats what i thought, but its in for outline in fridays planning applications, is this something different

Plainly something people from outside of the district who advocate a merger involving the two clubs, and Featherstone, fail to grasp. It an artificial boundary.

The Wakefield District is only a politically motivated creation. A bit like one of these African countries set up using Empire borders but containing tribal divisions that can never be overridden.

If you've looked at the plans for both GH and NM it's blatantly obvious that they are as different as chalk and cheese.
One is very much a box standard "ikea" stadium, the other is a multi use sporting arena with corporate facilities that rival any in the county- and that's without mentioning the plethora of educational facilities on the site.

I'm sure Fully will enlighten you which is which.

Although the bottom line is (still) which is built first, all I can say is I can smell another PI on the way. The challenges we faced with NM under the UDP are just as big as those faced by WR under then new LDF. While our path appears to be clearing CT's could be just as muggy as it's ever been.

NM will be promise land, with NM the RFL will come crawling back.

That's lovely G. Price fan club, but what does any of what you said have to do with what is currently being discussed?

As the anchor tenants I would hope our view of Castleford moving into Newmarket would be seriously considered. The conflict of interest is there for everyone to see and serving as a home for Castleford would almost certainly damage the future prospects of Wakefield Trinity and therefore the stadiums main income stream.

The Stadium Trust might take the view that long term they are better off backing Trinity and protecting their long term revenue as opposed to backing any Tigers tenancy would only be short term.