A community stadium is not a privately owned stadium whose owners can hike up the price of rents to suit themselves profiteering excessively.

And remember that RW has actually being ASKED for his comments, not simply offered them.
And I have to say, I'm not sure what it is that isn't true?
Edit - sorry, meant to post on VT.

Yes he was asked, it doesn't mean he had to give them. He should have declined to comment rather than trying throw a spanner in the works of another RL club.

NT, Richard Wright and the Cas club are assisting the people who are objecting to Newmarket, should he/the club have "offered" any opinion at all.

Or should Cas have stayed out of it, seems to me Richards got a few problems with GH and should be working on that.

I suppose it depends on the old fence and what side of it you may be standing.

Oh Dear

So Barton Willmore were never going to mention the feasibilty study fiasco or the fact that groundshare at GH is a possibilty. All the letter does is confirm to the inspector that their 1 paragraph statement in that regard is still the case.

I think you should be much more concerned about the other 31 pages of their statement.

If that is the case I misunderstood, I thought he had been asked for his comments for the PI by the relevant decision-making body.
However, it's business. One company will always object to another company doing something that might endanger their long-term success.
I wouldn't worry about RW's letter - there are much bigger obstacles to NM than this!

No he's been asked for opinion by the objectors and he's spun it.

CEO of a SL club trying to stop another building a state of the art stadium, yes its business and yes NM will no doubt have hurdles to jump.

But IMO he and the Cas club are out of order.

One thing to me sums up his actions and true intent. On being contacted to comment a fellow SL club, Wright never showed a degree of integrity. He should have contacted our club to inform us of the approach. He should also have told us what his intentions were and at the very least asked us if we were happy with what he intended to say.

YES . Ive had the mis-fortune of been with one for two whole days

Simple Minds also springs to mine.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible, its making you look more foolish than your grammar is.

All he has done is confirm what was said last year when the council asked if there was a possibility of a feasibility study and RW said we would and your then leader refused to enter into it. There is nothing in the letter that wasn't in the public arena last year so why would RW have to inform the Wakefield that he had been asked the question - after all it is nothing new.

I'm sure you'd be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot.

Ho well I will after give my view to which part of cas the new super market should be built....