Go on Mopsey!!

The attention seeker is likely to do what he as done before when arguments go against him, vanish for a month or 2.

Give me links to the sites where you have found this info.

1: The fact that Caddick made the threat is the big clue that explains why YCC were never going to leave - it was always a non starter.

2: Did WMDC have plans drawn up? Surely it was the developer. I think WMDC's involvement in this is far less than you seem to think. As far as I'm aware there involvement went no further than that of being the administrative body in which the land was situated. It amazes me how minor things grow into enormous legends on and are spouted as the truth. I think you actually believe they were but I can't find any reference to it on the web.

3: I don't deny some knowledge, I just deny that I have the in depth knowledge on absolutely everything you seem to claim.

4: The Box comment was brought up at one of the SWAG demo's if I remember correctly. It sticks in my mind, sorry for remembering.

5: "Assuming that this land did belong to a private developer as you say rather than Wakefield council why would the land be more expensive, surely the council would have a duty to the ratepayers to sell this land at a premium" I don't know what value or use WMDC would have put the land to if they owned it - but thats not relevent - it wasn't the point - the point was as far as I know they didn't own it. Just wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

6: I'm not implying anything about what Ted did or didn't do - I leave pure speculation up to you, you're good at it. What I'm suggesting was that without the involvement of YCCC and considering the land values at the time any scheme would have been beyond the cost Trinity alone could afford. That's Trinity the small RL club not Ted the individual. Just how much money do you think the club could muster?

Mopsey, it's not your fault or mine that you haven't been involved in the meetings etc that I have in the last 6 years. I know it makes me sound like a smug know it all at times but I can only say what I think I know even if unfortunately I can't always say where or whom I heard it from. I understand the frustration and why gossip and speculation appeal so much in the absence of hard facts. Trust me (I know you won't) the likes of TRB would love to tell you every grubby detail of what has gone on regarding the new stadium over the past 20 tortuous years, he could write a book on it and so could I. Sadly we simply can't. Once you get to a certain level you know quite a lot (how true it is only comes out later sadly), you have to trust people but can't say anything and it makes you feel like you are cheating the folk you claim to represent. Yet you know you can't tell it how it is all the time, that is the way of the world. You have a job and I'm sure there are things you and you're company do that you can't divulge.

Having said all that I'm not suggesting for one minute anyone in SWAG knows the full story or that we have never been lied to, we bl**dy have and been made to look chumps but you move on. I'm also not saying your theories are totally wrong, but you can't just shout them at people claiming them to be fact. You have to be able to back them up, something you and many on here just don't do. Say what you like about SWAG we back up what we say with as many facts as we can and some form of explanation. Not always right in the long run but there you go.

It's not my intention to pee you off, just to let you know what I know (right or wrong) as honestly as I can. I have no personal agenda, I don't care about Ted (though personally I always found him OK) I care about Wakefield Trinity RLFC. At the end of the day you and me behaving like a dog with a bone helps no one, Teds gone and we are in the crap and nothing we say about Ted will change that. What we need to do me include is move on and support the new before we as a club dissapear.

There are two facts.

1: We have a potential buyer(s).

2: Newmarket and thus SL are still viable as far as I know.

Up the Trinity!

So Im an attention seeker if I post and when I don't I'm still a tw*t, that's a real win win - no really.

Just occasionally in life you get the felling "I'm so much better than that". You give me that feeling -it's wrong of me, I'm sorry - but it's a guilty pleasure - thanks.

I never said you (or anybody else) was a tw*t.

I'm not contradicting anything I'm saying it as I see it - how you wish to read it is up to you. I'm not a pulitzer prize winner, I knocked my reply up in my dinner break without the help of legal council. I'm sure you can twist anything I say if you so wish, but I'll carry on saying it.

What I do find strange or contradictory to use your buzz word is how the rules of perfect and flawless comment only apply to the likes of myself. Yet oddly when Mopsey peddles IMO his own flawed ideas nay rants not a dickie (pardon the pun) bird. How odd, how contradictory, how typical of the shoot from the hip - say what a think brigade. Still silly me, I did tell TRB what to expect so I shouldn't expect any better myself.

So to make it's simple and to avoid you over using the quote button I'll ask the base question again. Give me a link on the mighty world wide web where it states WMDC ever owned that land. I can accept Teds part in any deal is hard to prove from either perspective but surely the ownership of said land which is key to the discussion is a matter of public record. There's no symantics in that question, show me and I will believe, without it you have no case at all - I'm waiting with an open mind - show me the money.

Because YCCC have a 999 year lease to play at Headingley.

As a member of YCCC at the time (even have the video and booklet produced by the club and WMDC at the time somewhere,) the mandate of the membership was to leave Headingley for Durkar, and the only thing which stopped the move was the action from Caddick and the inability to get out of the lease agreement. If that hadn't happened, Wakefield would now host Test Cricket.

silly me for expecting anything else

Quote: dickie mint "icon_biggrin.gifOH: silly me for expecting anything else Show me the money! Anyway I've found a few links, but nothing that confirms who owned the land at Durkar. However reading them leads me to believe it wasn't WMDC who are barely mentioned. www.independent.co.uk/sport/york ... 72053.html www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... shire.html

Quote: dickie mint "icon_biggrin.gifOH: silly me for expecting anything else Show me the money! Anyway I've found a few links, but nothing that confirms who owned the land at Durkar. However reading them leads me to believe it wasn't WMDC who are barely mentioned. www.independent.co.uk/sport/york ... 72053.html www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... shire.html

Damn Ted to hell

Here's another link www.network54.com/Forum/274761/t ... never+was' Whilst it doesn't explicitly state that WMDC owned the land, it's hard to imagine they didn't. Not that it matters much either way any more.

Here's another link www.network54.com/Forum/274761/t ... never+was' Whilst it doesn't explicitly state that WMDC owned the land, it's hard to imagine they didn't. Not that it matters much either way any more.