Correct. There's a high percentage of Cas fans who want all this to go belly up. Instead of stirring up a frenzy about us they'd be better rallying round and putting all their efforts in to ousting tricky dicky the spin doctor

Ive had many debates with people in the pub about newmarket and they list all the objections we`ve heard, all the while wearing a tigers shirt. Funny that.

This is all good stuff from the Express and about time. I hope some copies of the paper were placed face up in the Town Hall so the inspectors just happen to see.

Exactly, its a good start from the WE, but lets just see eh?

Yes there are many Castleford fans in and around the Methley area and that leads me to be really suspicious about the Cllr Wakefield led LCC objections.
Is all this green belt erosion stuff purely a smoke screen for the true motivations behind the objections?

I still read it in the shop and put it back on the shelf, saves a bob or two.

Yes it's 70p now!!

In a word, yes.

I have a few questions about the articles. It raises a few issues, that I was concerned about. It was possibly badly written or not the most up to date quotes in place, but I thought the following issues had been cleared up.

I was confused about the bit where it says the club is currently losing £200k a season. I thought we had started to earn a profit now the new bar and food deals had happened?

The articles say that the lease on the ground runs out at the end of next year. I thought that there was something in place about there protecting the ground until there was provision provided elsewhere? Also, is that just the deal currently in place, or is there possibility of an extension at BV if needed?

I was under the impression that a lot of the community work was self funded via a wildcats community trust, and therefore in turn not dependant on the club other than an outlet for the good work to go?

Anyone know the answers to these please?

It wouldn't be very clever for JE to appear in the media whilst the PI is ongoing, admitting that if NM doesn't happen, everything will be ok.

Quite rightly, he's describing the worst case scenario.

That wasn't what I was asking, I was wondering whether these were recent quotes about the scenario. i.e. Are we really losing £200k a year NOW, or was that a quote from back the start of this year? If so, it is an misinterpretable use of a quote by the WE. It can be got round by saying that the last years accounts show a yearly deficit of £xk, etc..

And if the lease IS renewable, if we definitely AREN'T out at the end of 2012 as was implied in the piece, then it certainly doesn't read like that. My understanding was that as long as we are happy to keep paying to use the ground the ground was still usable, regardless of what division we are in.

The £200K quote is an old out of date one, AG announced last year that we were now running at a small profit.

Firstly, that is GOOD news that we are making a profit.

Secondly, isn't it bad form by the WE to have 'inaccuracies' portrayed about the business of WTW. Whilst we still have a load of armchair supporters around / inactive support, then we need to make sure that these inaccuracies don't occur in the press, its not going to get them on board if they think the club is still a failing concern.

It is possible that objectors to NM may pounce on a perceived 'failing business' and say that an investment in a facility is not necessary if they are not making a profit. As we ARE making money and are a sustainable business we are in a position of strength with regard to NM, and the WE trying to give credence to an out of date statement of position is NOT what the NM project needs in my opinion.