Fair enough Jakey. My post was motivated by the passion I have for the club,

Why would the Rugby League object to two of its members ground sharing? Clubs share with football clubs.
If MC is reading some of this stuff he will probably just feel like walking away .
Yeah it's desperately sad , all I am saying is let's try our best to make wherever we locate to work.
If we do not give it our 'best shot ' we will never know .
Defeatism breeds defeatism.

Its interesting to compare the NRL model where the authorities don't want suburban grounds, but would rather move all fixture to big stadiums... fewer and fewer clubs are able to sustain their traditional base... particularly in this day and age where such a small portion of the fan base actually 'walk up" to the stadium.

last season the sharks would have been prevented from holding any play off games at their own stadium! regardless of their position at the end of the regular season.

Maybe we should be actively transient... play some games at Elland Road... some at Barnsley some at Doncaster etc. In real terms the distances are insignificant, and as long as the training is local and community/ commercial facilities are in the city it would be workable.



One closing comment... do we love our parents less because they no longer live in the traditional family home we were brought up in?

Do we no longer visit and have fun?

Maybe we could be mould breaking rather than constantly being judged for trying to fit in!!

We love them just as much. However since they moved house it is more difficult to visit and see them as often as we want to.

When the ground was owned by BoI people referred to some covenant which said the ground couldn't be used for any other purpose than rugby until Trinity had a new permanent home in Wakefield (latest incarnation being Newmarket). Does anyone know if this covenant still applies since the ground was sold on?

It wasn't a covenant as such but a planning condition that was last linked to the now lapsed application for housing that BV had on it. These can be applied to be removed on future apllications and us voluntarily moving out of the ground (and the area if we turn down Fevs offer) would strengthen the chance of that happening. From memory the last condition specifically mentioned Newmarket. The last time it was tried to be removed a few years back part of the reason it was refused was that theoretically Newmarket could still likely happen within the timeframe of its own planning application. Thats not the case anymore. And to that changes in government policy meaning Sport England being less vociferous in these matters nowadays and i doubt the owners would have a great deal of trouble getting it removed.

When should we consider a mass protest I'm been serious when we all get together we can make some noise if we get on calender or look north or something it's exposure box does not want. We need to do it.

I don't know TBH.

However nothing stopping you organising one - via here or facebook and twitter - don't reckon it would take much.

Personally I'd suggest blockading Newcold - Mr Yorkcourt won't like that and it's about time he got the message. Again just a suggestion but food transportation is time sensitive and even modest delays can become an issue - awkwardly parked cars are always a nightmare but not necessarily illegal

If the actions of Wakey fans start to effect the Newcold business, they will quickly get on to Yorkcourt to get it sorted. Cars can really break down in the most inconvenient of places some times can't they

With such a recognisable face you could be the front man for the campaign

I'm getting armed with a grate of de icer for the Newcold scum, once they're thawed out its on to P Box C Mackie and R Walker.
NO SURRENDER
Up the Trin

Because they are after extending the operation which involves the Newmarket site and Yorkcourt - not going to help Yorkcourt finalise a deal they have worked so hard to steal is it. Apart from the obvious logistical problems I seriously doubt the Newcold people would want to be drawn into such a murky issue which so far they are not tainted by.

Also I'm not sure about this but I thought the company in this case Newcold owned the lease, the developer always owns the land - I may be wrong but I though that's how they build up a portfolio and an income.

HTH

It doesn't work like that. I'm not seriously suggesting we park dozens of cars in front of the plant forever and a day. It's about creating an illusion of conflict that may get the press interested and thus create a wider issue that the others parties could seriously do without. It's not naive I think it's based on what's called Guerrilla marketing, Katy Hopkins?? I think her name is in the Daily Mail is an expert at it.

It won't stop anything by itself but it fuels the debate and boy this issue needs refuelling.

Impossible to prove as regards the cars - unless there are yellow lines the then we can park outside the plant whenever we like and having looked at the access we could certainly make life awkward without breaking any laws at all.

It's not like everyone else isn't playing the game. Every organisation even one as criminal as Yorkcourt has a soft underbelly, it's a shame Newcold would have to suffer but as we innocent Trin fans know that's life.

Not sure but I'm sure Fil will explain the laws of parking your car and causing obstruction on the highway, not to mention the cctv camera's and the gate security men what will throw a spanner in your plan, you might get away with it once by causing a minimal delay, what next? as I say a naive and not very well thought out desperate plan, why not use up all the energy and target the real culprits.