Forget this irrelevant nonsense will somebody please cast some more light on Charlie's rumour about the smiley blow up men?

Its a lot of money but putting it into the perspective of a super league club it's not an insurmountable figure.

as always we have sold them to hudds, but as always we have got in exchage some not quite as smily blow up men one of which is broken and the other we had already but we can now keep him, no cash has changed hands and this deal was for the good of the club.

buy shares now!!

Tut utter rubbish, do not believe a word!

They where replaced by Paul Cooke

No you are wrong, he was too tall and couldn't bend down far enough

to be fair not the first time i have hear the words "paul cooke" and "blown up" in the same sentence usually with the words "should have been"

They went to Hudds and unfortunately we got Ceejames in exchange

If our major creditor is HMRC then my understanding is that if we went into administration then this would not protect us from their tax demands. I may be wrong on this point , can anyone clarify? What was the situation with the Welsh club and Sheffield Wednesday with regard to this?

The winding-up order against the Wrexham club was halted after it was found that the outstanding bill was paid.The Wrexham club stated it was an error by HMRC and that it had been paid earlier.* cough *

With Sheffield Wednesday Nick Clegg MP and joint prime minister got involved and then Milan Mandaric bought the club for 9 million pouns and paid HMRC.( Should he be convicted shortly it will be interesting to see if he is allowed to remain or if he would pass the 'fit and proper person' test.

Hi IA

That is the point. The document is a "draft" but as you know the Newmarket proposal of 30Ha had the most "on-line" objections 75% (I have no idea about other written ones etc)mainly fron individuals, but one from Leeds City Council, and one report compiled on behalf of residents by a leading Planning Consultant Firm who highlighted amongst other points the following:


"We also object to the process and the robustness of the assessment in identifying this site for development."


You use the term "Highly likely" in your posts and on your poster, but people have to remember that the document you keep referring to is a "draft". The final document after consultations as above have been taken on board will go before the Council sometime soon (late January/early Feb). When ratified by the Council it will go for further consultation regarding the process and then it will pass to

The Secretary of State - Eric Pickles who will

Appoint a Planning Inspector to conduct an Inquiry into the Councils proposals and as you know he will take into account the Yorkcourt application.

So to say that development of part of the site is "Highly Likely" may be a bit over the top.

Some may equally say that it is "highly likely" that the Inspector may throw out the proposal for the 30 ha development.

Well if we are going to cut and past our discussion into more than one thread mate... and I am being accused of being paranoid!

While you are right in most cases I am not sure about the ability of the SoS to call a public inquiry on this element of the LDF (in fact any LDF or part of it), mainly because that sort of what the LDF process is already, a public inquiry! Also, I suspect (believe it or not) that some other issues of the LDF site specific document are going to be even more contentious... think traveller sites, I think Newmarket might be minor in some ways!

If he could do that, you are forgetting one key issue, the magic 95ha, which was a recommendation by exactly the same office (albeit with a different boss) and is now untouchable until 2021 as it is legal requirement of the in-force core strategy. So the SoS office can't simply say sorry, find a more suitable site, unless they actual is one (and is there... because you better tell someone quick?), they can't change their mind either. All the four sites identified are currently Green-belt (as you know) and the other three sites are all currently agricultural only, this means they come further down the list than Newmarket which is reclaimed land, so to be honest three other sites get knocked back before Newmarket, the biggest and most suitable of it's rivals (so to speak). You changing your mind yet... I am sticking with highly likely!

I will check this but as far as I am aware the SoS office can only make recommendations to changes to an LDF and not force a public inquiry or force changes, the final say belongs to Wakefield MDC. They have never failed to vote for a recommendation in the LDF process made by the SoS office so far but if he recommend taking this out of the LDF, I suspect they might not listen to him, especially if he didn't have any better sites to suggest! Leeds objection will not carry the weight here (like it appears it did for the application) as well, they should have been more vocal at Core stage, any objection from them now is sour grapes.

This boat has sailed and while it has not quite reached port they are getting ready to dock and the only thing likely to stop it is an alien attack from outer-space... so yes, I am sticking with highly likely (unless the aliens support Cas!).

In respect of PI on the current application, then your assumption is likely to be the other way around... if it actual gets to a PI now, the LDF overtaking a PI could actual mean it never happens! I do understand that the planning inspectorate can still rule, at any stage, to send this back to Wakefield if circumstances change!

PS. I like you best as allmatt, we disagree but I can actual debate the issue with you. Drop the BigAlf and just stick with allmatt on hear (I won't tell the Cas board).

Not any more. I don't really see what it has to do with the AGM/EGM either, tbh, but this thread seems to have run its normal course... Over to you and bigalf.

Cheers