With you there Steady. Join forces, push for stadium delivered, betwixt, as near as possible,the two sets of fans.

Thanks for the reply.

I would however point out that one of the justifications in the inspectors report for passing five parks was your ground would realise cGBP 3m and you had debts of cGBP 2.3m so wouldn’t be much left over to fund a new ground. In any event there is no mention anywhere that I can see that says you are gifting wheldon road to lateral for them to develop.

There were numerous reasons for passing it. We badly need a new ground, that's well documented. Overwhelming public support and of course, the economic benefits and facilities it would bring.

On WR, we aren't giving Lateral anything. We're keeping Wheldon Road too. Lateral needed the support of CTRLFC and a purpose to get FTP through planning. Without us, I don't know if it would.
Sorry, also if you may have misinterpreted something. I just thought I'd clarify if something triggered that comment from my post and then I can explain what I meant

My comment was to say if you are not gifting wheldon road to lateral or selling it and putting money into the new project then the fact you own your own ground is irrelevant is it not?

Well, not entirely, as it means we still have an asset to fall back on, which we don't have the threat of being kicked out of unlike yourselves. It also means we're not at the behest of a landlord.

The application ruled out us doing up Wheldon Road because the costs would be extortionate and time consuming but in all probability, it may come to that as a plan C/D/E if we ever have to go down that route.

Apparently we were talked out of buying belle Vue, if we hadn't be we might have had a ground

You're not wrong, but it seems like an impossible dream.

I agree a community facility for the Wakefield district is much needed. One or more of the districts sports clubs as anchor tenant would be great ensuring it is used regularly but the exact location does not matter as long as it is in the Wakefield district surely.
The main criteria for WMDC is how to fund it so it would be the cheapest option for them.
Regarding Castleford / Wakefield, each club has to get the best deal for them to ensure a future but as it stands at the minute Glasshoughton seems to be the only one on the table.
I personally support Wakefields campaign but think there is not a lot of mileage in chasing the council as time is not on the clubs side maybe.

What a stupid remark !!!!

WMDC could 'do up' Frickley Athletic ground that's in the district,are you suggesting if that were an option both clubs would be happy.

Better still let WMDC spend money on a ground in Ossett, I am sure that would be acceptable to most Trinity fans. So over to you and go and put that as a credible suggestion to rest of your Cas chums.

You seem incredibly naive. A ground share would only work on some sort of neutral territory like Normy. A ground share at Glasshoughton would mean Wakefield die a slow death, likewise if, for example, you shared a ground with us at somewhere like Belle Vue or Thornes Park it would be suicide for you.

Correct.

I also find it hugely frustrating that the best and most realistic option is unavailable to us long term due to it being about 400 meters outside of Wakefield.

Anybody know if we could force a boundary change?

Even then Box would probably conspire to stop us playing there.

Vasty

The more you think about it, the more credible it becomes. I would argue it is more central to our core support base than Newmarket and much closer than a mythical site in Normanton.
Excellent transport links, Jct 40 MI up the mad mile and bingo you are there !
Further to that I would say the fact that it is 400 yards outside the WMDC boundary is a bonus not a negative.
Plus its in a much 'nicer' area than Bellevueistan