Absolutely... the answer is 42... but what was the question again?

I hope not and I try hard not to let things get too personal, although occasionally, I have lost by rag with one or two posters in the past... many of them aren't allowed to post any more though... which justifies it I suppose!

That requires some deep thought!

Weird, but I've just been listening to the BBC Radio series again - and I've just got to this bit!

Oh, and mods - please don't lock, there aren't too many threads where Wakey and Cas fans agree - they should be nurtured and treasured!

Yes there are...

You're just contradicting everything I say! That's not an argument!

Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning.

I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site.

The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'.

I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!!

I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?

I used to think you were quite unbiased in the whole stadium saga but week after week every bit of news about newmarket you put a positive spin on even when its negative like the decision to go to PI and everyweek you seem to think of another potential pitfall or negative thing to say about the cas stadium plans.

I dont know what your angle is but its becoming clearer and clearer you have your own agenda (my persoanl guess is that newmarket getting built will make you some money and that will be less likely to happen when gh gets built, but it doesnt matter what your reasons are you clearly have an agenda) here and your losing more and more credibility.

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning. I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site. The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'. I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!! I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?'" You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning. I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site. The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'. I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!! I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?'" You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.

IA's only motivation is ensure we're awake to the actual situation.

It may seem like he's being constantly negative and trying to pick fault in every aspect of Cas's plans but that's just us being cynical.

Yes it is

Quote ="danny boy1"You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.'" I agree whole heartedly, IA now proven to be nothing more than an anti Cas retoric troll with some inside information on the planning process. I will now cease to read any more of your posts IA, as you are basically spouting opinion and trying to dress it up as fact.

Quote ="danny boy1"You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.'" I agree whole heartedly, IA now proven to be nothing more than an anti Cas retoric troll with some inside information on the planning process. I will now cease to read any more of your posts IA, as you are basically spouting opinion and trying to dress it up as fact.

IA is wrong though regarding the petiton being debated. Check the WMDC website regarding petitions.

I am with you on this

Quote ="danny boy1"You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.'" I really don't want to do this to you mate, genuinely, but you need to read the whole document before you make such a big statement. This document does actual confirm exactly what I was thinking! Sorry! Quote Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it: relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, =#FF0000the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.'" They can't discuss this at full council, even with 15,000 + signatory's because of the legal process of planning. If they did they would, as I stated, would make things worse for planning on WR not better!

Quote ="danny boy1"You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.'" I really don't want to do this to you mate, genuinely, but you need to read the whole document before you make such a big statement. This document does actual confirm exactly what I was thinking! Sorry! Quote Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it: relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, =#FF0000the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.'" They can't discuss this at full council, even with 15,000 + signatory's because of the legal process of planning. If they did they would, as I stated, would make things worse for planning on WR not better!

I would like to think and will take this as a genuine comment. Thanks Kippaxer, that is what I am trying to do.

It looks to me like someone, as several other posters have also done above, is not fully read and understand the guidelines. I suspect it is nothing more than a genuine error but clearly, it is an error!!!

YOU can still present this petition to and as part of the planning process of course, which is totally valid in the planning process.

Look, I do know I write long posts, I write as I speak... and anyone who knows me will tell you that if I can use 10 words instead of one, I most certainly will!



Please see my posts on page one of this thread (the fifth one down it quite relevant to one of your points) - [urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835[/url

That is the answer, you don't have to believe me of course... but that is the answer!

Quote ="danny boy1"You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.'" Having read the full guidelines, although the council should strictly reject the petition, I don't think they will do that as it make them look unreasonable.... and it would be I think as well. I think they will actual just write back to the lead petitioner saying that the matter can't be debated by the full council for legal and regulatory reason as it relates to planning which has it's own national legal process. As such the council will pass the petition on to the Head of Planning, either supporting the application, if it is already gone when the petition is submitted or in 'anticipation' of a future application. It will be then part of the planning process and be debated by the planning committee when the application comes before them at some point in the future.

Quote ="danny boy1"You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark! It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way? Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying! www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Scheme.pdf 7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.'" Having read the full guidelines, although the council should strictly reject the petition, I don't think they will do that as it make them look unreasonable.... and it would be I think as well. I think they will actual just write back to the lead petitioner saying that the matter can't be debated by the full council for legal and regulatory reason as it relates to planning which has it's own national legal process. As such the council will pass the petition on to the Head of Planning, either supporting the application, if it is already gone when the petition is submitted or in 'anticipation' of a future application. It will be then part of the planning process and be debated by the planning committee when the application comes before them at some point in the future.

So you say, so you say... again!

Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it:

relates to a matter where there is already an =#FF0000existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.



They are not appealing anything, Planning isnt in yet! they are disscusing the matter, thats the difference. The meeting will be about the impact of the proposed development for the local economy and what will happen when it is built. They wont be talking about how many parking spaces they are putting there!

regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.

The issue is compromising the planning process... this is a bad thing for getting planning on WR not a good thing!!! The members of the planning committee would be legally compromised by discussing this, they would simply have to leave the meeting and I doubt that the legal service team at the council would advise the full council to exclude the planning committee members for this and other democratic and legal reasons.

My only point here is that the full council are unlikely to be able to debate this issue and if they did or were forced to do so, it would make things much worse and not better! Asda and Morrisons, who will both object, will have their lawyers on this like a shot and would have a possible good case to force an independent inquiry.

If someone can point me in the direction of information that absolutely contradicts my interpretation then great, but I do think my reasoning is sound.

As I said IA, you have well and truly come out as anti-Cas, why would you otherwise post this stuff on here? As has previously been said, even though the NM project was known to be risky at best, all you did was come out in support of it and blasted the locals (NIMBYS as you referred to them as), now the locals in Castleford have almost to a man woman and child, come out in support of this, so what do you call these people who actually want the development in their own (and not your) backyard? maybe BIMBYS.

Fair enough, you say you live near the NM site and say because of that your voice should be heard OK I'm fine with that, but you do not live near the Wheldon Road site, so why do you have such an interest in trying to derail this?

Bloody hell, it is like the Flat Earth Society around here!

Firstly, where else should I post it?

On the Wakey board? - No, this is nothing to do with Wakey, if I had posted my original post there then it would be anti-Cas trolling would it not?

On the VT? - Same applies really, what the hell as it got to do with the rest of RL supporters!

Secondly;



Hypocrites R Us eh! 'Even though the NM projects was known to be risky at best'... you mean in your opinion? The opinion that the entire planning committee did not share with you but agreed with me and others who support the development! It was statutory referral and as such, always carried a greater than normal risk of a call-in, I and Wakefield City Council officers didn't think it would get called in... but if did. We were all wrong! But will we be wrong again in less than a years time... we will have to see? Either way, it does and will not change my opinion about the suitability of the Newmarket Development.

I continue to call them NIMBY's, because I am not a hypocrite, I think that the majority of objections in relation to Newmarket are for no other than NIMBY reasons. I always acknowledged that the Greenbelt and ecological issues were different and as such justified within the process, both I and Wakefield Council officers think that it is justified... now the planning inspector will decide and he will either agree of disagree! Simple!

Who said I don't support the development of WR and I am trying to derail anything? Not me mate, once again someone makes a sweeping assumption about my opinion on something with which I have not really yet expressed an opinion!!! I will say again, you do have to be careful not to ass/u/me too much!

For the record, I am pro-development (obviously) and as such, when the proposals are publicly issued the likelihood is I will support the development (possibly with some conditions, just like planners!) but equally I have not seen the plans yet, so signing a petition to support something that I have not yet got adequate details of is not going to happen. I will wait, see the plans, form an opinion based on firm proposals and let you know... is that OK with you?

You will note and find that one of the first supporting comments for the reserved matters application for GH was from... me! But apparently I am anti-Cas!

Finally, you still don't get it do you!

I support BOTH Cas and Wakey retaining SL status, I want BOTH Cas and Wakey to get new stadiums but I want both sets of fans to wake up and smell the coffee!!! I think this petition is distracting Cas fans from what they should really be doing at this stage (the petition should come when Opus actually MAKE an application, after July!), putting pressure on the RFL to give both clubs another three years to get this sorted. I am trying to make you and others realise that while RW has to play the smoke and mirrors game (as AG and JE do too) to some extent, you don't have to and if anything it might be the biggest mistake Cas fans make!

What happens if Cas get kicked out ahead of Wakey... who will RW blame... the council now of course... it will be everyone else's fault except his and the clubs... he is covering is ass and taking risks, he has no choice in many ways, but the fans have a choice... what is yours?

It might work... but what if it doesn't??? Does a 15 team league seem a better idea... when you are not in the 14 team one?

This supermarket is, as I have said before, very likley to happen... but if you think it is going to be in the next 2 to 3 years, never mind 12 months, you are kidding yourselves. This proposal, has nearly as many issues as Newmarket and those issues will need to be addressed, discussed and resolved and compromised on, before this gets planning.... which I think it will

Like I have said... the Ostrich pen is that way >

Perhaps you'd like to set up a meeting with him and tell him exactly this. The club phone number is 01977 518007. Get an appointment and go in and speak to him man-to-man. Tell him you could do his job better than him while you're at it, that you're an expert in all things to do with planning and that you can show both him and Opus exactly where it is they're going wrong.

This will serve two purposes:
(1) You'll come out feeling a bit less superior than you did when you went in.
(2) It will stop you coming on here and spouting puerile garbage like this on the forums.

Don't judge other people by the way that you'd behave.

IA, I really don't think you are helping matters by coming on here and rubbishing the petition, the people of Castleford are firmly behind this and it's in their back yard, it is their way of informing the council that they wish this development to go ahead.
I fail to see what purpose is served by you continually knocking it? What axe do you have to grind, especially if you think it will go ahead anyway, the petition is asking the council to make the planning process a priority when the application is submitted, Opus will have dotted the i's and crossed the t's when the plans are submitted, they are experts in this kind of development and it's not a matter of trying to bulldoze plans through that are not in the interest of the Castleford public. This development offers a fantastic opportunity to a part of town that has been allowed to be run down, it is within easy walking distance of Carlton Street, it will open up the riverside and some of the planned investment is to improve the infrastructure at that end of town, it really is a win win situation for the town.

On the other matter of numbers in Superleague, I honestly believe we should have a 16 (not 15) team Superleague, I believe it would eventually lead to a better international team, with more English players playing at a higher level on a regular basis, we've all seen what John Kear has done with players not thought to be good enough to make it at Superleague level, those players have definitely raised their game whilst at Wakey and appear to be improving all the time. However, I don't think the RFL will increase the number of teams, but reckon this is mainly a matter of current Superleague teams not wanting to accept a smaller share of the pot, rather than the other arguments that are bandied about of there not being sufficient talent to go around.

To be fair, your have a point. On reading that back it looks like I being very critical of RW and as I have said before, I understand why RW is doing exactly what he is doing and in many ways, if I were in his position (which I am very glad I am not) I think I would possible do some of the same things. (The RFL are my real issue and I will explain why later). However, I also think that in trying to present the best possible case to the RFL and the public at large he, like all good politicians, has to spin things to present the best possible case and that often means only presenting half the truth, not lying, but telling only half the story. The problem with that is, this not like most business, the business of sport includes fans, fans to whom supporting their team, local rivalry and passion for their team, and the game, trump everything.

The issue here is what are RW's choices and I would go one step further and say, what choice have the RFL really given RW, which is the real issue for me? I think the answer is no other choice than the course he is taking, but that also means telling the very people who care passionately about your business only part of the real situation... and that is the rub.

If RW came out and was honest about what I understand the real story is (which, I admit I could still be wrong about) which is that Opus stand a good chance of pulling this off longer term but this is not going to be done overnight and could well take well into the next franchise period to sort, but the best option to financial fund a new stadium is to realise a commercial sale value for WR and this is THE best current option, I think the fans would be happy with that. Lets face it, some of the fans do know that this is probably the real story anyway! However, if he says this then is he, under the current franchise tension and fears created by the RFL and this whole sorry process, scoring an own try and casting doubt over the strength of Castleford's bid. Truthful, yes? Wise, almost certainly no!

This is where I morally start to struggle and the reason I sat on my original post for a couple of days. However, I personally think that this is coming down to such minor things that if someone does get kicked out, it will be for reasons that I consider to be paper thin between these two great clubs. I really do have issues with this and that is the reason I have posted the information I have. The latest stuff about the petition is just a genuine thoughts I had and because that has been done by the fans (the bit about it being put before the full council if you reach 15k) for the fans I just thought someone should know. The problem then for me is everyone then comes on pulling me personally apart, so I have to constantly defend my position, which remains unchanged, and that end up in conflict with certain other posters... just like this one, because they can't see past this petty Cas v Wakey argument!

I think Cas and Wakey fans should really be putting their efforts into taking their case to the RFL to give them another three years, by which time both clubs should be in new grounds or well down the road of being in one.

I think a petition of 30k people to the RFL pressuring the RFL and other clubs (and their supporters) to keep both clubs in would be a better use of 'fans' energy. By all means come back to the petition for WR, but between now and July, I think you both have the wrong focus... sorry!

Finally, as for showing Opus where they are going wrong, I don't think they are doing anything wrong at all... not quite sure you think, I think they are? Remember, I do get paid for working with and by organisations like Opus for professional advice, although not specifically in the planning field, so I would have every faith in them (just like I have in Yorkcourt) to get the best possible deal for themselves and Cas if mutually beneficial.