We do, occasionally. See Wakefield Cup match.

I could live with occasionally.

Couldn't stop laughing when i read that, we have been in the play offs 4 times to there two! he kept repeating we had been relegated but glossed over the fact one of those was from 11th place, a position wakefield have finished in 5 of there seasons in sl, they were lucky they finished 11th so often in the years where you couldn't get relegated from 11th place. Didn't mention that if were not for cas in 2002 (iirc) they would have been relegated either.

4 times? 3 innit?

Nope, four.

1999, 2000, 2002, 2009

Sorry, yes, slip of the finger! Can't apologise enough. Now let's have a look at the overall stats in the light of this mistake...

Cas: Average 9th
Wakey: Average 10.6th

Can I just say that Cas were in a lower division in 2005 and 2007. Wakey were in a lower division in 1996, 1997 and 1998, so any penalty for this would adversely affect Wakey more than Cas. That's why I did it that way, to try to stop any accusations of bias.



I know that a new licence only takes into account how we feature during the previous licensing period, but I was trying to reply to the point made which was about the relative performances of Cas and Wakey during the whole of Super League. I've been accused in the past of springing too readily to the defence of Cas against people trolling on here which is why I've been more reluctant to post over the last couple of months, but this business is just getting out of hand - and in trying to set the record straight I seem to have touched a raw nerve again (partly due to the fact I mistyped a number into my spreadsheet, for which I sincerely apologise). For anyone who's interested, the 6th position I quoted was simply a typo, because when I checked it in my records (and double checked on the SL site) Wakey were indeed 5th.

Having looked at this in more detail, I fail to see at all where the figures come from.

[u(1) Relegation[/u

While it's true Wakefield have never been relegated, they spent the first three years outside Superleague. Cas have only spent 2 years outside Superleague.

[u(2) Average Finishing Position[/u

In the Superleague Era, as I've already posted, Cas's average finishing position is 9th, Wakefield's is 10.6th.

In Superleague alone (i.e ignoring any seasons spent in lower leagues), the average finishing positions are Cas on 8.3 and Wakefield on 9.25. In all leagues since Wakefield entered Superleague (i.e 1999 and afterwards), the average finishing positions are Cas on 9.17 and Wakefield on 9.25.

The only time that anything like your figures would apply would be if you averaged the three years 2008-2010 inclusive, with Cas on 9.3 and Wakefield on 8.3, which doesn't really fit the description "over the Super League Era"

[u(3) Overall Performance on the Field[/u

According to my records, Cas have played 346 games in SL, winning 143 of them (41.3%) drawing 12 (3.5%) and losing 191 (55.2%).
Compared with this, Wakefield have played 334 games in SL, winning 120 of them (35.9%) drawing 4 (1.3%) and losing 210 (62.9%).

Cas have reached the playoffs on 4 occasions, Wakefield have done it on 2 occasions.

(These figures are to the end of the 2010 season)

In conclusion, it's difficult to say that Wakefield "have a better on field record over the SL era than Cas" because the figures just don't bear it out.

So after all that, what's your conclusion Georgie?

Soz, Fully, I'm not allowed to draw conclusions any more because some people take me to task for it, (or accuse me of being anti-Wakefield).



TBH, I'm in a huge dilemma over this one because it's absolutely crystal clear that there are two very persuasive sides to this argument. All I can do is try my best to present the information as accurately as I can, hoping not to type the wrong number here and there, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Can I refer you to your quote as follows -



Paranoid Android was trying to present an argument, like you, that I have this massive anti-Cas bias, and he used a thread on SouthStander to try and highlight this bias. I think he was maybe been a little disingenuous himself because the primary thrust of this thread (if you bothered to read it?) was about Crusaders v Wakey and doesn't mention Cas. In response to some intimations by other posters that Wakey were the club to drop I did try and play devils advocate (I even say that it was I was doing in the post!!!) and try to show that maybe things are closer between Cas and Wakey than people think and go to great lengths to say that I was being deliberately disingenuous and had no problems with Cas staying in SL. I did take something someone else had posted about the average finishing positions of both sides as being correct, when clearly it wasn't (and I can take this on the chin), but the point was never to create a Cas v Wakey argument but just show how stupid and paper thin things had become.

Then, what do you pyeman and Fully do... you spend two pages running me and one of the facts down (which you are 100% right about and I am 100% wrong about) because of this post and the irony of doing just that is totally lost on you!!! You accuse me of bias but claim you aren't, even though I expect you to be (nothing wrong with supporting your team) and then you go and continue to turn this into a Cas v Wakey penis measuring contest... yet again!

My argument remains the same, I think that the current consensus view among RL fans (and even journalists) is that Cas are in front of Wakefield and this is primarily because of the stadium issue (I know there are other things, such as administration etc), I think that is grossly unfair and have posted information which I believe to be true, factual and of course 'of my opinion', based on these things. You say this is me being anti-Cas but I say (and know) that this is me presenting something that clearly Cas fans would like NOT like to hear, because by definition it seeks to shed light on what I think is Cas's overstated and over estimated position in the stadium race. You then all say, why not just keep your mouth shut then because this news is not positive and even negative towards Cas, and the answer is clear, I think both clubs should stay in SL and while this news is hard for you guys to hear, it does present what I believe to be the fairest possible picture. A picture and argument that not one of you has come close to challenging with any real level of information based debate. I think the RFL have made this about all about stadiums, because if it wasn't, why are Salford not being dragged into this argument... lets face it, we know their on-field record, junior development, crowds etc, etc are worse than both Wakey and Cas... by a reasonable distance (cue Salford fans now I expect?

). The RFL have made this about Stadiums (which I think is wrong in the case 'between' Wakefield and Cas) and you are and Wakefield are both in the same boat and that is why you should both get more time. You think I am biased because you don't like the news... well once again... tough!

Whatever dude, am still trying to figure out why you are so popular on the Wakey board and yet you are so vilified on here. Must be your neutrality that so offends/pleases people.

Right, must go after this post... I occasionally have to do some work and have a plane to catch!



I have just told the truth on there too but of course I am actively supporting Newmarket because I live close to the site and of course, the previous Wakey regime was guilty of understating and under-presenting Newmarket, and I don't want to get into a RW bashing argument again, so lets just say Cas have been much better at presenting the positives...

I know why some posters don't like me, because they don't like the news, it does challenge the perception of most Cas fans and that is the issue... but that is just how it is... I can't change that!

I have some more information coming in and also another theory, but might not share those yet without some more cross-checking of the information!

We love you IA, we do!
We love you IA, we do!
We love you IA, we do!
Oh...... IA we love you!!

(from ALL the WMDC district!)

Have a good flight bud!

In all fairness some of your posters had no problem with highlighting the potential problems with NM (fully you were a key player in this. I had the PM's to prove it!).

It might not just be IA who finds the sudden change into being "pro development" suddenly staggering when 3 months ago the vast majority of you weren't- how many of you (honestly) signed either of our petitions?

Sad fact is that (like IA is saying if you give him the chance) we should have stood togther on this issue. If you had supported our bid/petition on mass I'm sure you would have got a large chunk of WT fans that were more than willing to reciprocate. As we stand now..... what do you think?

I had the option of signing at work today (a colleague who petitioned against NM is collecting)... Needless to I'm pro-development in 99% of occasions but this.... Well lets just say I'd rather know more details first.. Then maybe you can have my signature (for a hefty price).

In all honesty good luck & maybe if things were put across differently 12/16 months ago maybe, but after NM and the wide support in got in the east of our region... thanks, but no thanks.

For the record I completely support CT (and the WT derby) in SL.

So who do people think will be the first poster from Wakey after the big meeting on Wednesday?...somebody should start a book up

I can recommend a good bookie if you want? WT fans use him for our yearly bet on how many of us will be driving back with no windshield after we beat you at WR!

(tongue in cheek comment)

Now just excuse me for a minute here.

YOU posted about RW and how he would blame other people if things didn't work out for GH. YOU told me that I was anti-Wakefield. YOUR quote about Wakefield having a better on-field record than Cas in the SL era was, in fact, completely unfounded.

As I've said to others in the past, if anyone comes on here and posts unwarranted rubbish that runs down Cas and the people associated with the Club, I'm sorry but you're making yourselves a viable target.

You've apologised for your mistakes after they've been pointed out, which is the decent thing to do. However, had no-one pointed them out, the garbage you posted would have been taken as truth.

Of course I'm biased towards Cas. I only said that I'd presented the facts "straight" to stop ACCUSATIONS of bias. How would it have looked if I'd added numbers onto the figures for "years spent outside Super League?" Surely the best way to present statistics is to play them straight and not to try to "big up" the side you're arguing for. It makes the whole thing a mockery.

I didn't read the rest of the thread because I didn't need to. YOU had made an incorrect statement about Cas and I wanted to show that there was no way that I could fathom out how it could be correct and I tried to show where the numbers were coming from. Had I not been biased towards Cas I wouldn't have done it. Neither did I want waste my time trawling though another great pile of irrelevant opinion.

I'm sure that if I came onto a forum and started running down the club you love, you'd want to set the record straight, especially if I was presenting disinformation. You don't know me, you don't know RW and you didn't know about the relative successes of Cas and Wakey during SL, yet you've not hesitated to give us your (completely incorrect) opinion about all three!

If that makes ME someone who doesn't like the truth, despite the fact that I've corrected you with the truth then that's up to you. There's the REAL irony of the piece.

So is it Cas fans fault NM went to PI OMG, for your info i signed in favor of NM as did most of my Cas fan colleagues at work. Its only the few turds on here that like the sound of their own keyboards that voiced against Most Cas fans are in support!!

Where did I say it was your fault it went to a PI?

I support GH in principle- I don't agree with the "community" tag put on it but that's a side issue.
I want you to move on because I want 2 strong SL teams from our city- Not only do I think we produce enough as a shared region but I also whole-heartedly believe we deserve to maintain the great derby, as we all know it produces some real corkers and the competition would be MUCH poorer without it.

(Like AI) I feel we should have both spent more time pushing this issue.
Both of us appear to be moving forward financially, neither of us have ever spent anywhere near the cap, but now both have big money men around (wait until he steps forward from the shadow

) and have a much greater potential to spend up to the cap in 2012- Don't know about Cas but AG has promised to spend up to the full cap next year should we be in SL- If he's spending his own money remains to be seen, although I'm sure the news will be out shortly



All I'm saying is don't be surprised if you start to encounter the dreaded words of "public inquiry" over the course of WR getting PP- Which it will in the end, they always do, just as NM will- If WT have anything more to do with it? Who knows?

FWIW Once I have seen plans I dare say I will sign, I don't sign my name without reading the T&C, so this is no different.

Yep the potential problems that were true and well documented, as shown by the number of organisations that were not satisfied with the plans and the major criticism of mine was it being on Greenbelt and some of your fellow fans only focussing on the supposed positives rather than being realistic and taking into account the potential pitfalls. I may have gone the wrong way about it but I do not believe for one second I said anything that was wrong.

My comments are well documented that I hope Wakefield get a new stadium; I just think the rest of the development was (and is) largely unnecessary on greenbelt land.

In contrast, this supermarket is going to be built on existing land that has been used for commercial purposes, is not greenbelt AFAIK and will directly benefit the town centre it is in.

commercial purposes?

Don't think so mate. "Special Policy Area"- ambiguous I know but far from commercial as you think.

[iHS N101
CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND, WHELDON ROAD
This is a brownfield site within the urban area in this principal service town and is not out of scale with the settlement It is currently unallocated in the Unitary Development Plan First Alteration Mitigation measures can be taken to resolve or reduce adverse constraint and sustainability issues to acceptable levels.=#FF0000The development of this site for housing use is supported in principle subject to potential flooding issues being resolved. The sequential and exception tests must be fully satisfied in accordance with PPS25. This will be determined prior to the submission of the draft Development Plan Document to the Secretary of State. A transport assessment incorporating a travel plan will be required. The proposal will make a financial contribution to off-site local highway network improvements necessitated by the scale of development proposals impacting on central Castleford. Within Health and Safety Executive Consultation Zones development will only be permitted if it is in accordance with policy D32 An air quality impact assessment, mitigation measures and a financial contribution to a local action plan will be required Possible ground contamination requires investigation and also the possibility of landfill gas migration into the site If progressed following comments on preferred options, this proposal will form part of the Special Policy Area Castleford Riverside N9 at the submission stage. This is a large site that will have a significant impact on public transport and will need to be looked at in more detail for example regarding re-routing services or providing contributions to new services.[/i

Castleford Tigers is a business, ergo commercial. I wasn't referring to the 'land classification' as such.

Land classification may be the least of your troubles if you read the above.

All things will be worked out in time, WR will be developed and you will move to J32. I believe that 100%, I just think there could be some serious problems along the way.

Wow this is sounding spooky! Maybe it's easier to ignore negatives and focus on positives when it's your own club, as well as it being much easier to be objective and critical in your thinking when it doesn't involve your club.

All I'm saying is (potentially) you could have just a big a fight on as us with NM.

Even the most objective of CT fans must be able to admit the race for a stadium is still WIDE open.

All the best mate.