I have to agree, I always thought it was a politically sensible site, of course it could have just been down to being already designated for development and the ground was just an add on - I don't know.
The thing is though it was from day one vehemently nailed to the Cas mast, that under no circumstances would Cas groundshare there.
Things have changed all ways round since then and if it was the only way of keeping Cas in SL then I could see SF looking into it.
One thing that hasn't changed though as far as I know is that Wakefield are happy to go there an be anchor tennants, so I'm not sure what the other mysterious accusations relate to.
I wonder if (going back to Cas' £2m development money) if Mr Box is a bit worried and trying to pull some strings on the behalf of his beloved tigers by pumping all the money into NM because he knows GH to be dead or perhaps it's just desperate speculation and here say??

Just a s another topical aside -

The terms of the rental agreement presented by Sir Rod to the Inspector show that would not be the case for you at NM. WTW will ultimately be responsible for the maintenance of the stadium and full insurance costs.

For a Cas fan you know so much about our affairs, you're either obsessed or thinking of jumping ship - I honestly can't decide which.

I think you'll find that Sir Rodney Walker does not speak on behalf of WTW and the cost you mention will be the responsibility of the Stadium Trust (A non for profit organisation) of which he does speak on the behalf of

Fail!

Sir Rod gave his evidence to the Inspector as Chairman of the Trust at which he presented Heads of Terms for lease agreements between 1) YCP and the Trust and 2) The Trust and Spirit of 1873.

Hope that helps.

There's some delicious hypocrisy (not specifically you but generally) in that comment.

I'm glad I have appealed to your discerning ironic bent.

If Milan and inter Milan can do it why can't Cas and Wakie?

A valid point indeed. Now if the location was in the of Wakey or Cas I could understand the opposition. In Newmarket the location is neutral, 4 miles from either town . The Stadium and facilities will be owned by a neutral community trust and all the district clubs are welcome to play there.

I personally rather just Wakey play there because I feel we would be going down the road to a dreaded merger if we share. Having said that it not our choice to make. Cas would be mad to turn the opportunity down. It's a chance to clear the massive debt to Jack Fulton and others and go into Newmarket with a clear balance and a bit off money in the bank.

So what your saying is that The Cas BOD and majority of fans will be willing to travel nearly 20 miles to Doncaster but not 4 miles to Stanley? Is it really easier to get to the Keepmoat than going 1 or 2 junctions down the M62? I hope you don't take up Transport Planning for a career!

The £2m that Cas were after should all go to the community trust. At the end of the day their the ones building the facilities for the whole community to use.

Quote ="deeHell"The Stadium and facilities will be owned by a neutral community trust and all the district clubs are welcome to play there.'" So this "neutral" community trust then, is it this one that will run the stadium? :- www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/comm ... nity-trust The one with the fleur-de-leys emblem in red, white and blue. Definately neutral.

Quote ="deeHell"The Stadium and facilities will be owned by a neutral community trust and all the district clubs are welcome to play there.'" So this "neutral" community trust then, is it this one that will run the stadium? :- www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/comm ... nity-trust The one with the fleur-de-leys emblem in red, white and blue. Definately neutral.

Quote ="Tigerade"So this "neutral" community trust then, is it this one that will run the stadium? :- www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/comm ... nity-trust The one with the fleur-de-leys emblem in red, white and blue. Definately neutral.'" I think you might have that confused; the Trust you're referring to is the Wakefield Wildcats Community Trust - that's the part of the club responsible for outreach work in the local community. The body managing the Newmarket stadium will be the Wakefield & District Community Trust; a different organisation altogether.

Quote ="Tigerade"So this "neutral" community trust then, is it this one that will run the stadium? :- www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/comm ... nity-trust The one with the fleur-de-leys emblem in red, white and blue. Definately neutral.'" I think you might have that confused; the Trust you're referring to is the Wakefield Wildcats Community Trust - that's the part of the club responsible for outreach work in the local community. The body managing the Newmarket stadium will be the Wakefield & District Community Trust; a different organisation altogether.

If I knew BOTH clubs could stay in SL playing separately there's no way I'd entertain the idea of sharing.

However if your franchise was in danger, which if the RFL followed the letter of the law it probably will be should you have 0 movement on GH/WR (all hypothetical), I'd be more than happy for you to share either temporarily or on a full time basis.

The idea of Doncaster is laughable, WR to Keepmoat is 26.3 miles, WR to NM is 4.7 miles. That's before we mention that moving out of your city isn't seen in a positive light. We asked to play games at Oakwell (9.2 miles from BV) & were flatly told by the RFL that this was impractical. How many fans would go for that? What chance of catching passing fans? Even if you picked up some from Doncaster how many would travel when you eventually moved home? On an ethical level I would appose this, it would be a step too near the NFL for me, with franchises being picked up & moved at will.

Now I know the RFL are famous for changing their minds, but a move of the best part of 30 miles is stupid IMO, unless you change your name to Doncaster.

At the end of the day the season/my general interest in RL would be diminished by the loss of our derby. If sharing would save that I'm all for it, if we don't need to share EVEN BETTER!

In theory that's right, but the possibility of the RFL pushing for a merger would be like an axe hanging over both our heads.
The Italian FA would be unlikely to force two of its biggest clubs to merge there would be one hell of a rumpus, two underachieving Wakefield RL clubs is a slightly less controversial matter and would almost go un noticed outside of the district.

Firstly in starting this thread I wandered what reaction there would be as I myself travel from Barnsley to follow the Tigers and I bet a lot more fans travel further to BV or WR than they would NM.
I would just like to see this ridiculous situation that Cas and Wakefield find themselves in put to bed and a decision that helps both clubs and the district made so everyone can move forward and watch a great game in a great stadium with great fans having banter and polite discussion on derby day infront of what would be a 12000 + crowd of Rugby League Fans.
Bite the bullet and share a ground I say with a third party (Wakefield Community Trust) overseeing the running of the stadium with a equal contribtion from Castleford and Wakefield. (simples!)

Quote ="Tigerade"So this "neutral" community trust then, is it this one that will run the stadium? :- www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/comm ... nity-trust The one with the fleur-de-leys emblem in red, white and blue. Definately neutral.'" Epic assumption

Quote ="Tigerade"So this "neutral" community trust then, is it this one that will run the stadium? :- www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/comm ... nity-trust The one with the fleur-de-leys emblem in red, white and blue. Definately neutral.'" Epic assumption

I'd watch cas at NM. What excuse would i have for not doing so bearing in mind that the majority of leeds fans (just one example) will probably travel a lot further to home games.

my preference would be to stay at WR regardless of it's condition but not at the expense of a SL place because I believe that should we lose it there'd be no way back for us under the license system.

Ha Ha Epic Fail as the full terms of the lease and the 106 agreement were not fully discussed at the Enqiry and as said Sir Rodney Walker can Only speak for the Wakefield and District Community Trust

HTH

Whether the community stadium is a non profitable company or not it will still take plenty of money to keep it going and if funds dont reach the break even mark either the council will have to make up the short fall or the club renting the facility will have to make it up and that means a price hike, but if two SL clubs did share and both paid an equal amount and straight away the stadium goes from 13 home games to 26 that would mean the rent being less, and both clubs might prosper, for me its just down the M62 to the next junction, although i would prefer our own home the two big clubs at ever side of the common would be debt free and have a new start it just needs both sets of fans & club owners to swallow their pride, & put an agreement together that a merger would not be ever on the cards, the only thing what would ever stop a stadium share is Pride

Apart from the highlighted bit







it just needs one set of fans and club owners - Castlefords.
To us it has always been a community stadium, for the community.
Other than that

The Milan clubs sharing makes sense for them. I read an article about it years ago there is no particular divide of the city ie north & south, east & west ,districts etc (though the ultras of Inter tend to be more right wing politically, AC Milan left wing).

It seems people follow one or the other through family lines, passed down from grandparents,parents and so on.

As far as I recall, the option for Castleford to take up a tenancy at NM has always been available; I say take up a tenancy rather than share, because it isn't ours in the first place.

It was probably Richard Wright who put a spanner in the works, by trying to influence the planning decision against the development, with his ill-conceived letter to the inspector - if I recally correctly, he suggested that there was no need for the facility, as WTW could share at GH. (The inspector noted in his report that they couldn't, because there was nothing there to share.)

All of that said, if Steve Ferres has a change of heart, I shouldn't imagine that the Trust BoD would hold Tricky Dicky's actions against CT.