Whilst some of the items I am about to mention may have already been discussed in bits and bats I am just curious as to how Wakefield can maintain their stance on the fact that their current ground is their alternative plan to Newmarket when it is clear that the lease company have started to tout Belle Vue for sale via a property consultant.

Interesting point that is raised by the property consultants is that Wakefield will vacate Belle Vue by the end of 2011 which leads me to two questions/comments:

1: Why would anybody no matter what position within the club spend money on redeveloping the ground if they are due to leave once the supposed work is completed.

2: No planning permission has been requested yet for the redevelopment works so the RFL can only assume the outcome, surely the most positive thing to do would be to show the RFL that permission has been requested and upon being granted the upgrading of Belle Vue will commence.

I would also question the cost of the upgrades, surely to do the amount of work suggested would cost more than 500K, I could be off mark with this but in construction terms 500k seems a little tight.

I may be wrong on the above items but it seems a little strange to say the least that a property company is trying to find a buyer. Either the Wakefield management are under the impression that they will be granted a new lease or some people are trying to sugar-coat a possible bad situation before any licence decision.

Whilst this may appear to most of you I am a Castleford fan trying to stir dirt, there has been a lot of emphasis on the fact that Wakefield are going to bring their current stadium up to SL standard for 2012 onwards which makes them on par with my team in regards to stadium facilities. Although Castleford may not be in a nice shiny new stadium, we do currently own our ground and will own the ground at Glasshoughton, there isn’t going to be a case of the lease company coming to Castleford and saying you have to move out as we are selling the land to a property developer. When Castleford do move it will be on our own terms.

Below is a link to the Dove Haigh Phillips document (Link near bottom of webpage).
www.sendspace.com/file/ro967w

Whilst some of the items I am about to mention may have already been discussed in bits and bats I am just curious as to how Wakefield can maintain their stance on the fact that their current ground is their alternative plan to Newmarket when it is clear that the lease company have started to tout Belle Vue for sale via a property consultant.

Interesting point that is raised by the property consultants is that Wakefield will vacate Belle Vue by the end of 2011 which leads me to two questions/comments:

1: Why would anybody no matter what position within the club spend money on redeveloping the ground if they are due to leave once the supposed work is completed.

2: No planning permission has been requested yet for the redevelopment works so the RFL can only assume the outcome, surely the most positive thing to do would be to show the RFL that permission has been requested and upon being granted the upgrading of Belle Vue will commence.

I would also question the cost of the upgrades, surely to do the amount of work suggested would cost more than 500K, I could be off mark with this but in construction terms 500k seems a little tight.

I may be wrong on the above items but it seems a little strange to say the least that a property company is trying to find a buyer. Either the Wakefield management are under the impression that they will be granted a new lease or some people are trying to sugar-coat a possible bad situation before any licence decision.

Whilst this may appear to most of you I am a Castleford fan trying to stir dirt, there has been a lot of emphasis on the fact that Wakefield are going to bring their current stadium up to SL standard for 2012 onwards which makes them on par with my team in regards to stadium facilities. Although Castleford may not be in a nice shiny new stadium, we do currently own our ground and will own the ground at Glasshoughton, there isn’t going to be a case of the lease company coming to Castleford and saying you have to move out as we are selling the land to a property developer. When Castleford do move it will be on our own terms.

Below is a link to the Dove Haigh Phillips document (Link near bottom of webpage).
www.sendspace.com/file/ro967w

As has already been said it is Savilles job to review all the ground related elements of the franchise application and they will obviously report any issues they believe exist with our proposal to remain at Belle Vue until NM is ready (assuming it gets past the PI) to the RFL. In short there are people far more capable than you or I who will review the proposal so nothing for you or anyone else to worry about.

As has already been said it is Savilles job to review all the ground related elements of the franchise application and they will obviously report any issues they believe exist with our proposal to remain at Belle Vue until NM is ready (assuming it gets past the PI) to the RFL. In short there are people far more capable than you or I who will review the proposal so nothing for you or anyone else to worry about.

In reply to the above I would concede that there are challenges ahead facing the club both in relation to BV and NM.

However, the opening poster would do well to reflect on the challenges facing his own club rather than highlight those of a neighbouring club (this is all the fault of franchising!). Having generally kept to the side in relation to the cross-club fights over stadia I now feel that in considering the relative positions of both clubs I need to highlight the very real issues faced by our neighbours - namely that despite having both the land and the planning permission for the new stadium, they do not have the funding without obtaining planning permission for a supermarket on their existing ground which is AGAINST local planning policy. This does not mean it will not happen, however it does represent a very real barrier that must be crossed and one that could be both costly and time consuming. Until this happens - no GH.

Having said all that I concede that this has just brought the very worst out in me as I want nothing more than for all of us to be able to co-exist and to thrive in modern, clean facilities fit for the age and where such matters as these can be contested and sorted on a piece of grass 100m x 60m with 17 against 17 and a decent referee (ok, maybe the last bit is a dream).

My apologies for this, but felt that balance was required.

In reply to the above I would concede that there are challenges ahead facing the club both in relation to BV and NM.

However, the opening poster would do well to reflect on the challenges facing his own club rather than highlight those of a neighbouring club (this is all the fault of franchising!). Having generally kept to the side in relation to the cross-club fights over stadia I now feel that in considering the relative positions of both clubs I need to highlight the very real issues faced by our neighbours - namely that despite having both the land and the planning permission for the new stadium, they do not have the funding without obtaining planning permission for a supermarket on their existing ground which is AGAINST local planning policy. This does not mean it will not happen, however it does represent a very real barrier that must be crossed and one that could be both costly and time consuming. Until this happens - no GH.

Having said all that I concede that this has just brought the very worst out in me as I want nothing more than for all of us to be able to co-exist and to thrive in modern, clean facilities fit for the age and where such matters as these can be contested and sorted on a piece of grass 100m x 60m with 17 against 17 and a decent referee (ok, maybe the last bit is a dream).

My apologies for this, but felt that balance was required.