Yep, it also says the lease runs out in December and are obviously expected to not be there in 2012.
Sadly, part of the legacy left by the d1cking around of the previous owners.

Come of bigalf, lets look at planning condition 22 in a little bit more detail!

What is does say is printed in the letter -



The planning condition does indeed require the future developer/owner of Belle Vue to provide a playing 'field' not a 'stadium' BUT the bit I think our land agent is missing out of his details, probably on purpose somewhat because he is an 'estate agent' after all, is the 'field' provided and it's location would have to be suitable for potential future development as a stadium, by others! That is what the council and Sport England would only ever see as a 'suitable site' and you will notice they have to agree to the new location prior to the condition being discharged... quite an important point!!!

The second paragraph is the telling one, Wakefield council would indeed be very willing to cooperate and they already have a site, at Newmarket, currently mid-planning process that would be suitable. So they will saying to any buyer that this would be the best option for them if they were to buy now. Of course, if they have another piece of land they fancy giving the club/council then they would look at this too!

The effect of this condition is that the council and Sport England would only ever agree to a location suitable as a 'stadium' and not just a field, so while the site might have a new owner, the council hold the key to allowing Belle Vue to be developed and that won't happen until Trinity have a new home to go to.

So it's going to come down to what the Council's priorities are at the time, if Newmarket doesn't seem likely to go ahead in the short term then they may decide Wakefield's new home is at Barnsley or Fev since they want the redevelopment at Belle Vue. Delaying any redevelopment of Belle Vue ie keeping Wakefield playing there, would put off potential buyers would it not? Since the planning permission runs out in August 2012 IIRC.

This seems, from my laymans point of view anyway, to be quite out of Wakefield's hands and depends on the mood of the Council.

They are no hurry to see Belle Vue developed as a council and to be honest, given the current new build housing sector, they likelihood of anyone buying it at the moment, other than AG seem small. If they did the housing developer, like AG, will want the site for next to bugger all so they can sit on it and when the market starts to show real growth again, develop it then. In the meantime he can claim a £100k + in annual lease income. I think, despite what the OP clearly intended, this puts AG in a strong position not a weak one. He will be pushing them to sell to him for bugger all, because I can't see anyone coming in to buy and then develop it straight away. The current or future owners would be stupid to turn down income from the site in the short term and as such, Wakefield will be playing there next year is that is what AG and the council want!

As for the planning permission, the current owner will just pay the relatively small fee to extend it if required, it has no impact on selling it now or in three years time.

The council and Sport England hold the key and they will only agree to a site in Wakefield and suitable for a stadium, simple as.

Thank you for that, what happens the if the ground is sold to a devloper in December, where would we paly next year as Barnsley has been ruled out.

yep.

Quote ="castigers13"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'" 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.

Quote ="castigers13"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'" 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.

I'm thinking the Cas fan who posted the opening ciomments is feeling the squeeze down't lane.
Why does Wakefield trying to improve things bother you so much? If it is all cosmetics and lies as you imply, it should bother you at all.
But it appears it does.

Our ground will be built before yours, we've got planning permission, we've got funding thread number 9,857,231 and counting!

God help us and give it a rest.....

From what i have heard, 2 to come down and Widnes and fax to stay up, this is why Noble and Cas is not a done deal yet, He is waiting for the announcement at the end of the month before taking up a position which i am hopefull will be with the Mighty Fax.

Cas and Wakey to go down, 3 years to develop their stadiums, they have loyal fans who would stay watching them and supportiung them giving them bigger income streams to get their houses in order without suffering the financial consequences of recent times.

To be honest this would show Franchising to be a success, Cas and wakey have had far too long to do something about stadia etc and still nothing.

Sounds about right to me.

Any response to IA alfie, or has he trumped you again

No need friend, Dove Haigh Phillips and I are right, he is wrong, end of!

Correct TRB. Directly contrary to be fair.- The council want Wheldon Road for additional housing. NOT A SUPERMARKET. This will be a LONG and DRAWN-OUT AFFAIR- Savilles must see this plain as day!

=#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 Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk (2010). This will be determined prior to the submission of the Site Specific Proposals document to the Secretary of State. The proposal will be conditional upon the removal of Health and Safety Executive consultation zones, which affects its phasing, but otherwise development will only be permitted if it is in accordance with Development Policy D32. A transport assessment incorporating a travel plan will be required. In relation to the Air Quality Action Plan, a planning obligation will be required to offset the increased road vehicle trips. Possible ground contamination requires investigation, as does the possibility of landfill gas migration into the site. 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 and more frequent services. Improved pedestrian access to the riverside and the route to Allerton Bywater is required, in association with the Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan. The shortfall in off-site quality greenspace will be addressed by a financial contribution. A contribution for primary education places is likely to be sought.

The proposal is in accordance with the spatial development strategy, performs well in terms of the sequential approach, and mitigation measures are considered to be capable of resolving, or minimising to an acceptable degree, constraints and sustainability issues.

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 and the local highway network in general.

Could be a HUGE struggle, one which before it reaches it's ultimate conculsion could well be subject to a PI.
If a PI were to happen to my club, I'd at least want it this year/early next

Not any further down the line!

We know first hand how hard it can be to swim against CURRENT planning regulations, although in fairness with the LDF site specific doc (the very same doc that could cripple Cas) we appear to have the tide running with us for once.

Nobody likes mudslinging, but if that's that order of the day lets at least get it correct!

Quote ="G.Price Fan Club"Nobody likes mudslinging, but if that's that order of the day lets at least get it correct!'" Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong! Right - let's get things straight - FACTS At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document. The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing. After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site. Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only. The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?

Quote ="G.Price Fan Club"Nobody likes mudslinging, but if that's that order of the day lets at least get it correct!'" Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong! Right - let's get things straight - FACTS At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document. The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing. After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site. Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only. The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?

Quote ="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong! Right - let's get things straight - FACTS At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document. The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing. After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site. Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only. The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?'" Schooled But this wasn't going to end any other way really was it, Wakey go into defensive mode and spray random crap around and hope it sticks.

Quote ="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong! Right - let's get things straight - FACTS At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document. The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing. After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site. Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only. The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?'" Schooled But this wasn't going to end any other way really was it, Wakey go into defensive mode and spray random crap around and hope it sticks.

Crap has been thrown BOTH ways during all of this. Anyway this will all come out in the wash during the next year or so. Groups of both supporters have become defensive at times. What i think is funny is when a poster puts up a genuine question about the others development, only to be labelled a trouble causer/troll/whatever by the other side. Some people have been very defensive when asked genuine quesions that need answering constructively. After all these questions may be being asked at a higher level than here.

Have to agree, why has this turned once again into a Wakey and Cas slanging match. The OP has produced a document which aims to dispose of Wakefields current ground to the highest bidder. Wakefields lease ends at he end of the year. These are real valid questions which if i was a Wakefield follower i would find quite alarming to say the least.

Maybe Cas and wakefield should merge

then the extra spot might mean the RFL bring up another team and keep Casfield tigity wildgers in sooperdooper league. it makes sense, you lot obviously love each other deeply, you just cant stop talking about each other, or slagging each other off, which as everyone knowns, is often a sign of deep seated and mutual sexual attraction

I am wrong am I? So Sport England and Wakefield don't hold the key to discharging this condition then in having to agree to the new location? Lets not forget, this is a Grampian Condition, so it has serious legal precedent behind it and it is not a straight forward situation!

The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England and given this is a Grampian condition, the developer of the Belle Vue site would surely lose in court.

I am sure our 'estate agent' will be advising any potential buyers to seek legal advice in respect of this condition prior to purchase to be sure of their position. I am fairly certain what the advice is likley to say... and that is you can't start work until a suitable site has been identified and work completed to provide a new 'field'. The good news is that the field usually goes down once the stands have been built!

But when making a contract is it up to the writers to make sure every little detail is in and anything missed out can be used by the other party to gain an advantage, such as wording it as "playing field" as opposed to "facilities fit for development into a stadium".

Which, in this case would mean that there would be no case in court because a poorly worded contract is not the fault of the person(s) taking advantage of it.

Ideal wording would have been something like [i ...facilities fit for development into a stadium for use by a professional sporting organisation.[/i

Quote ="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong! Right - let's get things straight - FACTS At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document. The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing. After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site. Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only. The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?'" The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!! This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. This does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want. The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy. You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240

Quote ="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong! Right - let's get things straight - FACTS At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document. The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing. After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site. Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only. The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?'" The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!! This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. This does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want. The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy. You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240

No one disagrees with that. A new location for a playing field will have to be agreed.



The planning condition is for the purposes of:-

To secure a replacement facility in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy L3.

L3 PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE

L3 GREEN OPEN SPACES IN THE URBAN AREA WILL BE PROTECTED WHERE THERE IS A LEISURE, NATURE CONSERVATION, URBAN WILDLIFE OR AMENITY VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WHICH MATERIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE VALUE OF SUCH LAND FOR THESE PURPOSES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, UNLESS ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE PROVISION.

A rugby league stadium is not a Green Open Space - a playing field is.


BTW

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!! This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. =#FF0000[uThis does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing[/u but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want. The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy. You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240'" You have just confirmed exactly what I have said. No one has ever said it would be easy!

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!! This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. =#FF0000[uThis does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing[/u but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want. The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy. You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240'" You have just confirmed exactly what I have said. No one has ever said it would be easy!

Rather than people putting FACT at the end of a point, or then going on to argue their opinions as FACT, there is one, actual, real-life fact and that is bids have already been submitted.

How on earth can Wakefield have put in a well researched, well evidenced, quality bid when they havent publicly confirmed where they will be playing next year, dont own their ground and dont have a lease on it for next year and dont even know who will own it next year.

You can debate whether Cas or Wakefield will be in a new ground first until the cows come home, but whilst the home that Wakefield are playing at and what is quality will be are still up in the air a matter of days before the decision is made public, never mind the bids being submitted, then it isnt really relevant is it.