Quote ="nottinghamtiger"I'll post it:
"I have been asked to comment on the position of Castleford tigers with regard to the possibility of another club playing at our new stadium at Glasshoughton.
In the first instance I can confirm that we are looking for new organisations to use our new facilities in a number of ways and we would be happy for this to be in the form of another sports club using the stadium subject to a suitable agreement being put in place. It is a community stadium and it is our objective that it is used regularly by the community.
More specifically we did agree to participate in a Wakefield Council funded feasibility study in July 2010 to determine the best location for a new community stadium in the Wakefield district; this would accommodate a ground share between ourselves and Wakefield wildcats. The Council, =#FF0000to our disappointment, were forced to abandon this study when Wakefield wildcats =#FF0000refused to participate.
However, whist we have made =#FF0000significant progress with our site at junction32, including a detailed planning consent in April 2011, our position with regard to sharing our new facility at Junction 32 with another club has not changed. We plan to increase revenues into the stadium from a number of sources and provide significant benefits to the community.
If you need any further information do not hesitate to contact me."
So, which part is not true?'"
In amongst all of the twaddle, newspapers also print many facts. It's the emotive language used to surround the facts that they use to persuade people to agree with their own bias. RW has essentially done the same thing; I've highlighted those words for you, so you can understand this.
From our point of view, there are some good things about the language used to write this letter - RW states a few times that his club are looking to secure further organisations to join them at GH (read: to fund it). It should be fairly easy for us to argue to the inspector (if indeed we haven't already) that this is a pretty self-serving letter, given current circumstances and the language used.
Also, when did Cas get permission to build a "community stadium", as RW repeatedly mentions? Did I miss something?!
Finally, insofar as stating facts: had RW really desired to do that, the letter would have read as follows:
1) Cas have detailed planning permission for GH but have yet to build the stadium. There are currently some issues in doing so.
2) Cas will groundshare if Wakefield want to.
3) Wakefield declined a feasability study for a groundshare.
EDIT: highlighting in bold apparently doesn't show up much!
