Have not seen that name since the last time i looked in my Ban Box

Great posts guys. That 1 by the Newmarket resident as my blood boiling stating us as a failing club and a bleak future. This is exactly why we need this ground aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!! some people

I don't get it at all, I really don't! I understand that on another fans forum I have taken over TRB's crown as most vilified poster by some posters banned from this board or RL Fans altogether, just because of the work I am doing on Newmarket! Despite the fact I fully support GH and don't have any issues with Castleford at all, they have vilified me because in (what is still a small minority of posters) their warped minds supporting Newmarket means I must be anti Cas and GH! The only conclusion I can draw is that because they think in this way that this justifies in their own minds this odd view!

Our friend Rugbyball is good fun but he/she is also still clearly a Fev fan who has issues with Wakefield and Newmarket because it is linked with Trinity. I just don't get it, more so now Newmarket will not be part of Wakefield's franchise application... it has now has no impact and arguably they have the advantage!

Am I missing something... genuine question?

Because fans of our rival clubs don't want us to get a new stadium as the potential for Wakefield as a club playing out of state of the facilities is massive and they can't handle the thought of that.

Ok I will help you out, of course some of it is Fev bias, but not all of it my friend. I understand your capitalist ideals really I do, however not everybody holds your view. You took offence at the way the nimbys have run their campaign and to be honest I think they have done a poor job too, their are clear areas where they have real grounds and they should stick to these. To look at the other side of the agrument let me take you back to the first public meeting YC held on the development, it was hardly advertised except for on here, and then at the meeting the emphisis was on the stadium, lots of pretty pictures of what the stadium etc yet know real details on the how the units would look! Call me cynical but you can see where Im going. Indeed you could say this is fair game, but in my opinion the meeting was a chance for local residents to have their minds put at ease, instead it was taken over by WTWC from all corners of the district. I also note this meeting was used as affirmation of support at the planning hearing.

On the jobs front the amounts of NEW jobs are unclear. Lets say for example Morrisons decided that their current site is unsuitable and outdated and they move to Newmarket they would not be creating new jobs, in fact jobs may be lost due to new tech and more efficient working practises. I remember you using the argument that much of the available to let warehousing in the district is out of date, when countering the claim that their are units un let. These out of date units in reality will be pulled down and new buildings could replace them which would count against the legal requirement. Also when it comes to the legal requirement it is over a set number of years and although there may not be the required land at the minute, over the time frame land will become available.

On the stadium front, I may be wrong here but I suspect that it is not being paid for by YC rather the land is being given bye YC. And more so I think the community would better benefit from a facility like Ponds Forge in Sheffield not a stadium only to be used by one team, and a couple of 3g pitches. The notion that these facilities will be "world class" or some how will put Wakefield on the map are just daft, you do not hear people saying "Bolton that place with the world class stadium and sports facilities, lets go their".

One final point is you say you started your campaign out of frustration at the untruths spread by the nimbys yet you rarely correct untruths on here. For example The Clan talked about Greenbelt this morning totally out of context in his post to the PM.

Ps please excuse the grammar, spelling, and punctuation etc, I know you use this as some sore of intellect scoring system.

In my first post I covered the whole gambit of reasoning behind why this development should not have been called in, which includes the misguided notion that Wakefield will lose a quantity of Greenbelt land.

In my second post I answered the previous contributers post which contained a reference to greenbelt, not out of context at all.

i thought scabby-doo had dried up and fallen off

dont let it worry you pal , most of these are trolls with very little prospect personally

No he doesn't - that's me, and for what it's worth, you fail.

Carry on!

Thier will not be a net increase in Greenbelt. Greenbelt is a planning term not a conservation term. A site does not have to be Green and pleasent for it to be green belt. Planting more trees does not make a net increase in Greenbelt, it produces a net increase in trees.

Also just planting more trees does not mean a site become a richer habitat or more environmentally friendly. Perhaps if some of you actually read and understood what Natural England were saying instead of taking an they are against us approach you would not seem so ignorant on the matter.

I do not think it worries him, he unlike some has the ability and openness to debate(something he is a champion in) issues rather than resort to the predictable insults.

I'm quoting directly from the planning application regards a net increase in greenbelt land.

Lets not get started on matters of ignorance!

that's overlooked such is the depth of your overwhelming anti Wakefield verses you sing , im waiting for you to post a video from a secret cave in Leeds denouncing Wakefield and its rugby team . you are an inflated balloons worst fear .

So what your saying is if you have 50 acres of greenbelt and concrete 2/3 of this and plant trees on the other 1/3 it becomes 60 acres of greenbelt? mmmmmm not convinced.

Lets see what IA says. I think you may be mixing up your green field and green belt.

I see what you did there, well lets just say you have nothing to trouble a balloon then.

I'm not saying anything, I'm quoting what it says somewhere else.

I think the whole point here is, why are YOU sooooooooooooo bothered what happens at Newmarket? does it directly affect your life? are you a greenpeace envoy? why do you seek to pull apart every arguement on here in favour of the development? why does it matter to you?

Rather than try to explain the net gain of green belt just let him work it out on his own by READING THE APPLICATION.

The GB land doesn't have to be based at NM- merely owned by YK. It can then be transferred from their control to that of another body (WMDC) who reclassify it and protect it- until the next time to redevelop comes along, then it's back to musical chairs.

This point was explained at length at a fans evening. Funnily enough not attended by RB.

Thank you GP FC

I wonder if the irony of an ignoramous accusing someone of ignorance whilst being the very definition of ignorant will dawn on RB at some point!

The two cllrs that were at the meeting at Stanley Rangers stated that there was going to be a net gain of 1% green belt in the district.
How and where it comes from I don't know, but they were their words.

As you say Greenbelt is a planning term and I think what is being said is if further land that was designated for development use is reclassified as Greenbelt then there can be a net increase in Greenbelt.

Hung himself with his own reasoning.

Ironic thing is his reasoning was 100% correct, just his hated blinded the correct thinking.

FWIW I actually think RB's actually pretty well informed- he just takes a polar opposite view point to us because of his RL loyalties.

AI was sat no more than 5 foot away from the councillors who explained this point.

IIRC the only time "green field" was brought up was to clarify the difference and point out that this site was in no way "green field".

I was at the meeting and I cannot remember whether they said greenbelt or greenspace.

There certainly has been an increase in "green" due to a number of old pit sites that have been reclaimed most notably the former Frickley, Wheldale and Fryston Collieries which are now "green". Also a large part of Fryston was designated for housing and is now green space.

I think the point that Councillors were making is that there is an increase in green space in the District and may be not necessarily an increase in greenbelt but the fact of the matter is that there is an increasein green space however you want to look at it.

It was Greenbelt that has gone up by 1%. It's nice to think that we've played a part in that - professionally - and it would be even nicer if we could cash a little bit of that in - somewhere around the M62 would be good!