You've gone completely OTT once again here. You know that we would not have had signed contracts on a scheme such as this, but you also know that most business is done by agreement subject to contract and that many contracts fail to occur for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean that when the people you are dealing with, particularly officials of the council, that you stand in front of them and say 'we don't believe you' (even if that is true!).



At some stage any contract is going to require an amount of funding, and WMDC appeared willing to pay that money - in the form of the feasibility study - which did a little more than just suggest they 'might' be serious. The other site available would have also required cash at that time - and it was unlikely that funds would be spent exploring 2 stadia for 1 club - now that really would blow the minds of all those who think we should have 1 stadia for 2 clubs!

I was so excited by the news that Cas was going to become a " world-class iconic establishment." that a little bit of wee came out!

You have to admire the Cas publicity machine though. Ignoring the bickering about whether the Cas stadium will actually get started, Cas have either deliberately timed their press releases to perfection, or else they have got lucky, because an outsider looking at this last seven days would say that we are sliding quickly downwards and Cas climbing quickly upwards. You have got to hand it to them for funding their own stadium and for maximising our news from last week for their own benefit.

"At some stage any contract is going to require an amount of funding, and WMDC appeared willing to pay that money - in the form of the feasibility study - which did a little more than just suggest they 'might' be serious. The other site available would have also required cash at that time - and it was unlikely that funds would be spent exploring 2 stadia for 1 club"



You have stated that the alternative site would have required cash to explore it's potential; you then go on to say that we couldn't expect the council to pay for this as well as the Thornes Park feasibility study. My question is this - Why did we require the council to pay for the alternative site study? We have been told that this site was the club's own project, independent from the councils Thornes Park idea. So why didn't we spend our own money to fund a feasibilty study for our own stadium? If the club has gone along with the Thornes Park idea just so it didn't have to spend it's own money exploring an alternate site, then I don't see how we can complain about the council at all, as we have handed our future to them rather than taking control of our own destiny. I have yet to hear from anyone on here what the alternate site was - I can't see any reason why someone (TRB always seems to be "in the know"icon_wink.gif doesn't just say where the alternate site was, and why it was not able to be followed up on rather than the Newmarket site (another site which, curiously, has cost the club nothing to explore).

Exactly my friend, come on tell us what exactly WTWC gave up, in favour of a feasibility study? Because from what is being said this project of your own was not really a goer, if id did indeed exist. Is their any information on the swag site about the project?

SWAG didn't exist then ... but can confirm the Club was well into negotiations for a site near the current Belle Vue ground.

The only alternative site located near Belle Vue is the former Power Station site. And if feasible would have been a far better opportunity than Newmarket to develop a new stadium, then again LEEDS would have moved the boundary AGAIN so that they can take a percentage, as is the case at Newmarket.

Quote from swag after Thornes Park fell through, note the first sentence. If you already had a site with a good chance of development why were you asking the council for a site?

That's a cracking response. I'd wait until the 2012 season when we are playing in it. I'm sure it will look better in real life. Oh no, wait a minute, you'll be in NL1 by then and going to Fev for your derby game.



Shouldn't you be busy creating a new account with a new name







notachanceofanewgroundb4casifever

Seem to recall that access was the big problem with this site, and when Thornes Park then entered the discussion, it was an obvious road to follow. With hindsight, of course, we're all wiser.

you obviously don't know Doncaster Road in Wakefield, at its peak hours in the day its an atrocious road to use, the site would of been big enough and there was a railway track that could of been used but Newmarket will do fine

the club was all on for the power station but got talked out of it by the council. the council wanted the land for other things and talked theminto thornes park.