But if the top four play off system is changed and system of promotion that has a franchising based element to it is put in it's place then that little issue for the RFL goes away.

Not that I'm cynical at all, but what's the chances of the decision getting delayed until after the middle 8s, just on the off chance Catalans don't quite make it?

Well said

MC has been asked the difference between cas and wakey on this respect and the answer is fairly straight forward.



Belle vue does not meet the number of criteria the rfl require to deem it "suitable" . Wheldon Lane does. For now, anyway.



Hence the other questions in your post become irrelevant.



I'm pretty sure at some point soon castleford will be in the situation Wakefield are in, and will be demanded to evidence progression on the new ground. But as yet this isn't necessary.



I'm not making out Wheldon lane is anything other than a run-down old thing. And I certainly don't want to get into the monotonous "who's ground is worse" arguments....



But the answer to the above is fairly plain.



With regard to "D Day", I sincerely hope that the rfl interpret the council asking the developer to walk away as a positive. It could easily be misconstrued as a backward step.

I agree 100%, Fordy: should we receive any ultimatum from the RFL, then Cas should receive the same ultimatum.

Yeah! see what you mean DAVE. I was there when your floodlights blew up!! Very safe eh?

Bit of a pointless argument since they've been fixed.

I'll not bother mentioning the Princess Street wall that blew down then as that's now been rebuilt

If the RFL are aware of the facts (as I'm sure they are) then they will know the reason that Yorkcourt were asked to walk away was because they never intended to build a stadium. Just seems they used the deception to milk some green belt land they wouldn't otherwise have got and make some huge profit .

The whole things a bloody mess caused by some people who have no morals; and I don't just refer to the obvious ones that spring to mind. The fact we don't own the ground still annoys me.

Well, yeah. Floodlight fixed, wall fixed. Like I say, I'm not saying it's the Santiago Bernebau. Cas ground being unfit for purpose is your opinion, but luckily not the RFLs. There's no point arguing over it - cas currently meet minimum requirements and Wakefield don't. Whether that's fair or not, who knows, and I'm sure it's a bitter pill, but it doesn't change anything. And it certainly makes no difference to Wakefield's situation.



As it stands Wakefield have had to half their stadium capacity for safety reasons (presumably ongoing) which isn't good for the game or for Wakefield themselves.



I appreciate it's easy to look around and think "why always us" considering the sagas you guys have had to endure over the last 10 years. But comparing your scenario to ANYONE'S is pretty much impossible. I don't think any sports club in the UK is in a similar situation, on a whole lotta levels.



Hopefully you guys can get a committed developer at least showing interest before next week

The shame is, whilst our ground superstructure is in a woeful estate, you've got to admit that our playing surface is, and has been for a long time, probably the best in the League. Unfortunately, that's not what counts to those at Red Hall.

No it doesn't meet minimum standards , hence why the RFL are punishing you financially to the tune of 50k as they are with us (and will rise accordingly). What it does is meet more of the criteria than BV does hence the pressure is on us more.