Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:13 pm  

Oh ffs here we go again, I'm off to hide till this tripe blows over again

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:19 pm  

Wouldn't any decision about a groundshare at junction 30 be made by the Stadium Trust,not the chairmen of the Wakey (who would only be tenants)

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:31 pm  

TanTastic wrote:

Was it 2005 ish when the sign first went up.

No

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:36 pm  

binks wrote:

Oh ffs here we go again, I'm off to hide till this tripe blows over again

I'm with you mate. This is like an old scratched album by Milli Vanilli - keeps jumping back to the same place all the time, is completely without any kind of substance, is hardly worth listening to anyway and I wonder why anybody has the time or inclination to listen anymore.

Cup of tea, anybody?

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:39 pm  

Georgie Best on a Bloomer wrote:

No

Thanks for that, so when did it go up.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:48 pm  

TanTastic wrote:

Thanks for that, so when did it go up.

Outline planning permission was granted towards the end of 2007 (November) and the sign went up a while after that.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:50 pm  

Big Man wrote:

Well well, it didn't take Glover long to get into the swing of things at Wakey did it?

A club that has fed the RFL lies for the past 10 years and got away with it. A club that has promised everything and delivered nothing. A club that still has the odour of Administration still hanging around it. A club that was gloating at the prospect of advancing at a greater pace than its local rivals because NM was a virtual certainty. A club that point blank refused to even consider the prospect of sharing at GH because they were "ok jack".

And Glover has the gall to offer a groundshare at NM to protect our future?

Well Mr Glover I don't know who on earth you think you are but as far as I am concerned you can shove everything to do with Wakey right where the sun don't shine.

Absolutely agree with every word. well said mate.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 pm  

Is it just me or does anyone else think that there has been a typo made in this statement (and i am not being sarcastic here) but surley he meant to say both teams share at glasshoughton. Why else would he have bothered to say I know this may not be a popular decision with the fans, because if it was a ground share at newmarket the wakey fans I think would be happt y with this and to be honest they are the only fans of any concern to him.
Also I did not see any mention of Oakwell in the statement so I wonder if that option is now out of the equation. Anyway to be honest I am not too bothered about this as I am sure he has just been misquoted in his statement.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:48 pm  

No way, Jose.

End of.

Re: Wakey and the 'Sharing' option : Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm  

I've had a lot of sympathy with the Trinity fans recently, but to hell with it. They are now being run by what looks to be like another gobsh**e.

They are trying to muddy the waters, because at this time it suits them. Do they really think the RFL won't see through all this?

No ground, no money, no fans, no hope of a SL License.

It just beggars belief that all this has been raised, the bare faced cheek of it is astonishing.

Message to Trinity: LEAVE US ALONE, WE ARE DOING QUITE NICELY WITHOUT YOU THANKS