[tb]

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:30 pm  

(I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but) Bookies odds do not reflect the likelihood of something happening. They're based on the amount of money bet and the potential loss to the bookmakers if something happens. Nothing more.

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:49 pm  

Riggins said; Land deal was in place 2 or 3 years ago. Price agreed then.
Next.

That's what Ted Richardson thought until Sainsburys (allegedly)welched on the deal, and look where that got him!

Hopefully your deal is a bit more secure than Teds, and with the Hicksons thing being sorted you can steam on ahead.

Did the issue of the access land that RW wanted the council to compulsorily purchase ever get sorted, and if not is it a 'show stopper'.

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:56 pm  

wakeyrule wrote:

Did the issue of the access land that RW wanted the council to compulsorily purchase ever get sorted, and if not is it a 'show stopper'.

It never was a problem. It was only Wakey fans that made it sound like it was.

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:52 pm  

pyeman wrote:

Of the 3 looking at the chop i would say we have the best case

We have better crowds than wakey and salford
Better youth development than both
Better on field success in this franchise period than salford and equal (average league placing) to wakey
Less debt than wakey and salford
Less overseas players than wakey and salford

I've left grounds aside because all clubs beleive they are getting one now which should cancel each other out if true (though in our favour we will own ours and wakey will rent theres, not sure about salford).

And don't forget better crowd trouble than Wakey & Salford.
How many times as Cas been fined this season or last

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:01 pm  

Fully wrote:

It never was a problem. It was only Wakey fans that made it sound like it was.

I didn't say it was a problem did I? I just asked if this ISSUE was resolved - and I still don't know the answer!

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:20 pm  

wakeyrule wrote:

I didn't say it was a problem did I? I just asked if this ISSUE was resolved - and I still don't know the answer!

It never was a problem = nothing to resolve.

Re: Superleague places at risk : Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:34 pm  

Disney cat wrote:

And don't forget better crowd trouble than Wakey & Salford.
How many times as Cas been fined this season or last

The same number of times wakefield have faced a winding up order in the last year.

hth.

Re: Superleague places at risk : Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:01 am  

wakeyrule wrote:

Riggins said; Land deal was in place 2 or 3 years ago. Price agreed then.
Next.

That's what Ted Richardson thought until Sainsburys (allegedly)welched on the deal, and look where that got him!

Hopefully your deal is a bit more secure than Teds, and with the Hicksons thing being sorted you can steam on ahead.

Did the issue of the access land that RW wanted the council to compulsorily purchase ever get sorted, and if not is it a 'show stopper'.

I believe it did but thats another story

Re: Superleague places at risk : Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:41 am  

BIGAL1 wrote:

I believe it did but thats another story

Go on then - enlighten us!

Re: Superleague places at risk : Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:54 am  

pyeman wrote:

Of the 3 looking at the chop i would say we have the best case

Its a good job I am not looking for Sig material Gazza