dboy

The share is worthless. The SMC is taking them for free to relieve the council and the Giants of their financial responsibilities to fund the upgrade and maintenance of the stadium.

The shares don't come with a "proceed", they come with an "invoice" for your share of the upgrade and upkeep of the stadium. It's a con - the stadium is a valuable asset and the stadium management company have convinced the council and the Giants that they'll be better of without their share, citing future bills.

OK. TBF I'm not stupid enough to be blaming the RFL for all the ills of the game, and as a Wakey fan, I don't even need a winning or competitive team to keep me interested in the game I love. I'll be there this week and I'll be there next season. The RFL have no bearing on that.

Sort of. I dumped Sky cos it's SL coverage is not worth the money. Does that count?

It's not. You can cease being offended on his behalf.

Don't pretend you wouldn't like our suffering to be prolonged!

Applegarth knew his fate weeks ago. Expected to return to head of youth set-up, with assistant coach role. As before.

Ask him about it. The soccer club is pricing you out. It's all in public record. Kirklees jumped ship early to stave off their liabilities, "gifting" their 40% share to the soccer club and the Gnats.

The stadium management are running the stadium down because they know that neither Kirklees Council nor Giants can contribute the necessary funds. Huddersfield Giants’ stadium issue latest as Super League club and Huddersfield Town set to be given shares by Kirklees Council – Total Rugby League (totalrl.com) "The stadium needs £8 million to £10 million of investment within a decade to deal with maintenance issues and extend its life beyond 2050." Kirklees Council have already dumped their share - Giants have no choice but to follow, or stump up 40% of £10m refurbishment funding. The soccer club will have you out completely in 3 years time. And let's be honest, a little club like Giants (hilarious moniker), should not be rattling around in a stadium of that size.

Not for long... Huddersfield Town's new owner Kevin Nagle on club debts, the future of the John Smith's Stadium, Canalside and his support for women's football - Huddersfield Hub

That's right. It's weird in a way, but BECAUSE Leeds have a really non-centralised funding model, when it gets shut down e.g. covid lockdown, it really hits. Hopefully not something we will see repeated.

Yes. The environment agencies flood plain website is excellent - out in a postcode and it will show you exactly the flood risk.

That's not the issue, though the Cas developer is trying to make that argument - it's the fact that a new development takes up space/volume and would push floodwaters into space that they don't normally reach.

Fortunately, I downloaded it last night: here are some of the key bits; "In order to raise finished floor levels above the maximum flood level should defences fail, approximately 1.5 m of raising would be required. This would result in the development failing to meet accessibility criteria and lead to an increase in flood risk elsewhere. In addition, raising of finished floor levels would require the creation of new compensatory voids to accommodate the displaced volume of flooding. If this were to be included on the site it would result in the significant de-scoping of the major upgrades provided (such as removal of the training pitch, loss of car parking and removal of the fan zone) thereby undermining the principle of the proposals to provide upgraded stadium and training facilities. Having the fans seated at a higher level would undermine the intimate atmosphere of the historic stadium, one of the features it is famous and valued for. Raising finished floor levels would also raise construction costs which have been carefully assessed to provide the maximum benefits and to meet the Superleague stadium criteria. Any increase in construction costs would mean that the other upgrades to the facilities would need to be descoped resulting in Wheldon Road failing to meet the required stadium standards. Raising of finished floor levels is therefore deemed unviable." The letter is basically toned to say "we can't afford to do the amendments, so please just ignore them".

Something's afoot. Eastwood Consulting Engineers, appointed by the developer, have responded to the Environment Agencies requirements, saying they can't afford to do them. That letter has now been taken down from the planning portal!!

There's quite a lot you are "not sure" about, isn't there? Saints was done "right" - they used the assets they had and supplemented them with an external corporate support. Same with Wire. Wigan similar-ish, but they squandered the Central Park money and do not own so much as a napkin at the new ground. They even had to re-arrange a match a number of years ago because some one booked a wedding in the hospitality suite. Cuckoos. Hudds did have a 20% stakeholding, but that is gone and a private company is taking over the whole stadium - essentially the soccer club. Cuckoos. Leeds City Council have underwritten the Headingley build. Beholden to cricket fixtures, so technically do not have Primacy of Tenure. Leeds don't make profits. They had the biggest losses of all clubs the other year, haven't seen this year's figures. Bradford is a crater in the ground and should never be mentioned in comparison discussions. It's a ###### hole! Fev have made great efforts, but need to get some floodlights as a priority. Wakey have not got their ducks in a row and predictably all you hear is "yeah but...20 years but...blah, blah, blah". Castleford are screwed BTW. Their ground development will not happen.

Sinfield is not the answer. Frawley is not the answer. Then there's Olpherts, Donaldson, Sezer, Handley, Bentley, Tindall...and more. You cannot compete with Saints, Wigan, Dragons with that roster.

Which tells you everything you need to know about why they are where they are, and where they are heading.

The fact that Leeds think Son of Sinfield is, or ever will be, a star SL-level player, tells you everything you need to know about why they are where they are, and where they are heading.

Yes, it's great isn't it!

Nonsense. The 14 team plan was overwhelmingly dismissed. The main barriers were Hetherington, McManus and Pearson. None of the 12 were prepared to a 14th share, when their whole business relies on maintaining a 12th, though the main argument trotted out was "the player pool is too small". I personally wanted 14 BTW - a much better-balanced league and no silly loop fixtures. Hey ho.

Garbage. Saints and Wire funded by external sources - but that's fine. Same with Leeds - completely underwritten by Leeds City Council and the cricket club. Wigan, Hudds, HFC - DO NOT own their own grounds - they are cuckoos in a soccer ground and play when they're told they can play. Are you taking the ###### mentioning Bradford???

That, of course, remains to be seen, but at some point, someone is gonna want those books balancing. I thank you for your good wishes towards my club. We've been ###### and deserve to go down. Some fans, of some clubs, should be a bit more self-aware of just what their own merits are. More so some clubs, who have shown incredible crassness and bad-taste in their social media. I don't think it's what IMG have in mind. It looks amateurish and classless.

Do you fancy merging with us if we promise to play 50% of the games in Huddersfield? How many times did you finish bottom, without being relegated? What's the plan when Davy stops underwriting your £2m+ losses per year? What are your real attendances (not the made up ones used to suggest a modicum of respectability)? Where will you play when the soccer club kick you out? Sir, as a Hudds fan, you should just keep your head down and shuffle on. Your club has NO redeeming factors.

He's just a typical Hudds fan - they are both ######. When Davy pops off, they're done anyway.