Parkin wanted the land at Belle Vue

reading between the lines i guess your not going to name your so called source of info.



ever sine AG as taken the reigns it seems someone did better or someone would do better.



stop making outrageous claims about people's health sweetheart and stick to the questions posed instead of trying to limp over them like a badly prepared 1970s SDP spin doctor. I really do question at times you desire for this club to progress then i remember your sterling work for SWAG and have to sit back and count to 10.

So what???



It had been sold long ago & after the old company entered Administration the CLUB would not have been entitled to any money still outstanding from the sale - that would have gone to the creditors of the old company via the Administrators.



In any case, provision had been made by that time that WTRLFC would be moving to Newmarket. If Parkin (or anyone else for that matter - except a Richardson) is able to make a profit from BV then fair pay to them. If it worked out that it was also to the benefit of WT then so much the better, but the time for sentimentality about who does what with BV has long since passed & there's nothing anyone can do about it.

As I was told it:



Parkin wanted a ground for Guiseley - thus Newmarket was more the target, rather than Belle Vue. Glover was willing to stand aside for him, partly as it was clear he couldn't match him if it came to a financial battle, but not before Parkin assured him his intentions were noble in that whilst he was acting for Guiseley, he wasn't about to do Trinity over. My reading into that was that he was taking over the club primarily for the ground, but once he had done so, would run the club properly, although how enthusiastic he would have been about fulfilling the pipe dreams of him being Wakefield's very own Sheikh, I'm doubtful.



As far as him withdrawing, I was advised it was seemingly because his advisors told him Newmarket was several years away, much further than everyone expected (and the current timeline suggests), so the primary purpose of the takeover was effectively shelved. Savills thus phoned Glover back, and the rest is history.

No scandal, no conspiracies, no intrigue? I can't believe that version's true Bloomers.

Has Parkin bought Murphy? Sorry, I must be on the wrong thread.

At the end of the day he could have had the club hook line & sinker and wouldn't have cost him much more than a months interest on his bank balance if that, by the sounds of it now and even back then, he had ulterior motives. If that was the case, I'm glad AG decided to take a chance and got himself stuck into the job and run it as a proper business. I'd rather have a guy who wants to be here than one who's got some kind of agenda.

Strange, because ever since he took over you have attempted to strangle any debate that doesn't conform to your fantasy version of Glover or your ludicrously twisted version of the past. What's up can't you face a bit of decent? Is your argument so weak and feeble that the only card you can play is the loyalty one. This inability to accept any criticism of your poster boy however moderate it is is frankly sad. Your inability to follow the argument, read between the lines and follow the sub text indicates to me an over emotional person with a closed mind.



I'll say it again just for you. Over all the new regime gets my approval FWIW, the other alternative is gone for now and the club appears safe and solid. However that doesn't mean I will stick my head in the sand and pretend all is well. There are a number of issues that concern me but to make the point I will stick to this one for now.



I can't name a source because it's came from so many most you wouldn't know, not that it's hugely relevant to the point anyway.



So, Parkin has more money and clout - agreed.



Glover fought very hard to beat of Parkins challenge, he did this partly by convincing the RFL he was the better bet despite having less cash. He also did it by being willing to accept second division RL which was an utter no no for Parkin. AG was the right choice at the time by the RFL because they like us expected Wakefield to exit SL - this was a situation AG could handle. Whether he could have made it work who knows.



Then like a bolt out of the blue we keep our franchise. AG is in charge, and people now have massive expectations many partly fueled by AG. The problem is IMO he doesn't have the wealth IMHO to make those expectation real, certainly not in the short term. Parkin does, I'm sorry but he simply does. He was scuppered mainly because he demanded we be kept in SL as far as I'm aware, a promise the RFL rightly IMHO refused. As it turns out due to the RFL's own incompetence and flawed ideology it was an assurance they could have actually given with some ease in hindsight or perhaps even without so obvious was Crusaders weakness.



Doesn't matter which way you view it Parkin is richer and if you believe he was serious then has to be a better bet than Glover. That is not personal it's just plain pigging obvious. Everyone on here wanted Parkin at the time, so why is it now wrong to at least mention that financially Parkin was probably the better deal.



Despite what you think I'm allowed to muse over this because I'm a Trinity fan not a Glover or Parkin fan. I happen to think Glover is very much in the Ted mold in terms of how he can run and finance the club - he is limited financially though better off than the previous incumbent. I have no idea as to how good or bad Parkin would be but what is clear is that if he really wanted to make us a force again he has the cash to do it and no one running Trinity has been in that situation since the sixties.



As for the 10 year plan. How many times has that one been trotted out. Ten years is a hell of a long time - not just in the life of the club but in the life of Andrew Glover. Anything could happen in ten years, I think any ten year plan will have to be so vague as to be almost non existent. Sorry, I'm sure AG means well and is saying what folk like to hear but the idea of a workable ten year plan in RL is utterly ludicrous. I bet Uncle Ken at Hudds had a ten year plan and I reckon considering the cash he's thrown at them it involved them being a hell of a lot more successful than they have been up to date. Success in RL is not solely based on being the richest, but long term success is always based on having enough money to do what you need to do. What we need to do is keep Murphy for many reasons (most not wholly to do with him as a player) and bring in players like Kirmond - not one or the other. It appears to me we still can't afford to keep players and strengthen at the same time, and whilst ever we can't/won't do that we won't break out IMHO. Hence it's the same old same old.



It's not really such a radical or disloyal opinion, is it. If you want quick success then you need a sugar daddy these days. That being the case you want the richest one you can find - so in the voice of a Meerkat .....simple.

Change the name to richardson and does it remind you of anyone???

So, to get back to the thread is Murphy staying or going? anyone know?

Predictable cheap point scoring YAWN

No idea.