Cricket: Yorkshire move over ground

Tuesday 09 December 1997 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Yorkshire yesterday made the first steps towards resolving their dispute with Headingley's owners by suggesting both parties return to the negotiating table.

Secret talks broke up last week with Paul Caddick, the chairman of Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Club, claiming Yorkshire had walked out in protest at a planned press release.

But at a press conference yesterday, the Yorkshire chief executive, Chris Hassell, stressed: "We would be quite happy to begin negotiations again with Mr Caddick.

"We have received a number of ultimatums and threats which we are not too pleased about. We we have been trying to negotiate in an acceptable manner."

Hassell claimed Caddick's proposals to re-develop Headingley "lacked substance" and were "no more than a model proposal''.

Yorkshire claim they entered talks with Caddick to discuss the viability of Headingley's re-development and insist their proposed move to a purpose- built stadium in Wakefield was still "very much alive''.

Caddick welcomed Hassell's invitation to re-open talks, saying: "We do not intend to open a public debate on the details of our negotiations.''

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in