Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 9:58:23 GMT
I understand that objections to the move to Nunnery Way have to be submitted before the 20th of this month.
I believe that unless this idiotic scheme is stopped WCFC will die.
The present board's figures alone show that by selling St George's Lane and building the two-sided, half finished NW "stadium" we will be over £900,000 in debt. And that was pre-credit crunch figures. They also acknowledge that the club will trade for 4 years at a loss. That must take the new debt to over £1 million.
They say then a single year will provide income of over £800,000.
How? They can't make a profit from the existing social club at SGL. The new ground won't have any hospitality or kitchen facilities - there isn't enough money to build them.
The whole point of moving was to clear the debt. By going to NW we will have a similar debt to the one we have now - if we're lucky.
And we will have lost St George's Lane - FOREVER.
The new ground's land value will be a tiny fraction of SGL's. We will go bust.
There have been NO consultations with fans or shareholders over this move. It's a "take it or leave it situation". It's time we said NO.
We know of nine applications to build in the M5 corridor along Nunnery Way. Hallmark's and Co. represented all of the potential applicants. Surely a massive conflict of interest that one of our own directors should not be involved with.
I think it's time the council heard objections from true supporters who see this not as an environmental or NIMBY issue - but as the termination of a historical, well loved and valuable local facility - i.e. our football club.
I agree that we will need to move to a new site at some point - but this move will be the end of our cub.
I've never written to the council before - but I believe this is too important to let go. I urge you to drop a few lines to (an email is fine):
Alan Coleman
Acting Planning Manager
Development Control Team Leader
Worcester City Council
Orchard House,
Farrier St,
Worcester, WR1 3BB
email: acoleman@worcester.gov.uk
|
|
|
|
Post by bigsteve on Feb 8, 2009 20:53:43 GMT
We know of nine applications to build in the M5 corridor along Nunnery Way. Hallmark's and Co. represented all of the potential applicants. Surely a massive conflict of interest that one of our own directors should not be involved with. Are you sure of this? Because this is a very serious allegation because if the City planning application is granted he could make a lot of money representing those other applicants. So is he acting in the best interests of the football club? or in the best interests of himself? Have you got proof of this and will you include it in your letter ot the council? |
|
|
|
Post by Wesley2scoopsBerry on Feb 8, 2009 20:56:22 GMT
yea you sure ealing? that sounds a serious thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 21:37:32 GMT
In his objection to the NW development (which is now public) Andrew Guy quotes nine instances where objectors to not being allowed to build along the M5 corridor were represented by Hallmarks. Of course, Mr Guy may be a complete fruit case, but he quotes names and case numbers. The council already know who is involved in these deals, they have the records, and many people have pointed this out already.
|
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Feb 8, 2009 23:00:35 GMT
Any comments submitted must relate to planning issues if you want them to be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Feb 9, 2009 9:14:39 GMT
Has Boddy got his fingers in the pie too?
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Feb 9, 2009 11:15:40 GMT
Has Boddy got his fingers in the pie too? who knows what is going on? if we take a step back and look at the situation from last July until now it makes a very disturbing view. Every obstacle possible was put in the way of any compromise and whne it looked for all the world that there was no place for the old guard to hide up popped a document allegedly composed on the pc of a Worcester solicitor which put a whole different spin on the compromise proposal and that was followed by the orchestration of the AGM and low and behold here we are several month later tied in to the nunnery way deal more heavily than before thanks to a three way agreement between the bank Careys and StMods. Who is the real winner? What does this 3 way agreement really mean? Does it mean that all three parties believe it to be in the best interests of WCFC? Or is just the best way for them to maximise their return? The bank are jittery due to the global financial situation and their account manager has backed the club probably further than his bosses would have liked. So have refused any more money but that doesn't mean they are prepared to take a hit should the Carey sale fall through. Make no mistake he will be looking for any possible way to salvage this situation to save his neck. If StMods have indeed as rumoured given the club the £100k to save admin then this is good isn't it? I would say quite categorically NO! Everything that SAG were saying has turned out to be proved correct. They proposed a way of saving the club using hard work and skilled people but instead this was rejected by a few and the time honoured solution was adopted..lend more money! This club is dead, we are just witnessing the final breaths, it may not end this year or next but it will. There is no budget for players, no football club management at board level. Why is Boddy still skulking around? why is he even aloud inside the ground after all the acts his acts of tretchery. He has watched the people he backed so publicity all go one by one to pacify the fans and he still stays! what a great and trustworthy man this is! What is the problem between K Stokes-Smith and the Trust? case -1. Why was he so upset that Colin Layland(City legend) wasn't the trust rep and in his opinion "was there on false pretences". When Colin had said all along he was independant and it was Boddy who refused to correct his own lie. case-2. Then after the HKL was used for the quiz night with Harry Knowles Mr SS creates an application form for booking any room at SGL that any tax office would be proud of in terms of length and complexity. His fear was the destination of the funds and wanted to know if the trust were "on message"!!! Case-3. The Trust/Rich W are requested in a blunt and cold email from SS to hand over the keys to HKL and any money owed today as the new bar steward Mr Neil Cleavely(Archdales) is taking over both the HKL and Social Club. There was also a nasty rumour put out by members of the board that the Trust were making money from WCFC's beer stocks!! This is a shameful accusation as I both helped Rich carry many crates of bottled beers/ciders into the HKL and also attended the HKL and it was made clear to all customers that the taps were not working and only bottled beer was available. Colin aside it does look like this bunch of directors are even worse than the last lot. The old guard were City fans who were just not up to the job but this lot are not even city fans, they are just incapable. Whats the saying "deceive me once shame on you, deceive me twice shame on me" in an offer to support the changes proposed I resurrected the website and gave my word that the website would be available to wcfc until the end of the season and I will keep to that but i refuse to put another finger on it personally. We have ALL been deceived and lied to... AH was full of gusto at the fans forum and said everything people wanted to hear...then Hallmark returns from holiday and AH is put back in his place. There is only one course of action that will save this club now! The TRUST MUST take control before these incompetent people. rant over, Im not wasting another minute on wcfc until the trust has control and as I don't expect this to be allowed. that's it for me and wcfc. |
|
|
|
Post by Wesley2scoopsBerry on Feb 9, 2009 12:56:25 GMT
Whos this Neil Cleavely then? and whats all this about the Trust making money from beer stocks, the Socail club never made any money from beer stocks
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Feb 9, 2009 13:00:14 GMT
Any comments submitted must relate to planning issues if you want them to be taken into consideration. Sorry to be a pain but Jupu is spot on with his comments. Nearly all of this highly interesting information is unfortuately not relevant (in planning terms) to this application and will not be given weight by the Council. This is Evening News territory again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 13:07:22 GMT
That's true, but the prospectof the City ofWorcester having a half built, unused stadium rotting away on the edge of town is relevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Feb 9, 2009 13:14:05 GMT
I fully agree - a two sided 'stadium' a stones throw from an impressive sports facility would be a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Feb 9, 2009 13:22:59 GMT
Any comments submitted must relate to planning issues if you want them to be taken into consideration. Sorry to be a pain but Jupu is spot on with his comments. Nearly all of this highly interesting information is unfortuately not relevant (in planning terms) to this application and will not be given weight by the Council. This is Evening News territory again. A large part of the planning application surely relies on the Business Plan included being accurate and a true reflection of the state of the Clubs position and the assumptions it makes. Doubts raised by concerned supporters may suggest that these numbers do not add up. The Council should take these "projected" figures into account as I'd guess they'd have no wish to have any major development being given the green light until they are satisfied that it is in the best interests of the City of Worcester- not Worcester City FC. |
|
|
|
Post by bigsteve on Feb 9, 2009 13:58:12 GMT
Yeah good points by Jupu and Mancunian_WCFC it has to be planning related. Although how come a concession is being granted regarding the planning application for Careys / Bellway Homes so that no Social Housing has to be included, in order to maximise the value of the site and ensure the finances for the joint application almost make sense, whats that got to do with planning?
A quick read of the adopted Local Plan, CLT32 and the report by Inspector Clive Richardson following the Public Inquiry shows that this application is a long way wide of the mark in terms of planning anyway
There are enough planning related aspects to object about such as
CLT32 states that about 4 hectares will be required for the football stadium, and the proposed plan shows only 2 hectares.
Nowhere in CLT32 is there any mention of the allowance of "enabling development" although there is a reference to the possibility of non-retail sports/leisure ancillary development but under strict design controls
Its in there in black and white
Worcester City Football Club.
The relocation of the club ground is seen by the City Council as important, in view of the problems with their present location, and in order to encourage this, the existing site is allocated within this Local Plan for residential use (Figure 6).
However, a site of approximately 4.00 hectares would be required of the appropriate configuration (broadly rectangular) for a Sports Stadium. In applying the sequential test brownfield sites within the urban area have been assessed but there are none which are not either significant to the employment land supply or would create similar problems to the existing site.
Therefore, in view of the restricted nature of the urban area a greenfield location is the only option.
In assessing the greenfield options account has been taken of areas of housing growth, public and private transport and access to the M5, as well as landscape quality, and it has been concluded that the site at Nunnery Way would be the most sustainable for allocating an all
purpose stadium in a manner which would be appropriate to the Green Network. It would also serve as a venue to other sports/leisure users. This site would give good access in terms of public and private transport, and is large enough to provide adequate car parking and associated landscaping. It would also permit the redevelopment of the existing St George’s Lane ground for housing and thereby improve the environment of the surrounding residential area. However, in any development of this site, design will be of paramount importance.
Developers will need to demonstrate that the scale and density is appropriate to the Green Network. Ancillary developments of a non retail sports/leisure nature would be acceptable within the design framework of a single stadium building.
I think it would be worthwhile writing to your local councillors, particularly if they are Labour councillors, and asking if they are happy to vote in favour of a plan which benefits such a small number of their constituents, but excludes those who need support in terms of social housing. Surely they must find the need for social and affordable housing of local people more important than a financial leg-up for a failing football club.
Write to Michael Foster too, theres a potential general election round the corner. He's not going to look too smart allowing this concession through.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigsteve on Feb 9, 2009 14:28:56 GMT
Any comments submitted must relate to planning issues if you want them to be taken into consideration. totally right, and CLT32 explicitly allocates land for a stadium for "Worcester City Football Club" not A football club, or A stadium. Its very explicit. As WCFC is in a parlous financial state, with a high risk of administration, indeed it may not be around by the time they start levelling the ground at Nunnery Way, then surely the financial situation has to be taken into considertation in this planning application which might be why the council rejected the initial application as incomplete. The planning comittee has a duty to the people it represents, the citizens of Worcester and NOT a private business venture such as St. Modwen or Worcester City Football Club. From a planning perspective within CLT32 this application should be declined if it cannot be relied upon for granting planning permission for "a sports stadium for the relocation of Worcester City Football Club" Don't let anyone, in any position, put you off objecting under any terms, particuarly financial aspects, after all, isn't the St Modwen profit share via the proposed "enabling development" nothing more than a "cash for planning" exercise, which was picked up on by Clive Richardson at the time of the public inquiry following the last plan from B&Q when he stated "it is difficult to identify what is the primary land use and what is the enabling development" The football club have blatantly lied about planning anyway. At the Whitehouse Hotel a big display read "........theadopted Worcester City Local Plan also supports the principle of appropriate enabling development on the site" No it doesn't, the idea of enabling development is not supported in CLT32 and the term enabling development is not used at all in the Local Plan. There are serious financial and political implications surrounding this planning applications. Make sure they are included in any letters of objection, make sure they are truthful as they are public domain documents, but don't feel you shouldn't include them. Planning has been rejected for many more reasons than planning based objections due to the actions of those who have had to think outside the box - and for that matter planning has also been granted for reasons other than planning reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Feb 9, 2009 14:34:37 GMT
As this all seems quite complicated would it be worth someone pulling togeather a standard email/letter that can be sent in ? Or would that dilute the effect with the planners if all objections read the same ?
|
|
|
|
Post by suv on Feb 9, 2009 14:57:24 GMT
rant over, Im not wasting another minute on wcfc until the trust has control and as I don't expect this to be allowed. that's it for me and wcfc. So are you just going "to fade away" which is what I believe Dave Boddy hoped you would do, in his comments to the press after the recent AGM? |
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Feb 9, 2009 15:07:51 GMT
Sorry to be a pain but Jupu is spot on with his comments. Nearly all of this highly interesting information is unfortuately not relevant (in planning terms) to this application and will not be given weight by the Council. This is Evening News territory again. A large part of the planning application surely relies on the Business Plan included being accurate and a true reflection of the state of the Clubs position and the assumptions it makes. Doubts raised by concerned supporters may suggest that these numbers do not add up. The Council should take these "projected" figures into account as I'd guess they'd have no wish to have any major development being given the green light until they are satisfied that it is in the best interests of the City of Worcester- not Worcester City FC. This is true up to a point - the Council should only give permission for the plans if they are considered to be 'deliverable'. Although what constitutes deliverability is a bit murky! I could apply and succesfully gain planning permission to build in your back garden - but without your permission is it deliverable? Planning tends to deal in 'planing facts' and is a bit blinkered to the real world. My point is that I have read many 'emotive' letters from objectors to schemes over the years, giving page after page of opinions and vitiriol reagrding the developers - most of which are entirely irrelevant to the planning process. If you are going to write to the Council - keep it factual and make specific points about the application details. Try (however hard it is!) to keep emotion out of the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by bigsteve on Feb 9, 2009 15:38:12 GMT
Do the opposite of what Mancunian_WCFC is saying there. St. Modwen havent got where they are by relying on either planning facts or being unemotive. Relevence is a matter for those who have to consider the objections, if it isn't written down its already irrelevent. Planning applications are considered not by qualified planning officers but by councillors, and councillors like to hold on to office and be seen to be representing theri constituents. They like to do a good job and end up having a road or a bridge named after them. They are all aware that they rise and fall based on elections, and that a general election is due shortly.
Their role is to work towards providing the citizens of Worcester with a better Worcester.
Planning Officers work in planning facts, your local councillors work for you, and thats emotive. If you believe that this hairbrained scheme will result in the failure of Worcester City football club and you've supported the club for x number of years and that it will only benefit St. Modwen and landowners around the ground, then tell them. Remember the council have a clean concsiense about Nunnery Way because they allocated the land for the relocation of worcester City football club back in 2003, they've done their bit to help the club already. They certainly do not want to be seen as the people who destroyed the football club by giving planning consent to a financially flawed scheme. They don't want to be seen as bein like Stoke City Council, who were well tuckered up by St. Modwen over the Britannia Stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Feb 9, 2009 17:50:49 GMT
I can only echo a number of things that have been written already, however unlike an AGM where one person can have multiple votes based shareholding, every objector to the hair- brained scheme that is Nunnery Way will be listened to.
I would implore all out there who have the long term interest of Worcester City Football Club to write with their objection to both the the Planning Officer and the same letter to your local councillor.
Do not let the 'transitional board', particularly the ones only there to see the club through to Nunnery Way have their way.
Object in the strongest possible terms that the figures do not add up, the club could be left with a bigger debt than we currently have with an asset of less value.
Object to the half baked business plan that forecasts income double to that currently produced and this without doing our own catering.
Object to only 200 car parking spaces and the nonsense that the enabling businesses ie hotel, restaurant, car showrooms, offices will welcome you and visiting supporters to park freely on their premises.
Object to the reduced acreage that is now being offered.
I once heard a current director state that as St Modwen are a local company they would 'look after WCFC', it is exactly this type of naivety that has allowed the current situation to prevail.
Remember if you care for the future of this club it may be the final opportunity, your letters will count.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Feb 9, 2009 18:02:40 GMT
St Modwen pull out of partnership with Dudley Council to redevelope the Dudley Zoo and castle site. See Property Week.com for full details
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Feb 9, 2009 18:10:10 GMT
I can only echo a number of things that have been written already, however unlike an AGM where one person can have multiple votes based shareholding, every objector to the hair- brained scheme that is Nunnery Way will be listened to. I would implore all out there who have the long term interest of Worcester City Football Club to write with their objection to both the the Planning Officer and the same letter to your local councillor. Do not let the 'transitional board', particularly the ones only there to see the club through to Nunnery Way have their way. Object in the strongest possible terms that the figures do not add up, the club could be left with a bigger debt than we currently have with an asset of less value. Object to the half baked business plan that forecasts income double to that currently produced and this without doing our own catering. Object to only 200 car parking spaces and the nonsense that the enabling businesses ie hotel, restaurant, car showrooms, offices will welcome you and visiting supporters to park freely on their premises. Object to the reduced acreage that is now being offered. I once heard a current director state that as St Modwen are a local company they would 'look after WCFC', it is exactly this type of naivety that has allowed the current situation to prevail. Remember if you care for the future of this club it may be the final opportunity, your letters will count. Planning Committee Councillors: committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.asp?ID=130&J=3 |
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Feb 9, 2009 18:11:51 GMT
Hang on- whilst I accept that everyone had to take Hampson 'at his word' when he first came on the scene, and certainly until January 31st, isn't everyone now getting carried away by the planning permission/application on Nunnery Way?
Because perhaps this is what the board wants. We can all put in our twopenneth worth about the rights and wrongs of the new ground, but things are at a far more critical stage than anyone wants to believe. Whether the club stay at SGL or move to NW or wherever, that whole discussion is immaterial. Whilst we can all see/presume that a move to NW will probably make certain people wealthy/wealthier.
The club is in dire trouble, that we can all appreciate. Hypothetically, an announcement tomorrow that contracts have been exchanged, and work is about to begin, on a new ground, would mean sod all because IT IS THE HERE AND NOW THAT ARE VITAL.
AH has good morals and good ideas, but the reality is that he will never be allowed to do what he wants to do with some of the other board members around.
Total agreement with Wayne
|
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Feb 9, 2009 18:23:08 GMT
I've just read the business plan. So St Modwen bought a piece of land for 3.1 million that was 20 acres. WCFC then pay £600k for 2 acres in a market that has shrunk !!! Considering St Modwen need WCFC to make anything happen surely a pro rata price of £300k was what our dedicated team should have been driving for !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Feb 9, 2009 18:25:16 GMT
Hang on- whilst I accept that everyone had to take Hampson 'at his word' when he first came on the scene, and certainly until January 31st, isn't everyone now getting carried away by the planning permission/application on Nunnery Way? Because perhaps this is what the board wants. We can all put in our twopenneth worth about the rights and wrongs of the new ground, but things are at a far more critical stage than anyone wants to believe. Whether the club stay at SGL or move to NW or wherever, that whole discussion is immaterial. Whilst we can all see/presume that a move to NW will probably make certain people wealthy/wealthier. The club is in dire trouble, that we can all appreciate. Hypothetically, an announcement tomorrow that contracts have been exchanged, and work is about to begin, on a new ground, would mean sod all because IT IS THE HERE AND NOW THAT ARE VITAL. AH has good morals and good ideas, but the reality is that he will never be allowed to do what he wants to do with some of the other board members around. Total agreement with Wayne But if the planning fails, administration beckons and then the Trust steps in with all of the current regime excluded. At least that's how I see it - or am I missing a point ! |
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Feb 9, 2009 18:38:03 GMT
preston- I see what you are saying, and no, I dont think you are missing anything.
I just think that if pp is granted tomorrow, are we all being naive in thinking that that is the end of the clubs problems?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 18:44:23 GMT
"IT IS THE HERE AND NOW THAT ARE VITAL."
Many of us believe the move to NW is the only reason most directors are interested in the club. How many games does Mr Hallmark attend? They aren't interested in the football. It is they that are creating the "here and now". So the sooner the deal collapses the sooner they'll run off to pastures new and we can re-direct the club. There's no chance of addressing the pressing issues until the NW dream/nightmare is abandoned.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Feb 9, 2009 21:34:32 GMT
rant over, Im not wasting another minute on wcfc until the trust has control and as I don't expect this to be allowed. that's it for me and wcfc. So are you just going "to fade away" which is what I believe Dave Boddy hoped you would do, in his comments to the press after the recent AGM? and we all know what a good judge of character Boddy is don't we. I believe your old school chum was talking about the people aggrieved at the result of the AGM. |
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Feb 9, 2009 23:19:39 GMT
I can only echo a number of things that have been written already, however unlike an AGM where one person can have multiple votes based shareholding, every objector to the hair- brained scheme that is Nunnery Way will be listened to. I would implore all out there who have the long term interest of Worcester City Football Club to write with their objection to both the the Planning Officer and the same letter to your local councillor. Do not let the 'transitional board', particularly the ones only there to see the club through to Nunnery Way have their way. Object in the strongest possible terms that the figures do not add up, the club could be left with a bigger debt than we currently have with an asset of less value. Object to the half baked business plan that forecasts income double to that currently produced and this without doing our own catering. Object to only 200 car parking spaces and the nonsense that the enabling businesses ie hotel, restaurant, car showrooms, offices will welcome you and visiting supporters to park freely on their premises. Object to the reduced acreage that is now being offered. I once heard a current director state that as St Modwen are a local company they would 'look after WCFC', it is exactly this type of naivety that has allowed the current situation to prevail. Remember if you care for the future of this club it may be the final opportunity, your letters will count. Planning Committee Councillors: committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.asp?ID=130&J=3MJLayland will not be taking part in the planning issue on Nunnery Way. |
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Feb 10, 2009 7:24:43 GMT
MJLayland will not be taking part in the planning issue on Nunnery Way. But it would still be valid to question his views if he was your local councillor. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Feb 10, 2009 8:19:36 GMT
Isn't it odd that the City of Worcester has a councillor who does not live in it's boundaries. i.e. Councillor Tarbuck who lives in Hallow. He also sits on another council. Is it Malvern Hills?
|
|
