|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Aug 6, 2009 13:14:03 GMT
Reading the Worcester News today regarding the new ground proposal. It seems that all a certain solicitors massinations have might come to nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 6, 2009 13:36:16 GMT
... and brought a football club to its knees in doing so.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Aug 6, 2009 16:16:13 GMT
Reading the Worcester News today regarding the new ground proposal. It seems that all a certain solicitors massinations have might come to nothing. He has been running the project badly for the last 20 years so this latest disaster (sic) is no surprise?. Disaster or part of a grand plan? As the saying goes "a fool and his money is easily parted" The creditors will be banging down the office door very soon and I bet a prominent city law firm will make sure they get more than their ounce of flesh. Think back to recent history and it all starts to fall into place. from apparently rigged AGM to keep undesirables out and the scuppered compromise deal which was hoped would save the club and get rid of those apparently "on the make". If fingers need to be pointed then Just who is left on the scene to point them at? BODDY & HALLMARK The shareholders should call an EGM NOW and get Hallmark out before he has the chance to bungle another deal in the name of progress! Its always been about SGL, NOT NW. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 16:51:23 GMT
From the Worcester News
Keith Chambers, vice-chairman of the supporters’ club, said: “We are still behind the move and hope that it can be resolved so that the club and team can go forward.”
He doesn't understand it does he?
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Aug 6, 2009 17:03:13 GMT
Looks like the Supporter's Club have assumed the mantle of the Vichy Goverment.
You can make the other connection...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 17:30:05 GMT
Of course there will now be the usual clamours from the likes of Hampson that "the supporters need to save the club!" "we need you all to come down to SGL to cheer on the tem , oh and to give us more money"
Well, sorry but, these guys just keep crying wolf! Wheres the new "transparency" promised by Mr Hampson? what happened to the website showing the monthly financial situation? What happened to the monthly supporters meetings? What happened to the community liaison? What happened to the Supporters Trust liaison? What happened to the fund raising initiatives?
As ever, they are totally selective in their fan engagement. Where was the consultation regarding any details of the ground move project? Where was the consultation regarding the sale of SGL? Where was the consultation with supporters about what THEY wanted at the new ground??
I endorse the view of Creaner and the Supporters Trust, this lingering death of the club (for the benefit of the property developers) has to stop, and we have to seriously think about how to save football.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Aug 6, 2009 17:56:04 GMT
From the Worcester News Keith Chambers, vice-chairman of the supporters’ club, said: “We are still behind the move and hope that it can be resolved so that the club and team can go forward.” He doesn't understand it does he? A leopard never changes its spots. He is just a fool. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 18:28:03 GMT
I've just gone onto the WCFC website, I don't do it much, its a mess these days.
But now I'm seething having read Panters comments! Don't worry folks, the potential refusal of permission for the SGL development is in the words of a Director of the club "no more than "Sideshow" !!"
A Sideshow?? A f**k**g Sideshow???
A decision which could impact on the club in a matter of days is a mere sideshow!!!
The usual, come on down and cheer on the team whilst giving us your money (because we can't get money anywhere else!), and he has the audacity to treat supporters of the football club like utter drongos! We're not thick Panter! Don't treat us like idiots - there wouldnt be such urgent meetings between all the various parties including the bank if this wasn't a serious situation. We all know that cashflow has been effectively underwritten by Careys and SMD in exchange for sale proceeds, we do have the capability of reading the documents at Companies House!
A Sideshow indeed!!! Due to my coulrophobia I won't be able to attend SGL even if I wanted to, far too many clowns!!!
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Aug 6, 2009 18:56:23 GMT
What a patronising piece of garbage the vice chairman has issued on the official website!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 6, 2009 18:56:43 GMT
Yet still there are supporters who back the board without question. Unbelievable.
|
|
harley
Squad Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by harley on Aug 6, 2009 19:14:59 GMT
The words rabbit and headlights came to mind as I read Panter's statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Aug 7, 2009 8:15:34 GMT
At the very first meeting called to inform the shareholders about the proposed new ground at NW. Warnings were given that the planning applications were separate items, despite Major Booboo's denials.
These warning were given by Colin Layland. And Major Booboo rubbished his warnings.
Oh Dear!!
For major Boboo, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Can anyone guess who Major Booboo is?
|
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 7, 2009 9:07:18 GMT
Oh yes, Colin Layland the well known "troublemaker". He's part of a long list of such mischief makers who never had the club's welfare at heart. Their warnings of dire consequences were quite rightly dismissed by Mastermind Boddy and co. A list that includes Brooksider; Rich Widd; DJ; WH; Chris Green; Croc; Dazza; Jane C; The Bentleys; Blackpole, etc. etc. etc etc.
What the hell did all these people know about running a football club compared to Boddy?
Again there can only be two conclusions as to how the club's been run - corruption or incompetence. Either way he should hang his head in shame and walk away.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Aug 7, 2009 14:39:43 GMT
One of the saddest things about all this is that a lot of people saw it coming, saw where it was leading, saw where it was destined to end- yet the blinkered board decided to reach for the pot of tar marked "troublemaker" and get hold of the brush.
So the poor old supporter is duped with this "sideshow" line (words fail me)....and how they "must turn up and support the team for the future of the club" (what particular future is that?).
At least there is a vibrant Supporters Club who will vigorously question the situation.....oh, hang on
|
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Aug 7, 2009 15:13:46 GMT
So let me get this right? The same man who has led the project for God knows how long did not see this coming?
And yet this is the same team who are being entrusted to sort the shafting that will now come to pass, it beggars belief.
To really rub it in the vice chairman terms the whole future of WCFC a 'sideshow' and asks fans to turn out and support the team, and yet half of them do not attend the matches themselves. Is that because they have no interest in WCFC if so why are they Directors.
Oh I forgot, a majority of shareholders were suckered by a glossy pamphlet promising NW by season 2010-2011 and a profile of 'The Board to deliver the plan'
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Aug 7, 2009 16:18:57 GMT
Some one said the other day that Cliff Slade had resigned, is this true?
|
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 7, 2009 16:55:39 GMT
"The same man who has led the project for God knows how long did not see this coming" ... well that would be laughed out of court for a start. They were warned - as noted above - to their faces; at New Road; on here; even at the agm/egm. So they can't claim ignorance.
If you, and numerous other people, warned someone not to stand on a frozen lake, but they still did so - and then fell through the ice they couldn't claim not to see it coming.
Unless they're idiots - or believed they could walk on water.
|
|
|
|
Post by wakefield on Aug 7, 2009 17:50:29 GMT
I'm not that bothered anymore, but the ineptitude demonstrated in the 'press release' issued on the main website is without any doubt the best example I have ever witnessed.
These people would be excellent on Spittin Image, trying to arrange a party in a brewery.
If anyone of them had any clue, that disgrace of a 'statement' would be removed and the author quitely taken to the canal for a 'walk' in some cementious apparell.
'Sideshow'.....ahaaaaaahaaaahaaaaa,,,,
|
|
|
|
Post by blackpole on Aug 8, 2009 15:44:03 GMT
What bothers me is if the Council want to suggest refusal on the grounds of too small, not enough space etc, why did they not say that 5 yrs ago to the club AND B&Q and maybe that partnership could have looked at another site !!! This City Council does not want the club to go forward, and kept this latest excuse in the bag for the next attempt ,,,, they are nothing but a bunch of w****s !
This does not in anyway take blame away from the Club's Directors who have been useless as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 18:11:58 GMT
What bothers me is if the Council want to suggest refusal on the grounds of too small, not enough space etc, why did they not say that 5 yrs ago to the club AND B&Q and maybe that partnership could have looked at another site !!! This City Council does not want the club to go forward, and kept this latest excuse in the bag for the next attempt ,,,, they are nothing but a bunch of w****s ! This does not in anyway take blame away from the Club's Directors who have been useless as well This isn't about Nunnery Way, this is about SGL, and the council have, since the planning application was forwarded, been telling the parties of the issues with the application. Not only have the project managers ignored the advice given (and lets face it, if they propose roads too narrow, which is pretty basic stuff, then they know its going to be knocked back), but they've also it seems told the powers that be that they will still continue to present the plans KNOWING that they'll be rejected. You can't blame the Council for that. The Council have bent over backwards to help the club move, the Local Plan has incorporated the new ground for more than 10 years now. You can't blame the council if the club try to propose plans for Nunnery Way which incorporate all the planning elements such as enabling development, that they know won't get approval. Remember as things stand at the moment, even though the planning recommendation is for 8.5 acres to be set aside for the football ground, only 5.5 acres will be football ground, with 14.5 acres of enabling development. The club could get planning permission within weeks if they presented a plan without enabling development - but they refuse to, and we all know why. |
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Aug 13, 2009 15:28:17 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2009 15:55:36 GMT
Whats all this about Careys playing a significant part in the construction of Wembley Stadium?? Firstly, the construction of Wembley Stadium was embarassingly behind schedule and over budget!! and secondly, as far as I was aware, Careys were involved in some capacity on the construction of the Stadium Access Corridor, commercial office complexes where the old Industrial Estate used to be, pretty much next door to their own offices!
Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, they're not engaged to build a stadium for WCFC, part of the company called Carey New Homes is engaged to develop a housing estate, quite a different process altogether.
Cut the spin Panter, at least Boddy only dealt in facts - supposedly.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Aug 13, 2009 17:14:39 GMT
I think wcfc need a new spin doctor, this stuff is just garbage. I bet Mr P like to think outside the box and requests interfaces with people!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2009 19:32:37 GMT
See I'd be impressed if he said that Carey New Homes had significant numbers of successful housing developments around the country, particularly urban regeneration estates - but of course they havent, they are no Bellway Homes!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Aug 30, 2009 17:47:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hayesjenkins on Aug 30, 2009 18:13:23 GMT
When I heard the grim financial news from Hampson I was worried. So I checked the info on the Business Plan doc that was sent out before the agm when I got home.
Bank borrowing is now around £2 million confirmed by Hampson. Monthly loss is bumping around 8-10k per month. The increase in invcome forecast from November 2008 doesnt exist. This alone pushes the debt to around £2.5 million by the end of the transition phase.
This statement is more bad news as Hampson and Panter both said that the re-negotiation would have a significant impact on the sale price for SGL. It makes you wonder just how hard Careys didnt try to rectify the planning issues pointed out to them many months ago so they could get out of the original deal. If the price was set at a generous 6 million and taking into account that there will be no profit share from St. Modwens. The shortfall is almost £3 million. If we also need a cash fund of around £500,000 for first years trading out of that, then it leaves less than £3 million to just build phase 1 of Nunnery Way. Considering phase 1 was the mainstand and one terrace which costs £3.65 million to build then how is this in any way feasible.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Aug 30, 2009 19:23:43 GMT
But as Hampson also said if we can't afford NW we won't go ,and alternatives are now being considered
|
|
|
|
Post by hayesjenkins on Aug 30, 2009 21:12:51 GMT
I hope there was someone knowledgeable enough about the situation to challenge him when he said that because he is mistaken.
We do not have a choice of pulling out of Nunnery Way even if we can't afford it. We are bound by a 10 year obligation if SMD get planning permission regardless of whether we sell SGL or not. If they get planning permission we have to buy the land at Nunnery Way.
Theres a couple of further complications too. RBS no longer want to be our lenders so any change in the business plan would likely lead to them foreclosing so if we decided we couldnt afford it we would probably lose SGL. The other complication is the legal charges that SMD have on SGL so if we tried to pull out of Nunnery Way in breach of agreements I think they would also look to foreclose, and WCFC do not have the legal clout of SMD or the money to pay for legal clout.
We also have a 5 year agreement with Careys so if they wished they could drag out the planning application for as long as they wanted until the housing market pickes up So theoretically even if we could simply walk away from SMD we couldnt sell SGL to anyone but Careys for the next 4 years at least.
Its desperate and has long since been out of the clubs control and Messrs Hampson and Panter should already be well aware of that.
Alternatives? That statement shows that the only alternatives are considerations AFTER the enforced sale of SGL via administration and payment of creditors. If Hampson said alternatives are being considered then he is contradicting the Boards statement. I understand that David Hallmark drafted the statement and it is a succinct and accurate view of the situation - "The probabilities have to be pessimistic"
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Aug 31, 2009 19:02:30 GMT
I hope there was someone knowledgeable enough about the situation to challenge him when he said that because he is mistaken. We do not have a choice of pulling out of Nunnery Way even if we can't afford it. We are bound by a 10 year obligation if SMD get planning permission regardless of whether we sell SGL or not. If they get planning permission we have to buy the land at Nunnery Way. Theres a couple of further complications too. RBS no longer want to be our lenders so any change in the business plan would likely lead to them foreclosing so if we decided we couldnt afford it we would probably lose SGL. The other complication is the legal charges that SMD have on SGL so if we tried to pull out of Nunnery Way in breach of agreements I think they would also look to foreclose, and WCFC do not have the legal clout of SMD or the money to pay for legal clout. We also have a 5 year agreement with Careys so if they wished they could drag out the planning application for as long as they wanted until the housing market pickes up So theoretically even if we could simply walk away from SMD we couldnt sell SGL to anyone but Careys for the next 4 years at least. Its desperate and has long since been out of the clubs control and Messrs Hampson and Panter should already be well aware of that. Alternatives? That statement shows that the only alternatives are considerations AFTER the enforced sale of SGL via administration and payment of creditors. If Hampson said alternatives are being considered then he is contradicting the Boards statement. I understand that David Hallmark drafted the statement and it is a succinct and accurate view of the situation - "The probabilities have to be pessimistic" In their "Business Plan" WCFC state that SMD purchased the NW site on the basis of assurances that WCFC would: (i) commit to a joint venture agreement now enshrine in three agreements dated September 2007 for the (a) sale of Nunnery Way the stadium site (b) the delivery of the new stadium (c) and supporting enabling development (ii) subject to having the finance available, purchase 7.5 acres of land and pay for the construction of the new stadium to include a share of the site infrastructure" Does (ii) not mean if they don't have the finances they're not committed? Or are there penalties to stop them withdrawing? Careys had a get out clause, I can't believe the Board in 2007 tied us into something with SMD we couldn't get out of  |
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Sept 1, 2009 6:48:17 GMT
isnt it 5.8 acres now as well?
who knows what concessions wcfc have made since 2007 to gain the extra "sponsorship" needed.
My guess is that the board would have offered further undisclosed sweeteners to SMD-Careys in return for the emergency loan received from them recently. Which ever way you look at it wcfc is stuffed.
Tell me if I'm wrong but isnt the reason for the move is because they cannot pay off debts which are in excess of £2M so how does it stack up that they now will be able to raise even more money than this just to move?
and why move just to add millions to your debt?
Logic dictates that this will only go one way and what you see now is the result of massive egos which have been left to run amok with this club.
I dont know if people stand to gain from the move personally but either way where has the safeguards been? why were they not controlled and their actions scrutinised.
WCFC are not looking else where because they have no money for the research costs! the 250k that the bank set aside for development costs has now al but gone on bullsh!t consultancy costs for NW.
Celia predicted all of this last year but was excluded from board activities and then hounded out of the club for daring to question the sense of the move, her figures were ridiculed by the current crooks at the pre agm trust meeting. Here we are almost a year on and look who was closest to the truth?
Its NW or nothing with a heavy leaning to nothing I'm afraid.
|
|
