|
|
Post by richwidd on Oct 17, 2009 12:33:20 GMT
On Tuesday Evening our Project Manager or whatever he wants to call himself will try to explain to us thick Worcester City Fans how he is going to build a landmark stadium & the centre of the development at Nunnery Way.
I quote: "Alan Herbert will explain how an investment of £1.5 million to £2.0 million in the new stadium will provide the platform for the future of WCFC together with financial support from SMD"
£1.5million to £2 million that's going to be interesting! So it might even be down as low as £1.5million, dare I say it will be a lot lower in reality! With financial Support from St Modwen? Would this be a loan by any chance?
Nunnery Way needs to be kicked into touch once and for all or at least until WCFC can afford to build a stadium where It can be self sustainable and produce a competitive football team. This has not been a reality for several years, even when the Ground was "sold" for £7.36 m The figures didn't even add up then.
In the letter to supporters the figure is £7m (instead of £7.36m), is this so it doesn't look like the price has gone down by almost £4m or a printing error?
Anyone who supports the club must attend if they want to save WCFC. Before the meeting all will be reminded of previous plans, figures etc non of which has happened and a clear indication that the latest plan will be doomed to failure.
Incase it is not clear to certain people who is writing this,
Rich Widdowson
|
|
si1268
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 147
|
Post by si1268 on Oct 19, 2009 10:12:00 GMT
I can't see where the figures 1.5 to 2 million are comming from. Clearing the dept will be close to £1.5 mil. Buying the land and developing the infrastructure I believe was costed at £1.5 mil. Given the drop in land values lets say £1.2 mil. I think its going to be less than £1 mil for our flagship ground development. Is any of this wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by skippy on Oct 19, 2009 10:43:22 GMT
besides the stadium costs what about the access problems? I remember the call for a footbridge or an alternative source of access from county hall side of the duel track. This was a none starter from the outset. I want to know how much money Mr Hallmark has wasted over the past 10 or more years in this vein attempt to occupy this plot of land. The B&Q was a total fiasco and now we are lurching from one fantasy of his to another depending on which way the wind blows.
Also what about the original pie in the sky income streams that boddy blustered out in the WN videos on another thread? Im sure I remember reading that financial sustainability were conditions required by the City Planners along with a landmark centre piece stadium.
This man needs stopping NOW! why should we trust a project leader who has cost the club so much money and who has skilfully helped us miss so many crucial deadlines with his procrastinating.
Why was the £8M offer for SGL from Belway scuppered?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 10:47:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 10:50:58 GMT
If anyone is struggling with the figures, then WCFC kindly provided the figures in their business plan for the planning application, I've taken their figures out and put them into two spreadsheets as attached. The spreadsheets are formatted and autosum, so feel free to change figures and see what the impact is. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 19, 2009 11:48:12 GMT
Jeremy, in your spreadsheet you have a figure for relocation of telecoms masts. What does this mean? There are no telecoms masts on the Nunnery Way site are there?
Surely the club would not have to pay for the relocation of the telecoms equipment that is situated on their floodlights would they?
If you are referring to the electricity pylons on the Nunnery Way site then the figure is far too low.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 19, 2009 12:13:45 GMT
Jeremy, in your spreadsheet you have a figure for relocation of telecoms masts. What does this mean? There are no telecoms masts on the Nunnery Way site are there? Surely the club would not have to pay for the relocation of the telecoms equipment that is situated on their floodlights would they? If you are referring to the electricity pylons on the Nunnery Way site then the figure is far too low. This refers to the cell site masts on each corner of SGL. The mobile companies pay to use the floodlights, presumably this is the loss from that rental although 100K does seem an arbitrary figure |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 19, 2009 12:18:43 GMT
Jeremy, in your spreadsheet you have a figure for relocation of telecoms masts. What does this mean? There are no telecoms masts on the Nunnery Way site are there? Surely the club would not have to pay for the relocation of the telecoms equipment that is situated on their floodlights would they? If you are referring to the electricity pylons on the Nunnery Way site then the figure is far too low. This refers to the cell site masts on each corner of SGL. The mobile companies pay to use the floodlights, presumably this is the loss from that rental although 100K does seem an arbitrary figure I must admit that I had not considered that the figure could be the loss of income from rental of the floodlights. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 12:26:55 GMT
Mark, I don't really know, but there again, these arent my figures, they are WCFC Ltd.s figures, so I can only go by what they believe their costs to be, I doubt they'd inflate costs with so little money in the deal, but hey!
These are not my figures!!
|
|
althom
Squad Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by althom on Oct 19, 2009 15:35:20 GMT
Why would the seller have to pay S106 costs on the sale of SGL? Surely these costs should be picked up by the new developer. The same should apply at NW with SMD paying.
However you look at the figures though, WCFC still end up in with a deficit of anywhere between £1m and £1.5m and with probably nothing more than a field to play on!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 15:44:07 GMT
Even if they were able to extract some kind of overage out of Careys. £1 million of overage would barely make a dent in the deficit!! Plus the overage would be paid months possibly years after the grond move, so wheres the revenue generation to stay in business??
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 19, 2009 16:29:16 GMT
Even if they were able to extract some kind of overage out of Careys. £1 million of overage would barely make a dent in the deficit!! Plus the overage would be paid months possibly years after the grond move, so wheres the revenue generation to stay in business?? I'm confused  . How can the price of SGL reduce by £4M produce overage of £1M? |
|
andyc
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 60
|
Post by andyc on Oct 19, 2009 16:51:50 GMT
Mark,
The figure for telecom masts presumably relates to the cell site masts on the floodlights at SGL and will be an estimate of the compensation payable to the telecom companies for the loss of the masts when SGL is eventually demolished. Telecom companies have considerable security of tenure and once they are on a site it is very expensive to remove them. Think of them as sitting tenants. Given that the masts were put in place long after the club decided to sell the ground you have wonder whether they considered the long-term consequences before readily accepting the easy quick buck from the telecom companies. Whilst removal of the masts would be the buyers problem (they would want to leave them there as long as possible and keep earning rent pending the site's development), it looks like the deal is that WCFC have to pay for the cost of their removal. That would be par for the course given that WCFC seem to have been lumbered with practically all costs of both Carey and St Mods.
Creaner,
The overage would be based on the total value of sales by Careys. It's just a form of deferred payment. It doesn't matter what price Careys pay, but a seller would be expected to insist on a higher level of overage to compensate for a reduced sale price. As Careys have the club by the proverbials there is probably little scope for negotiation on the is issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 19, 2009 19:59:32 GMT
Thanks Andy.
Makes me wonder if there is any aspect of this deal that is for the benefit of WCFC!
|
|
|
|
Post by gobby cow on Oct 19, 2009 20:11:15 GMT
Of course it isnt, it is all for the benefit of the person who owns the rest of the land between the motorway and the by pass!
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Oct 19, 2009 21:07:34 GMT
Of course it isnt, it is all for the benefit of the person who owns the rest of the land between the motorway and the by pass! Don't forget the benefits for the people who represent the owners of the land between the motorway and the by-pass - quite a pretty penny to be made from that I'm sure |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 20, 2009 9:03:08 GMT
besides the stadium costs what about the access problems? I remember the call for a footbridge or an alternative source of access from county hall side of the duel track. This was a none starter from the outset. I want to know how much money Mr Hallmark has wasted over the past 10 or more years in this vein attempt to occupy this plot of land. The B&Q was a total fiasco and now we are lurching from one fantasy of his to another depending on which way the wind blows. Also what about the original pie in the sky income streams that boddy blustered out in the WN videos on another thread? Im sure I remember reading that financial sustainability were conditions required by the City Planners along with a landmark centre piece stadium. This man needs stopping NOW! why should we trust a project leader who has cost the club so much money and who has skilfully helped us miss so many crucial deadlines with his procrastinating. Why was the £8M offer for SGL from Belway scuppered? Spot on skippy. The waste of money (borrowed ) for the pursuit of what? Nothing. The conduct of those responsible for this farce is a scandal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 9:36:48 GMT
"The conduct of those responsible for this farce is a scandal." And that's being said by an expert in this field. A man who's advice was ignored. Shameful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 10:22:51 GMT
Possibly the biggest act of incompetence and small-mindedness in the recent history of WCFC. THe Directors chose to ignore freely offered advice from a Director of one of the largest land management and property development companies in the country!!!
Free consultancy and advice from a true City fan who just happens to be a Group FD of a property management and development company. If I received a letter offering assistance from such a person, I'd bite their hand off, I'd at least meet him and dicsuss his offer!
But no, these tossers simply ignored him!
Heres a question, things are going decidedly pear shaped in this move, as predicted by those of us who were aware of the issues and the massive risk involved. So, how much consultation has there been between the Board of Directors and the Supporters Trust?? What advice has been sought of the experts in the Supporters Trust, a body which includes very competent people including solicitors, building managers, accountants, businessmen, and even local political figures. Could they serioiusly offer nothing??
So how about seeking advice from Supporters Direct? The government backed body set up to bridge between clubs and supporters? Could they not offer any advice through their professional channels in terms of how to garner public support for a ground move?
This ground move is an incredibly rare situation - where supporters and shareholders of the club have actively objected to the planning application! What does that tell the Board? What does it tell the City Council??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 10:28:19 GMT
And why have they conducted all their activities behind closed doors? Because the whole thing is a disgraceful land sale scam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 10:34:02 GMT
And Boddy said to me after one meeting "we can't trust shareholders with the information!" Boddy? Trust?? do me a favour!
How about this one he came out with at the same meeting "Do you know how difficult it is negotiating a £7 millimetre deal?" Errrrr - what £7 millimetre deal? Last time I looked this one stood at £3.5 millimetres!" So Boddy? How difficult is it to lose £3.5 millimetres??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 10:37:00 GMT
Anyone else somewhat suspicious that this meeting, which is undoubtedly a very important meeting, has had no coverage whatsoever in the press? No mention in the Worcester News until today, nothing like short-notice!!
And I see that neither Careys or SMD have responded to say they will be there!
the words Ride, and Being taken for, seem to spring to mind!!
|
|
si1268
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 147
|
Post by si1268 on Oct 20, 2009 10:38:52 GMT
Oh I see we're borrowing another £1.3 mil. Off who? How are we going to service that. So we're swapping a £900,000 dept for a £1.3 mil dept and playing in a one sided wind swept stadium in the middle of nowhere. Genius, I can't wait.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 20, 2009 12:20:07 GMT
Anyone else somewhat suspicious that this meeting, which is undoubtedly a very important meeting, has had no coverage whatsoever in the press? I was on BBC London's Non-League programme last night and did make this comment, although as I had a migraine at the time it probably came out as "I love David Hallmark". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 13:16:19 GMT
Oh I see we're borrowing another £1.3 mil. Off who? How are we going to service that. So we're swapping a £900,000 dept for a £1.3 mil dept and playing in a one sided wind swept stadium in the middle of nowhere. Genius, I can't wait. If I go up there, I'll spend more time, and get more excitement in the new Jaguar showroom!!! Get it right Si, 3 sides, albeit 2 of them only half length! There are absolutely no banguetting / conference facilities in this plan, the only non-football revenue will be from the Sports Bar!! And even that looks like it'll be smaller than the Legends Bar. |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 20, 2009 13:33:19 GMT
“We are trying to get a feel of the support the proposals would get from the shareholders.” says Mr Panter.
Now which ones do you mean? The real ones who actually vote and turn up at the AGM or the imaginary ones that magically complete proxy votes in overwhelming numbers in favour of anything that the Board says.
|
|
si1268
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 147
|
Post by si1268 on Oct 20, 2009 16:02:52 GMT
How come we only had two sides with more money on the last proposal. I'd also like to make a bet. If it goes ahead there only be one developed side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 16:07:47 GMT
It won't go ahead like that, it can't, and the jokers running the project know it! It totally fails to reach any of the criteria set out by the City Planning Officers and the Adopted Local Plan. They must be amazed at the sheer stupidity of the people proposing this project.
1. Still enabling development, but this time EVEN MORE!
2. NOT the landmark development on the site
3. NOT to football league standard, not even to Conference Premier standard
4. NO viable plan to generate revenues for future phases
5. NO viable plans to support a football club on the site, just a plan to deliver a stadium, and a poor one at that!
There's loads more !
2 millimetre reasons !!
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 21, 2009 8:20:47 GMT
“We are trying to get a feel of the support the proposals would get from the shareholders.” says Mr Panter. Now which ones do you mean? The real ones who actually vote and turn up at the AGM or the imaginary ones that magically complete proxy votes in overwhelming numbers in favour of anything that the Board says. You'd get a fairer 'election' in Afganistan, the US. or even N.Korea, FFS! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2009 8:33:29 GMT
One dopey gobshite summed up the total lack of understanding of the majority of WCFC fans at the meeting last night. He accused people of going to the meeting having "prepared their questions in advance!" Well what kind of half baked fuckwit goes to a meeting to discuss the future of the football club without having prepared their questions in advance???
Its people like him who make you seriously consider giving it all up and setting up a worm farm in rural Herefordshire!!
|
|
. How can the price of SGL reduce by £4M produce overage of £1M? 
