|
Post by michael on Jan 31, 2010 14:41:04 GMT
Seems to have been overlooked with all the stress about the pitch, but Weymouth beat Lewes yesterday meaning we stay out of the relegation zone. Lewes used up their game in hand with a draw on Tues, and so after yesterday are still a point behind us, but have now played a game more.
|
|
|
Post by city4evaa on Jan 31, 2010 17:22:12 GMT
i really cant seeing us go down ' were to good '
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 31, 2010 17:44:55 GMT
We're hardly 'too good' FFS. But don't we have to still play Lewes twice??
|
|
|
Post by city4evaa on Jan 31, 2010 18:36:02 GMT
vor you seem like a very angry man
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 31, 2010 19:36:46 GMT
No, I'm just a Realist, I hope. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by gazwcfc on Jan 31, 2010 20:23:07 GMT
To say we are to good to go down is a naive thing to say, there is still plenty of twist and turns left to go. With the clubs financial plight we might be dropping down divisions anyway!!
|
|
|
Post by DazaB on Feb 1, 2010 17:26:50 GMT
Does it really matter whether we go down or not?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 1, 2010 20:30:54 GMT
does anything discussed on this board 'matter'?
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Feb 2, 2010 9:14:28 GMT
Mix and match on threads but the Club is losing £100k a year because its costs are too high. This , givie or take, has been the sort of loss suffered annually in recent years - and nothing has been done.
OK so there is an appeal to boost revenues but like Salmon says elsewhere the first step would be stop Dave Boddy sitting in the Directors box and make him pay his £11 like everyone else. Until that happens the disaffected will retain the belief that really nothing has changed. In addition the board members are all tainted by their past associations with a) Boddy and Hallmark b) the shameful AGM in November 2008 and need to resign en masse.
This mucking out of the stables is an essential prelude to improving the "supportability" of the Club.
The share ownership provisions of the articles need to be changed. Mr Hampson could do worse than institute that change at the next (and very overdue) AGM as his last act before resigning .
Next the budget needs to balanced. If that means cutting the total wage bill to £75k a year then so be it. Without doing so we stand every chance of a double relegation via the "administration league". I am not sure whether changes could be implemented this season but who knows?
If the budget cuts mean we get relegated on the pitch at least we a) have a chance of competing at the top end of a division the next season b) we are no longer leaking cash like a WAG in Mayfair.
Relegation or liquidation? I know which one is the lesser evil.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Feb 2, 2010 9:25:35 GMT
Have to say I agree totally with the previous post. I just cannot bring myself to support the present incumbents of the Board Room-with or without Boddy.After all, they were all complicit in the deception of the last AGM and are still prepared to tolerate `The Leech`-both in their midst and as their representative at the Conference table.WCFC will die when SGL closes but the air will be cleaner in North Worcester.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 9:35:43 GMT
Agree totally with BDS and dragon.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 2, 2010 9:46:38 GMT
So If the present board stays, we should want WCFC to be relegated?
Or is it just about Boddy? In which case, If you feel so strongly, surely a few choice words should be directed in person....
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Feb 2, 2010 10:17:20 GMT
So If the present board stays, we should want WCFC to be relegated? Or is it just about Boddy? In which case, If you feel so strongly, surely a few choice words should be directed in person.... What I am saying is that there is no prospect of a viable future without further changes to the Board and the way the Club is run. Obviously not wishing for relegarion just realism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 10:41:42 GMT
Face it, for all his bluster about how he's such a fan of the football club, and that WCFC is his team, Boddy simply dosnt give a crap about the future of the club. What kind of supporter refuses to pay the much needed £11 to watch his team? Whether he has to pay or not shouldnt make any difference, he should WANT to pay! to save his "beloved" club! Boddy is not a supporter of this football club. BDS is right about cutting cost, and if that means a tiny wagebill then so be it, the "business plan" throughout the Boddy era was pretty simple, live outside of your means, get promotion, and then pay off debts using the riches of the Conference - there is supposedly a massive difference in cash available between Conference and feeder leagues. The problem is now that there is no way that we are going to be promoted this season, but commitments to contracts and wages means we still live outside of our means! So as BDS says, all that can possibly happen is that a further £100k loss is reported.
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Feb 2, 2010 11:35:40 GMT
Mix and match on threads but the Club is losing £100k a year because its costs are too high. This , givie or take, has been the sort of loss suffered annually in recent years - and nothing has been done. OK so there is an appeal to boost revenues but like Salmon says elsewhere the first step would be stop Dave Boddy sitting in the Directors box and make him pay his £11 like everyone else. Until that happens the disaffected will retain the belief that really nothing has changed. In addition the board members are all tainted by their past associations with a) Boddy and Hallmark b) the shameful AGM in November 2008 and need to resign en masse. This mucking out of the stables is an essential prelude to improving the "supportability" of the Club. The share ownership provisions of the articles need to be changed. Mr Hampson could do worse than institute that change at the next (and very overdue) AGM as his last act before resigning . Next the budget needs to balanced. If that means cutting the total wage bill to £75k a year then so be it. Without doing so we stand every chance of a double relegation via the "administration league". I am not sure whether changes could be implemented this season but who knows? If the budget cuts mean we get relegated on the pitch at least we a) have a chance of competing at the top end of a division the next season b) we are no longer leaking cash like a WAG in Mayfair. Relegation or liquidation? I know which one is the lesser evil. Just to put the record straight Dave Boddy is now assistant General Manager of the football Conference,which affords him the right to enter SGL without him having to pay and allows him the courtesy of sitting in the directors box as a league official and as I rarely go in there I have not got a problem with it,I am quite happy to stand on the terraces (its a better view) if people think it makes some one important or gives them power by sitting in the box which it doesn't, because I know the people who runs WCFC no matter where there are in the ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 11:47:31 GMT
It may well afford him the right to enter SGL without paying, and sit in the directors box, but as a so called "supporter" of the football club, he should have the common decency to waive that right in order to help the club he talks about as "his team". If he doesnt do this, then clearly WCFC isnt his team at all, after all,what kind of football supporter would expect to watch for free as his team goes out of business. Of course, Dave Boddy and Common Decency arent words that hang well together. Anyway, as Assistant General Manager of the Football Conference, he's now got 67 other grounds to freeload at. If he's doing his job, he won't have any time to freeload at SGL surely!!!!
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Feb 2, 2010 12:15:27 GMT
As I've said before I don't have much of a problem with Boddy sitting in the directors box, if his sizable ego requires this to look important at the City, which he no longer is, then he can get on with it as far as I'm concerned. However I would remind him that as assistant general manager of the Conference there are 67 other directors boxes that he can inhabit, for free, and so would encourage him to take that opportunity and serve his new employer with the dedication and commitment that he did as a director and chairman of Worcester City FC.
Please note that this was written half an hour before it was posted without reading Jem's posting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 12:19:14 GMT
The man has no idea how his freeloading behavior outrages the supporters. He drags the club to the edge of extinction then uses a "right" to gain free entrance. Is he that skint? How stupid can he be?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 2, 2010 12:35:09 GMT
Stupid enough to once be "Evesham's 'biggest fan'!" If you don't like DB hanging onto WCFC's coat-tails, people should politely tell him to 'Go away.' !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 12:43:58 GMT
"Please note that this was written half an hour before it was posted without reading Jem's posting."
You and Jem are now thinking as one. Very worrying.
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Feb 2, 2010 13:44:57 GMT
"Please note that this was written half an hour before it was posted without reading Jem's posting." You and Jem are now thinking as one. Very worrying. DB owes his Conference position to his position at WCFC - a position he no longer has. It was acknowledged at the time that his position at the Conference was unusual. Surely it is time for the Conference board to act and kick DB off and replace him with a properly accredited club official. To do anything else brings discredit on the League Board.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Feb 2, 2010 14:05:01 GMT
"Please note that this was written half an hour before it was posted without reading Jem's posting." You and Jem are now thinking as one. Very worrying. And you don't see us in the same room, very often.
|
|