Sale of the Lane

[B*ue dragonstander]

I read that one of the key pre-conditions to the completion of the sale of OUR ground has been completed.

We have no new ground to go to when our lease expires but we will (should) have some money in the bank.

I wonder what the plan is now?

[pendulum]

im not believing anything i remember when it was sold for 7.5 million now look

[Deleted]

Well unfortunately this board have decided to be as silly as the old board, and are conducting matters behind closed doors. No communication with shareholders or supporters and therefore we are all left jn the dark and are unable therefore to give any support to the situation. So much for openness Messrs. Hampson and Panter.

[Deleted]

And, sadly, that attitude leads to suspicions that maybe Mr Hallmark is still pulling Hampson's and Panter's strings - as he was when he appointed them. If they want some of us skeptics to return to the fold they can't act like this.

[Deleted]

You can't help but to have those suspicions. I know what the plans are for Nunnery Way, in terms of obtaining planning consent, and to be honest, it just shows how the enabling development is stil the key element of the site, much to the detriment of the football club. If the club folds on Nunnery Way, will SMD or anyone involved in the enabling development care? Ask yourself that, and ask yourself what will happen to 5 acres in the middle of a mixed development area???

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2010 9:23:38 GMT B*ue dragonstander said:

I read that one of the key pre-conditions to the completion of the sale of OUR ground has been completed.

We have no new ground to go to when our lease expires but we will (should) have some money in the bank.

I wonder what the plan is now?

When the leaseback arrangement expires, we MAY have some money in the bank, but then again we may need that next tranche of money to pay off the latest debt. Thats if we're still trading, after all, with no assets what bank is going to allow the business to trade negatively for the next two years?

[birdfeeder]

Jun 30, 2010 13:06:36 GMT @ealing said:

And, sadly, that attitude leads to suspicions that maybe Mr Hallmark is still pulling Hampson's and Panter's strings - as he was when he appointed them. If they want some of us skeptics to return to the fold they can't act like this.

Andy. Mr Hallmark is not pulling the of strings of any member of the board of WCFC the man's history

[birdfeeder]

Jun 30, 2010 11:24:48 GMT Down The Pan said:

Well unfortunately this board have decided to be as silly as the old board, and are conducting matters behind closed doors. No communication with shareholders or supporters and therefore we are all left jn the dark and are unable therefore to give any support to the situation. So much for openness Messrs. Hampson and Panter.

Jem nothing is being conducted behind closed doors,if you had turned up to the trust boards meeting last night which you were invited to attend, you could have asked the three board members of WCFC who were present at the meeting your questions.

[Deleted]

"Mr Hallmark is not pulling the of strings of any member of the board of WCFC the man's history"

Well that's reassuring coming from you Mr B Feeder, as you're one of the few people involved in the club that I trust. Thanks.

[pendulum]

I bet birdfeeder gets fed up of reassuring people on here

[pendulum]

You cant blame us for bieng sceptical though

[Deleted]

Colin, turning up to Trust Meetings is a matter of the Trust, and NOT the Company! The Company is selling the asset, the company is accountable to the Shareholders.

This is a matter for the Company and NOT the Trust.

Personally asking questions of Board members at a Supporters Trust meeting is still behind closed doors.

Openness means the Company either holding a public meeting, or an AGM, it means publishing accurate information in the media, even Steve Carley is having to fill in the gaps, often with incorrect information.

Maybe the board could provide information on here, its okay to attempt to reassure, but shareholders need some facts, such as, where are SMD with the planning application for Nunnery Way? Jim Panter told me at the last meeting I went to (which wasnt a public meeting) that they would be presenting the new application after the General Election - that was nearly two months ago! Prior to presentation for planning, are SMD going to be presenting to shareholders? Is the plan reallyto apply for full planning consent for the 5 acres of football ground (or a little more) and for outline planning for the remainder of the land? What are the implications if the full PC is gien but the outline PC refused?

Stakeholders have seen NOTHING since October 2008 when the last set of plans were presented at the Whitehouse Hotel. There have been no shareholders meetings, or public meetings since the last AGM debacle.

SMD set up this website www.nunneryway.co.uk in November 2008, it hasnt been updated since 16th November 2008!!!

For now though, just one question Colin. In this new age of openness it won't cause any problem to answer. Is the planning application for Nunnery Way being split - full PC for the football stadium and outline PC for the remainder of the site?

[Deleted]

This is an "alternative" view of the nunnery Way proposal.

www.nunneryway.com

[pedant]

I agree entirely with your post above Jem. I may be missing something but I thought the "A" in "AGM" stood for "annual"

We have not had an AGM since late in 2008 and one is well overdue.

I may only hold a few shares, but I still have the right to be kept informed of what is going on with the sale of the Company's largest asset.

The Trust meetings are all well and good, but this is hardly open and transparent either, as I am a Trust member and yet have not been informed of any meetings in recent months that I was able to attend.

I had high hopes for the new board of directors, and I would like to believe that I can trust them. However they are in danger of reverting to the bad old days of treating shareholders like mushrooms.

Shareholders own the football club and have a right to know what is going on.

I am sure that Colin will take all of this on board and, together with his fellow directors, make the moves needed to ensure confidence in them does not slide.

[creaner]

Jul 1, 2010 10:04:17 GMT pedant said:

I agree entirely with your post above Jem. I may be missing something but I thought the "A" in "AGM" stood for "annual"



The Trust meetings are all well and good, but this is hardly open and transparent either, as I am a Trust member and yet have not been informed of any meetings in recent months that I was able to attend.

That's because there haven't been any other meetings. We'll be having more open meetings to discuss stuff and ask for help when we get our list of events sorted for next season (waiting for fixtures to be announced first).

[pedant]

But Colin said to Jem:-

"nothing is being conducted behind closed doors, if you had turned up to the trust boards meeting last night which you were invited to attend, you could have asked the three board members of WCFC who were present at the meeting your questions."

as justification for the board not communicating with its shareholders properly and doing things behind closed doors.

If this recent Trust board meeting was not open to all trust members and advertised as such, then it was indeed "behind closed doors" and Colin's statement is not correct.

No criticism of the Trust whatsoever, of course the Trust board should meet more regularly than the general membership and the Trust board do not need to inform all trust members of these board meetings.

However Colin cannot then point to the Trust board meetings and say the Board of the Club are discussing things in the open.

The meeting he refers to was a private one of the trust board members and their invited guests. Hardly "open."

What is needed is an AGM and quickly.

[creaner]

Jul 1, 2010 13:38:42 GMT pedant said:

But Colin said to Jem:-

"nothing is being conducted behind closed doors, if you had turned up to the trust boards meeting last night which you were invited to attend, you could have asked the three board members of WCFC who were present at the meeting your questions."

as justification for the board not communicating with its shareholders properly and doing things behind closed doors.

If this recent Trust board meeting was not open to all trust members and advertised as such, then it was indeed "behind closed doors" and Colin's statement is not correct.

No criticism of the Trust whatsoever, of course the Trust board should meet more regularly than the general membership and the Trust board do not need to inform all trust members of these board meetings.

However Colin cannot then point to the Trust board meetings and say the Board of the Club are discussing things in the open.

The meeting he refers to was a private one of the trust board members and their invited guests. Hardly "open."

What is needed is an AGM and quickly.

It wasn't an open meeting; if it was you'd have received notification. Jem was invited by me as there was an issue I wanted his opinion on- god help me! The other board member was invited so we could address issues with WCFC and the community, not specifically about SGL.

I believe the club are having a board meeting next week, perhaps Colin could raise the AGM question there so we can have a definitive date decided upon and put an end to the speculation.

[pedant]

creaner, thanks for clarifying. I have no problem with the Trust Board having private meetings and inviting along anyone they wish to attend them. I don't expect to be notified or invited to these meetings either, they are a matter for the elected Trust Board.

Your confirmation serves to highlight the mistake Colin made by pointing to a private meeting as evidence that the Board of Directors of the Football Club were not carrying on business "behind closed doors" and failing to keep shareholders and supporters informed of progress in relation to the stadium relocation project.

As you say, I am sure Colin will bring these concerns to the attention of the rest of the Directors at the next board meeting and that an AGM will be announced soon afterwards.

[Deleted]

Yes, Rob is right, he asked me along for a specific reason, I couldnt get there as it was which was annoying!!
I am worried though that too much is now going on behind closed doors, everyone appreciates that not everything can be discussed in public, that's taken as read. However two months ago the Worcester News reported incorrectly that the planning consent had been approved, that was followed by the strangest of statements by Jim Panter on the website, which stated that all stakeholders had been advised of the situation. I'm sorry but that was simply incorrect, and I do not believe that any stakeholders outside of the Boardroom and RBS have any idea what is going on re St Georges Lane or Nunnery Way.
Not since October 2008 have shareholders been given any indication of the position of SMD. My understanding is that there are plans for this split planning application, which will aim to get PC in full for the part which will be for the football stadium, which according to CLT32 should be of a size of not less tha 4 Hectares!! So how will this be financed? Bearing in mind that the Board have already said that even at £7.3 million, a move without enabling development was not possible?
What is the situation with the new ground designs? Who's doing them? Who's building? Alpha??
What is the situation now with the S106? Do Shareholdes understand the issues?

Again, at a time when the club needs maximum support from as many stakeholders as possible, they're failing to present anything for us to support!

I've offered my help to the Board on two occasions now, but I've heard nothing back, and due tomy position regarding Nunnery Way I don't think I will be able to help. I believe that the Board are fully behind Nunnery Way again despite what Anthony Hampson said about it being dead in the water, and I'm wondering why.

In view of the lack of information coming out of SGL, I have no reason to think any differently. Unfortunately, this is being conducted behind closed doors, and I urge the Board to call an AGM as soon as possible, or to call a public meeting where stakeholders can understand the implications of the Careys deal now - is it even £3million now, I have been told it is a way less than that but I tend not to believe that. Stakeholders also need to see the new plans for Nunnery Way, if SMD were in a position to push for PC after the general election, they MUST have done all the preparatory work including stadium design, costing, phasing etc. So lets see it!!

[dragon]

For decades,the come-and-go Directors of our illustious club have cocked a snook at Company Law and the present mob are no better.It`s a though they are so important that the legislation doesn`t actually apply to them! They should all be brought to book and banned from holding office. Their view continues to be that of the very late Bob Evans who once remarked to me `This would be a good club if it wasn`t for you bloody shareholders!`