GROUND UPDATE

[prestonwcfc]

Exclusive update following last weeks meetings in tomorrows programme.

[pendulum]

surely if it was that good news it would be in paper or is a itencive to make us buy a progranme:P

[Deleted]

Ooops, this sounds like a bit of a faux pas - updates regarding company assets need to be presented to shareholders first , and NOT to the general public who are paying to get hold of it! I hope this isnt true.

[Deleted]

and??

[pendulum]

should of got 1 ;-)

[Deleted]

stupid answer, I'm interested in the future of a business I hold shares in, so whats happening?

[pendulum]

a scale plan of the stadium and key points about it.

[creaner]

Jem. Nothing new. SMD putting in their planning app "within the next few days/weeks" to keep the drip drip going- still plugging that it will be expandable to 6000 seater . No more word on any enabling development to replace the PCT, showrooms etc that were on the first Swiss cheese plan. Although it still assumes that there will be overage! Main shortfall in money to be covered by parking space leasing and "under the stand space rental to local employers" which sounds a bit like Del Boy lock ups...

[Deleted]

Thanks Rob, so no exclusive update at all then? Same old story, and the same old plan which won't get anywhere near getting past the planning stage! I love the "within the next few days/weeks" bit, this jam tomorrow statement has been used for over two years now! So no hurry there then!

[jupu]

On 10 August Jim Panter was quoted as saying in the Worcester News: “The anticipation is that a planning application will be going in within the next two to three weeks."

That anticipated timescale has already slipped, do we know why? I presume something "unexpected" must have cropped up if St Modwen thought they were that close less than a month ago.

These "jam tomorrow" promises can't continue much longer, the clock is ticking, and even when the application is submitted it could be weeks, maybe months, before it gets to Committee.

Now that the article has appeared in the programme it would be helpful if it could be published on the WCFC website for all to read.

[Bstander]

More here:
www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/8373087.City_unveil_new_plans_for_ground/

[Deleted]

Is there any negotiating power the club can exercise with SMD? If we don't play ball then their whole development scheme is stuffed. Isn't there some way we can refuse to support their plans - until we get more back? i.e. larger ground; cheaper build costs etc? Or has Boddy sold all our bargaining chips away?

[Deleted]

Not a prayer Ealing, give the board credit they've tried, and the response from SMD? "You signed the contracts, and we've (SMD) held up our side of the bargain - and if you dont like it?? Lets go legal!!"
Obviously the board can't go legal, there's no money. s othey are being dragged along by SMD and there is nothing they can do, apart from put together a plan for a ground which will be an empty shell with just basic requirements, minimum number of seats, minimum number of standing behind one end. This empty shell won't be good enough for Blue Square Premier.
As supporters, we should do everything in our power to stop SMD, and ensure that WCC reject this planning application.
If supporters and shareholders show their objection to this scheme, that would send a powerful message both to the planners and also to SMD.

[Deleted]

So was there a drawing of this stadium? if so, can someone scan it and put it on here?

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Sept 6, 2010 13:50:21 GMT Down The Pan said:

So was there a drawing of this stadium? if so, can someone scan it and put it on here?

Here in all it's glory

Attachments:

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Sept 6, 2010 13:50:21 GMT Down The Pan said:

So was there a drawing of this stadium? if so, can someone scan it and put it on here?

and the text the went with it (Plus piece from the board)

Attachments:

[Deleted]

Well spot the glaring error straight away! Why is there a large covered area on the East side? The East Stand?? This drawing doesnt correspond with the details of the ground at all!

What we will be getting will be similar to Salisbury City from the looks of it, but smaller!

[JohnInglisIsGod]

what we will be getting...
sure of that?

[Deleted]

nope LOL good point!!!
It is disappointing though that the Board have issued this drawing, with only one future stand, when its clear that it would be two. the only possible reason for that is to try and "big" up the plan a bit!
Can someone with artistic talents ( I can think of two of you) redraw this so that it represents whats written in the text?

[creaner]

Sept 6, 2010 15:40:35 GMT Down The Pan said:

nope LOL good point!!!
It is disappointing though that the Board have issued this drawing, with only one future stand, when its clear that it would be two. the only possible reason for that is to try and "big" up the plan a bit!
Can someone with artistic talents ( I can think of two of you) redraw this so that it represents whats written in the text?

There's no point redrawing any pictures of the ground as the important bits are the stuff around it. The diagram in the programme isn't site specific to Worcester as it's a generic picture of any small ground, until there is a plan showing it in reference to the surrounding geography and indicating the planned infrastucture (roads, roundabouts, footbridges etc) and the associated costs then it means nothing- a point that won't be lost on Worcester City Council...

[Deleted]

too true, this is of course a generic picture, it could be anywhere! When seen in the context of the 25% of the site it takes up at SMD Retail Park, the Council will wonder why they have disregarded every bit of advice they have been given in the last 3 years!!

[Tim Munslow]

Wouldn't an "empty shell" hosting Blue Square North football be better than groundsharing or attempting to do so? The deadline of June 2013 looms large in my mind and survival in some reasonable form is better than going the way of Bromsgrove Rovers.

[Deleted]

Tim, this isnt survival though, if this was a planning application for a small football ground which was totally self contained and sustainable, then I'd be back where I was, lobbying for it to go ahead.
But this is a empty shell, with a debt attached from Day One! It says in the article that SMD are making up the funding gap. there is only one way to make up the funding gap, and that is by deferring payments (which Mr Panter has already told shareholders will be the case) and loans, and these loans will be paid by overage, and of course, there will be no overage!
Having seen some figures, I dont believe a ground can be built for less than around £2.7 million and thats pared to a minimum. An empty shell and a debt to SMD of somewhere in the region of even £500,000 would not be survival. And by that time, would SMD care if the club defaulted? Would they care if a further 5 acres of development land became available on the site?
Bromsgrove Rovers are a good example of what can happen, but they've been a very badly managed business for some time (why they even have Mr Prescott on their Board!), but I dont recall Bromsgrove Rovers Ground sharing at any time in the last few years, maybe a better example would be Evesham United!

[Deleted]

I'm not particularly clued up on the whole business but it seems like its not sounding too promising.

[Bstander]

And some more.................not looking good!
www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/8374757.City_reveal_new___1_26m_ground_costs/

[wuffer]

One of my rare forays.Although things are stable off the pitch and pretty reasonable on it why can't the new board grasp the nettle of SMD. Surely this is the time to talk to an insolvency practitioner and to consider administration.Although the downside is the short -term deduction of points an administrator will be able to evaluate any spurious claim SMD will make under their charge.If it costs say 200k to pay for their so-called work to date it will still leave a cash sum available for a new ground.Forget deadlines after all SMD can wait until 2017 to do anything; any tie up with them is for the benefit of their shareholders not the club.As jcp rightly says the ground only partly built will cost over 2.7m leaving the club totally in the hands of SMD.To have a complete ground will cost in the order of 9-10m.Remember Burton's ground cost 7m including land six years ago.Don't believe the rubbish that the recession has reduced building costs.Keep the cash and share say with the university in due course.By the way are there still other interested parties behind this scheme?

[canalender]

I think for that to work you would need the agreement from the majority of City's creditors, unfortunately St Modwen must be the biggest now.
With Dave Boddy's negotiating skills, ably assisted by the project leader David Hallmark, I wonder what penalty we would have to pay if we pulled out, again I would have thought around a £ million.

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Looks like we need to prey for a cup run that takes us to the 4th or 5th round and to play at least one major premier league side and to beat them too
Not too much to ask then.....

[Deleted]

Ok, some quick calculations so that everyone can measure the risk involved, and the debt levels.

Income - £3.2 million
Outgoings - £1.4 million

Money available for groiund move - £1.8 million

Expenditure

Ground Build - £2 million
Infrastructure - £800,000
Land costs - £600,000

Total - £3.2 million

Deficit - £1.4 million

so a hole of £1.2 million to be filled - how can this be filled?

Mr Panter provided estimates of overage figures for SGL from Carey during the meeting at the cricket club of £400,000 - however, the overage will be towards the backend of the site build, on sale of maybe the 80th house onwards - this could be 1 or 2 years after vacating SGL.

The figures for overage at Nunnery Way have been sketchy at best, and the only published figure is the one from Alan Williams, who, as project manager, and former SMD employee, you would hope knows what he's talknig about - and on more than one occasion he has said that "There will be NO overage!"

So, here's the rub! WCFC could be forced to build a new ground at Nunnery Way, and when moving in, they could have a debt higher than the previous debt at SGL. But with an asset value far less than before!

These are my pie in the sky figures, I have no ulterior motive here, or alternative agenda, these are the facts (and to quote Mr Boddy "I only deal in facts!")

The difficulty the Board have is that they cannot under any circumstances be seen to be either backing out of the SMD scheme, or looking at alternatives, they've signed contracts and are fully obliged to work with SMD until 2017. If they don't they could be seen as being in breach.

I believe that it is now up to supporters to stand up to SMD, and to object to this scheme, and to make sure planning is rejected. Of course that would not be the end of the story, as it would then go to appeal, possibly inquiry, or whatever else SMD want to do until 2017. You could ask why the board don't get tough with SMD, and tell them that without the ground there is no retail park, but of course SMD would simply reply that they understand this, they're doing everything they are obliged to do under the agreements, and that that is not a concern for now, maybe in 2016 they'll consider it, but not now! They can play the waiting game, and they know WCFC can't!

When this hits the planners, support (or otherwise) from major stakeholders such as supporters of WCFC will have a big sway on their decisions. If planners see that there is little support from us for this move, based on sound planning reasons which in this case include financial sustainability, then they will have to take this on board. You can bet your life that SMD's business plans will talk about how the city of worcester and supporters of the club want this new ground, well that will be all thrown into turmoil if those self same supporters write letters of objection!!

I'm really glad more and more supporters can see the situation clearer now, and as more facts like the latest report in the Worcester News come to light, hopefully more supporters still will see whats going on.

Anthony Hampson speaks of realism kicking in, and he's spot on!! If only he'd been around to kick out Boddy's fantasy 3 years ago! By the way, do you think he still pops up to Nunnery Way and stands in his field of dreams??

[Deleted]

Sept 7, 2010 8:56:37 GMT JohnInglisIsGod said:

Looks like we need to prey for a cup run that takes us to the 4th or 5th round and to play at least one major premier league side and to beat them too
Not too much to ask then.....

I think the club needs to buy loads of Premium Bonds!!!