Worcester News Comment

[creaner]

At last they've got the picture and well done to WN for highlighting this nonsense.
www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/8376792.COMMENT__Club_should_give_stadium_idea_the_boot/

[pedant]

And only about 2 - 3 years too late! Finally the WN have grown some balls and come off the fence.

Total vindication for all those "troublemakers" who have been saying the same thing for ages.

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Sept 8, 2010 10:22:26 GMT creaner said:

At last they've got the picture and well done to WN for highlighting this nonsense.
www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/8376792.COMMENT__Club_should_give_stadium_idea_the_boot/

Now it is wait and see
Will this make a blind bit of difference to SMD etc Time will tell, but as we know.... Time is Tight

[richwidd]

Sept 8, 2010 11:18:09 GMT JohnInglisIsGod said:

Sept 8, 2010 10:22:26 GMT creaner said:

At last they've got the picture and well done to WN for highlighting this nonsense.
www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/8376792.COMMENT__Club_should_give_stadium_idea_the_boot/

Now it is wait and see
Will this make a blind bit of difference to SMD etc Time will tell, but as we know.... Time is Tight

Probably not, but the list of people against a stadium which would leave WCFC in more debt than it is now is steadily increasing and that is what will count when this goes infront of the Council.

If you aren't a member already, join the Trust.

[Deleted]

This is an important development. It'll certainly help sway public opinion. Pity it took so long, but I hope the WN now investigates this whole rotten business.

[pendulum]

for gods sake , council please dont give permission! why has it taken 3 bloody years for everyone to relise!

[Deleted]

Finally!! I feel pride in my "troublemaking"
And just for that ****hole who stood up at the meeting at the cricket ground YES!! I've got a fuckin agenda!!!

[Deleted]

"Finally!! I feel pride in my "troublemaking"."

You should do.

[richwidd]

Sept 8, 2010 16:27:01 GMT Down The Pan said:

Finally!! I feel pride in my "troublemaking"
And just for that ****hole who stood up at the meeting at the cricket ground YES!! I've got a fuckin agenda!!!

The chap accusing people of coming prepared to the meeting at New Road and having an agenda must have gone to the same school as the Director who said "St Modwen will look after us"!

[wh]

nothing but trouble makers the lot of ya! and as for the "Your Worcester Sun" I mean news, I find them even more despicable now for jumping on the bandwagon now the pendulum has swung far enough for them to feel safe.

It was only last year they were giving their full backing to the proposal and asking us to get behind the club! That helped to drag this sorry mess on for another year.

Just how much information did we send them 3 years ago detailing exactly what they now claim to be new news?

Disgraceful and they still claim to be "Your" Worcester news at every chance.

They get no thanks from me and I will NEVER purchase that rag again.

[Deleted]

totally agree wh, they are as complicit in this affiar as anyone, in fact, they are even more complicit than many. I have found the attitude of the WN totally disgusting over the last few years! In fact they have simply added to the problem of the football club by disregarding what we've been saying in favour of a now discredited local solicitor a nd former director, who pretended he was acting in the best interest of the club!

[The Verner]

Worcester News havent always been brilliant especially one certain reporter.

They will never explore things properly but only listen to the bull they were fed by the ex chairman.

There are a few idiots or one in particular on the WEN site who is sticking up for Boddy, have some people still not seen the light!!

I have to say that the club is a nicer place to be around than in previous years and i think we have to thank current board members for changing the way things used to be done and also for using supporters of the club to help put things back on track such as Widdy and Steve Goode etc etc

[Deleted]

I see that the trouble makers are now conspiracy theorists too!!

[Deleted]

Well, the Worcester News are very twitchy on this, now they've closed comments! Its quite funny, they like to fan flames with various ballots on items, yet when their position over a community matter is called into question, they really dont like it up 'em!

Hopefully though, the comments provided will give more of the population the opportunity to see that this scheme has been doomed since Inspector Richardsons report in 2003. I think far more people have seen through the "Emporers New Clothes" Its so easy to dress everything up with pretty pictures of dazzling new grounds, and raise the hopes of supporters through these dreams of a new stadium, but I am surprised that the Worcester News fell for it all.

Lets hope they will do the decent thing now and start looking more closely into what has really been going on during the last 5 or 6 years. Somehow though, I doubt it!

[JohnInglisIsGod]

I like the way WN get their final say on the matter and then shut it down before anyone can comment on Mr Wards reply to you, JCP.
And they call that a fair debate???

[Deleted]

Rather a lame response from Mr Ward, and pathetic to lock this thread down.

"The amount of criticism and, at times, abuse we have received on this issue from both sides of the debate is pretty much equal."

I haven't read much criticism of the WN - until this above-face. The abuse from "the other side" seems to have been directed at those against NW rather than the newspaper.

"I also know well enough that you won't agree with what I say or what we publish unless it coincides precisely with your point of view."

A strange criticism when you think that the points, and predictions, from Jem, and others like Rich and the Trust, have proved to be spot on.

Anyway, the WN is not our enemy. I hope they can be some sort of ally from now on.

[Deleted]

I love the way he says that if we disagree it makes a pointless debate! Surely thats the whole point of debate?
But you're right Ealing, they should be our ally now, they've changed their position, it might be a strange move (I'd prefer to call it a safe move now the main protagonists have left the scene) but they now have to throw their weight behind saying "No" to Nunnery Way. Lets see what they do.

[rushwickdon]

"Lets hope they will do the decent thing now and start looking more closely into what has really been going on during the last 5 or 6 years. Somehow though, I doubt it!"

Worcester News report on this is ongoing, final report due May 2018.........if we get our skates on.

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Sept 11, 2010 11:40:10 GMT rushwickdon said:

"Lets hope they will do the decent thing now and start looking more closely into what has really been going on during the last 5 or 6 years. Somehow though, I doubt it!"

Worcester News report on this is ongoing, final report due May 2018.........if we get our skates on.

A thought.... Rob C how about starting a full and proper campaign run through the newly found support of 'your' WN.
Press release to say once again just where the Supoprters Trust stand, where the club stand and what steps should be taken to correct the problem. You might actually get the support of the town in turning down the plans.

I wonder what the chances are of finding a Worcester City supporting contracts specialising solicitor who might like to fight the cause for free on behalf of the club. Ok ok I am dreaming but previously unfound support in some form may be out there. Maybe even from our own council? (What a dreamer I can be!!)
I am sure the club could not 'publicly' support such a campaign for contractual reasons but a ground swell of support might be useful.
Don't you wish we had a council like Gateshead who threw their whole support behind the club and even

"announced a new partnership aimed at achieving the aspirations of both the football club and the borough."

www.gateshead.gov.uk/Council%20and%20Democracy/news/News%20Articles/Councilandfootballclubinnewpartnership.aspx" [glow=red,2,300]How It Should BE Done!![/glow]

[Deleted]

Yes, but the Council HAS supported the football club. The ground at Nunnery Way has been allocated to the football club for 10 years! All the club had to do was to apply for planning permission for a football ground - and it would be pretty certain to be approved. The Council have bent over backwards to help the club, but the club have carried on with a plan that cannot get planning approval due to its enabling nature - The council quite rightly will not be pushed around by the bully boys of SMD!

I like the idea of a City supporting contracts solicitor doinbg it for free, that may well be the case, but QC's wouldn't operate in the same way.

I totally agree with the idea of the Supporters Trust using the newly found support of the Worcester News - this is a real chance to unite all of those who are not in favour of Nunnery Way, outlining the reasons, and showing how objection to Nunnery Way is for the benefit of the football club. Its not too late.

[JohnInglisIsGod]

In terms of the council support, I was thinking along the lines of financial support.
If they matched the money that WCFC put into the project we start to have an amount of money that could produce the sort of stadium the Council want and not some lock up and leave ground.
With that sort of funding you can then approach a real business, for example a Lea and Perrins or similar who could take up naming rights for the next 5 years in exchange for the remaining funding. This will the deliver a stadium that is worthy of the sponsors name, as well as meeting the clubs needs and the vision the council have.
I am knocking the council totally, but a little financial help certainly wouldn't go a miss

[JohnInglisIsGod]

well it would at least make approaching a possible ground naming sponsor more viable, should I say.
I can not see many companies wanting to be associated with a lock up and go ground.
AND more importantly everyone gets what they want. The city, and the city council get the landmark ground they want, the club can play football and the sponsors get a ground they can use to promote their business, bring clients to, use for meetings etc.

[Deleted]

IF the club had applied for a football ground, there could well have been financial backing from the council, but why should our local council fund SMD's retail park? The football club, along with SMD have pretty well pissed off the council by continuing to waste time and money on a scheme that has been rubber stamped for objection for the last 6 years! The football club have had their chance, and they've blown it big time!

Nice idea about Lea & Perrins, but that would probably have to go to HP, who are now of course part of Heinz. They are unfortunately no longer a local company.

[Deleted]

I presume, JIIG, that you're thinking of a totally new stadium away from NW? e.g. the Cinderella or similar? It would certainly be a time for the board to meet with the planners at the council and state the case exactly as JCP has outlined. If they admit it's been a shambles and say they want to move forward with the council then maybe it could happen. Of course none of his can happen officially or SMD will invoke breach of contract.

Unless it's a new club like AFC Worcester.

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Indeed Ealing. That is why I suggest that the Trust becomes the enabling vehicle for any sort of protest project. The club can not be seen to be breaking the contract.
I didnt realise any sort of funding had been made available all that time ago if we had just gone for the stadium and no 'enabling'.
I am sure the personnel involved have moved around in the council as it most certainly has in the football, so maybe it is time for a new era, a get together with the council to see if agreement can be made. Yes we are contracted to SMD but that does not stop the council building a stadium which we could rent until such time that we are free to buy a share in it or eventually outright.
Lea and perrins was an example, I am sure a company some where would consider such a proposal?
The details I am sure can be found out; my point is really to use your WN to inform the people of Worcester of the FACTS. The way previous board members have 'made things difficult' for the current regime and the best way forward for the club and how the objections can benefit the club.
JCP's agenda can then be the City's agenda

[JohnInglisIsGod]

The Lane has been sold, we will clear our debt. We have to make provision to play football, where that is I presume has not been stated in the contract. I mean they have not said we have to play football at Nunnery Way or not at all. Meanwhile, the council with a mixture of private and public money build the new ambitious landmark stadium which they want. WCFC pay rent until such time as the the plans are passed or rejected. And what council in it's right mind are going to pass plans for another stadium whilst they build their own?
The football club are not breaking any contracts (are they??), the council are well within their right to build their own stadium to rent out just not sure how far off the mark i am about the interim period between selling up and have Nunnery in theory ready to play in. Are we allowede to rent, share or whatever until the contract is frustrated.
Our rent might just be for the exact amount we have left over following sale of the ground? "A down payment, certainly NOT m'lud"

Yes a very wild theory but, JCP, is it possible in practice??
A hell of a lot of talking would need to be done between WCFC Supporters Trust and the council I am sure, and a lot more complications but in theory..........?

[Deleted]

Actually they have! WCFC are commited to paying for a stadium to be built by SMD at Nunnery Way, that is contractual, and is so until 2017. Of course they don't have to play football at the stadium they've paid for, but they have to pay for it - there's no way out of that one.

[JohnInglisIsGod]

Sept 14, 2010 13:28:58 GMT Down The Pan said:

Actually they have! WCFC are commited to paying for a stadium to be built by SMD at Nunnery Way, that is contractual, and is so until 2017. Of course they don't have to play football at the stadium they've paid for, but they have to pay for it - there's no way out of that one.

But they only have to pay for it if theyt have the planning permission to build it ... right?
No permission, no pay. Until 2017 and beyond they can play anywhere they like then, for instance a new stadium built in the city by the council?

[Deleted]

"JCP's agenda can then be the City's agenda"

I hope Boddy reads that.

[birdfeeder]

Sept 14, 2010 13:33:47 GMT JohnInglisIsGod said:

Sept 14, 2010 13:28:58 GMT Down The Pan said:

Actually they have! WCFC are committed to paying for a stadium to be built by SMD at Nunnery Way, that is contractual, and is so until 2017. Of course they don't have to play football at the stadium they've paid for, but they have to pay for it - there's no way out of that one.

But they only have to pay for it if they have the planning permission to build it ... right?
No permission, no pay. Until 2017 and beyond they can play anywhere they like then, for instance a new stadium built in the city by the council?

If you read the papers and watch the News on the TV I don't know if you have noticed the thing about jobs and services being cuts by Councils because of financial cut backs and can you imagine the out cry from the public if the Council turns round and says "yes we will build WCFC a new ground it doesn't matter about people losing they jobs or if we have to cut services as long as a 1000 odd people can go and watch a football match I think not.