|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 6, 2016 11:55:45 GMT
Politicians do a deal with whoever promises them the most. With the two Greens now being kingmakers, I'd be surprised if they were any different.
|
|
|
Post by auldreekie on May 6, 2016 12:07:39 GMT
Politicians do a deal with whoever promises them the most. With the two Greens now being kingmakers, I'd be surprised if they were any different. Well, that's the Away kit sorted then!
|
|
wr3
Youth Teamer
Posts: 46
|
Post by wr3 on May 6, 2016 15:12:16 GMT
I have often engaged with the Greens on twitter, whilst they aren't totally supportive of the Perdi plans there does seem to be a desire on their part to help the club. Something that one could not say for the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 6, 2016 15:25:47 GMT
Perdiswell would be political whoever is in charge. The task we have is to show anyone who is interested what the benefits will be to the city of Worcester, not just Worcester City FC. Hence the need to become fan owned and start to demonstrate our community credentials and plans for the future- not just football but other sports and organisations, schools, NHS for example- and make a robust case based on logic.
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on May 6, 2016 18:49:25 GMT
I would also add, not ALL Tories either. As a group on power yes, as individuals not in power, some will want to be seen to be doing the "right" thing! One thing football and politics share, they are both funny games!!
|
|
|
Post by stgeorge on May 6, 2016 20:02:15 GMT
Perdiswell would be political whoever is in charge. The task we have is to show anyone who is interested what the benefits will be to the city of Worcester, not just Worcester City FC. Hence the need to become fan owned and start to demonstrate our community credentials and plans for the future- not just football but other sports and organisations, schools, NHS for example- and make a robust case based on logic. Can we not just get on with becoming fan owned because nearly all fans agree with it but nothing happens. It was said at the recent fans forum that it was imperative but I bet by the time the next fans forum arrives in 3 or 6 months we'll still be in the same position.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on May 6, 2016 20:32:30 GMT
Perdiswell would be political whoever is in charge. The task we have is to show anyone who is interested what the benefits will be to the city of Worcester, not just Worcester City FC. Hence the need to become fan owned and start to demonstrate our community credentials and plans for the future- not just football but other sports and organisations, schools, NHS for example- and make a robust case based on logic. Can we not just get on with becoming fan owned because nearly all fans agree with it but nothing happens. It was said at the recent fans forum that it was imperative but I bet by the time the next fans forum arrives in 3 or 6 months we'll still be in the same position. I completely agree, but are we not essentially waiting for the board (excluding those Director's representing the ST) to remove their thumbs from their arses and get the wheels in motion? If it was up to Creaner and Jem Pitt and the other ST chaps this would have been done long ago.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 7, 2016 7:35:12 GMT
This idea that we must be fan owned is a complete red herring. The politicians were talking about bringing WCFC back home not a fan owned club only. And ... Where is the money coming from to pay for Perdiswell?.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 7, 2016 7:55:56 GMT
The only way to 'just get on with it' to become fan owned I would imagine would be to form a completely new football club. The only way we can become a fan owned club is for the Company's constitution to be changed & the shareholders to relinquish there stake in its present form. This can only happen if proposed & voted for at an EGM. At that point, the assets of the company would be transferred to the new formation. This is one of the reasons the likes of myself & greenman & many others keep requesting an EGM. I'm pretty sure that this is all factual, if not I'm hoping Jem or Rob will correct me.
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 7, 2016 8:12:11 GMT
This idea that we must be fan owned is a complete red herring. The politicians were talking about bringing WCFC back home not a fan owned club only. And ... Where is the money coming from to pay for Perdiswell?. It is always great when you pop up downthelane. It is people like you who have helped this club lose everything. Please indulge us why anyone would want to keep the current method of running this football club as it is. It is people like you that have looked the other way over many years just because you think a person talks nicely or buys you a drink and you pop up with your idiotic comments whilst never offering any other alternative. The WCFC shareholders will get a chance to vote in an EGM once again, just as they did 6 years ago when our Chairman asked them to vote for the Board to take the club into a new era. That Board lasted a few months, until NW was completely in the bag for the developers. Shareholders will get a choice as to what road they want to take. You obviously do not take the time to go to Trust meetings where funding streams are explained. You will get another opportunity in the next few weeks, I hope you make a decision based on facts. I also hope you stand up and ask questions rather than hiding at the back.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on May 7, 2016 8:14:41 GMT
This idea that we must be fan owned is a complete red herring. The politicians were talking about bringing WCFC back home not a fan owned club only. And ... Where is the money coming from to pay for Perdiswell?. that is an outrageous statement, did you go to the ST meeting, if so you would understand the whole thing, & also would understand where the finances are & how the club would get finance to build the stadium...
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 7, 2016 8:22:36 GMT
Perdiswell would be political whoever is in charge. The task we have is to show anyone who is interested what the benefits will be to the city of Worcester, not just Worcester City FC. Hence the need to become fan owned and start to demonstrate our community credentials and plans for the future- not just football but other sports and organisations, schools, NHS for example- and make a robust case based on logic. Can we not just get on with becoming fan owned because nearly all fans agree with it but nothing happens. It was said at the recent fans forum that it was imperative but I bet by the time the next fans forum arrives in 3 or 6 months we'll still be in the same position. The request to call an EGM was put in after the game v Fylde.
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 7, 2016 8:43:34 GMT
The only way to 'just get on with it' to become fan owned I would imagine would be to form a completely new football club. The only way we can become a fan owned club is for the Company's constitution to be changed & the shareholders to relinquish there stake in its present form. This can only happen if proposed & voted for at an EGM. At that point, the assets of the company would be transferred to the new formation. This is one of the reasons the likes of myself & greenman & many others keep requesting an EGM. I'm pretty sure that this is all factual, if not I'm hoping Jem or Rob will correct me. Jimbo, no we do not need to form a new football club nor are we proposing that. The request for the EGM is to make amendments to the current constitution & current shareholders can keep their shares if they want to. As you know, this Club is already owned by supporters, but as individuals. What supporter ownership means is supporters joined together as a collective and owning 50+1% of the shares in this case through the Supporters Trust. There is a process to go through and we urge people to take the time to listen to the facts. The ST will give a presentation leading up to the EGM on what we are proposing. I hope people take the time to go along and listen so they can make an informed decision. Shareholders can choose to do whatever they want with their current shares but for all shareholders / owners in the future it would mean that the Board running the Club would HAVE to involve the owners in the running of the Club. It would not be able to sell off assets without their permission, it would not be able to sign into binding contracts which affect the clubs future without their permission. The Club's Solicitor would not be able to get away with saying "We do not have to ask the shareholders". The Club Solicitor would not be able to go around threatening people who disagree with him. As to alternatives, I am sure the Board will give a presentation on any other route which includes staying as we are.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on May 7, 2016 8:48:02 GMT
Hi Downthelane,
Sorry to disagree with you. The Board have had options provided to them by the ST for over three, four or more years and have done precisely nothing that I can see/hear to either accept, reject or come up with an alternative plan or plans. They seem in my opinion to have no plans to help move the Club forward. Yes they have good intentions and have helped extricate us from the contract with Careys' but by the same token it was under their stewardship and willingness to believe Mr Hallmarks plans that we got into this almighty mess we now find ourself today.
The Trust have made thorough and solid investigations into the benefits of becoming a community owned club and under that format could obtain grants that will aid the plans to build the new stadium. They site clubs such as Exeter City, AFC Wimbledon, FC United of Manchester and many other smaller clubs who have had to go down this route, so it is a tried and tested model.
I would be thrilled to hear that the Board have plans of their own and ways of generating the funding we are going to need but apart from the calamitous 'Careys' plan that almost finished the Club, there has been nothing volunteered by the Board as a solution and the fact they failed for several years to provide us with an annual AGM, where ideas and solutions could have been presented to shareholders and could have been discussed, is frankly inexcusable given the gravity of the clubs deteriorating situation.
In my opinion and I apologise in advance if things are going on behind the scenes I and all of us are unaware of but given the scant information we have had from the Board it would appear they have either buried their collective heads in the sand not knowing what to do or believing someone rich might sort things out but they don't seem to have been pro-active in finding either a solution or this mythical investor. Unless the Board can demonstrate what they have been doing to try to find solutions, they now need to explain to shareholders and fans why they are either against or stalling over allowing the ST proposals and if they have them, provide the shareholders, Trust and fans with the Boards alternative solution and what they are doing about it. Anything short of an urgent full explanation at this stage is unacceptable hence why the application for an EGM has been lodged.
I have nothing against anyone on the Board as I appreciate they have a difficult job which they carry out in the their own volunteered time for nothing but grief from people like me who are worried about the state of the Club and the seeming inertia to change anything. We are staring at a blind alley now and cannot afford to wait any longer if the Club is to be saved, so with the Trust option the only realistic way of saving the Club on the table, especially when nothing else is being offered/volunteered as a solution by the Board, I fail to understand why the Board are unwilling to advance the Trust solution.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 7, 2016 9:10:06 GMT
This idea that we must be fan owned is a complete red herring. The politicians were talking about bringing WCFC back home not a fan owned club only. And ... Where is the money coming from to pay for Perdiswell?. That's a fair question. Here is the case for change. Others may outline their own alternatives for everyone to compare and decide the best way forward. I look forward to the debate!
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 7, 2016 10:35:21 GMT
The only way to 'just get on with it' to become fan owned I would imagine would be to form a completely new football club. The only way we can become a fan owned club is for the Company's constitution to be changed & the shareholders to relinquish there stake in its present form. This can only happen if proposed & voted for at an EGM. At that point, the assets of the company would be transferred to the new formation. This is one of the reasons the likes of myself & greenman & many others keep requesting an EGM. I'm pretty sure that this is all factual, if not I'm hoping Jem or Rob will correct me. Jimbo, no we do not need to form a new football club nor are we proposing that. The request for the EGM is to make amendments to the current constitution & current shareholders can keep their shares if they want to. As you know, this Club is already owned by supporters, but as individuals. What supporter ownership means is supporters joined together as a collective and owning 50+1% of the shares in this case through the Supporters Trust. There is a process to go through and we urge people to take the time to listen to the facts. The ST will give a presentation leading up to the EGM on what we are proposing. I hope people take the time to go along and listen so they can make an informed decision. Shareholders can choose to do whatever they want with their current shares but for all shareholders / owners in the future it would mean that the Board running the Club would HAVE to involve the owners in the running of the Club. It would not be able to sell off assets without their permission, it would not be able to sign into binding contracts which affect the clubs future without their permission. The Club's Solicitor would not be able to get away with saying "We do not have to ask the shareholders". The Club Solicitor would not be able to go around threatening people who disagree with him. As to alternatives, I am sure the Board will give a presentation on any other route which includes staying as we are. Rich I was not suggesting that we need to form a new club at all, I was simply answering the fact that someone had said we should 'just get on with it'. Something we all should know can't happen until the agreement is made at an EGM.
|
|
|
Post by stgeorge on May 7, 2016 11:49:26 GMT
Can we not just get on with becoming fan owned because nearly all fans agree with it but nothing happens. It was said at the recent fans forum that it was imperative but I bet by the time the next fans forum arrives in 3 or 6 months we'll still be in the same position. The request to call an EGM was put in after the game v Fylde. Great news thanks Rich
|
|
wr3
Youth Teamer
Posts: 46
|
Post by wr3 on May 11, 2016 7:12:22 GMT
Just a idea, but would it be worth having a presence at next Tuesday's council meeting, just to remind them what a large percentage of voters in the city really care for?
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 11, 2016 7:54:35 GMT
Just a idea, but would it be worth having a presence at next Tuesday's council meeting, just to remind them what a large percentage of voters in the city really care for? I'll be going to the meeting anyway as Full Council is always interesting (if not for the new mayoral and committee appointments)
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 11, 2016 12:10:38 GMT
Just a idea, but would it be worth having a presence at next Tuesday's council meeting, just to remind them what a large percentage of voters in the city really care for? I'll be going to the meeting anyway as Full Council is always interesting (if not for the new mayoral and committee appointments) I'll be there
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 11, 2016 17:44:10 GMT
This idea that we must be fan owned is a complete red herring. The politicians were talking about bringing WCFC back home not a fan owned club only. And ... Where is the money coming from to pay for Perdiswell?. You need to come to a Trust meeting to find out.
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 12, 2016 8:05:10 GMT
This idea that we must be fan owned is a complete red herring. The politicians were talking about bringing WCFC back home not a fan owned club only. And ... Where is the money coming from to pay for Perdiswell?. You need to come to a Trust meeting to find out. Maybe Downthelane could explain where the money would come from without Community Ownership.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 18, 2016 14:52:55 GMT
The Green Party also released a statement which said: "The Green Party does not favour the football ground being sited at Perdiswell.
"A cross-party group of councillors (one from each party, Labour, Conservative and Green), chaired by Worcester City Council's managing director will work with officers and representatives of the club management and the supporters' trust to identify alternative sites and select the best site for Worcester.
"The council will make a sum of money available to Worcester City FC to help them create a new planning application for the chosen site." This is an extract from the Worcester news today,it look like all parties are for City coming home,and they will invest a little money to help us,so all is not lost,lets hope they find a pitch quickly
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jun 7, 2016 17:06:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jun 10, 2016 16:11:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jun 10, 2016 17:48:33 GMT
I would suggest that it is not all members of the Board who would agree with your comment as I understand some are very supportive of the Trust's proposal and see it as the only way the Club can survive. In addition I find it disgraceful that the Board have failed in their fiduciary duty to shareholders but carry on treating the same with disdain. The proposal submitted within the calling for a EGM will give all shareholders the opportunity for change and a final chance to move the Club into a new era before it is lost forever. And I would emphasise without wishing to sound alarmist, the Club has only a very limited future without change.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jun 10, 2016 18:43:43 GMT
There are some on the current board who support the Trust, but we know who they are, because they are either current, or former members of the ST board Namely, Mike, Rob, and Jem.
I'd like to know what the likes of Mark Wilcox and Joe Murphy make of this all.
I can understand Martin and Carl being quiet, one being long time sponsor, and the other a long time employee, I'm sure they don't want to upset any party.
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jun 11, 2016 8:08:10 GMT
I would suggest that it is not all members of the Board who would agree with your comment as I understand some are very supportive of the Trust's proposal and see it as the only way the Club can survive. In addition I find it disgraceful that the Board have failed in their fiduciary duty to shareholders but carry on treating the same with disdain. The proposal submitted within the calling for a EGM will give all shareholders the opportunity for change and a final chance to move the Club into a new era before it is lost forever. And I would emphasise without wishing to sound alarmist, the Club has only a very limited future without change. I'm not saying that all members of the board are against the ST proposals, as I know that's not the case. However, as a collective body their actions are not aligned with the ST and that is putting the Club's future at risk. It is time for the board, through its actions (or lack there of), to stop putting up hurdles in the way of change and to sit up and listen to the fans and its shareholders. I can't work out whether it is arrogance of certain board members (if they have an alternative plan for the Club's future then let's hear it) or a case of burying heads in the sand. There's no need to be concerned about being alarmist, people need to know the precarious position the club finds itself in. We are in last chance saloon territory and people pulling in different directions will be the death of the club.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jun 11, 2016 10:09:24 GMT
If we have a board of directors, surely it's not up to one individual to decide whether to grant the request for an EGM or not? Yet that's exactly what seems to be happening - whenever is in charge of the company secretarial business obviously does not support he the change in ownership model and is therefore putting up a barrier.
There are a lot of good people on the board now, but there is absolutely some on there that are detrimental to the clubs future. Question is, why? Is it arrogance and they don't want to relinquish their position as a football director? Or is there some sort of financial incentive lurking under the surface?
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Jun 11, 2016 12:28:23 GMT
All we want as supporters & i assume the shareholders is an open & honest situation, I know the ST work this way but the club under the current board seem to run it under a cloak & dagger way, & yes I know its not all who do this but it is the club that is at risk & why are those who want the right things not fighting against those who seem to bury their heads in the sand.....
PLEASE PLEASE can the board be open & honest with everyone, so we as supporters can be sure that we have a club to support year on year & enjoy our local team....
Directors of WCFC the ball is in your court !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|