|
Post by The Verner on Jun 27, 2016 11:37:19 GMT
"This will provide an opportunity to discuss the proposals which have been put to shareholders and to give an opportunity for any issues or questions to be clarified."Looks as though this is to discuss the Trusts proposals for change. Why did the meeting not get held in one place and discussed with the same group of shareholders ? I wanted to go to this and here about Plan Bromsgrove but my wife yet again has arranged to do overtime so I am on dad duty. The meeting last week was called by the trust on behalf of the shareholders who called the EGM. I'm not aware of the content for the meeting on the 30th. I dont think any of us do, reading between the lines on the statement it appears it will be to discuss the Trusts plans
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jun 27, 2016 13:24:48 GMT
And an opportunity to question the Chairman of his profligate use of company monies to fund unnecessary solicitors letters and room hire at the Whitehouse when the same could have been held jointly with the Trust. I was under the impression we were all in this together in an effort to save the Club.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jun 29, 2016 8:11:46 GMT
I'm assuming if the Whitehouse meeting is for shareholders only there may be a requirement to prove you have a valid share certificate. Probably worth bringing just in case
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jun 29, 2016 15:43:21 GMT
I'm assuming if the Whitehouse meeting is for shareholders only there may be a requirement to prove you have a valid share certificate. Probably worth bringing just in case This is the agenda for the meeting at The Whitehouse Hotel tomorrow night (Thursday), so at least you know what it is about now!
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jun 29, 2016 16:05:43 GMT
From the WN. A club spokesman said: “The evening will form an informal discussion, providing an opportunity to discuss the proposals which have been put to shareholders and to give an opportunity for any issues or questions to be clarified."
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jun 29, 2016 16:17:15 GMT
Rob, Dave, Jem and Mike did this last week.
Will the information be repeated, different or be opinionated?
Short term future is clear to me, groundsharing at Bromsgrove without a pot to p1$$ in.
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on Jun 29, 2016 18:44:11 GMT
My grandad has passed his shares into myself (he is now deceased) I have a letter from his partner dating they can be transferred to myself and my brother, was meant to sort this out of of the season but didn't do it. Obv, these shares I'm willing to hand over, just need to sort out the transfer of theses shares. Every little helps
|
|
|
Post by geoffworcester on Jun 30, 2016 17:57:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jul 1, 2016 10:10:32 GMT
Reading Geoff's update reminds me so much of the shabby shenanigans employed by the Boddy / Lancaster regime in trying to remain in control - lawyers, evasive answers, non answers, disputed shareholdings etc.
As for plan B, as I've said before, Sixways is the only option the Board ( not the Supporters Trust members I hasten to add ) wish to pursue.
7:27pm Hampson says they have spoken to the "majority of the board".
Say no more.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 1, 2016 10:48:56 GMT
Lets make this abundantly clear. Three of the Nine Board of Directors (Me, Rob Crean and Mike Davis) were deliberately excluded from any discussion regarding last night pre-EGM meeting. We were denied any opportunity to talk with the solicitor present from Anthony Collins & Co. We learned of the agenda the day before the meeting. Earlier in the week the proposed Board meeting was cancelled due to "holiday commitments" - last night when questioned, two Directors said they would have been unavailable - Board meetings have never been cancelled in the past if two Directors made apologies. (compare that with Supporters Trust board meetings where members on holiday have dialed in via conference call facility - its not difficult) We sent emails asking what the agenda would be, what the purpose of the meeting would be, but received no replies at all.
When we turned up for the meeting last night, me, Rob and Mike had no chairs at the top table, we were made to sit in the audience. The solicitors present had no idea that we were board directors until Rob ïntroduced" us from the floor.
Mike Davis has worked tirelessly for this football club, volunteering 100s of hours each year both on match day and no-match days. Mike is the man you'll see at every community event at schools and fetes, he's the man collecting money on behalf of the club on match days, Mike doesn't get to watch much football on match days. Mikes the man who has brought in other volunteers to assist in the move to Bromsgrove, doing market research, to find out what supporters (yes supporters, not shareholders) want on match days, and what concerns they have over the Bromsgrove move. Mikes the man who has been most involved with facilitating our move to Bromsgrove, working along with Kev Preece (whose efforts continually go ignored - Kev, we appreciate you!!) to make sure we will be playing football next season. Mike is in his 70's, he does not need to be doing this, ho does it because not only does he love the club, but he loves the supporters, and the community.
Me, Rob and Mike have no association with the actions of the "majority of the Board" last night, whether we agree or disagree with their point of view becomes irrelevant. We were never allowed to have any association, or input, into the published views of the board on which we sit.
I have sat on many boards, where there are differences of opinion, difference of opinion is good, it can be positive. Items are discussed, debated, and compromises made, and agreement to move forward. I have never sat on a board where board members are deliberately excluded from company activities.
I urge shareholders to come to your own conclusions about how this board is now operating, and ask yourself if they are really operating in the best interests of shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 1, 2016 11:32:49 GMT
What a shambles. The behaviour and actions of some on the board are an absolute disgrace and will be the death of our club.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jul 1, 2016 12:40:43 GMT
8:05pm A shareholder believe this is the "final straw" for the club due to the divide on the board.
This is pretty much it. I can't see how the club moves forward from here. Rob, Jem and Mike deserve so much better for the work they have put in to this point. The club will never progress or move forward in any meaningful way with the disingenuous Hampson et al at the helm. I also can't believe how much has been deflected to Heeley, as one person pointed out, he has enough to be dealing with on the field let alone off it. Having CH responsible for putting together business plans is frankly unfair.
I cannot see how we are going to win this vote next week now it's on a percentage shareholding basis, not one hand-one vote.
Basically we are screwed on the field, and even more screwed off the field. But hey, we have a smart new Adidas kit so everything is going to be OK. What a joke.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 1, 2016 12:56:54 GMT
Comment on the Worcester News report for those who haven't seen it I will repeat it 'Chairman Hampson makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Braveheart'
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 1, 2016 13:30:44 GMT
What is most disturbing is that none of what has happened to the club has come as anything of a surprise.
The club knew that they were leaving SGL, and Anthony Hampson proclaimed in 2009 that Nunnery Way was "dead in the water" yet no new plans for the future were put forward. Finally in 2013 the contract with SMD was annulled, yet here we are almost three years later, and the Board have done absolutely nothing to propose any way of securing a future for the club. Why have the Board never fully supported the proposals for Perdiswell? When questioned last night about what they had done to support the planning application, Mark Wilcox said that they'd contributed £12,000 towards the costs, after the Chairman had disputed a figure of £10,000. The Board paid more than £600,000 towards the planning application at Nunnery Way! Members of the Board have also criticised the efforts of those who have voluntarily provided the planning expertise for the planning application, accusing Mark Newell and Marcus Sparrow of being "out of their depths" - both Mark and Marcus have given their time and efforts free of charge and have worked tirelessly on the application alongside their day jobs and their family life. They don't have to do this, they could stop tomorrow if they so wished, but these guys support the football club and the plans for a community facility for the City of Worcester, in a way that the Board have never done. Why have the club never supported any proposals to create a democratic, member owned, community focussed sporting facility in Worcester, built around Worcester City FC? It was embarrassing last night to hear Colin Layland proclaim that he was against the CBS plans as "we could end up like FC United Manchester!" Well excuse me, but, the CBS model allowed FCUM to raise £2.6 million in order to build their new ground. They have a governance model which engages with hundreds of supporters and people within the community it serves. Like every business, they are facing management and business challenges as they grow, but as a CBS, all their fans, members, owners, have an equal say in how they shape their club going forward. So, FCUM have adopted a business model which allowed them to raise considerable finance - Read this
So, Colin Layland stated publicly that he does not want Worcester City FC to be like this. So lets look at the plan to raise capital that he supports. The Chairman stated last night that he sees the sale of shares as the way forward to raise finance, after all that is the whole point of share issue. Carl Heeley stated that, in his view, there is no requirement to change the constitution, as enough funds can be raised via share issues (confusing as even the Chairman says that the club only have 2/3 years left) - so lets look at just how successful the sale of shares has been? Lets look at share sales from 2011 to 2015
2011 - £2,410 2012 - £ 539 2013 - £ 0 2014 - £ 2,350 2015 - £ 50
So in the same timescale as FCUM were able to raise funding of £6.3 million via the CBS model, Worcester City FC raised a total of £5,349 via share issue
And remember FCUM aren't unique - there are plenty of examples of sports clubs raising finance via the CBS model such as Lewes FC, a tiny club on the South coast who we used to play, remember them? Lewes converted to a community owned club, and raised £200,000 via community shares in order to build a 3G training pitch, for community use. They also recieved £60,000 in grants for feasibility studies, which opened up access to over £700,000 of available funding. As an important aside, the Supporters Trust have already gained access and received funding for feasibility studies in excess of the money the football club have raised via share issues in 5 years!!
So there you go, Anthony Hampson and Colin Layland made it quite clear last night that they do not want Worcester City FC to be like FCUM, or Lewes FC, or like any of the 185 other community owned sporting clubs in England who have used the model to raise over £31 million in finance (not including grants) Thats an average of just under £170,000 raised by clubs such as Bramley Buffalos, Hemel Stags, Rochdale Hornets!! No, they don't want us to be like them, they want us to stay as we are, and carry on as we have been - with a business model and management approach which raises an average of.........£1,070 per year!!
I would personally have loved to hear these kinds of figures being challenged, and alternative proposals being put forward last night, no-one involved in the Supporters Trust proposals has a closed mind. If share finance could raise significant capital for WCFC then lets hear about it, lets hear about what the Board have been doing to raise capital via their preferred method in the last five years!!
Shareholders, think about this, think about it very seriously.
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jul 1, 2016 13:49:20 GMT
The Chairman read out a list of the experience of the new club solicitor, (who looked like he didn't want to be sat next to his client for large parts of the night) and reflected on his experience with different forms of Community Ownership, Locality etc etc, as if to say, "look what i've done" How much is all this going to cost the Club? We already get the exact same advice for Free. It is in the Plan and the Documents which none of them have read.
It is a disgrace that this Board's only proposal has been written out on three sheets of paper, put together by the only person that has any credibility & who is paid to be the Team Manager. What were the other Board Members there for, What do they do? The hugely out of his depth Colin Layland stating they have an alternative but they are not going to tell us what it is just about sums the Club up under the Chairmanship of Anthony Hampson, who is utterly pathetic, passionless and clueless.
Part of their Plan is demanding £10,000 payment from the Heart of Worcestershire College for the Football Academy otherwise they will go elsewhere - so much for Community Partnerships! The other part is dependent on the very people whose plan they don't want to back to help them implement their big "plan" and the Supporters Trust raising another £10,000.
The Board did confirm that they have done absolutely nothing towards the Perdiswell proposal other than give £12,000 - If anyone still wants to keep the Club as it is then I wish you good luck. I suggest you take a walk down St Georges Lane and Nunnery Way before you vote - That is what it has all been about.
The plan which is about to reach its conclusion to dig us out of the mess we are in now looks like it is going to be rejected, not by the City Council but by Anthony Hampson and a nameless much of shareholders who are going to be nowhere near the meeting next week.
Next Thursday could well see the final nail in the coffin for this club.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 1, 2016 14:09:17 GMT
The statement by the Vice Chairman that we dont want to be like FCUM was both risible and embarrassing, this from the man who has a plan B but is not prepared to discuss it with shareholders.
To suggest raising further capital by selling more shares in the club, again is a totally inept way of going forward particularly as the current Directors excluding the Chairman do not even own the 3000 currently permitted.
I would also put to the Chairman that currently through the goodwill of many Trust members, particularly on match days the Club is able to raise desperately needed finance. I would suggest that he carefully considers the goodwill currently offered before he sacrifices it for ever.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 1, 2016 14:23:34 GMT
This is a man who apparently has a Plan B, is happy to tell the Worcester News that he has a Plan B, but not only won't he discuss it with shareholders, he hasn't even informed the Board. I will state categorically and unequivocally, that the Board of Directors (majority of, or minority of) do NOT have any Plan B, other than the 2/3 year survival plan. It was equally embarrassing to hear Mark Wilcox say that he couldnt talk Plan B because of confidentiality!! I think he was getting confused with the confidentiality agreements signed by those involved in the working party alongside the city council regarding discussions around land transfers and ground sites. The plan for constitution change has got absolutely nothing to do with those discussions at all, and its rather concerning that a Board Director has become so easily confused! Its hardly rocket science to figure out that constitution change is a totally separate subject and one which matters regardless of whether the club is looking for a new ground or not. This is not a game (no Colin, we're not playing games here) this is about securing a future for a business, and if you don't understand that as a Board Director, if you don't understand that your one over-riding responsibility is to shareholders - not even the company , but to shareholders, and talk garbage about confidentiality and not telling shareholders whats going on, then you are very much in the wrong place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 16:22:47 GMT
I don't understand what Hampson; Layland and co are up to. What do they gain by the club folding in 2 to 3 years? Is this now about asset stripping? Why do they want WCFC to die?
|
|
althom
Squad Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by althom on Jul 1, 2016 17:17:56 GMT
The Plan B can only be the fact that the only asset the club has is the £550000 which they would have to share out with the shareholders if they liquidated the company, after hefty consultant fees were paid out to the incumbent directors of course!!
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 1, 2016 17:20:15 GMT
I don't understand what Hampson; Layland and co are up to. What do they gain by the club folding in 2 to 3 years? Is this now about asset stripping? Why do they want WCFC to die? I said as much to someone after the trust meeting at Archdales last week. I am totally baffled by it all.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jul 1, 2016 18:08:45 GMT
I don't understand what Hampson; Layland and co are up to. What do they gain by the club folding in 2 to 3 years? Is this now about asset stripping? Why do they want WCFC to die? There are no assets to strip! It's a combination of arrogance, vanity and delusion, possibly with a hint of underhand financial incentives (see consultancy costs for details). If a change doesn't happen next Thursday, I think that will be it for me. The shareholders (or some of them) will have made the decision they want the club to fold, and that will be that. I won't bother going to any games (actually maybe one, just to shake Carl by the hand and thank him for all he's done over the years), I just can't face the thought of supporting the City with those ***** in charge, it's too much.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jul 1, 2016 18:10:22 GMT
What is most disturbing is that none of what has happened to the club has come as anything of a surprise. The club knew that they were leaving SGL, and Anthony Hampson proclaimed in 2009 that Nunnery Way was "dead in the water" yet no new plans for the future were put forward. Finally in 2013 the contract with SMD was annulled, yet here we are almost three years later, and the Board have done absolutely nothing to propose any way of securing a future for the club. Why have the Board never fully supported the proposals for Perdiswell? When questioned last night about what they had done to support the planning application, Mark Wilcox said that they'd contributed £12,000 towards the costs, after the Chairman had disputed a figure of £10,000. The Board paid more than £600,000 towards the planning application at Nunnery Way! Members of the Board have also criticised the efforts of those who have voluntarily provided the planning expertise for the planning application, accusing Mark Newell and Marcus Sparrow of being "out of their depths" - both Mark and Marcus have given their time and efforts free of charge and have worked tirelessly on the application alongside their day jobs and their family life. They don't have to do this, they could stop tomorrow if they so wished, but these guys support the football club and the plans for a community facility for the City of Worcester, in a way that the Board have never done. Why have the club never supported any proposals to create a democratic, member owned, community focussed sporting facility in Worcester, built around Worcester City FC? It was embarrassing last night to hear Colin Layland proclaim that he was against the CBS plans as "we could end up like FC United Manchester!" Well excuse me, but, the CBS model allowed FCUM to raise £2.6 million in order to build their new ground. They have a governance model which engages with hundreds of supporters and people within the community it serves. Like every business, they are facing management and business challenges as they grow, but as a CBS, all their fans, members, owners, have an equal say in how they shape their club going forward. So, FCUM have adopted a business model which allowed them to raise considerable finance - Read this So, Colin Layland stated publicly that he does not want Worcester City FC to be like this. So lets look at the plan to raise capital that he supports. The Chairman stated last night that he sees the sale of shares as the way forward to raise finance, after all that is the whole point of share issue. Carl Heeley stated that, in his view, there is no requirement to change the constitution, as enough funds can be raised via share issues (confusing as even the Chairman says that the club only have 2/3 years left) - so lets look at just how successful the sale of shares has been? Lets look at share sales from 2011 to 2015 2011 - £2,410 2012 - £ 539 2013 - £ 0 2014 - £ 2,350 2015 - £ 50 So in the same timescale as FCUM were able to raise funding of £6.3 million via the CBS model, Worcester City FC raised a total of £5,349 via share issue
And remember FCUM aren't unique - there are plenty of examples of sports clubs raising finance via the CBS model such as Lewes FC, a tiny club on the South coast who we used to play, remember them? Lewes converted to a community owned club, and raised £200,000 via community shares in order to build a 3G training pitch, for community use. They also recieved £60,000 in grants for feasibility studies, which opened up access to over £700,000 of available funding. As an important aside, the Supporters Trust have already gained access and received funding for feasibility studies in excess of the money the football club have raised via share issues in 5 years!! So there you go, Anthony Hampson and Colin Layland made it quite clear last night that they do not want Worcester City FC to be like FCUM, or Lewes FC, or like any of the 185 other community owned sporting clubs in England who have used the model to raise over £31 million in finance (not including grants) Thats an average of just under £170,000 raised by clubs such as Bramley Buffalos, Hemel Stags, Rochdale Hornets!! No, they don't want us to be like them, they want us to stay as we are, and carry on as we have been - with a business model and management approach which raises an average of.........£1,070 per year!! I would personally have loved to hear these kinds of figures being challenged, and alternative proposals being put forward last night, no-one involved in the Supporters Trust proposals has a closed mind. If share finance could raise significant capital for WCFC then lets hear about it, lets hear about what the Board have been doing to raise capital via their preferred method in the last five years!! Shareholders, think about this, think about it very seriously. This is possibly the best, and most important post that's ever been made on this forum. Period.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 1, 2016 18:20:39 GMT
The arrogance of the incumbents never fail to surprise me, the move to Bromsgrove will deter more supporters not to travel and yet they ignore the efforts put in by the Supporters Trust. The offers of help which would have been forthcoming and here is another one who after many years of support including the purchase of £3000 of shares will find alternative entertainment on a Saturday if the Club does not accept the change to the articles.
I will not put another penny into the Club if the Chairman continues to fritter money on Solicitors fees covering the same work that has been completed by the Supporters Trust over many years and not even looked at and understood by certain Directors.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 1, 2016 18:26:12 GMT
Confidentiality Agreements in place where things cannot be disclosed to the shareholders of the club !
I await a picture of some moron with his arm out stretched pointing towards Warriors !
Plan A is still on the table, we put it there !
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 1, 2016 18:28:47 GMT
The two updates from Geoff at 7:25pm (below) sum up the unscrupulous actions of Hampson and his "inner board" for me:
As far as I am concerned there is no plan B. If Hampson and Layland weren't so hell bent on buggering up plan A (the only sensible proposal that has been advanced by the Supporters Trust) then we shouldn't need to putting so much focus on a non existent plan B. This is no way to run a club on its knees. It's quite frankly embarrassing. Do they honestly expect funds to be raised via the issue of shares??? Who in their right mind would invest in the club with the current board in place? I for one will not be putting another penny into the club if change doesn't take place next Thursday.
Hampson & Co may be comfortable wasting the club's limited funds with unnecessary legal fees but talk of "legal action" is hardly helpful when the club needs to pull together. Bringing a lawyer along to an "informal discussion" (at the club's expense no doubt) speaks volumes. Shameful.
You can forget Perdiswell or any alternatives for that matter if change doesn't happen on Thursday as the Club will be dead in the water.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 1, 2016 18:37:39 GMT
The two updates from Geoff at 7:25pm (below) sum up the unscrupulous actions of Hampson and his "inner board" for me:
View Attachment
As far as I am concerned there is no plan B. If Hampson and Layland weren't so hell bent on buggering up plan A (the only sensible proposal that has been advanced by the Supporters Trust) then we shouldn't need to putting so much focus on a non existent plan B. This is no way to run a club on its knees. It's quite frankly embarrassing. Do they honestly expect funds to be raised via the issue of shares??? Who in their right mind would invest in the club with the current board in place? I for one will not be putting another penny into the club if change doesn't take place next Thursday.
Hampson & Co may be comfortably wasting the club's limited funds with unnecessary legal fees but talk of talk of "legal action" is hardly helpful when the club needs to pull together. Bringing a lawyer along to an "informal discussion" (at the club's expense no doubt) speaks volumes. Shameful.
You can forget Perdiswell or any alternatives for that matter if change doesn't happen on Thursday as the Club will be dead in the water. Not sure theres space for a flag that big a Bromsgrove
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 1, 2016 18:58:45 GMT
The two updates from Geoff at 7:25pm (below) sum up the unscrupulous actions of Hampson and his "inner board" for me:
As far as I am concerned there is no plan B. If Hampson and Layland weren't so hell bent on buggering up plan A (the only sensible proposal that has been advanced by the Supporters Trust) then we shouldn't need to putting so much focus on a non existent plan B. This is no way to run a club on its knees. It's quite frankly embarrassing. Do they honestly expect funds to be raised via the issue of shares??? Who in their right mind would invest in the club with the current board in place? I for one will not be putting another penny into the club if change doesn't take place next Thursday.
Hampson & Co may be comfortably wasting the club's limited funds with unnecessary legal fees but talk of talk of "legal action" is hardly helpful when the club needs to pull together. Bringing a lawyer along to an "informal discussion" (at the club's expense no doubt) speaks volumes. Shameful.
You can forget Perdiswell or any alternatives for that matter if change doesn't happen on Thursday as the Club will be dead in the water. Not sure theres space for a flag that big a Bromsgrove
Just give me some stand dimensions and I'll pull something together to fit
Forget the Council, it's our own board that's leaving us high and dry at the moment!
Nothing a flag won't sort...
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 1, 2016 19:53:55 GMT
HAMPSON OUT and take Leyland with him
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on Jul 1, 2016 20:11:21 GMT
We need a new flag, Hampson and Layland out. No time for messing about now
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 1, 2016 21:09:22 GMT
|
|