|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 1, 2016 21:41:10 GMT
''No plan, no future, no club. Hampson out.''
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jul 1, 2016 22:27:50 GMT
For any City Fan to support this shower of sh*te you will get everything you deserve. Unfortunately there are still a handful of people around to support them and thats all they need as proved last night when two people turned up declaring they would take the club to court if shares were given to the Trust. There wasn't one person in the audience who knew who they were and that takes some doing in this Club. Our current position is very similar to Hereford a couple of years ago when the "loyal fans" who went to the games told those who had a brain that they weren't loyal for not backing the Board and the Club. There are one or two who still contribute to this banter board, so come on, what exactly are you backing? I am sick to death of people telling me we should work together with this bunch of utterly incompetent cretins who bring nothing to the table and do absolutely nothing. Anthony Hampson has failed to deliver anything whilst Chairman of this Football Club. His big "achievement" is to pay to to give away 6 acres of land at Nunnery Way. The Man is completely clueless and he is backed up by the most useless person ever to sit on the Board of our Football Club and that takes some doing closely followed by the third most incompetent person to ever sit on the Board and I stand corrected, he does do something he pressed the button to make the screen change last night. These same people refused to take on the game v Liverpool Legends at the Lane as it was "too big a risk to the Club" so the Trust had a whip round to raise £3,000 to pay the deposit - and we cleaned up. They have absolutely no initiative, they are incapable of thinking up new ideas of raising money and they blocked the FC United initiative which only happened as the Trust guaranteed the Club £2,000 if we did't get 1500! At SGL Hampson and Layland refused to address the fact that we were being ripped off by the last but one Manager of the Social Club - they both knew he was doing it and Hampson vouched for him and that he would pay the Club, but he still didn't pay what he owed. When I went on the Board I threw him out and for the final two years the Social Club made a profit - the only time in the last 15 years at SGL. We later found out he owed a significant amount to the Brewery. Hampson does not want you to know this fact yet no one questioned the lack of profit in the accounts at the recent AGM. A couple of people said to me last night that I had failed for leaving the Board. I want to make it clear why I left the Board, which I have not previously let out. When we left SGL we had no real way of raising money other than on a match day so I set up the online shop. Within two years it had turned over £94,000 despatching over 1800 orders - What did I get from the Chairman, a pat on the back? a thank you? No - I was accused of fiddling the Club because he had no understanding how online shops work and it wasn't the same as putting cash into a till. After proving there was not a single penny missing he begrudgingly apologised, so I had no desire to be involved with this idiot. If he wants to challenge me, he knows where I am. The man has no idea what actually happens with running this Club as he proved at the recent AGM when he declared we should "find a way to take payments online" - it's been running for three years!! Does the Football secretary not have anything to say or is he more concerned about staying as a Director of a Conference North Club so he can stay on the Football Conference Board - what benefit does that actually bring to our Club? We are now in a position where the Board are having to pay people to help run the Club as all the Volunteers are falling away, so come on Hampo supporters, show your colours! |
|
|
|
Post by blueandwhitearmy on Jul 1, 2016 23:36:58 GMT
If we don't become fan owned, I can seriously see this being my last season as a ST of WCFC, Why should I give money to a club run by a few idiots who are, Quite frankly the most selfish people I have ever heard of.
Genuinely fuming at the fact Mr Hampson doesn't give two S**ts about WCFC, The future of the club or the fans.
Is there any way that fans could vote him out if we don't get fan ownership? Suppose not as we don't have a say as we are just 'Fans' Forgot that putting hundreds of pounds into the club makes no difference.
We need change. We don't get it? Well thanks for the memories.
Dec.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289 
|
Post by dcx on Jul 1, 2016 23:54:31 GMT
If we don't become fan owned, I can seriously see this being my last season as a ST of WCFC, Why should I give money to a club run by a few idiots who are, Quite frankly the most selfish people I have ever heard of. Genuinely fuming at the fact Mr Hampson doesn't give two S**ts about WCFC, The future of the club or the fans. Is there any way that fans could vote him out if we don't get fan ownership? Suppose not as we don't have a say as we are just 'Fans' Forgot that putting hundreds of pounds into the club makes no difference.
We need change. We don't get it? Well thanks for the memories. Dec. Shareholders can, but it's not particularly easy, and there are potential legal banana skins surrounding it as you would imagine. At the end of the day, the directors (in any business) are voted by the shareholders with the remit to safeguard the shareholders investment and maximise their returns. Goes without saying they are as far away from that position as they possibly could be at this point... |
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 2, 2016 1:01:49 GMT
Until Thursday, I would suggest we wait on that matter. As far as I'm concerned Hampson is a [insert most profanities under the sun],and should only be associated with the club by means of him paying at the turnstiles and cheering the team on.
We should all still be working to get as many shareholders to attend and vote for the proposals put forward, as they are the only way of saving our club. Once we know the outcome, we can then all work towards the outcome we all want however is best appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 7:34:10 GMT
It's strange that Mr Hampson has to be voted off - yet was never voted on. He was just dumped on us by (of all people) Mr Hallmark. The very man who stitched us up over the sale of SGL.
I still don't understand though. What's the scam that Hampson and co are up to?
If I were offered a plan to save a company, and there was no other route available, I'd take it. They've admitted there's only 2-3 years left. So what does Hampson gain by destroying the club?
|
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 2, 2016 7:50:10 GMT
AS posted to the comments to a WM article by me.
Kent supporter 8:47am Sat 2 Jul 16
Having driven up from Kent to hear from the 'Board' as to their reasons, reservations or objections to the 'Supporters Trust' plans and this, still mysterious if not mythical 'Plan B', I left that meeting mightily angry and still non the wiser for the three years of delays even to have a meeting like that. Much though I like 'Anthony Hampson' as a person I found his ability to chair a meeting both laughable and lamentable. You don't come to a meeting unprepared with no facts before you, relying on the invited Club appointed solicitors to fill in the gaps. The solicitors did their job as best they could but they were unaware that all members of the Board had not been present at all Board meetings as they were not invited by the 'Inner old guard Board' nor had any of the Trust plans been presented to the solicitors for analysis prior to the meeting so there was no way they could defend the Clubs Inner Board objections. Hampsons' ill prepared statements without fact to back them up clearly showed him to be out of his depth and later resulted in him trying to silence the audience, an audience they had invited but clearly did not want to hear. My language in this post is, if I am honest very refrained and does not express how I seethe inside with what I have had the displeasure to hear and witness. The 'Inner Board' and I suspect behind the scenes members of the old Board who steered the Club into the disastrous 'Nunnery Way' fiasco now want us to Trust them again with this mysterious out of the blue plan B which to smells of all the hallmarks of that 'Nunnery Way' plan that nearly finished the Club. No after hearing what I did on Thursday evening I don't think the future of 'Worcester City F.C.' looks at all hopeful so I suggest the following:- - another EGM to try to replace the 'Inner Board' which I and many other shareholders no longer trust. - all Trust members to withdraw their services around the club and let this Board fill in the gaps. - a general boycott by all fans at all home games at 'Bromsgrove' to show that the dissatisfaction with the Board is not just by the Trust, until the 'Inner Board' step down - if all else fails vote to have the Club dissolved now before any more money is wasted so shareholders can have their money back - if the Club is dissolved, support and money be aimed towards the Trust to start a phoenix club assuming the long suffering and proven, dedicated Trust committee have enough fight and energy to do that but it would require more help from Trust members and supporters alike. Unless the 'Inner Board' once and for all overlook their obvious animosity with certain Trust members, which seems very apparent and mutual and come clean with shareholders over 'Plan B', if it really exists, or embrace the proposals of the Trust for a better chance of a future but that has to be done now! Failure to do so sadly I think means I see no future for the Club and I even question, given the finances, whether the Club should continue to play at the level we currently are. As far as I see it the 'EGM' is the make or break moment in the Club's history. If the Trust plan is rejected and details of Plan 'B' are not forthcoming, the Club might as well dissolve itself on Thursday evening! There is insufficient time or finance to delay any further so if the 'Inner Board' are not going to work with the 'Trust' and are not going to be open and honest with shareholders they should step down now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 2, 2016 7:58:12 GMT
And therein lies the problem, the primary role of Directors in a business is to protect and promote the interests of shareholders, and to ensure the best return on their investment. But the football industry is a funny old industry, where shareholders invest NOT for return, but for more altruistic reasons, for the love of their club, to see their club succeed. Hampson carries out his role as though this was just another business.. Football clubs also have those other stakeholders, the fans, whose investment in time, money and energy is too often overlooked. They have no power, they have no voice, yet they are the heart of the club. This is why the Supporter owned model is working so well, and why clubs are consistently moving to this model. Yesterday Grays Athletic launched their Community Shares Offer as a CBS.
Worcester City is also hampered by its own constitution, the one we are asking to change. Back in 1920, when there were 200,000 shares available, a 1% stake of £2000 was a serious investment, worth £109,000 in todays money! Even if you bought 2000 shares in 1960, that was the equivalent of £42,000 in todays money, 3000 shares purchased in 1980 was worth £15,000. But today, in todays money 3000 shares is just £3000. The maximum amount of capital that the club can raise using Hampsons business model of capital raised by shares would be £140,000 (buying the remaining unallocated shares) I'm sorry, but thats simply not enough to sustain our football club, the model doesn't work. Why is the Board so reluctant to change the model for the good of the football club?
|
|
|
|
Post by nickjones on Jul 2, 2016 8:33:34 GMT
Having watched this debate from the outside the big driver, which I still don't really understand, is what are the real motivations and objectives of the long standing Board members. When negotiating, especially with people who hold all the power, you need to properly understand where they are coming from. You don't call them names or get angry with them, you find their drivers and do all you can to meet those, whilst getting the change you want.
Let's not get upset by what these motivations are, as we are all essentially hewn from the same emotional rock. These Board members will be feeling as upset and threatened and stressed as you all are, and that is not going to help reach a successful conclusion for WCFC.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 2, 2016 8:44:09 GMT
Having watched this debate from the outside the big driver, which I still don't really understand, is what are the real motivations and objectives of the long standing Board members. When negotiating, especially with people who hold all the power, you need to properly understand where they are coming from. You don't call them names or get angry with them, you find their drivers and do all you can to meet those, whilst getting the change you want. Let's not get upset by what these motivations are, as we are all essentially hewn from the same emotional rock. These Board members will be feeling as upset and threatened and stressed as you all are, and that is not going to help reach a successful conclusion for WCFC. Wise words Nick, good to see you here! |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 2, 2016 9:12:21 GMT
They have no reason to feel in any way threatened. This is not a takeover, this is not a plan to oust the existing board. The shareholders yearn for clear direction from the Board, yet we arent getting any. I went to the meeting on Thursday for tw oreasons 1. To discuss openly the Trusts proposals and understand why the Board have issues regarding the proposals, and to put forward our case, in the hope of reaching a compromise if need be, and 2. To listen to the Boards alternative proposals to create a sustainable future for our football club. It is disappointing as a Board member that I have not been included in discussions with the rest of the Board at board level (myself , Rob and Mike have been excluded from discussions). We as a Supporters Trust are open to listening to any alternatives, any proposals which can offer up a future for the football club which we all support. Remember that the Supporters Trust and other shareholders compromised by withdrawing our request for an EGM at the end of last year, at the request of the Board, in order to progress the ground project, and to allow for an AGM to be held. It is frustrating though to turn up at a meeting hosted by the Board, and to find that three of us were not even given seats at the top table to sit with our fellow Board members, and had to introduce ourselves to the solicitors engaged to assist the Board through the EGM process. We've compromised and tried every approach to work together with the football club, it is a pity that this joint approach has not been reciprocated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 9:17:08 GMT
.....what are the real motivations and objectives of the long standing Board members. When negotiating, especially with people who hold all the power, you need to properly understand where they are coming from. Wise words Nick, good to see you here! Well put Nick, and exactly what I've been asking on here. There must be a reason they are taking the more difficult, and disastrous route. |
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jul 2, 2016 9:37:53 GMT
Having watched this debate from the outside the big driver, which I still don't really understand, is what are the real motivations and objectives of the long standing Board members. When negotiating, especially with people who hold all the power, you need to properly understand where they are coming from. You don't call them names or get angry with them, you find their drivers and do all you can to meet those, whilst getting the change you want. Let's not get upset by what these motivations are, as we are all essentially hewn from the same emotional rock. These Board members will be feeling as upset and threatened and stressed as you all are, and that is not going to help reach a successful conclusion for WCFC. I would love to know where they are coming from and what their objectives are. Thursday was an opportunity for them to do that but they were an embarrassment to this Football Club. They are choosing to vote against the only credible way of saving this Club for a a few pages of business speak phrases of what "we need to do". I would love to see some passion and enthusiasm from these people. They have got neither. I have attached Anthony Hampson's plan from the last EGM in 2008. Have a look and tell me if he has achieved any of his pledges, promises or aims. 2008 AGM and EGM.pdf (900.3 KB) I won't point anything out other than him telling the shareholders that those people putting the alternative forward would not even be able to afford putting the plan together due to the huge costs involved. Yet we as a Trust have done exactly that at a cost of just £12,000 to the club. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Jul 2, 2016 10:21:52 GMT
Having watched this debate from the outside the big driver, which I still don't really understand, is what are the real motivations and objectives of the long standing Board members. When negotiating, especially with people who hold all the power, you need to properly understand where they are coming from. You don't call them names or get angry with them, you find their drivers and do all you can to meet those, whilst getting the change you want. Let's not get upset by what these motivations are, as we are all essentially hewn from the same emotional rock. These Board members will be feeling as upset and threatened and stressed as you all are, and that is not going to help reach a successful conclusion for WCFC. I would love to know where they are coming from and what their objectives are. Thursday was an opportunity for them to do that but they were an embarrassment to this Football Club. They are choosing to vote against the only credible way of saving this Club for a a few pages of business speak phrases of what "we need to do". I would love to see some passion and enthusiasm from these people. They have got neither. I have attached Anthony Hampson's plan from the last EGM in 2008. Have a look and tell me if he has achieved any of his pledges, promises or aims. I won't point anything out other than him telling the shareholders that those people putting the alternative forward would not even be able to afford putting the plan together due to the huge costs involved. Yet we as a Trust have done exactly that at a cost of just £12,000 to the club. Somebody 'pinch' me..... for a moment there I thought I had read things like.... ".....a board to be formulated that provides business experience and civic pride in the City of Worcester to sit alongside the footballing skill and knowledge that is central to our mission.
We wish to unify all those that have WCFC interests at heart.
Dovetailing the sale of SGL with the building of the new stadium....
Worcester City will be a community club that answers to stakeholders".WOW!!!! Dodger. |
|
|
|
Post by cityman on Jul 2, 2016 11:01:15 GMT
And we are getting in bed (ground sharing) with one of the directors that said he wanted WCFC to succeed but then resigned says a lot about the loyalty of these people. The supporters are the true way to go with our club.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 2, 2016 11:18:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 2, 2016 14:19:12 GMT
And we are getting in bed (ground sharing) with one of the directors that said he wanted WCFC to succeed but then resigned says a lot about the loyalty of these people. The supporters are the true way to go with our club. We are technically getting into bed with a committee run football club and was the only option on the table |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 15:13:41 GMT
No one would dream of criticising you Kev. You're a hero along with all the other faithful who are trying to save the club. It makes my heart bleed to think that all of you working behind the scenes have been so badly abused by Hampson and co.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 2, 2016 17:45:48 GMT
If the club does not become fans owned then it and Perdiswell are dead in the water.
The grant opportunities will be significantly less for a start. How will the club raise the money to build a stadium without the grants ?
|
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 2, 2016 18:05:36 GMT
You don't need grants Kev. The 'Inner Board' plan to do televised matches of City games as it does need at lot of space to set up a Subbuteo pitch which is all we will be able to afford if things carry on the way they are under this intransigent Board!
|
|
